Was The Asteroid Belt a planet???

The asteroids that are towards Jupiter (farthest from the sun) are about 20% water. Usually they explode on impact, but a few asteroids fell into a frozen lake and were found to contain their own water. This is one theory behind why our planet has water after being a giant round volcanoe for so long. After Earth cooled enough, the asteroids (20% water) hit earth and the water and material ended up on the surface.

Maybe our crust and water is the missing material from the belt, and why when combined it would not make a very large planet. (some material may be on mars or jupiter or their moons.. including water.)

Also on an interesting side note.. bacteria and tiny organisms will hibernate in zero-G. There are life forms on Earth that have been brought to life after many years. (ancient date trees, small ocean creatures,etc) Even whooly-mammoth meat was eaten by the sled dogs who found it in the glacier and the dogs were fine. Tiny forms of life could convievably have come from the asteroid belt, or at least material that formed life. So how did water, and possibly life, get into chunks of unformed planet? Especially when an early planet is molten rock.

i might just be talking out of myanus here but i think humans found either neptune or uranus because they were actually looking for a planet that certain distance from the sun.

there is a mathmatical equation to all the planets and their distance from the sun . if this equation is correct, there should be a planet where the before mentioned asteroid belt is located.

what does this mean if im right. i dont know, but ive always figured there used to b a planet there billions of years ago. maybe our moon is part of the missing mass from this asteroid belt. anything is possible in this universe.

my kid is in maniac mode right now, so forgive me if this post is lame . i must go, peace.

edited for this, i think ARMAPs link is what i was thinking about...
en.wikipedia.org...'s_law

[edit on 19-8-2006 by elitegamer23]

This should be taken VERY seriously imo considering the source and the facts he martials.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
This should be taken VERY seriously imo considering the source and the facts he martials.

Stellar

Excellent article.

But if there was a planet there, the million dollar question is, 'How and why did it explode' into a million pieces? Can a celestial body explode in this manner from the inside under natural laws of physics? If not, is it more probable that the explosion occured due to some 'experiment', by an ancient civilization, gone awry?

Originally posted by mikesingh
Can a celestial body explode in this manner from the inside under natural laws of physics?

As far as I know, no, the energy needed is astronomical.

If not, is it more probable that the explosion occured due to some 'experiment', by an ancient civilization, gone awry?

I think the most probable cause is that it was hit by another celestial body bigger than it.

In this way the bigger celestial body could absorb part of the planet and only some fragments would remain.

Believe it or not this planet's name was bellona\marduk and was destroyed by a death star(moon).Search galactic federation+moon.I know this is unbelievable but after watching star wars this could really be true and with articles saying that moon could be a space ship i am starting to believe the story

Originally posted by coolheretic
Believe it or not this planet's name was bellona\marduk and was destroyed by a death star(moon).Search galactic federation+moon.I know this is unbelievable but after watching star wars this could really be true and with articles saying that moon could be a space ship i am starting to believe the story

The moon is not a space ship at all. It's made up of the light rocks of Earth's upper mantle that were knocked off by a collision with a Mars-sized bolide - we can prove this by looking at the moon rocks brought back by the Apollo missions. It's also been battered to hell and gone.

Thats what the power need be want you to think.People are soo blinded.The moon is the only celestial object not to rotate and where therever is a solar eclipse the entire sun is
engulfed behind the moon which is to say the rare so rare that the only eg is moon.Search ats for artifical moon for more articles.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by coolheretic]

[edit on 23-8-2006 by coolheretic]

Originally posted by coolheretic
The moon is the only celestial object not to revolve ...

No, the Moon spins on its axis in the same way as other planets and satellites.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by coolheretic
The moon is the only celestial object not to revolve ...

No, the Moon spins on its axis in the same way as other planets and satellites.

sorry i mean rotate ,i could be wrong about the rotation but take a look at this article

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

Its always the same, some people present another (or the same) theory and say that "this is the one", but in fact they could even be saying that the Moon was made of cheese with the right density, covered with dust, that we cannot prove which theory is the right one.

Originally posted by coolheretic
sorry i mean rotate ,i could be wrong about the rotation but take a look at this article
www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

Yes, I did take a look. It's a laughable collection of poorly researched facts cobbled together with baseless supposition and bad astronomy.
One example - it claims that there are no surviving theories to explain how the moon came into being. It totally fails to mention the Mars-sized bolide theory, which is the current scientifically credible theory for the formation of the moon.
Gave me a good laugh though.

Okay, so from what I've read in this thread there is or was water on what may have been the planet that is now an asteroid belt. So if there was water then there may have been an ocean. Semjase said that in the war between Mars and this other planet, they took water from an ocean and channeled it into a volcano shaft that went deep into the planet and that is what caused it to explode.

Oo that reminds me of my dad's glass balls... ok that sounds bad. Anyways he collected old glass buoys (pic ) used by ships to float nets or something, they're pretty big and covered in a rope netting. So anyways on one hot day my dad or mom sprayed the glass ball with water to wash it off, and it broke instantly! because of the heat and sudden cold water, it blew it right open.

Imagine a huge ball of iron getting covered in water? Ok, I doubt water could ever make it down a volcanoe and into the center of a planet before evaporating, but hey, its an interesting tale at least.

