why the Earth wasn't pushed out of its orbit? I like that hypothesis but I think that the Earth - or however should we call this old planet - was somewhere else in the Solar System and it reached present orbit after collision with this Thea
I may be wrong - I was rather good at physics, but it was many years ago ;)
why the Earth wasn't pushed out of its orbit? I like that hypothesis but I think that the Earth - or however should we call this old planet - was somewhere else in the Solar System and it reached present orbit after collision with this Thea
I may be wrong - I was rather good at physics, but it was many years ago ;)
why the Earth wasn't pushed out of its orbit? I like that hypothesis but I think that the Earth - or however should we call this old planet - was somewhere else in the Solar System and it reached present orbit after collision with this Thea
I may be wrong - I was rather good at physics, but it was many years ago ;)
@ahtula1 cause your wrong,the earth was in its early stage,so it wasnt a really solid object,so it would behave more like a really dense liquid,and the earth that existed then would have been destroyed and pulled back together on its own but it would have a ring left from witch the moon formed
and im not saying it was liquid im saying thats the only way to express how it would have looked in that giant impact
Likely this is when we got our iron core as well. An impact like this would gelatinize most of the earth - and the most dense elements, like iron, would rest in the center of the earth. Our Iron core protects us from the solar winds, by giving us a magnetic field.
Likely this is when we got our iron core as well. An impact like this would gelatenize most of the earth - and the most dense elements, like iron, would rest in the center of the earth. Our Iron core protects us from the solar winds, by giving us a magnetic field.
Some day, the 'supercomputer simulators' of today will be regular software in common laptops (whatever hand-held gadgets we'll have in the future) and i wanna be the first to acquire one.
This is true, at it's formation it would be 50 odd times larger in the night sky... BUT, it's moving away so slow, that the earth will be destroyed as the sun expands into a red giant before we lose our moon (~5 billion years)
People are too funny, this is a scientific theory and the one that currently holds sway. It will not explain everything...no theory does...it just explains more than others, which is why it hold sway. If you don't understand it, then say so and ask for help...don't just shout it down. If you doubt it and favor another scientific explanation, then the onus is on you to prove your preferred explanation is more valid. See, it's quite simple.
@Pivosz Evolution is not a fact, facts are things witch are directly testable by experimentation or observation. SInce evolution cannot be observed or experimented upon the best we can do is form an hypothesis. Once these Hypotheses have been vetted though extensive testing to disprove the hypothesis only then are they elevated to scientific theory. Currently, the theory of Evolution explains most of what we observe and therefore is widely accepted as fact by laypersons, such as us.
To all you Jesus freaks: isn't it written in the Bible to stay away from YouTube? At least science is trying it's best at making sense of all that surrounds us, while you don't even lift a finger and just try to brainwash, I mean, convince all other people to lower their brain activity and accept a fixed belief system that doesn't adapt to new discoveries. This particular theory has a lot of merit, and should be respected.
@happydude321 Just for the record, many of us "Jesus Freaks" have no problem accepting new scientific theories for consideration and find that those who aren't are just as silly as you find them to be. It's not about being Christian, it's about not being obtuse.
Wow, some people are awfully touchy about this. There is an impact shown right at the beginning of the video. The hypothesis is that a proto-planet impacted with proto-earth and the debris formed into our moon. Its widely accepted. The matter will then tend to form a sphere. It should not come as a surprise as the rest of the planets/moons in our solar system are all roughly spherical. What shape does water tend to form? Its the same with this, it just takes longer.
We're not clueless.. the evidence for this theory is pretty good. It explains why the moon's composition is similar to the Earth's.. it explains why the moon has such a small iron core.. and in a dense debris field, a ball of debris would eventually accumulate enough mass to overcome the structural integrity of individual component lumps and become spherical due to its own gravity.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
you are clueless where did the moon come from, where did earth come from, and if that is true where did the water come from? it is pretty much just a false belief
Yeah Stonedog I'd say this theory is pretty clueless. The Moon's chemistry is totally unlike Earth's and and collision which shattered both earth and an impactor would lead to the homogenizing of material at the surface of both worlds. If fragments would coalesce into a moon then why has that not happened with Saturn's rings ? Why has the asteroid belt not formed into a planetoid ?
