This article Earth 'could collide with Mars' shows how the orbits of the small rocky planets could destabilise in the future life of the system. (The simulations which show how close near-misses could occur reminded me of my proposal of a massive body near-miss of 40,000 years ago, evidenced by the geomagnetic excursion event. Huge tidal effects could have created nutrient upwelling and kick-started the human population explosion).
Earth 'could collide with Mars'?
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
Do you think that it could have happened in the past though? There is a connection with the Planet X hypothesis I think. Trans-Neptunian objects could have destabilised and entered the inner solar system and been involved in a near-miss with the Earth in the past perhaps.
Interesting article, but ...
Moderator comment
Please keep the pseudoscience out of this sub forum. There is no Planet X in the sense meant by the woo-woos. There is no Planet Niburu. Any threads making claims of such, or making claims about 2012 will be promptly sent to their rightful home.
This article has everything to do with the solar system being chaotic (in the sense of chaos theory). One of the scientists cited in the article, Dr Jacques Laskar, has been working on the issue of the long-term stability of the solar system for 20 years. Here is a preprint of a 2003 article he wrote on the subject: http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2003/th2002_laskar.pdf
Wikipedia article on the same subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System
Google search "chaos in the solar system" or "stability of the solar system" and you will find a lot more material on this subject.
Moderator comment
Please keep the pseudoscience out of this sub forum. There is no Planet X in the sense meant by the woo-woos. There is no Planet Niburu. Any threads making claims of such, or making claims about 2012 will be promptly sent to their rightful home.
This article has everything to do with the solar system being chaotic (in the sense of chaos theory). One of the scientists cited in the article, Dr Jacques Laskar, has been working on the issue of the long-term stability of the solar system for 20 years. Here is a preprint of a 2003 article he wrote on the subject: http://www.imcce.fr/Equipes/ASD/preprints/prep.2003/th2002_laskar.pdf
Wikipedia article on the same subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System
Google search "chaos in the solar system" or "stability of the solar system" and you will find a lot more material on this subject.
"But they say reassuringly that such a mishap is unlikely to occur for billions of years."
YAWN!
YAWN!
Thanks for the extra links. (I think the 2012 thing is complete bunk of course).
It is the close proximity of the encounters which is fascinating for me; just a few hundred kilometers with the object then being flung into outer space! It's a new insight into the dynmanics of the solar system. For the length of time that life has existed on the Earth, an ultra-close near miss is likely to have happened, in my opinion. It is just the size of object and the date which is in debate.
The accelerations that can be given to an object passing near the Earth DO NOT DEPEND UPON THE MASS OF THE OBJECT.* (Strictly speaking, I am assuming it does not significantly change the Earth's position because it is much less massive and/or very rapidly passing - only an "impulse" exchanged.)
Quite possibly the closest "near miss" occurred a few years ago when Earth was used as a gravity assist boost to the velocity of a satellite. I gave the facts about it in the thread about 180 degree earth and argued that 180 earth could not exist as the calculation which gave this satellite 3 or 4 gravity assists boosts would not have worked if 180 Earth existed and its gravity (not included in the calculation) acting for more than a year on the satellite being boosted by near misses had been ignored.
I am too lazy to find my post in that thread for you, but as I recall the satellite missed Earth by only a couple hundred miles on its third gravity assist. (first two being off Venus) and still had one more to make off Jupiter to get going fast enough to reach (and fly past) Pluto in less than a decade.
I don't think it will be "flung out into space" even with four near misses. Recall that the accelerations of the passing object do not depend on the mass of the object, so it the near miss object is to leave the solar system it was very likely going to do so without any near misses.
