Do all eight planets orbit on the same plane?

[contriver]

Using this image as an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UpdatedPlanets2006.jpg<br /><br />I understand that all planets orbit at varying speeds, but do all the planets orbit on the same level "y" axis? (again, refering to the "y" axis in reference to the example image)

 

[origin]

No not exactly, but it is pretty darn close the same plane. This gives a good picture of the orbits. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[contriver]

What is the theory on why they are so close to being on the same plane? I don't understand why they would be so close to being on the same plane. I would assume that something is causing them to do this, does science have an idea of what the cause might be?

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

It follows from the concept that the planets were formed from a disc of spinning material. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[brellis]

Interesting question: why does a cloud turn into a ring?<br /><br />Star Date Online says<font color="yellow"> The Sun formed from a nebula<br /> The inner planets are mostly rock and metal<br /> The outer planets are mostly ice and gas<br /> Earth's Moon formed separately from the rest of the solar system <br /><br />The solar system was born about 4.5 billion years ago, when something disturbed and compressed a vast cloud of cold gas and dust -- the raw material of stars and planets. The disturbance may have been a collision with another cloud, or a shock wave from an exploding star.<br /><br />Whatever the cause, the cloud fragmented into smaller, denser pockets of matter, which collapsed inward under the pull of gravity. In perhaps 100,000 years, one of the pockets, called a nebula, condensed into a volume about the size of the present-day solar system. In the dense center of the nebula, a star formed -- our Sun. </font><br /><br />Acccording to this spaceflightnow article, stars develop a magnetic field that draws heavier elements into a ring that follows its rotation.<br /><br />That ring develops clumps that turn into planets.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Brief and precise answer.

 

[pirated]

no.<br />they're of kilter a snidge... (is that a word?) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>Peace. </p><p><font color="#33cccc">-------------------------------------------------------------------</font> <strong><font color="#993300">I'm a Rock!</font></strong></p><p><font color="#33cccc">Little Johnny was a scientist. Little Johnny is no more. For what he thought was H2O was H2SO4.</font></p> </div>

 

[brellis]

<font color="yellow">they're of kilter a snidge... (is that a word?)</font><br /><br /><i>smidge</i>, methinks <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />The 8 "planets" stay on a pretty solid plane, but smaller bodies like Pluto and other KBO's travel on wildly varying planes.<br /><br />image <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"What is the theory on why they are so close to being on the same plane?"</font><br /><br />Imagine the early solar system resembled Saturn, with Saturn representing<br />the Sun and Saturn's rings representing the material from which the planets<br />formed. You see the rings of Saturn are in one plane and, in the same way,<br />the ring of material that became the planets was in the same plane around<br />the Sun. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Can we swy the sme of Jupiter?

 

[3488]

Hi alokmohan, Yes, exactly the same principle applies. The reason why centsworth_II chose<br />Saturn was because the rings are very famous, extensive & are easily observable.<br /><br />Jupiter's rings are very diffeerent. Much narrower, darker & very difficult to see, only<br />giant observatories, Hubble Space Telescope & spacecraft can see them.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[brellis]

Question for the experts: to what extent are magnetic fields responsible for ring or ecliptic systems around the gas giants? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[tdmikey]

