Any reasonable theory about the asteroids belt between Mars and Jupiter?
It seems like there were a planet in this place that exploded long time ago.
Answers:
I have heard that theory as well. Not sure if it is reasonable
Junk left over from the formation of the solar system.
There's no such thing as exploding planets. Astronomers believe that Jupiter's gravitational field, being so large, prevented the coalescence of enough smaller bodies to form a planet. The so-called "asteroid belt" is actually 99.99% empty space.
Residue from when the solar system was formed
More likely the gravitational tugs from Mars and Jupiter just never let a planet form there in the first place. Though, for a while they considered Ceres to be a planet.
That is what I think. Take the distance of Mercury from the sun, double it and you have appx the distance of Venus, double that and you have earth, double that and you have --- a bunch of rocks, double that and you have Mars, etc, etc. This alone would indicate that there was a planet there at some time. I doubt an explosion occured, though. Probably crushed or dismantled would be a better term.
I saw this on PBS with Carl Sagen years ago.
It's stuff left over from the formation of the planets and didn't form into a planet because of Jupiter's gravitational effect.
dont know but id like to move there i heard the traffic is bad. it was probably a previouse earth that our race wiped out with global warmin and such. then moved to this earth and we are doing the same when will it end. where will we go next and destroy mr hawkins. there is no aliens we are the aliens ha ha ha
I think it could well be an asteroid mating ground! We must first establish without reasonable doubt that these rocks aren't in fact life forms and not merely assume such because they look no way near anything we would call life - or because they don't fit our self-centered categories!
Now wouldn't that be reasonable?
Or debris which didnt form into a planet.
Interesting question, but what is or not 'reasonable' is very difficult to define. You will have to decide on that issue for yourself.
Some scientists think that the asteroid belt is either the residual debris left over after the formation of the solar system or perhaps the remnants of another planetoid body that may have been torn apart in the distant past by the gravitational stresses between Mars and Jupiter.
However, I don't think any serious scientist favours an exploding asteroid theory. Then they would need another theory to account for the explosion and that would open a nasty can of worms.
The concept of a 'reasonable' theory is defined by the evidence and the quality of the integrity, intelligence, knowledge and experience of whoever evaluates it, which varies from person to person.
So who defines what is 'reasonable' in such a case, especially when countless such cases abound in science where one theory explains something no better than another?
For example, five different people, given the same identical evidence, may arrive at five completely different 'reasonable' theoretical explanations to accommodate the evidence.
Even when the evidence is not in dispute, the interpretations may be very divergent from each other and the source of much dispute - a problem we see a lot of in science.
Science is the ultimate entertainment.
yah
this guys
had a fight
As intrigued and horrific and a heck of a lot more interesting as I find exploding planets theories, I'm going to have to say, debris left over from the formation of the solar system which couldn't pull itself together due to Jupiter's gravity for 500 Alex.
How many miles is it from the earth to the sun?
can you help me with a question relating to a thermodynamics?
How does bleach alter the colour of a material?
Does anyone know the chemistry behind sugar reducers?
Another one for you!?
Are there any liquids that don't reflect light well?
Can anyone explain what standard deviation is?
using recent published material what will the climate be like in 2055?
Answers:
I have heard that theory as well. Not sure if it is reasonable
Junk left over from the formation of the solar system.
There's no such thing as exploding planets. Astronomers believe that Jupiter's gravitational field, being so large, prevented the coalescence of enough smaller bodies to form a planet. The so-called "asteroid belt" is actually 99.99% empty space.
Residue from when the solar system was formed
More likely the gravitational tugs from Mars and Jupiter just never let a planet form there in the first place. Though, for a while they considered Ceres to be a planet.
That is what I think. Take the distance of Mercury from the sun, double it and you have appx the distance of Venus, double that and you have earth, double that and you have --- a bunch of rocks, double that and you have Mars, etc, etc. This alone would indicate that there was a planet there at some time. I doubt an explosion occured, though. Probably crushed or dismantled would be a better term.
I saw this on PBS with Carl Sagen years ago.
It's stuff left over from the formation of the planets and didn't form into a planet because of Jupiter's gravitational effect.
dont know but id like to move there i heard the traffic is bad. it was probably a previouse earth that our race wiped out with global warmin and such. then moved to this earth and we are doing the same when will it end. where will we go next and destroy mr hawkins. there is no aliens we are the aliens ha ha ha
I think it could well be an asteroid mating ground! We must first establish without reasonable doubt that these rocks aren't in fact life forms and not merely assume such because they look no way near anything we would call life - or because they don't fit our self-centered categories!
Now wouldn't that be reasonable?
Or debris which didnt form into a planet.
Interesting question, but what is or not 'reasonable' is very difficult to define. You will have to decide on that issue for yourself.
Some scientists think that the asteroid belt is either the residual debris left over after the formation of the solar system or perhaps the remnants of another planetoid body that may have been torn apart in the distant past by the gravitational stresses between Mars and Jupiter.
However, I don't think any serious scientist favours an exploding asteroid theory. Then they would need another theory to account for the explosion and that would open a nasty can of worms.
The concept of a 'reasonable' theory is defined by the evidence and the quality of the integrity, intelligence, knowledge and experience of whoever evaluates it, which varies from person to person.
So who defines what is 'reasonable' in such a case, especially when countless such cases abound in science where one theory explains something no better than another?
For example, five different people, given the same identical evidence, may arrive at five completely different 'reasonable' theoretical explanations to accommodate the evidence.
Even when the evidence is not in dispute, the interpretations may be very divergent from each other and the source of much dispute - a problem we see a lot of in science.
Science is the ultimate entertainment.
yah
this guys
had a fight
As intrigued and horrific and a heck of a lot more interesting as I find exploding planets theories, I'm going to have to say, debris left over from the formation of the solar system which couldn't pull itself together due to Jupiter's gravity for 500 Alex.
The answers post by the user, for information only, UKQnA.com does not guarantee the right.