The moon has been shown to have many of the same ratios of elements as the earth has. The Earth was still in a semi-plastic state when Theia collided. Unlike the earth, Saturn's rings lie within Saturn's Roche Limit, or the point around saturn where objects are tidally ripped apart.
The earth and moon have fundementally different chemistry. Unlike on Earth Potassium is almost entirely absent.
Do I have a better explanation ? Hell yeah! Earth was already formed when a fast celestial body impacted a planet, creating the asteroid belt. Our moon dropped from that orbit and was captured by Earth. The Moon is in fact the molten core of a planet which once occupied the asteroid belt, 4.7 billion years ago. The Kupier belt are fragments of what impacted that former planet.
Right, I lot of the elements in the core of Theia mixed in with the earth (potassium, for example), and the angle at which it collided with earth blew out a lot of mantle, which is mainly iron. The hypothesis isn't perfect, but after all, it IS a hypothesis.
Oh, and your captured moon wouldn't work, because the earth's gravity is not great enough to capture it, and I doubt that comets came and managed to force it out of position.
And this collision with Earth by a proto planet would work ?
And the Moon with entirely dissimilar chemical composition to the Earth's fits thye known facts ?
Get off the grass man. You're trying to make the facts fit a theory and shout down anyone who disagrees. Ockham's razor man. If the facts don't fit the hypothesis the hypothesis must be wrong ... period.
As for capture, a moon from the decelerated core of a planet at the asteroid belt could be captured with ease.
It's been simulated. With a super computer. The earth and theia were represented by about a million particles, and it worked perfectly. Also the moon rocks collected had the same oxygen-isotope compositions as those fond on earth.
Also get it straight: IT'S A HYPOTHESIS. NOT A THEORY. HOWEVER, IT IS A GENERALLY ACCEPTED HYPOTHESIS THAT BEST EXPLAINS HOW THE MOON FORMED. Your hypothesis may be plausible, but it is not accepted yet.
Oh, and Occam's Razor states that the simplest way is the best.
I am glad you acknowledge Ockham's Razor. Your hypothesis works contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because all things in the universe entropy from complex states to simple states.
Your hypothesis is excessively complex because it seeks to reverse known principles of how the universe works.
For the moon to have coalesced from fragments of a collision and then developed lava fields is contrary to laws of thermodynamics.
The lava fields are from asteroids impacting the moon hard enough that lava came to the surface and cooled. They weren't originally there, neither were all the IMPACT CRATERS. Impact craters don't just randomly form. So this video in and of itself is a little misleading but that doesn't make the theory wrong.
Doesn't make sense to YOU. Also, It would not violate thermodynamics, because, 1.) It has nothing to do with heat (THERMO - Heat, DYNAMIC - Change). 2.) It is NOT a closed system, and 3.) GRAVITY is involved.
Cleaning your room violates the second law of thermodynamics. So is cleaning your room impossible?
the fact is the moon is getting futher away from us not closer. they can trace it back to where it's almost on top of us, at which point the rotation of the earth is to fast which was a problem untill this hypothisis came up. That would not be the case if the earths gravity caught it as it was flying by.
this may not be how it was created but out of all the theories put out there it's the best one physisists, and I'm going to trust physicits over you to make that call.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This theory is hilarious. My favorite part is when the moon magically transforms from a wad of debris into a nearly perfect sphere. It's ideas like this that provide a reminder to just how clueless we all are.
To sum this up for you, once the gravity of an object can overcome its own mass it will take on a sphereical shape. Asteroids are too small and thus why they have irregular shapes, where as stars and planets have near perfect sphereical shapes.
Any object will always 'pull' everything as close as possible towards its center of mass. Given enough mass to overcome the strength of the material, the natural outcome is a sphere. The larger the object, the less deviations from a perfect sphere it will have.
adi87tya perhaps you can explain why the Earth, Moon and the asteroids all reveal the same maximum age of 4.7 billion years ?
If the earth was struck after it's creation then the Moon should have a significantly younger age which is not so.
More importantly chronology research has recently proven that all asteroids formed and differentiated chemically in the same brief period of 1.5 million years.
That points to a single event affecting the entire solar system.
"If the earth was struck after it's creation then the Moon should have a significantly younger age which is not so. " => if the moon is essentially MADE from the earth, wouldn't they have the same age?
