Jump to content
farsideofourmoon

I have a new theory about the origin of earth.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I have a new theory about the origin of earth. I believe our planet came from someplace else and when it passed our sun it was caught up in the gravity pull of our sun and now circles our sun like the other planets.

 

Our planet began totally covered in ice. The frozen state could not have occurred in its current orbit because of the heat of our suns radiation.

The Snowball Earth hypothesis proposes that during one or more of earth's icehouse climates, Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen, sometime earlier than 650 Mya (million years ago) during the Cryogenian period.

https://preview.tinyurl.com/ybzpbae7

Snowball Earth: The times our planet was covered in ice

Ancient rocks suggest that ice entirely covered our planet on at least two occasions. This theory may help explain the rise of complex life that followed.

https://astronomy.com/news/2019/04/the-story-of-snowball-earth

Once our planet began circling our sun the ice covering our earth began to slowly melt, creating the oceans we see today and even today this ice continues to melt.

Anyone agree/disagree-?

 

Edited by farsideofourmoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the planet lose the excess kinetic energy, which would be required to be captured?

What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, swansont said:

What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis?

I showed the evidence. Considering the heat of the sun how could earth be covered in ice and now it isn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, swansont said:

How did the planet lose the excess kinetic energy, which would be required to be captured?

What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis?

Indeed.

More things: Did the Moon come with it, as a package deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have a new theory about the origin of earth.

 

54 minutes ago, farsideofourmoon said:

I have a new theory about the origin of earth. I believe our planet came from someplace else and when it passed our sun it was caught up in the gravity pull of our sun and now circles our sun like the other planets.

This shows lack of proper consideration.

How I wish folks would give some proper consideration before they posted rather than just looking in the mirror after one too many pina coladas.

 

Very clearly if the Earth was captured from somewhere else then it was formed somewhere else, before it was (could be ) captured.

So this thread is not about the origin of the Earth but about a conjectured later event in its history.

 

Please think before you post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, farsideofourmoon said:

I showed the evidence. Considering the heat of the sun how could earth be covered in ice and now it isn't

The actual thermal equilibrium temp of the Earth is -18 degrees C. In other words, without the Greenhouse effect of the CO2 in the atmosphere,  The average temp of the Earth would remain below freezing.    In addition,  an ice ball earth would reflect more Sunlight back into space, reducing the effectiveness of solar heating. 

Your "evidence" is fatally flawed, as it is based on the false assumption that the Sun alone would provide enough heating at the Earth's present distance from the Sun to keep it above freezing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a startling coincidence if the Earth was 'captured' at just the right angle to align with the ecliptic plane.
All solar system planets orbit in the same plane; the largest deviation is Mercury, at just 7 deg inclination.
Most likely because they coalesced  from the rotating plane of dust/gas during the solar system formation.

Pluto, which is no longer considered a planet, was most likely captured, as it is a full 17 deg out of the ecliptic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, MigL said:

 

Pluto, which is no longer considered a planet, was most likely captured, as it is a full 17 deg out of the ecliptic.

This inclination puts it well within the range of Kuiper belt objects ( of which it is likely one of) Eris has an inclination of 44 degrees.  The Kuiper belt is considered to be made up of material left over from the formation of the Solar system, and I don't expect that Pluto is any different.

Even the main core of the asteroid belts contains objects with inclinations up to 20 degrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected.
Thank you Janus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, studiot said:

How I wish folks would give some proper consideration before they posted rather than just looking in the mirror after one too many pina coladas.

:D :D 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

So this thread is not about the origin of the Earth but about a conjectured later event in its history.

Another good point. +1

6 minutes ago, Janus said:

In addition,  an ice ball earth would reflect more Sunlight back into space, reducing the effectiveness of solar heating. 

I was thinking about the albedo effect too. Only 15 % of solar energy would be absorbed. Good point about CO2 too. +1.

How would this wanderer planet have captured so much water would be another issue, I suppose. Wanderer planets are very much an astronomical unknown at this point. Would they keep their magnetosphere and seismic activity intact? I haven't thought about it and I don't know what's known. But then, connecting with Studiot's point, I suppose, why conceive of an unlikely event (formation in a different solar system's accretion disk) that puts a black box as to the origin and only connects with later events? Is seems contrary to science general tendency of assuming the simplest explanation first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, studiot said:

Very clearly if the Earth was captured from somewhere else then it was formed somewhere else, before it was (could be ) captured.

So this thread is not about the origin of the Earth but about a conjectured later event in its history.

Good point, which points to another issue that requires explanation: where did it form and how was it ejected from that system?

Why is the age of the earth consistent with the age of our solar system? Wouldn’t a captured planet, formed elsewhere, be expected to be older?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also geological evidence and meteor analysis including carbon dating match with the solar system materials we can examined thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Also geological evidence and meteor analysis including carbon dating match with the solar system materials we can examined thus far.

Carbon C-14 radiometric dating works reliably only up to 50k years and only on organic remains because it has relatively fast decay rate with half-life ~ 5760 years. Did you mean Uranium and/or Rubidium-Strontium radiometric dating techniques instead? They are used to estimate rock age (actually to estimate the date when they were the last time melted).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium–strontium_dating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Radiometric" is a good catch-all for dating techniques, without getting bogged down on which ones are actually being used, because there are several, and each have their areas of applicability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2020 at 8:23 PM, Sensei said:

Carbon C-14 radiometric dating works reliably only up to 50k years and only on organic remains because it has relatively fast decay rate with half-life ~ 5760 years. Did you mean Uranium and/or Rubidium-Strontium radiometric dating techniques instead? They are used to estimate rock age (actually to estimate the date when they were the last time melted).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium–strontium_dating

+1. I heard zircon microcrystals as favourite to date billion-y.o-range rocks from the origin of the Solar System. There it's U/Pb ratios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Earth Capture theory is not a new idea, but an old debunked one if memory serves.  Early  Earth's history was largely influenced  by a period of increased vulcanism.  Vulcanism was responsible for increased CO2 and temperature, not a variation in the sun.  

The giant-impact hypothesis  is far more interesting to talk about IMO.

"Good point, which points to another issue that requires explanation: where did it form and how was it ejected from that system?"

There are ways to eject a planet from its solar system. Can we re-capture that ejected planet in a different system if every vector matches up, possibly. Is that likely? No.

Edited by JGNLBCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.