Starship Asterisk*

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 5:02 pm https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/249 ... eroid-belt

It seems a computer advertisement sneaked into a url I posted .. sneaky advertising I had no part in except accidently .. but here's the url before it got currupted .. Tokyo Institute of Technology saying Mars more closely resembles rocks in the asteroid belt than earth rocks, and may have formed there. SO .. if it formed there it could have first been part of a bigger planet that was destroyed there .. the the new planet formed in the belt as Mars could have migrated, leaving the other rocks behind as the belt.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:36 pm

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:22 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:08 pm
What do you mean by that? Mars never occupied the Asteroid Belt, because you cannot have an asteroid belt occupied by a planet. Mars may have formed or migrated somewhat further from the Sun than its current orbit, at a radius now containing part of the Asteroid Belt.

Did you not investigate this url? Speculation from Tokyo Institute of Technolgy .. Mars may have formed in the Asteroid Belt, then migrated. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/249 ... eroid-belt
The mineralogy and dating of martian rocks somewhat argues against that view. And there's no need for this theory to explain anything we observe. Earth may have been formed from a smashed planet. Any of the terrestrial planets may be secondary. But they're probably not.

Again .. the Tokyo Institute of Technology says Mars have much more similarity to the Asteroids than to earth.

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:22 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:08 pm
No, that does not follow, nor has it been suggested.

But you don't deny there IS a scientifically sound suggestion that Mars once occupied the Belt?

And okay .. it may or may not have been suggested that Mars was formed from a smashed planet, but what is there to say it was NOT?

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:10 pm
In the early Solar System, it's likely there were dozens or even hundreds of planets. That does not lead to the conclusion that the asteroid belt was produced by any collisions between them.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:08 pm
And yet there is a scientifically sound suggestion that Mars originated in the Asteroid Belt. It follows then, that for all we know, it is also possible that Mars is a collection of what was a planet in the Asteroid Belt that was smashed, with Demos and Phobos also remnants of that smashing.

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:58 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:49 pm

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:44 pm
Is there anything to suggest that planet which may have smashed into earth may have originated in the Asteroid Belt?
Is there anything to disprove that idea?

There is no reason to believe there was an asteroid belt when that happened. The asteroid belt is where it is because of resonances with other planets, primarily Jupiter. But when the Moon formed, it's unlikely that the gas giants were in their current positions, but were moving around and transferring momentum between each other. In such an environment, a stable asteroid belt couldn't form.

There is also no reason to believe there was NOT a planet in the place of the asteroid belt .. and there is good scientific reason to believe Mars occupied that position.

Just for something for us to enlarge our information .. an interesting url. https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04805

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:50 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:16 pm

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:12 pm
If Mars was from the Belt, it makes up a lot of the 'missing' mass.

If Ceres was once part of a planet, it's logical to suspect it was part of the planet original in the Belt.

No to both. The point is there's nothing to suggest there was once a formed planet that was broken into pieces.

And yet there is a scientifically sound suggestion that Mars originated in the Asteroid Belt. It follows then, that for all we know, it is also possible that Mars is a collection of what was a planet in the Asteroid Belt that was smashed, with Demos and Phobos also remnants of that smashing.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:49 pm

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:44 pm
Is there anything to suggest that planet which may have smashed into earth may have originated in the Asteroid Belt?
Is there anything to disprove that idea?

There is no reason to believe there was an asteroid belt when that happened. The asteroid belt is where it is because of resonances with other planets, primarily Jupiter. But when the Moon formed, it's unlikely that the gas giants were in their current positions, but were moving around and transferring momentum between each other. In such an environment, a stable asteroid belt couldn't form.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:16 pm

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:12 pm
If Mars was from the Belt, it makes up a lot of the 'missing' mass.

If Ceres was once part of a planet, it's logical to suspect it was part of the planet original in the Belt.

No to both. The point is there's nothing to suggest there was once a formed planet that was broken into pieces.

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:44 pm
Is there anything to suggest that planet which may have smashed into earth may have originated in the Asteroid Belt?
Is there anything to disprove that idea?

neufer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:03 pm

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:16 pm
The point is there's nothing to suggest there was once a formed planet that was broken into pieces.

There is something to suggest there was once a formed planet the size of Mars that smashed into Earth to form the Moon.

Thousands of Tesla sized pieces from that planet (or larger) may have ended up in the Asteroid Belt.

neufer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:03 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:16 pm
The point is there's nothing to suggest there was once a formed planet that was broken into pieces.

There is something to suggest there was once a formed planet the size of Mars that smashed into Earth to form the Moon.