Anyway there are some big asteroids inside Saturns disc, and they are growing, which means in distant future they may form a moon. Its sad, because this disc is very beautiful. :)
Saturn's disc is within the Roche limit, which means that it is too close to Saturn to be able to aggregate due to Saturn's gravity. In fact the theory is that the disc exists because of a moon that got too close and was ripped apart. Saturn's disc will never form a moon, instead all the little particles will eventually fall into the planet and Saturn won't have a disc anymore.
Don't forget, Uranus and Jupiter also have very faint discs.
@HaloofCurls Neptune does too. But even fainter. And in about a billion years Triton will go into the Roche limit of Neptune and be destroyed and Neptune will gain a new ring system.
@AltitudeWarrior There are differing views of Saturn's rings. Some think they are billions of years old and stable, others that they were only recently created and will not last long (in geological terms), maybe only a few million years. The rings were probably formed by some sort of collision, perhaps one that destroyed a very small inner moon.
One difference might be that there was so much matter in the case of the Earth/Thea collision - enough to form one of the biggest moons in the solar system - that such a body would have acted like a big vacuum cleaner to "suck up" all the debris once it started to accrete. The computer simulations that suggest how this might have happened are pretty solid - it could have happened this way, but we simply don't know for certain that it did.
Saturns disc is much larger and has other contributing factors, quite a few of it's 60 odd moons gravitationally interact with the rings pulling and pushing them around, that is why there are distinct gaps/sections between/in the rings. Other moons contribute new matter to the rings.
Saturn is also a much larger/gravitationally powerful planet. The asteroid belt would/should have formed another terrestrial planet beyond Mars, but Jupiter's gravity keeps them apart.
a few possibilities. most likely the high gravitaional field prevents anything large from forming easily.
It could be an unstable system but this is unlikely as there have been verifiable observations of small objects forming in saturns rings. It's instabilty could cause an upper limit though.
Now-dominant scientific theory for the formation of the Moon, which is thought to have formed as a result of a collision between the young Earth and a Mars-sized body - Theia.
The early universe had some kicking Jungle music. I'm high stepping right now.
phuturephunk 9 months ago
sorry for posting so many times - got some problem with my pc - at least it cannot be ignorred ;)
ahtula1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why the Earth wasn't pushed out of its orbit? I like that hypothesis but I think that the Earth - or however should we call this old planet - was somewhere else in the Solar System and it reached present orbit after collision with this Thea
I may be wrong - I was rather good at physics, but it was many years ago ;)
ahtula1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why the Earth wasn't pushed out of its orbit? I like that hypothesis but I think that the Earth - or however should we call this old planet - was somewhere else in the Solar System and it reached present orbit after collision with this Thea
I may be wrong - I was rather good at physics, but it was many years ago ;)
ahtula1 10 months ago
why the Earth wasn't pushed out of its orbit? I like that hypothesis but I think that the Earth - or however should we call this old planet - was somewhere else in the Solar System and it reached present orbit after collision with this Thea
I may be wrong - I was rather good at physics, but it was many years ago ;)
ahtula1 10 months ago
@ahtula1 cause your wrong,the earth was in its early stage,so it wasnt a really solid object,so it would behave more like a really dense liquid,and the earth that existed then would have been destroyed and pulled back together on its own but it would have a ring left from witch the moon formed
and im not saying it was liquid im saying thats the only way to express how it would have looked in that giant impact
drinkbudyXD 6 months ago
Likely this is when we got our iron core as well. An impact like this would gelatinize most of the earth - and the most dense elements, like iron, would rest in the center of the earth. Our Iron core protects us from the solar winds, by giving us a magnetic field.
marauderfh 1 year ago
Likely this is when we got our iron core as well. An impact like this would gelatenize most of the earth - and the most dense elements, like iron, would rest in the center of the earth. Our Iron core protects us from the solar winds, by giving us a magnetic field.
marauderfh 1 year ago
Some day, the 'supercomputer simulators' of today will be regular software in common laptops (whatever hand-held gadgets we'll have in the future) and i wanna be the first to acquire one.