The idea that a planet could be distroyed by water going down a volcano and breaking it apart is possibly the worst theory ive ever heard. I know when hot glass of even small rocks meet water they may crack, or shatter. But Volcanoes erupt on the sea floor all the time, particularly at the mid atlantic ridge where there is a divergent boandary, molten rock simply pours out and solidifies at the surface. Water is forced into the earth constantly at convergant boundaries where oceanic and continental crust meets, all it does is decrease the pressure and allow the crust to melt more easily.

Vulcanism does have it's place as a form of massive change on Earth, but I doubt that it concerns the shattering of the globe...

www.livescience.com...

Scientists already know that the North Pole wanders over time. But a theory known as true polar wander suggests that if a very heavy object, like an oversized volcano forms far from the equator, the force of the planet's rotation would pull the object away from the axis the Earth spins around.

Should a mass such as the very heavy volcano become unbalanced, Earth would tilt and rotate itself until the extra weight moves somewhere near the equator.

Analyzed samples of ancient sediments found in the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard show that such an event may have indeed happened in the past.

Theories are just that...theories. But when scientific research finds evidence which bolsters such cataclysmic events as 'sudden pole shift', we should take note.

With that in mind, perhaps the asteroid belt is not the remains of an entire planet, but the pieces ejected from an existing planet after a glancing blow from another huge object. (???)

Also i dont think that an outer planet could have been solid rock, as the reason our inner planets are solid and our outer planets are gas giants is because when the solar system was young the gravitational pull of the sun and the rotation of the elements had the same effects as a centrifuge. The heavier elements move to the higher area of gravitational pull (the inside of the solar system, or the outside in a centrifuge) whilst the lighter gaseous elements move to the outside of the solar system where the pull is weakest. The exception is pluto, which was plucked from the asteroid belt into our suns gravitational pull, but this is a dwarf planet, a fraction of the size of our moon. I dont think anything much bigger could be held by the suns gravitational pull. And a dwarf planet of that size, and distance from the sun could support any kind of life.

It's not because of the centrifugal force in the Solar System that gas giants formed.

The primordial disk of gas and dust that coalesced into the planetesimals that formed the planets and other planetary bodies was colder in the outer Solar System, being much farther away from the developing Sun. As a result, water and other substances that existed as volatile gases and liquids in the inner nebula were frozen into ices and supplemented the mass of disk materials being accreted into large protoplanets.

Because of the greater mass concentration from ices available beyond five times the Earth-Sun distance (AU) from Sol, these protoplanets are thought to have grown much more quickly to greater size than those in warmer, inner orbits. Once these ice-rock planetary bodies grew to a critical threshold size somewhere between 10 to 20 times the mass of the Earth, their gravity became so great that they began to pull in large amounts of gas directly from the surrounding Solar nebula to form giant protoplanets.

So the Asteroid belt wasn't a gas planet after all !!

More...
www.solstation.com...


[edit on 28-8-2006 by mikesingh]

This has gotten me interested...

Now someone piped up a theory that there may have been at least one or two post planets between Mars and Jupiter, AND Mars being a moon or connected to this planet by some means. Even though it's a theory, it's still very possible. The mostly likely reason is the unexpected gap between Mars to Jupiter than comparing to the other planets.


I don't know the maths etc.. If it's true that there was (need more evidence) a planet there whether it was iron/water/solid rock or whatever.... A lot of things can happen during the solar systems 6 billion year history (or more)
Look at the history of Mars, its very odd when compared to the other inner planets etc.. Like describe in the earlier post.


Now I'd like to ask this question. Since there is evidence that Mars had a athmosphere and magnetic field, would this be backed up if there was a planet there with Mars orbiting it somehow?

We can find out (maths expert) if we could study the solar systems turbelent history and check the dates when it most likley occured of a planet sized object exploded, and why there were massive devastations during the 65mya period, why Mars lost it's athmosphere overnight, why is mars significantly different to the other planets in terms of geology and formation etc.... why was it wetter in it's distant past, what must of happened to the planets, that changed the history forever


If mars was a moon, how would this fit into the Mars past, when it was warmer and wetter. Would planet K cause the Mars core to be active? what must have happend to Mars if Planet K exploded? the Canyons on mars? would that have anything to do with it?


Sorry for the questions and rambling, It just races out of my head, Naturally, it becomes obvious when it's read,

Originally posted by mind is the universe
Now I'd like to ask this question. Since there is evidence that Mars had a athmosphere and magnetic field, would this be backed up if there was a planet there with Mars orbiting it somehow?

If the Titius-Bode law is valid then there are some "slots" where there could be planets.

If Mars was orbiting another planet then it must have been where Mars is now or where is the asteroid belt. So we still need another planet.

If mars was a moon, how would this fit into the Mars past, when it was warmer and wetter. Would planet K cause the Mars core to be active? what must have happend to Mars if Planet K exploded? the Canyons on mars? would that have anything to do with it?

If Mars had another planet near then it could have been more active tectonically because of the gravity of the other planet acting on the liquid interior of Mars.

But I also think that if that was the case and Mars lost suddenly its "master", then its orbit would be so "smooth"; orbiting around another planet would have made Mars and that planet spin around their gravitic centre, and once the other planet disappeared Mars would have suffered a sudden change of its gravitation centre.