Thousands of Tesla sized pieces from that planet (or larger) may have ended up in the Asteroid Belt.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:16 pm
The point is there's nothing to suggest there was once a formed planet that was broken into pieces.

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:12 pm
If Mars was from the Belt, it makes up a lot of the 'missing' mass.

If Ceres was once part of a planet, it's logical to suspect it was part of the planet original in the Belt.

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Tue Apr 24, 2018 7:09 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:29 pm
Almost certainly, material migrated from several sources. Nominally, we've sampled 100% of the material. Of course, it's not impossible we'll find something completely new and different.

Nominally:
1.
(of a role or status) existing in name only.
"Thailand retained nominal independence under Japanese military occupation"
synonyms: in name only, titular, formal, official; More
2.
(of a price or amount of money) very small; far below the real value or cost.
"some firms charge only a nominal fee for the service"
synonyms: token, symbolic; More

So, your sampling means almost nothing.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:30 pm

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:11 pm
Speculation from Tokyo Institute of Technolgy .. Mars may have formed in the Asteroid Belt, then migrated. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/249 ... eroid-beltSo, Mars itself may be a remnant of a larger planet destroyed in the area of the Asteroid Belt.

Also, NASA's Dawn Mission to Ceres was extended after finding a lot of water, as if Ceres was once part of a planet, so the answers are certainly not all in as to origins of the Asteroid Belt. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/dawn-m ... d-at-ceres

I don't see that any of this supports your point, or contradicts mine.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:29 pm
Almost certainly, material migrated from several sources. Nominally, we've sampled 100% of the material. Of course, it's not impossible we'll find something completely new and different.

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:11 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:15 pm Well, no. I think that "quite certain" remains the case. This new theory doesn't change that in the slightest. The material we observe comes from different sources and has different times of origin, and there's nothing to suggest, either theoretically or in terms of actual composition and physical characteristics, that it was ever all combined in a single planetary body.

Speculation from Tokyo Institute of Technolgy .. Mars may have formed in the Asteroid Belt, then migrated. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/249 ... eroid-beltSo, Mars itself may be a remnant of a larger planet destroyed in the area of the Asteroid Belt.

Also, NASA's Dawn Mission to Ceres was extended after finding a lot of water, as if Ceres was once part of a planet, so the answers are certainly not all in as to origins of the Asteroid Belt. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/dawn-m ... d-at-ceres

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:58 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:15 pm
Well, no. I think that "quite certain" remains the case. This new theory doesn't change that in the slightest. The material we observe comes from different sources and has different times of origin, and there's nothing to suggest, either theoretically or in terms of actual composition and physical characteristics, that it was ever all combined in a single planetary body.

So you are saying some of the various material could not have migrated from other sources?

What percentage of the material has been observed?

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:15 pm Well, no. I think that "quite certain" remains the case. This new theory doesn't change that in the slightest. The material we observe comes from different sources and has different times of origin, and there's nothing to suggest, either theoretically or in terms of actual composition and physical characteristics, that it was ever all combined in a single planetary body.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:15 pm
Well, no. I think that "quite certain" remains the case. This new theory doesn't change that in the slightest. The material we observe comes from different sources and has different times of origin, and there's nothing to suggest, either theoretically or in terms of actual composition and physical characteristics, that it was ever all combined in a single planetary body.

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:40 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:55 am

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:12 pm
Neufer, this is off topic, but do you think these diamonds are further evidence that the Asteriod Belt was once a planet?

It is quite certain that the Asteroid Belt was never a planet.

The belt is said to contain too little mass to have ever been a planet, but new theories suggest the Asteroid belt once had a LOT more mass, planet size mass, but most was kicked out by gravitational influences of the giant planets as they migrated to different orbits. https://phys.org/news/2017-09-theory-asteroid-belt.html https://phys.org/news/2009-02-scientist ... .html#nRlv

Also, the asterioid's magnetic fields are said to have lasted FAR longer than once thought, and that they were created by the same process as earth's magnetic field, Compositional Convection. https://www.space.com/28319-asteroid-ma ... -core.html

I think the 'quite certain' is not as certain as it once was in this case.

neufer wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:29 pm
...
More recently it has been suggested that (a more recent) collision generated Phobos & Deimos.
...

GoshOGeeOGolly wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:47 pm

neufer wrote: ↑Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:29 pm
The large amount of energy required to destroy a planet, combined with the belt's low combined mass, which is only about 4% of the mass of the Moon, do not support the hypothesis. Further, the significant chemical differences between the asteroids become difficult to explain if they come from the same planet.

The energy required would be a lot less with a small planet.
I can't understand why chemical differences in earth's rocks would not be as varied as the asteroids.