------------
*Gravitation force acting on the object is proportional to it mass and the acceleration a force produces is inversely proportional to the object's mass. (Thus, mass "cancels out" when the force is gravitational.) If the object is much more massive than the Earth, then of course it is Earth that will receive the greater acceleration. The force on Earth will be proportional to the mass of the passing object and the inertia of the earth is proportional to the Earth's mass, so in this case the Earth can be thrown into a very different orbit, but with a mass much larger than Jupiter passing thru solar system the entire solar system would be very disturbed and some of the near miss planets could be separated from the sun. It is however highly unlikely that any object of that mass exists near our solar system and certainly none is part of it. Despite that, I postulated a small black hole, (2.2 solar masses) rapidly passes thru the solar system (missing Earth by 12 AU) as the basis of my book, Dark Visitor. The gravitational impulse slightly changes earth's eccentricity (but it is still less than Mars has). Even this slight change kills most of Earth inhabitants as it causes a permanent ice age in the Northern Hemisphere. 11% greater apogee in N. Hemisphere's summer - colder summers and milder winters with large "spring snow falls" every day of the milder winter do not entirely melt the following summer. S. Hemisphere gets little snow but the hotter summers at perigee evaporate more ocean water and all the coastal cities, like Rio, are washed into the sea by the torrential rains that fall every summer eve. We S.H. people do not all die and can still grow rice etc.
PS "common sense" when applied to conditions far different from any you have ever experience is usually a source of mistaken beliefs. Thus, rather than be a "common-sense seeker," you should strive to be an "understanding seeker." If this post forcefully demonstrates that to you (and others) it will be one of my most useful ones. Common sense tells almost everything wrong about the quantum world but mathematical understanding of it can agree with experiments to more than 13 significant figures in some cases!
Last edited by a moderator:
You're not saying anything I didn't already know. My original statement is still perfectly valid; i.e. that an ultra-close miss could easily have occurred 800,000 years ago and 40,000 years ago. It is a better fit than assuming homo erectus had advanced strong-current crossing boat ability. Temporary land bridges due to unknown uplift is just as likely.
No! The following, based on your "common sense," is not valid; it is impossible.
It is possible that the object passing a few hundred kilometers from Earth will exit the solar system, but not because it was "flung into outer space" by Earth. I even told you that a near miss of only a few hundred miles did occur a few years ago. That did not fling the passing object into outer space. I.e. a satellite getting a "gravitational assist" boost was not flung into outer space.
Both simple math analysis* of the interaction and recent experimental test of your idea show your common sense is wrong here.
*outlined in my prior post.
Again I tell you: Seek "understanding", not "common sense."
Last edited by a moderator:
It's just semantics you're talking about. OK, so I shouldn't have used the word 'flung' and the object wouldn't necessarily exit the solar system due to the event. The idea of an ultra-near miss creating a tidal effect which alters the course of human evolution is a good one. It IS common sense.
You said object would leave the solar system - that is not a sematic error but a conceptual one, and error of fact. You also, with or without, the use of word "flung" clearly thought there would be a drastic change in the object's trajectory made by passing Earth a "few hundred kilometers" away due to its interaction with Earth and that too is a factual error, not a semantic one. I never waste time correcting semantic errors. (I make a lot of them myself.)
Ok, now you have changed the subject to tidal effects. The magnitude of the tidal effects would increase as the cube* of the closest approach point decreases. They would also depend a lot on how fast the passing object is going and its mass of course.
If it comes from outside of the solar system (and that is the only possiblity for millions of years if you are thinking of large destructive tides) it is likely to be going very fast wrt Earth. Thus, the gravitational effect will be an "impulse" - not likely to cause great oceans tides to wash over NYC etc. due to the inertia of the ocean masses. However, I would not want to be in California when it passes. -That would have a great chance of triggering "the big one."
*I.e. with half the miss distance, the effects are roughly 8 times larger. The tides of the moon are not very impressive but would be much greater if it were closer (as it once was. In fact, one can make a good argument that the moon may have been nearly essential for the origins of life on Earth, but I will not do that here.)
Again: You need to learn to understand / use analysis more / and your common sense less as it is usually wrong when applied to problems you have no experience with.