Xarr23 1 year ago
Is there any left overs up there? besides the moon, wise asses lol
ORACLE063 1 year ago
Man if only all planetary formation occoured to the sound of Drum and Bass
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
if the moon doesn't form does that mean that earth would have rings? but i read in a book that the moon is slowly drifting out of it's orbit
PKarklouse 2 years ago
@PKarklouse
This is true, at it's formation it would be 50 odd times larger in the night sky... BUT, it's moving away so slow, that the earth will be destroyed as the sun expands into a red giant before we lose our moon (~5 billion years)
Moirera 1 year ago
People are too funny, this is a scientific theory and the one that currently holds sway. It will not explain everything...no theory does...it just explains more than others, which is why it hold sway. If you don't understand it, then say so and ask for help...don't just shout it down. If you doubt it and favor another scientific explanation, then the onus is on you to prove your preferred explanation is more valid. See, it's quite simple.
arsj2008 2 years ago 6
For example:
Evolution is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is how we understand it.
Pivosz 2 years ago 4
first comes the theory then comes the evidence to test it.
It's the evidence that has the final say as richard feynman used to claim to his credit.
Science FTW
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
@Pivosz lol evolution is a joke
AirForcedude5 8 months ago
@Pivosz Evolution is not a fact, facts are things witch are directly testable by experimentation or observation. SInce evolution cannot be observed or experimented upon the best we can do is form an hypothesis. Once these Hypotheses have been vetted though extensive testing to disprove the hypothesis only then are they elevated to scientific theory. Currently, the theory of Evolution explains most of what we observe and therefore is widely accepted as fact by laypersons, such as us.
craypold 3 months ago
Comment removed
zzscotty 2 years ago
this is not accretion or whatever this is Computer Graphic!
livius2x 3 years ago
Supercomputer Simulaton exactly.
Pivosz 3 years ago
PLEASE tell me the name of this song. Thanks.
leckerpellwurst 3 years ago
@livius2x accretion whoud be the process that is occuring
AStarSifter 6 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you nerds go get a life instead of watching these videos.
uexpviv 3 years ago
To all you Jesus freaks: isn't it written in the Bible to stay away from YouTube? At least science is trying it's best at making sense of all that surrounds us, while you don't even lift a finger and just try to brainwash, I mean, convince all other people to lower their brain activity and accept a fixed belief system that doesn't adapt to new discoveries. This particular theory has a lot of merit, and should be respected.
happydude321 3 years ago 16
I agree. trying to work something out is far better than just saying goddidit and never even bothering to think about it again.
alphamone 3 years ago
@happydude321 Just for the record, many of us "Jesus Freaks" have no problem accepting new scientific theories for consideration and find that those who aren't are just as silly as you find them to be. It's not about being Christian, it's about not being obtuse.
KraftwithaK 4 days ago
Wow, some people are awfully touchy about this. There is an impact shown right at the beginning of the video. The hypothesis is that a proto-planet impacted with proto-earth and the debris formed into our moon. Its widely accepted. The matter will then tend to form a sphere. It should not come as a surprise as the rest of the planets/moons in our solar system are all roughly spherical. What shape does water tend to form? Its the same with this, it just takes longer.
KraftwithaK 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's not giant impact. It's animation of earth creation time. There's no impact in this video.
tysiek123 3 years ago
it was not the moon that got hit...it was a rugue planet called orpheus.
tenkaishi3 4 years ago
We're not clueless.. the evidence for this theory is pretty good. It explains why the moon's composition is similar to the Earth's.. it explains why the moon has such a small iron core.. and in a dense debris field, a ball of debris would eventually accumulate enough mass to overcome the structural integrity of individual component lumps and become spherical due to its own gravity.
StonedogTBSV 4 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you are clueless where did the moon come from, where did earth come from, and if that is true where did the water come from? it is pretty much just a false belief
thehumancookie 3 years ago
Yeah Stonedog I'd say this theory is pretty clueless. The Moon's chemistry is totally unlike Earth's and and collision which shattered both earth and an impactor would lead to the homogenizing of material at the surface of both worlds. If fragments would coalesce into a moon then why has that not happened with Saturn's rings ? Why has the asteroid belt not formed into a planetoid ?
AltitudeWarrior 3 years ago
The moon has been shown to have many of the same ratios of elements as the earth has. The Earth was still in a semi-plastic state when Theia collided. Unlike the earth, Saturn's rings lie within Saturn's Roche Limit, or the point around saturn where objects are tidally ripped apart.
Do you have a better hypothesis?
CypherDxvz 3 years ago
The earth and moon have fundementally different chemistry. Unlike on Earth Potassium is almost entirely absent.
