Was The Asteroid Belt a planet???

Awesome Theory! after only reading page 1, I immediately went off on a google search when posters questioned the size of the asteroid belt accumulates to a small moon. Mainly, I was curious where did Jupiter and mars moons come from?

Recall, Mars captured its two small moons from the asteroid belt. It's likely that many of Jupiter's and Saturn's moons were also captured. However, most scientists seem to think that the four very large Galilean moons of Jupiter and possibly Saturn's very large moon, Titan, were in fact formed from left over planetary material of their host planets. This means the largest planets may have formed just like a small solar system of their own.

Link for above quote

Also, I was seeking out some more Asteroid Belt Facts

The vast majority of asteroids in the solar system are found in a region of the solar system out beyond Mars. They form the Asteroid Belt. Others orbit in near-Earth space and a few migrate or are thrown out to the outer solar system by gravitational interactions. The four largest asteroids in the belt are Ceres, Vesta, Pallas, and Hygiea. They contain half the mass of the entire belt. The rest of the mass is contained in countless smaller bodies. There was a theory once that if you combined all the asteroids they would make up the missing “Fifth” rocky planet. Planetary scientists estimate that if you could put all that material together that exists there today, it would make a tiny world smaller than Earth’s moon.

Link to More Asteroid Belt Facts

Why could there have not been a fifth and sixth planet? Is it not possible that if you increase the asteroid belt size with most of these moons, you may actually have 2 planets of considerable size that collided?

Just throwing that speculation out there while I was excited. Now, need to go back and read the rest of the thread .

Edit add: I realized I forgot the theory of where our moon comes from.

Theia orbited the Sun at around the orbit of Earth at the L4 or L5 Lagrangian points, but was perturbed by Jupiter and Venus into a collision with the early Earth. Theia struck Earth with a glancing blow[2] and ejected many pieces of both Earth and Theia. These pieces either formed one body that became the Moon, or formed two moons that eventually merged to form the Moon. Had Theia struck Earth head-on, it would have led to the destruction of both planets, creating a short-lived asteroid belt between the orbits of Venus and Mars.

Wikipedia on planet collision theory

Yes it seems that Maldek was indeed in position where the asteroid belt is located. Sitchin claimed this planet Was destroyed due to a collision with Nibsy,I think this was one area where He misinformed. I think Velikovsky's work Into this is well worth reading, He was onto something! I say it was destroyed by hi tech weaponry and the inhabitants then went to Mars which befell a similar fate..then here we are on Earth in a potentially similar situation yet again.

Bodes law supports that there should have been a planet in place of the asteroid belt and as others have mentioned in the thread it is suspect that the many moons of Jupiter and Saturn are/were 'captured'...look into the exploding planet hypothesis for more on that.

There is also vulcanic evidence on asteroids and shouldn't lava etc only form on planets?..hmmm.

We have had a surge in Flat Earth theories and this I believe is a black ops effort at poisoning the well! the reasons being for this approach? To discredit Planet X and its imminent arrival..to suppress the obvious presence of ET and non Human terrestrials in our Solar system for millennia (and on Earth) going way back..and it seems the Earth is actually hollow imo..may seem clear as mud but we're on to it!

my research was that yes it was destroyed on purpose for various 'theoretical and other reasons no one seems to agree as to the 'why' it happened and when

originally posted by: CynConcepts
Why could there have not been a fifth and sixth planet? Is it not possible that if you increase the asteroid belt size with most of these moons, you may actually have 2 planets of considerable size that collided?

I think it's more probable that that material was never really allowed to coalesce into planets. Jupiter's and Mars' gravities made sure of that. As far as I know, theres is no indication that there were two planets that collided and produced the main belt + Jupiter's and Mars' moons. Rather, as Jupiter and Mars formed and grew in size and mass, any material between them was subject to their gravitational pull, getting either flung out of the area, impacting those planets, or becoming their moons (as well as Jupiter's trojan asteroids).