Perhaps you should calculate how close the largest known asteroid would need to come and orbit the Earth to make tides 30 times greater than the moon does (Roughly 100 foot tides, I think that is.) If it just passed by, the tides would be much less due to the ocean mass inertia effects.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Well did you evah
From the film High Society
Sung by Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby
Lyrics by Cole Porter
Relevant line emboldened
You are called the forgotten man
Is that what they're saying
Well, did you evah
What a swell party this is
And have you heard the story of
A boy, a girl, unrequited love
(Sounds like pure soap opera)
I may cry (tune in tomorrow)
What a swell party this is
(What frails, what frocks)
What broads
(What furs, what rocks)
They're beautiful
(Why, I've never seen such gaity)
Neither have I
(It's all just too
Too risque really)
This French champagne (domestic)
(So good for the brain)
Thats what I was going to say
(You know you're a brilliant fellow)
Thank you (pick up, jack)
Please don't eat that glass, my friend
Have you heard, about dear Blanche
Got run down by an avalanche (no)
Don't worry, she's a game girl you know
Got up and finished fourth
(The kids got guts) having a nice time
Grab a line
Have you heard that
Mimsie Starr (oh, what now)
She got pinched in the Astor Bar
(Sauced again, eh) she was stoned
Well, did you evah (never)
What a swell party this is
It's great (ah, it's great)
It's grand (so grand)
It's wonderland
La da da da......
(We sing) we sing
(so rare) too rare
(Like old camembert)
(Like baba au rhum)
Don't dig that kind of crooning, chum
Have you heard, it's in the stars
Next July, we collide with Mars
Well, did you evah
What a swell party, a swell party
A swelligant, elegant party this is
(I drink to your health)
Naw, lets drink to your wealth
(You're my bon'amie)
Hey, thats French
A liberty fraternity
Have you heard, it's in the stars
Next July, we collide with Mars
Well, did you evah
What a swell party, swell party
Swelligant, elegant party this is
From the film High Society
Sung by Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby
Lyrics by Cole Porter
Relevant line emboldened
You are called the forgotten man
Is that what they're saying
Well, did you evah
What a swell party this is
And have you heard the story of
A boy, a girl, unrequited love
(Sounds like pure soap opera)
I may cry (tune in tomorrow)
What a swell party this is
(What frails, what frocks)
What broads
(What furs, what rocks)
They're beautiful
(Why, I've never seen such gaity)
Neither have I
(It's all just too
Too risque really)
This French champagne (domestic)
(So good for the brain)
Thats what I was going to say
(You know you're a brilliant fellow)
Thank you (pick up, jack)
Please don't eat that glass, my friend
Have you heard, about dear Blanche
Got run down by an avalanche (no)
Don't worry, she's a game girl you know
Got up and finished fourth
(The kids got guts) having a nice time
Grab a line
Have you heard that
Mimsie Starr (oh, what now)
She got pinched in the Astor Bar
(Sauced again, eh) she was stoned
Well, did you evah (never)
What a swell party this is
It's great (ah, it's great)
It's grand (so grand)
It's wonderland
La da da da......
(We sing) we sing
(so rare) too rare
(Like old camembert)
(Like baba au rhum)
Don't dig that kind of crooning, chum
Have you heard, it's in the stars
Next July, we collide with Mars
Well, did you evah
What a swell party, a swell party
A swelligant, elegant party this is
(I drink to your health)
Naw, lets drink to your wealth
(You're my bon'amie)
Hey, thats French
A liberty fraternity
Have you heard, it's in the stars
Next July, we collide with Mars
Well, did you evah
What a swell party, swell party
Swelligant, elegant party this is
An object the size of the Moon would only need to be approximately a Moon diameter away from the surface to create an uplift of over 6km (the depth of the Pacific ocean). This would be enough to create a temporary land bridge stretching across a quarter of the globe. This is a plausible idea which could explain the human peopling of the Australian continent and even the Americas around 40,000 years ago. The uplift event can even explain the 'frozen Siberian mammoth mystery' by liquefaction of the ground and instant freezing due to the high altitudes and dessication by the jet stream.