Do I have a better explanation ? Hell yeah! Earth was already formed when a fast celestial body impacted a planet, creating the asteroid belt. Our moon dropped from that orbit and was captured by Earth. The Moon is in fact the molten core of a planet which once occupied the asteroid belt, 4.7 billion years ago. The Kupier belt are fragments of what impacted that former planet.
AltitudeWarrior 3 years ago
Right, I lot of the elements in the core of Theia mixed in with the earth (potassium, for example), and the angle at which it collided with earth blew out a lot of mantle, which is mainly iron. The hypothesis isn't perfect, but after all, it IS a hypothesis.
Oh, and your captured moon wouldn't work, because the earth's gravity is not great enough to capture it, and I doubt that comets came and managed to force it out of position.
CypherDxvz 3 years ago
Wouldn't work ?
And this collision with Earth by a proto planet would work ?
And the Moon with entirely dissimilar chemical composition to the Earth's fits thye known facts ?
Get off the grass man. You're trying to make the facts fit a theory and shout down anyone who disagrees. Ockham's razor man. If the facts don't fit the hypothesis the hypothesis must be wrong ... period.
As for capture, a moon from the decelerated core of a planet at the asteroid belt could be captured with ease.
AltitudeWarrior 3 years ago
It's been simulated. With a super computer. The earth and theia were represented by about a million particles, and it worked perfectly. Also the moon rocks collected had the same oxygen-isotope compositions as those fond on earth.
Also get it straight: IT'S A HYPOTHESIS. NOT A THEORY. HOWEVER, IT IS A GENERALLY ACCEPTED HYPOTHESIS THAT BEST EXPLAINS HOW THE MOON FORMED. Your hypothesis may be plausible, but it is not accepted yet.
Oh, and Occam's Razor states that the simplest way is the best.
CypherDxvz 3 years ago
I am glad you acknowledge Ockham's Razor. Your hypothesis works contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because all things in the universe entropy from complex states to simple states.
Your hypothesis is excessively complex because it seeks to reverse known principles of how the universe works.
For the moon to have coalesced from fragments of a collision and then developed lava fields is contrary to laws of thermodynamics.
It does not "Best Explain"
Simon Gunson, NZ
AltitudeWarrior 3 years ago
The lava fields are from asteroids impacting the moon hard enough that lava came to the surface and cooled. They weren't originally there, neither were all the IMPACT CRATERS. Impact craters don't just randomly form. So this video in and of itself is a little misleading but that doesn't make the theory wrong.
HaloofCurls 3 years ago
check out my '(Almost) Complete Guide to Science and Nature' playlist, I have a series of episodes explaining the Giant Impact Hypothesis.
CypherDxvz 3 years ago
You can explain your hypothesis til the cows come home... It doesn't work and doesn't make sense.
AltitudeWarrior 3 years ago
Doesn't make sense to YOU. Also, It would not violate thermodynamics, because, 1.) It has nothing to do with heat (THERMO - Heat, DYNAMIC - Change). 2.) It is NOT a closed system, and 3.) GRAVITY is involved.
Cleaning your room violates the second law of thermodynamics. So is cleaning your room impossible?
CypherDxvz 3 years ago
'Entirely Dissimilar' is pretty deceptive word-play. You've only really mentioned the absence of one element.
Accusing others of being on drugs doesn't support your hypothisis, and only makes it seem like you're the one shouting others down.
LiquidEden 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time making sense of this.
How does a large impact on an object between Mars and Jupiter result in a cloud of objects orbiting outside the orbit of Neptune?
LiquidEden 2 years ago
the fact is the moon is getting futher away from us not closer. they can trace it back to where it's almost on top of us, at which point the rotation of the earth is to fast which was a problem untill this hypothisis came up. That would not be the case if the earths gravity caught it as it was flying by.
this may not be how it was created but out of all the theories put out there it's the best one physisists, and I'm going to trust physicits over you to make that call.
sabrem82 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
bull shit
dchomie 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This theory is hilarious. My favorite part is when the moon magically transforms from a wad of debris into a nearly perfect sphere. It's ideas like this that provide a reminder to just how clueless we all are.
exomniac 4 years ago
To sum this up for you, once the gravity of an object can overcome its own mass it will take on a sphereical shape. Asteroids are too small and thus why they have irregular shapes, where as stars and planets have near perfect sphereical shapes.
fpgt91 4 years ago 3
and put another way:
Any object will always 'pull' everything as close as possible towards its center of mass. Given enough mass to overcome the strength of the material, the natural outcome is a sphere. The larger the object, the less deviations from a perfect sphere it will have.
fpgt91 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's theory You act as if you no the truth? Are you God? Tell us your theory? Until then,
vexviper 4 years ago
that's called accretion, and because of gravitation all natural objects tend to acquire a spherical shape...the same holds for all planets
adi87tya 3 years ago 4
adi87tya perhaps you can explain why the Earth, Moon and the asteroids all reveal the same maximum age of 4.7 billion years ?
