Posted on 11/02/2015 7:03:39 PM PST by Beowulf9
ok, thanks. I don’t think I crowdsource.
I remember Velikofvski’s various ideas, but what is current thinking about the origin and timing of the asteroid belt?
From Wiki
The asteroid belt formed from the primordial solar nebula as a group of planetesimals, the smaller precursors of the planets, which in turn formed protoplanets. Between Mars and Jupiter, however, gravitational perturbations from Jupiter imbued the protoplanets with too much orbital energy for them to accrete into a planet. Collisions became too violent, and instead of fusing together, the planetesimals and most of the protoplanets shattered. As a result, 99.9% of the asteroid belt’s original mass was lost in the first 100 million years of the Solar System’s history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt
It helps if you go back to the comment to which the person was responding. In this case Comment #2. Go there and find out what tbw2 was trying to answer and perhaps the answer will make more sense.
Another interesting problem is the results from translation machines. A translation into Japanese by machine from English became “girl hung for juvenile delinquency.” In English it was “girl suspended for misbehavior.” Then there was the translation of a technical paper into Russian which repeatedly referred to “water goat.” This paper on hydrology in English said “hydraulic ram”, a kind of pump.
I don’t think the conventional view has changed much — that the asteroids were leftovers from planet formation, shepherded into position via Jupiter and Mars (the asteroids are closer to Mars, but Mars is a relative pipsqueak). There are quite a number of models for Solar System formation, none of them work. :’) Tweak something in one spot to solve a problem, create another.
The late Thomas Van Flandern adopted the view that a planet used to be there, but exploded (his mechanism for his EPH isn’t one I found compelling) sometime in the past ten million years (I may have some of these details wrong; his view was that Jupiter would either absorb trails of debris of this kind, or eject it from the Solar System, in ten million years — http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp ), putting an upper limit on the age of the asteroid belt.
S. K. Vsekhsvyatskii has a paper (years ago now) regarding the origin of comets in Jupiter ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1962SvA.....6..226V ).
Dr V either doesn’t mention the asteroids in particular, or made passing mention of them and I just don’t remember. The Alice Miller index would be the best point of departure for such a search.
My view is that the asteroids were shepherded into position, but are comprised of debris that isn’t as old as the Solar System. Comets leave trails of debris that we see as annual meteor showers, and from time to time planet-crossing objects make more significant marks on the Earth and the other planets, including Mars, which appears to have been resurfaced with most of its craters by a single impact event ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1390424/posts ).
Further direct study of the asteroids is just beginning, and will confirm or disconfirm any or all of these.
Like the German who tried to say air river pathway when translating “free space flow path”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.