This calculation is simply based on the tides currently produced by the Moon. The passing object would be moving faster than the Moon of course, but then again, even a short impulse would allow a massive upwelling of ocean-bed nutrients. This in itself could easily be enough to alter the course of human evolution and kick-start the population explosion.
Last edited:
I did not check your statements but they seem OK. I am glad you are now using analysis instead of "common sense"An object the size of the Moon would only need to be approximately a Moon diameter away from the surface to create an uplift of over 6km (the depth of the Pacific ocean). This would be enough to create a temporary land bridge stretching across a quarter of the globe. This is a plausible idea which could explain the human peopling of the Australian continent and even the Americas around 40,000 years ago. The uplift event can even explain the 'frozen Siberian mammoth mystery' by liquefaction of the ground and instant freezing due to the high altitudes and dessication by the jet stream.
This calculation is simply based on the tides currently produced by the Moon. The passing object would be moving faster than the Moon of course, but then again, even a short impulse would allow a massive upwelling of ocean-bed nutrients. This in itself could easily be enough to alter the course of human evolution and kick-start the population explosion.
I suggested that you consider the largest known asterorid with an earth crossing* orbit as that is a realistic possibility for making large tides before it is very probably nothin like humans lives on the earth. -I.e. an interesting case conceibly only hundreds of thousand years form now.
Also I think that the land bridge between Asia and Alaska has formed with most of the recent ice ages. One need not postuate highly imporbable events to account for it.
-----------
*Or even a Mars crossing orbit as it not extremely improbable that it could be scattered into an Earth crossing orbit in a time scale of interest to humans.
Last edited by a moderator:
As the Hawaiian and ~100 other widely separated Pacific islands were also populated, by people walking across your "unknown land bridges" instead of by “sea crossing watercraft”, you must be postulating as "more likely" that the entire Pacific Ocean went dry for at least a month while they were walking during and after the near miss of some large object passing Earth.
Where was all that water stored? In plastic bottles?
BTW, I have a bridge in Brooklynn I will sell you cheap. Your "common sense" surely tells you how valuable my bridge is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Moderation comments
common_sense_seeker: Please desist from posting nonsense in this sub forum. The correct venues for utter nonsense at sciforums are the Pseudoscience and Cesspool.
The only reason I have not moved this thread to one of those other venues is because the article cited in the opening post is a valid scientific article.
common_sense_seeker: Please desist from posting nonsense in this sub forum. The correct venues for utter nonsense at sciforums are the Pseudoscience and Cesspool.
The only reason I have not moved this thread to one of those other venues is because the article cited in the opening post is a valid scientific article.
The Pacific Islands were populated by a sailed canoe with outrigger by people orginating from SE Asia. This was around 1000-3000 years ago if I remember correctly. There is no need to link this well researched migration with the passing of an ultra-close near miss.
It's other people's comments which are trying to make the idea seem ridiculous. It simply isn't that bad a suggestion. The mainstream scientific view is that Homo Erectus reached the island of Flores 800,000 years ago. Watercraft use is well beyond the capabilities of these early hominids:
And also from this fascinating article Ancient Island Tools Suggest Homo erectus Was a Seafarer:
Last edited:
Moderator comments
Common_sense_seeker: Your hypothesis is nonsense.
I moved this thread to pseudoscience. I moved the fragments of the thread that discuss the stability of the solar system to [thread=93883]a new thread[/thread]. I left the nonsense and the rebuttals to it in this thread.
To all posters in this thread but common_sense_seeker: PM me you want your posts in this thread moved to the new sensical thread.
Common_sense_seeker: Your hypothesis is nonsense.
I moved this thread to pseudoscience. I moved the fragments of the thread that discuss the stability of the solar system to [thread=93883]a new thread[/thread]. I left the nonsense and the rebuttals to it in this thread.
To all posters in this thread but common_sense_seeker: PM me you want your posts in this thread moved to the new sensical thread.
Last edited:
That's a harsh summary of the idea..(lol)