Also, if you consider that the asteroid belt was what the Solar System used to look like in general (i.e. smallish chunks of rocks around the Sun), as the planets formed and grew, Mars and Jupiter established a "sheperd" zone between themselves, where these primordial chunks of rock stayed in a belt while all others either accreted into the planets or got flung away.

originally posted by: Essan


Actually, the largest asteroid, Ceres - which looks set to be re-designated as a planet (!) - is spherical.

Of course, once Ceres becomes a planet then the answer to the question is simple: was the asteroid belt once a planet? No, the planet is still there

Actually, a portion of the original planet is still there. Its core. The remainder of the planet was disseminated throughout the solar system to land on other plants as meteorite impacts or left the solar system a very long time ago. I strongly suspect.

The planets with "Rings" also have this kind of debris, failed or destroyed moons, if that is what they really are.

There is no way to gauge the size of the planet that once orbited the ""Asteroid" belt, so there is no reliable way to determine how much material should or could be in the asteroid belt to rematerialized the destroyed planet.

Yes, I know main stream science says the material is the material left over when a planet did not form, but the revers is absolutely possible as well. And must be reconsidered, unless there is a reason to hide this possibility.

The asteroid belt was never a planet any more than the Kuiper belt was a planet

When we run planet formation models for stars like our Sun often there are bands of material which due to gravitational, tidal forces end up "the odd man out". They end up in these lanes or disks which in our Solar System became the asteroid belt, the kuiper belt, etc.

We can see much larger versions of these around other young star/planetary systems.

Here's the one around a young nearby star called Beta Pictoris which has formed and may still be forming planets:



And here is the massive disk around another young nearby star called HL Tauri, it's just beginning to form planets:




Asteroid belts are no mystery, just a natural byproduct of planet formation. Think of them as the construction material not cleared away once the buildings have been built.

Another thought I have had what if early in our solar system, we actually had 2 suns? I have had some difficulty in locating info on what speculated effects this would have on the planets. I did find This link on how a planet could survive a collision of its suns and even followed the articles Ref info link to check out the official PDF. Unfortunately, I could only read the abstract since not being a member it would cost some money to delve deeper. Sigh.

Being that 80% of discovered solar systems seem to have more than one sun, wouldn't it be logical to consider that ours did too in the beginning? The combining to a single star would have created chaos for all of the objects orbiting them. Planets orbits after a time would settle into our current day orbits as the remaining single star's gravitation created order once again.

Obviously, I am just seeking answers. It is certainly obvious that there should be a planet where the main asteroid belt is. Plus, there are many more mysteries about our solar system that scientist can only speculate on. Why are some of the planets out of logical orbit? Uranus' tilt? Ect. Did our solar system survive two suns colliding?

Edit add: a reply to: wildespace
Thank you for responding. I am trying to deny ignorance and understand. I can see where the pull of the sun and saturn's gravity may make it difficult for the asteroid debris to coalesce into a planet. I must admit my curiousity is peaked with many of the previous posters speculations!


a reply to: JadeStar
JadeStar! Perhaps, you could help me understand as well. Our explorations into observing other solar systems has always been helpful in better understanding our own. Is it possible that we started out as a binary sun solar system? I would think such speculation may explain how a planet would have collided with earth to create the moon too?

originally posted by: CynConcepts
Another thought I have had what if early in our solar system, we actually had 2 suns? I

It didn't.

Though our early solar system may have once had far more planets than it now has. It's almost a given that some of the solar system's early planets were flung out of the system and are now drifting aimlessly in the cold of interstellar space. Others were flung into the Sun.

The early solar system was a chaotic place. It would not have been fun to hang out in but it would have been fun to watch from a distance.

a reply to: JadeStar
Thank you. I wasn't quick enough on my edit to you! How do we know it didn't have 2 suns collide and that is what created all the chaos in the beginning? I love conciseness, but love to know where the facts come from. How was it determined that we have always been a single star system?

Edit add: All I can find is that it is because we have always only been able to only observe one sun in our system! How could we observe whether we had more then one sun if we were not here in the beginning?

