I asked Dwardu: [Should the] Saturn Flare-up cycle [include] a POSSIBLE rocky planet ejection. ... Or should I leave that out completely? And he replied:
Should Continental Drift be part of each Flare-up Cycle? He said as follows:
...in the times before Saturn (and other planets?) entered the system.
It is sort of the skeleton in the closet of celestial mechanics, but the solar system (assumed to be governed only by gravity) and composed of three or more bodies is not a simple calculable clockwork mechanism. But then that is neither here nor there, because to assume that gravity would be the only force determining the reordering of the solar system is contrary to what is being proposed by planetary catastrophists. The EU points out that ancient tales of electrical discharges between the planets, as well as the evidence of electrical scarring on various members of the solar system, demonstrate that electrical forces are required to be taken into consideration. Wal Thornhill has stated that planets only "see" each other when their plasmaspheres touch, once this situation occurs electrical forces would dominate. The stabilizing of the solar system would involve achieving positions of least action interaction leaving a gravity dominated system as we see today. Calculations based on a gravity only assumption are probably not of much use. I do not see the time period as a problem since there are probably several millenia (or more) for the solar system to arrive at the present order.While the two-body problem is integrable and its solutions completely understood (see ,[AKN],[Al],[BP]), solutions of the three-body problem may be of an arbitrary complexity and are very far from being completely understood.
GaryN wrote:...in the times before Saturn (and other planets?) entered the system.
Under a gravity dominant solar system, can we calculate how long
it would take for the orbits of the new planet(s) to have settled
into the stable orbits we see now?
I can't imagine the capture of one wandering planet, let alone more
than one, being so easily achieved, from my limited understanding
of orbital mechanics.
That the Sun had been much dimmer in ages past is what orthodoxy has been assuming for years. Whether it actually was dimmer just prior to the capture of the proto-Saturnian system is something that cannot be determined from the mytho-historical record. The reason for this is that the Sun was still nowhere in sight at the time, it having been too far away, and thus too small in appearance, to shine through the opacity of the encasing plasmasphere. Even when man first saw the Sun, he described it being as small as a distant star which began to grow larger as it loomed closer.
In that respect, Grubaugh was right and, in fact, the proto-Saturnian system is described in my work as brushing against, and bouncing off, the heliosphere several times before it actually managed to penetrate it. And yes, this one actually comes directly from Thornhill.
Yes he did consider Earth to have been a satellite of Saturn, but, according to him, Earth was held in an equatorial orbit around the larger planet. Still according to him, Saturn then suffered a near contact with the planet Jupiter, which event resulted in the freeing of Earth from Saturn's gravitational embrace and the ejection of the planet Venus from Jupiter's core.
Yes, that was his claim.
It gets weirder because proto-Saturn's capture involved the collision of the Milky Way with a foreign galaxy. Orthodoxy is well aware of this collision, the signs of which are still etched across the sky.
Not quite. I have never stated it in those terms. Some of the ancients did liken the disk to whirling water because, among other things, that is what it looked like. And, naturally enough, to them, proto-Saturn did appear to float—but not sail—on this water. "Sailing" would connote motion across, or around, the disk.
But of course.
Lloyd wrote: for some odd reason, no one has commented on yet.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests