Would an exploded planet change earths orbit (see graphic)

[Edward Barrow]

If a hypothetical planet was once where the asteroid belt is now, and was removed (for example exploded and fell inwards towards the sun where it got burnt up), would this cause the inner planets to migrate outwards into new orbits due to the orbital resonance lost by this hypothetical planet?

Wouldn't the new orbits be circular rather than elliptical? I'm assuming the effects of orbital resonance off each other would ensure they are kept circular, even in the range of 1000's of years after the exploded planet has been removed.

 

[jim mcnamara]

PF deals with science from standard textbooks and major publications, this post looks like it does not have that kind of support. Can you please cite some standard literature to back up what you have? Personal speculation is not allowed on our forums. Just so you know.

 

[phinds]

... for example exploded and fell inwards towards the sun

It would be QUITE a trick for an exploding planet's pieces to all head off in the same direction and fall into the sun

 

[davenn]

If a hypothetical planet was once where the asteroid belt is now, and was removed (for example exploded and fell inwards towards the sun where it got burnt up), would this cause the inner planets to migrate outwards into new orbits due to the orbital resonance lost by this hypothetical planet?

putting aside for a moment that planets don't explode

for an object ... a planet, moon, a satellite, must be given extra energy to be able to attain a higher orbit
So where would the inner planets get that extra energy from ?Dave

PS and noting @jim mcnamara 's comments

 

[Edward Barrow]

PF deals with science from standard textbooks and major publications, this post looks like it does not have that kind of support. Can you please cite some standard literature to back up what you have? Personal speculation is not allowed on our forums. Just so you know.

I'm postulating that if the Earth was closer to the sun in the solar systems past, and then moved outwards, this might be an explanation for the faint young sun paradox.

It would be QUITE a trick for an exploding planet's pieces to all head off in the same direction and fall into the sun

I'm not saying they all fell in towards the sun. Maybe a large chunk fell in towards the sun (after coming close to one of the inner planets, which swung the chu trajectory in towards the sun). Some pieces then formed the asteroid belt.

 

[Edward Barrow]

for an object ... a planet, moon, a satellite, must be given extra energy to be able to attain a higher orbit
So where would the inner planets get that extra energy from ?

If a large chunk of the exploded planet passed by the inner planets as it fell in towards the sun, its gravitational pull might have pulled some of the planets outwards (depending on the exact way it passed by the planets). Or maybe just one planet was affected - planet earth.

 

[phinds]

If a large chunk of the exploded planet passed by the inner planets as it fell in towards the sun, its gravitational pull might have pulled some of the planets outwards (depending on the exact way it passed by the planets). Or maybe just one planet was affected - planet earth.

I think you need to go back and read post #2 again.

 

[davenn]

If a large chunk of the exploded planet passed by the inner planets as it fell in towards the sun, its gravitational pull might have pulled some of the planets outwards (depending on the exact way it passed by the planets). Or maybe just one planet was affected - planet earth.

no

I think you need to go back and read post #2 again.

Agreed

 

[Edward Barrow]

I think you need to go back and read post #2 again.

I'm postulating that if the Earth was closer to the sun in the solar systems past, and then moved outwards, this might be an explanation for the faint young sun paradox.

I'm trying to find a scenario that could have caused the planets (or even just planet earth) to move outwards in the solar systems past. Mars has the same problem as Earth with regard to the faint young sun paradox. Research shows Mars once had running water. But if the sun was fainter in the solar systems past, then Mars should have been even colder back then than it is today (hence running water there would have been an impossibility). If a mechanism could be found that caused the planets to migrate outwards in the solar systems past, it would help provide one explanation for this mystery.

 

[phinds]

I'm postulating ...

You are SERIOUSLY not listening. Go back and read post #2 again. And again. Until you understand what it says.

 

[mfb]

Mass falling into the Sun from outside will make the orbits of planets get closer to the Sun. Not by a relevant amount, but still: Wrong direction.

Mars, as every planet, started hot from its formation and with a thicker atmosphere.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm postulating that if the Earth was closer to the sun in the solar systems past, and then moved outwards, this might be an explanation for the faint young sun paradox.

We have plausible explanations for the faint young sun paradox based upon one or more greenhouse gases as well as less well supported and somewhat esoteric hypotheses. Explanations based upon exploding planets (planets don't explode) and imaginative orbital dynamics (totally lacking in evidential support) are unecessary, unscientific and contrary to forum rules.

Mars has the same problem as Earth with regard to the faint young sun paradox. Research shows Mars once had running water.

A problem that has been solved by noting the much denser atmosphere present in the Pre-Noachian and Noachian periods. This atmosphere was subsequently largely removed, mostly by the impact of the solar wind.

 

[jim mcnamara]

We are closing the thread. Our function here at PF is to support existing science - not to point why personal theory is has problems. There are other forums for this kind of thing.