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: JadeStar
Thank you. I wasn't quick enough on my edit to you! How do we know it didn't have 2 suns collide and that is what created all the chaos in the beginning?

Because 1) The disc which formed our planets would have been disturbed in such a way that our planets orbits would even 4 billion+ years later show evidence of that. They would be more elliptical and less circular than they are.

2) the chaos of the early solar system didn't need a second star at all. it just had too many planets in too small of a space. think of it as trying to fit a bunch of marbles into a box but the box only has room for 10 or so. Some marbles will get ejected. This is what happened with the gravitational interactions, orbits crossing, etc in the early solar system.

I love conciseness, but love to know where the facts come from. How was it determined that we have always been a single star system?

By careful examination of the planets and other bodies in our solar system.

Also had there been a 2nd star, even a widely separated binary companion would still be visible and gravitationally bound to our Sun. We see no such star travelling with our Sun as it makes its slow journey around the galaxy. Even a small low mass red dwarf or brown dwarf would have been detected in infrared surveys like WISE.

originally posted by: JadeStar

By careful examination of the planets and other bodies in our solar system.

Also had there been a 2nd star, even a widely separated binary companion would still be visible and gravitationally bound to our Sun. We see no such star travelling with our Sun as it makes its slow journey around the galaxy. Even a small low mass red dwarf or brown dwarf would have been detected in infrared surveys like WISE.

I am actually speculating more in regards to the Article I had linked to in earlier post..

While searching for Earth-like planets, NASA’s Kepler spacecraft has come across 10 that share one very un-Earth-like quality: They orbit two stars, instead of one. The worlds are aptly named “circumbinary planets” (“circum” meaning around, and “binary” referring to two objects), and in this type of binary system, the two stars orbit each other while the planet orbits the two stars ...

...Now, astronomers have asked a new question: What would happen if a circumbinary planet were in the mix? Naturally, one assumes its inevitable, fiery demise. But findings, published online 9 July in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reveal that may not be the case. Using a combination of theoretical and numerical formulas, astronomers calculated that the planet may actually be able to survive the blast. The difference between life and death depends on that third, distant body. The researchers mathematically showed that the same mechanism that forces the binary together shifts the alignment of the circumbinary planet, potentially allowing it to sneak far enough away to escape incineration. Even so, surviving without a home base is a bit of a lonely swap.

Another Article link on Can stars collide.

“When you see two stars colliding with each other, it depends on how fast they’re moving. If they’re moving at speeds like we see at the center of our galaxy, then the collision is extremely violent. If it’s a head-on collision, the stars get completely splashed to the far corners of the galaxy. If they’re merging at slower velocities than we see at our neck of the woods in our galaxy, then stars are more happy to merge with us and coalesce into one single, more massive object.”

Bolding done by me for emphasis.

I am speculating on why it is possible that we had 2 suns in the beginning, not on whether we have 2 suns now.
These articles seems to make it a plausible assumption. There is a lot of info out there about speculating on 2 suns currently, just seems tough to find info on why we could not have had 2 suns that slowly collided in the beginning to create our 1 sun?


In keeping with the theme of the thread...such chaos could have created the asteroid belt by causing small planets to collide. Perhaps, explain why Mars formed and not the asteroid belt. 2 suns would have had a different gravitational pull on orbits but if they merged into one it would singularly localize it, right? .

a reply to: JadeStar

The disc which formed our planets would have been disturbed in such a way that our planets orbits would even 4 billion+ years later show evidence of that.

What evidence, presently, would lead to your conclusion. And for the record are you stating this as fact, or theory...

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: JadeStar

By careful examination of the planets and other bodies in our solar system.

Also had there been a 2nd star, even a widely separated binary companion would still be visible and gravitationally bound to our Sun. We see no such star travelling with our Sun as it makes its slow journey around the galaxy. Even a small low mass red dwarf or brown dwarf would have been detected in infrared surveys like WISE.

I am actually speculating more in regards to the Article I had linked to in earlier post..

