Re: Hey Mr. Hyde!

From: Evenbit (nbaker2328_at_charter.net)
Date: 03/21/04 

Date: 21 Mar 2004 00:38:16 -0800

"Beth" <BethStone21@hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com> wrote in message news:<jvP6c.580$_r2.450@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> Evenbit wrote:
> > Beth wrote:
> > <<going via the Andromeda galaxy and visiting the new
> > planet, Sedna, on your way back>>
> >
> > Is Sedna really a planet? Or is it just a member of the
> > long-hypothesized Oort Cloud?
>
> If Pluto is, then Sedna is...the problem may have been, in fact,
> jumping so quickly to call Pluto a "planet"...as it's big, true, but
> in planetary terms, it's sitting on the edge for sure...and its orbit
> is _highly eccentric_ (when first discovered, it was the "planet"
> furthest out...this is actually no longer true and that's one of the
> weird things about Pluto's orbit...sometimes it's further out than
> Neptune, sometimes it isn't ;), which gives it more of an "asteroid"
> than "planet" feel...
>

Some other things to note about Pluto:

1) It's moon, Charon, doesn't exactly orbit Pluto so much as BOTH
Pluto and Charon orbit a common spot and their rotations are the same
as the orbit such that the same sides face one another. Thus, it is
as if Pluto and Charon together form a single planet that somehow got
cracked in two.

2) Like Varuna, Pluto is classified as a Trans-Neptunian Object
(TNO), that is, objects at least 100 km across having orbits beyond
Neptune. These are also refered to as Kuiper Belt objects.

3) Not only is Pluto's orbit _highly eccentric_, but it also deviates
from the eliptical plane. Very near the Sun (in the vicinity of the
inner 4 planets, for instance) it would likely be difficult for a
sizable object to maintain an orbit outside the plane because of the
strong tidal forces of gravity. Pluto, however, being the "black
sheep" of the family, is so far away from mother Sun and big brother
Jupiter that he can get by with not following all the orbiting rules.

4) Pluto rotates in the opposite direction from most of the other
planets.

> Also, ummm, it would be a Kuiper Belt object, if I properly understood
> what I heard them say on the TV about it...the "Oort cloud" (what a
> fantastic name, eh? ;) would be further out there still...the Kuiper
> Belt is a bit like the "asteroid belt" that exists between Mars and
> Jupiter, as a "belt" of rocks in orbit...the "Oort Cloud" - should
> there be one - is, as the name suggests, just a whole bunch of rocks
> all over the place way out in the solar system...though the metaphors
> aren't perfect, the terms "belt" and "cloud" should convey the general
> difference between the two...the "Oort Cloud" would be less likely to
> be subject to the "eliptic" plane like the planets and the "belts"
> are...being more "diffuse" from the plane - with lots more "eccentric
> orbits" exhibited - as the term "cloud" befits it...
>

That's sort of how I understand it. Artist depictions typically show
the Oort Cloud as a three-dimensional sphere around the entire solar
system but show asteroid belts as two-dimensional items painted on the
plane.

Also, from my understanding, the Oort cloud is suggested as the source
of the comets that get tossed into wild orbits bringing them close to
the Sun. A theory popularized during the '80s was that either a
neighboring star came close to the solar system or perhaps Nemisis
{reasoning from the fact that most stars are binary stars [see, even
the universe is digital ;-)] therefore, odds are our own Sol should
have a twin, therefore (discounting Jupiter) it must be either very
dim/small/&far away or dead (in the since that Jupiter is made of the
same material as the Sun but just hasn't been "lit") so that we
haven't discovered it yet and they decided to call this "star"
Nemisis} came close every so often and tossed these comets inwards.
This theory was used to try to explain the mass extincts on Earth that
seemed to be periodic. And {to continue my original train-of-thought
of the first sentence of this paragraph} since comets don't always
obey the eliptic-plane rule, perhaps the Oort cloud itself doesn't.

> I heard a really bizarre and not-yet-scientifically-approved theory
> about the "asteroid Belt" and the "Kuiper Belt"...overlaying a
> "harmonic series" over the solar system, the planets' orbits roughly
> coincide with "good harmonies"...and where the "asteroid belt" exists
> would be a "harmony" but a "rough harmony"...hence, the theory
> stipulates - though it _is_ a kind of weird theory, seeing as it
> actually stems from looking at "harmonies" and uses musical theory as
> a base - that gravitational influences are, in effect, creating
> "harmonies"...just not of sound or colour, but of gravity and
> energy...and, thus, the "asteroid belt" is where there should have
> been a planet, which never actually formed...that idea isn't new but
> the theory does try something new in trying to come up with a reason
> _why_ this never happened there...the "harmonies" are all wrong...of
> course, those of a scientific mind will rightly be sceptical of this
> explanation, due to the fact that it could be summed up as, *ahem*, a
> case of "bad vibes"...which hardly sounds deeply scientific...but it's
> an interesting theory that even if it turns out to be utterly, utterly
> wrong, it still makes for a good "story", anyway...
>

Actually, this theory makes a lot of since. Especially when looking
at the tidal effects of gravity. But some would also include the
magnetic influences of the Sun and the large planets into the equation
because it seems that magnetism plays a large role in the artistic
shape of whole galaxies so it probably has a role in solar orbits as
well. Try the following thought-experiement:

Order a large ACME trampoline. Use an ACME contraption to vibrate one
corner of the trampoline canvas. Use another contraption to vibrate
the opposite corner of the canvas. Then toss a few cups of seeds or
beans in the center of the trampoline. The seeds or beans will dance
around but you will notice something: they will tend to settle in
patterns. This is due to the interaction of the waves from the
vibrating devices. I think this is called refraction ...but I'm not
sure.. my physics is rusty because it has been YEARS ago...

Also, I read somewhere that if you use the distance from the Sun to
Mercury as one unit, you can use certain multiples of this unit to
"discover" the approximate orbits of the other planets.

Then too, in orbital mechanics there is something called Lagrange
points. These are mathematically-determined orbital locations that
are stable orbits due to the gravitational pulls of the nearby
objects. For instance, if you are travelling between the Earth and
the Moon, somewhere along the line, you will be pulled equally by both
the Earth and the Moon and since the pulls are in opposing directions,
they cancel out. Somehow, though I don't quite understand the math,
there are also points along the Moon's orbit such that one point is a
certain distance ahead of the Moon in its orbit and the other one is
behind. If you place a satellite in one of these Lagrange points, you
would not have to stockpile large quantities of fuel onboard for the
satelite to use in its retro-rockets so that it can stay in orbit --
it would automatically stay in orbit indefinitely without the need for
retro-rockets. [that is, if I'm understanding Lagrange points
correctly] As a matter of fact, there is a group of asteroids 60
degrees in front of Jupiter's orbit and another group 60 degrees
behind. Also, I believe I read somewhere that one can use Lagrange
points to navigate the solar system extremely efficiently. If you fly
your ship to the Moon's L point, then to the Earth's L point, then to
Mar's L point, you could get to Mars (although rather slowly) without
using much fuel at all because you'd be letting orbital mechanics do
most of the work for you.