Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boppa
(i havent seen anyone suggest this apart from one other person who was to put it mildly rather `strange')got any links?
|
[QUOTE=http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/astronomy/news/1999/solarsys/991209.html]
Quote:
|
That would explain how the two planetary giants -- each more than 10 times the mass of the Earth -- could exist at the far edge of the solar system, where there was not enough gas and dust to make a planet eons ago.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/jupiter_pushy_991208.html
The problem with that idea, however, is that there wasn't much out where Uranus and Neptune are located at 1.78 billion and 2.79 billion miles (286 billion and 449 billion kilometers) from the sun, respectively. The protoplanetary disk is thought to have become thin and meager as distance from the nascent sun increased.
So existing theories hold that these two large planets, suspected to have rocky cores but otherwise composed mostly of ice, could not have gathered enough ingredients to become so massive in the time frame during which the other planets are believed to have formed.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boppa
by exactly what mechanism would a planatary impact (changing its axis of rotatation or not) have any ef(F)ect on the moons orbits anyway??
|
That's the problem Brunini has with the impact theory. Uranus' moons orbit in the plane of Uranus' equator. If Uranus was knocked on its side by a giant impact, there's no reason to believe that the moons should have followed the equator.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boppa
id be wary of using simulations to `prove' anything tho
|
It's not the purpose of the simulation to 'prove' that things happened the way Brunini it theorizing. The purpose of the simulation is to demonstrate that what he proposes is possible.