While searching for Earth-like planets, NASA’s Kepler spacecraft has come across 10 that share one very un-Earth-like quality: They orbit two stars, instead of one. The worlds are aptly named “circumbinary planets” (“circum” meaning around, and “binary” referring to two objects), and in this type of binary system, the two stars orbit each other while the planet orbits the two stars ...

...Now, astronomers have asked a new question: What would happen if a circumbinary planet were in the mix? Naturally, one assumes its inevitable, fiery demise. But findings, published online 9 July in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reveal that may not be the case. Using a combination of theoretical and numerical formulas, astronomers calculated that the planet may actually be able to survive the blast. The difference between life and death depends on that third, distant body. The researchers mathematically showed that the same mechanism that forces the binary together shifts the alignment of the circumbinary planet, potentially allowing it to sneak far enough away to escape incineration. Even so, surviving without a home base is a bit of a lonely swap.

Another Article link on Can stars collide.

“When you see two stars colliding with each other, it depends on how fast they’re moving. If they’re moving at speeds like we see at the center of our galaxy, then the collision is extremely violent. If it’s a head-on collision, the stars get completely splashed to the far corners of the galaxy. If they’re merging at slower velocities than we see at our neck of the woods in our galaxy, then stars are more happy to merge with us and coalesce into one single, more massive object.”

Bolding done by me for emphasis.

I am speculating on why it is possible that we had 2 suns in the beginning, not on whether we have 2 suns now.
These articles seems to make it a plausible assumption. There is a lot of info out there about speculating on 2 suns currently, just seems tough to find info on why we could not have had 2 suns that slowly collided in the beginning to create our 1 sun?

In keeping with the theme of the thread...such chaos could have created the asteroid belt by causing small planets to collide. Perhaps, explain why Mars formed and not the asteroid belt. 2 suns would have had a different gravitational pull on orbits but if they merged into one it would singularly localize it, right? .

Ok. I see what you're asking.

If it was VERY early in the solar system's history, before any planets formed, that might have been possible, but it is unlikely. And had it happened after the planets were formed we'd see evidence of it.

The real good answer I started to type out then I realized it is long and complicated and you may not understand it. There is no easy way to type it out. Then it dawned on me..... SuperPlanetCrash!

Rather than me tell you the answer, you can play god yourself with the following web app:



Click here for the SuperPlanetCrash web app

You can add planets, brown dwarfs, low mass stars, etc and see what happens according to the laws of physics.

And if you like that you should check out the Universe Sandbox.

If a picture is worth a thousand words then an app is worth a million. A hands-on approach to some of these complex planetary motion questions will likely teach you more than my long, sometimes jumbled answer would have.

a reply to: JadeStar

That game is fun! I got 2.1 million so far, think I might break 5mil

5.9M
9.7M
13.3M




whooops!

okay, i'm done

There is a recent theory that Jupiter's earlier orbit could have destroyed inner planets that might help explain the asteroid belt. But as Jadestar has pointed out, current theory of planet formation, also explains the asteroid belt as well.

a reply to: JadeStar

Thank you so much for your continued input.
I realize that it probably would be difficult to explain something's in depth. I do appreciate it when others will direct me on how I can research it for myself. I will go check out your links.


a reply to: pl3bscheese
Looks like fun! I will have to wait until I get a new pc or they release the mobile version though.

If it had been a planet, there would be fragments of its core amongst the asteroids. The core is always made of pure heavy metal, the heaviest in the periodic table, that moves ( sinks) to the center of the planet from gravitation while the new planet is still melted.

I think the absence of any detection of heavy metal asteroids is reason to believe that the asteroids were never a planet. At the formation of the solar system, those asteroids got left out because their orbits never connected with any of the planets.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: JadeStar

That game is fun! I got 2.1 million so far, think I might break 5mil

5.9M
9.7M
13.3M

whooops!

okay, i'm done

VERY NICELY DONE!!!!!!!!!!! You're very, very good!

a reply to: JadeStar

thanks, hah, i played with it the next day for a few minutes got up to 65mil. learned a couple of tricks