My uneducated elementary guess would be.<br /><br />Correct me if my thought process is wrong.<br /><br />Imagine you have a pencil with a string attached to the eraser and at the end of the string you have a ball. If you spin the pencil fast enough the ball will become aligned with the plane of the eraser. Pencil is the sun, string is gravity (without the string), and of course ball is a planet. <br /><br />As for Pluto, he’s an oddball, an asteroid if you will. My thought, planets over long periods of our time-line will pull away from the sun as the moon is pulling from earth. Gravity will loosen its grip on farther away objects but still keep its revolution the same. Thus the asteroid (Pluto) is not on the same tilt. As with most asteroids. Pluto possibly was on the same plane as the rest until it was struck by a same size asteroid or meteor. Then off it goes like a red-headed step child.<br /><br />My question to the geniuses is, as a planet (Uranus) passes another planets (Saturns) orbit, can that planets (Saturns) gravity affect the plane of Uranus. And if so could a planet ever be sling-shotted out of the solar system this way?<br /><br />Mike Teaford<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "But you cant stop nothing, if you got no control, of the thoughts in your mind, that you kept and you know.  You dont know nothing, that you didnt need to know, the wisdom's in the trees, not the glass window."  "Breakdown" by Jack Johnson </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Question for the experts: to what extent are magnetic fields responsible for ring or ecliptic systems around the gas giants? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by "ecliptic system" -- you mean moons orbiting in the plane of a planet's equator?<br /><br />In any case, the answer is "very little". Jupiter may be an exception; its ring system is fed by material ejected into space by Io's volcanoes, which collects in Jupiter's Van Allen Belts, which are certainly the result of Jupiter's magnetic field. But its moons aren't affected by the magnetic field much, except in terms of aurorae. And then Uranus has a very strange magnetic field, and yet its rings and major planets orbit roughly in the plane of its equator (perpendicular to its rotational axis). Magnetic field shifts don't seem to have any affect; certainly the Sun's regularly shifting magnetic field doesn't affect the orbits of the planets. And other planets with large moons and/or rings (with one notable exception) have them clearly arranged around their equators, regardless of their magnetic fields.<br /><br />The notable exception is Earth. We have a strong magnetic field, but our Moon is not aligned with our equator. This is why scientists believe that the Earth and Moon did not form at the same time.<br /><br />In general, inclined orbits are associated with bodies created through impacts, or which were captured gravitationally sometime after the parent body formed, or which were ejected into their present orbits by gravitational interactions. Through conservation of energy (the same principle that makes a spinning ice skater accelerate when she draws in her arms), objects forming at the same time as their parent should wind up in roughly equatorial orbits, so any object deviating considerably suggests that something else happened. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What is the theory on why they are so close to being on the same plane? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Kristian Birkeland theorized that electromagnetic fields that form around planets and that form around the sun, more or less "pushes" material into rings that are concentrated around the equator. He simulated planetary rings around terella in his lab experiments. He also duplicated planetary aurora using the same methods. The sun, being the largest mass body in the solar system would tend to concentrate the leftover bits of matter into equatorial rings around the sun. In essence, that mass concentration to a equatorial plane positions is an EM effect <br /><br />http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Texts:On_Possible_Electric_Phenomena_in_Solar_Systems_and_Nebulae<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

There are also equally valid theories that suggest the dissapation of angular momentum is more than sufficient to explain the disk shape.<br /><br />I understand you pushing your agenda, but just wanted to point out that EM is not required to produce the preferred disk shapes in contracting clouds/bodies.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[origin]

<font color="yellow">There are also equally valid theories that suggest the dissapation of angular momentum is more than sufficient to explain the disk shape.</font><br /><br />These are not equally valid views. Micheal's view is way outside of the mainstream and is by far the minority view. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There are also equally valid theories that suggest the dissapation of angular momentum is more than sufficient to explain the disk shape.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I agree with you Wayne. There are many options that have been put forth and many of them are scientifically viable. Most solar system formation theories have shortcomings, most notably as it relates to the conservation of momentum.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I understand you pushing your agenda, but just wanted to point out that EM is not required to produce the preferred disk shapes in contracting clouds/bodies. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It's not that I really have an agenda, it's just once you start to conceptualize the universe the way Birkeland did, you can't stop. I see a lot of similarities now between the predictions that Birkeland made as a result of his meticulous lab experimentation, and in situ measurements from space. Once you start conceptualizing things via the EU headset, it's hard not to think in those terms. It's like learning another language and realizing one day that you're actually "thinking" and conceptualizing in terms that relate to that new language. <br /><br />Keep in mind that most EU theorists tend to embrace GR theory, so any theory that is based on GR or EU influences would be entertained by most folks from my side of the aisle as well. I'm open to a lot of options as it relates to all the influences on bodies in space. I know that gravity plays a role, and I know that EM fields also play a role. IMO, it's just a matter of selecting the correct variables in the right amounts for the given observation. I'm definitely not adverse to GR centric influences, but IMO there are also EM influences as well. I just don't know how to mix the ingredients in exactly the right portions yet. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>