If the earth was struck after it's creation then the Moon should have a significantly younger age which is not so.
More importantly chronology research has recently proven that all asteroids formed and differentiated chemically in the same brief period of 1.5 million years.
That points to a single event affecting the entire solar system.
Simon Gunson NZ
AltitudeWarrior 3 years ago
"If the earth was struck after it's creation then the Moon should have a significantly younger age which is not so. " => if the moon is essentially MADE from the earth, wouldn't they have the same age?
bagOprions 3 years ago
"perhaps you can explain why the Earth, Moon and the asteroids all reveal the same maximum age of 4.7 billion years ?"
Reading comprehension is your friend.
HaloofCurls 3 years ago
this music is intense
tootonebojangle 4 years ago
so the moon got hit multiple times but then restored??
BlinkyBillthekoala 5 years ago
Other planet hit Earth when it hasnt moon yet. Derbis from explosion crated disc, and then our moon.
Pivosz 5 years ago
For that to be true why hasn't Saturn's disc aggregated into a moon ?
In fact for this theory to work there should not even be any disc around Saturn should there ?
AltitudeWarrior 3 years ago
Maybe Saturn's disc is too young?
Anyway there are some big asteroids inside Saturns disc, and they are growing, which means in distant future they may form a moon. Its sad, because this disc is very beautiful. :)
Pivosz 3 years ago
Saturn's disc is within the Roche limit, which means that it is too close to Saturn to be able to aggregate due to Saturn's gravity. In fact the theory is that the disc exists because of a moon that got too close and was ripped apart. Saturn's disc will never form a moon, instead all the little particles will eventually fall into the planet and Saturn won't have a disc anymore.
Don't forget, Uranus and Jupiter also have very faint discs.
HaloofCurls 3 years ago
@HaloofCurls Neptune does too. But even fainter. And in about a billion years Triton will go into the Roche limit of Neptune and be destroyed and Neptune will gain a new ring system.
juniorgeneric 1 year ago
@AltitudeWarrior There are differing views of Saturn's rings. Some think they are billions of years old and stable, others that they were only recently created and will not last long (in geological terms), maybe only a few million years. The rings were probably formed by some sort of collision, perhaps one that destroyed a very small inner moon.
bluechao 1 year ago
One difference might be that there was so much matter in the case of the Earth/Thea collision - enough to form one of the biggest moons in the solar system - that such a body would have acted like a big vacuum cleaner to "suck up" all the debris once it started to accrete. The computer simulations that suggest how this might have happened are pretty solid - it could have happened this way, but we simply don't know for certain that it did.
bluechao 1 year ago
@AltitudeWarrior
Saturns disc is much larger and has other contributing factors, quite a few of it's 60 odd moons gravitationally interact with the rings pulling and pushing them around, that is why there are distinct gaps/sections between/in the rings. Other moons contribute new matter to the rings.
Saturn is also a much larger/gravitationally powerful planet. The asteroid belt would/should have formed another terrestrial planet beyond Mars, but Jupiter's gravity keeps them apart.
Moirera 1 year ago
@AltitudeWarrior
because Saturns Ring is inside hie Roche Bareer...
JavierAndreasMueller 1 year ago
a few possibilities. most likely the high gravitaional field prevents anything large from forming easily.
It could be an unstable system but this is unlikely as there have been verifiable observations of small objects forming in saturns rings. It's instabilty could cause an upper limit though.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
@AltitudeWarrior Saturn's gravity is great enough that it prevents moons forming too close to it. See: Roche Limit
KraftwithaK 1 year ago
The Giant Impact Hypothesis
Now-dominant scientific theory for the formation of the Moon, which is thought to have formed as a result of a collision between the young Earth and a Mars-sized body - Theia.
Pivosz 5 years ago