This Forum is Closed
December 11, 2017, 01:13:25 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: GGF now has a permanent home: http://forum.globalgulag.com
 
  Home Help Search Links Staff List Login Register  

Science TV Screws Up Again: Pluto is NOT a Kuyoer Belt Object, But a Comet

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Science TV Screws Up Again: Pluto is NOT a Kuyoer Belt Object, But a Comet  (Read 199 times)
Bad Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« on: July 13, 2011, 06:53:53 am »


I found yet another error in science TV, concerning the nature of our solar system's orbiting object named "Pluto".

I recently watched a show (the name of which I don't recall) which claimed that Pluto is a Kuyper Belt Object.

I totally don't buy that.

A typical Kuyper Belt Object is a rocky planetoid, and Pluto clearly doesn't meet the criteria for a rocky planetoid, according to my gravitational analysis.  (And, by now, you well know gravitation to be one of my favorite items of study).

As everyone who's ever studied gravitation certainly realizes, it takes a lot less energy to change the amplitude of any object's orbit than it takes to change the equatorial inclination of an orbiting object.
This specific understanding involves the momentum equation F= ma.  Now, since the gravitational equation F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\ clearly involves the mass of the orbiting object ONLY WITHIN THE CONTEXT of the object which it orbiting, any object whose mass is insignificant relative to that of the object which it is orbiting (as is certainly the case of Pluto versus the Sun) renders the geometrical aspect of the gravitation equation a nullity with respect to the momentum equation.  This is, to a far lesser extent, the case even with such massive objects as the planets Uranus and Neptune, if you consider the fact that the sun's gravitational attraction upon them is inversely proportional to the square of the radius of their mean sidereal orbital amplitude, which is obviously HUGE.

My point here is that the program pointed out the fact that Uranus and Neptune had obviously switched orbital radii as representing a completely confounding concept, while barely bothering to point out the fact that, in the light of the momentum equation, alterations in orbital amplitudet of planets the size of Uranus and Neptune requires no more posigrade energy than was supplied by the gravitational slingshot effect from the mass of Jupiter (analogous to the thrust from an airplane such as you and Uncle Roy are accustomed to flying), counterbalanced by the resistance (i.e., retrograde momentum, analogous to the aerodynamic drag which you and Uncle Roy would have encountered in your flying experience) they would have encountered by colliding with the escaping asteroids and descending Kuyper Bodies which pretty much occupy interplanetary space at that altitude.
As Neptune's mass is 1.02 x 10/26kg, whereas Uranus' mass is 0.868 x 10/26kg, inertia alone explains why they switched positions,

This not only fails to explain Pluto's position within the Pane of Ecliptec, it further fails to explain Pluto's LATERAL DISPLACEMENT FROM the Plane of Ecliptic, to the extent of 17 degrees from the Earth's equator.

The resulting analysis can come as no surprise:

The fact of Pluto's dramatic departure from the Plane of Ecliptic can only mean that the amount of energy capable of displacing the equatorial plane of her orbit 17 degrees from the Plane of Ecliptic must be a good deal smaller than the amount of energy required so to displace a genuine planet from that plane.

This can only mean that Pluto, approximately the dimensions of Earth's moon, must be considerably less dense than Earth's moon, (i.e., Pluto must be approximately the density of Ice 1).

This observation, combined with the eccentricity of Pluto's orbit (which places it within Neptune's orbit for a major proportion of Pluto's year), can only mean that Pluto is not a failing Kuyper Body, but a failing comet.
Report Spam   Logged

Are you taking over?
Or are you taking orders?
I ain't going backwards!
We're going only forwards!

The Clash, White Riot

Social Buttons

Bad Penny
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 327



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2011, 07:57:14 am »

Eating a big serving of crow right now.


It turns out that Kuyper Belt Bodies aren't rocky bodies at all, but are, rather, icy bodies.

Still, the declination of Pluto's orbit from the plane of ecliptic, combined with the eccentricity of her orbit which places her occasionally within Neptune's orbit, are strongly suggestive of Pluto's being a dud comet.

But, my certainty in my position has gone from 100% to 50-50.
Report Spam   Logged

Are you taking over?
Or are you taking orders?
I ain't going backwards!
We're going only forwards!

The Clash, White Riot
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.08 seconds with 16 queries.