The astronomers mistake about Jupiter

Torch light

Council Member
Dec 4, 2017
2,499
19
38
In addition, it seems that astronomers have made another mistake concerning the size of Jupiter; it shouldn't have such a great size of more than 1000 times the size of the Earth; it may not be more than about 12 times the size of the Earth to be in such position of its orbit between Mars and Saturn.
Its day will almost equal 12 of our days on Earth.

The Wrong Calculations of Astronomers Concerning Jupiter
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
45,575
1,203
113

Torch light

Council Member
Dec 4, 2017
2,499
19
38
Last edited:

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
45,575
1,203
113
why the planet is near or far from the sun

And here is the diagram of a simple test to show the reason for the sequence of arrangements of the planets away from the sun:


The size of planets has no bearing on where they are in the Solar System, as can be evidenced by the fact that planets in the Solar System aren't arranged in order of size.

Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar System - in terms of diameter, it is ten times bigger than Earth and eleven times smaller than the Sun.

When it was first formed it WAS the furthest planet from the Sun but in 700,000 years moved to its current orbit.
 
Last edited:

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
45,575
1,203
113
This is an experiment to prove my words: Take three balls of wood, different in volume, and tie each one by an elastic thread, and let the threads be equal in size and elasticity, then tie the other end of each thread to a ring, and put these rings in your index finger, and move your hand in a way that makes the balls revolve around your index finger, and go on moving your hand, then you will see the large ball start to get farther from your index finger, while the smaller will be the nearest to your finger, but the medium ball will be middle in its distance, and on this basis the planet will be nearer or farther from the sun.

Those balls of wool aren't attracted to the Sun by its mighty gravitational attraction.
 

Torch light

Council Member
Dec 4, 2017
2,499
19
38
This is an experiment to prove my words: Take three balls of wood, different in volume, and tie each one by an elastic thread, and let the threads be equal in size and elasticity, then tie the other end of each thread to a ring, and put these rings in your index finger, and move your hand in a way that makes the balls revolve around your index finger, and go on moving your hand, then you will see the large ball start to get farther from your index finger, while the smaller will be the nearest to your finger, but the medium ball will be middle in its distance, and on this basis the planet will be nearer or farther from the sun.

Those balls of wool aren't attracted to the Sun by its mighty gravitational attraction.
It is only an example to explain the arrangement of the planets around the sun according to their sizes.
And in fact, it is excellent to demonstrate how the big will go farther and the smaller will go nearer on account of the Eccentric Repelling Power.
 

Torch light

Council Member
Dec 4, 2017
2,499
19
38
The size of planets has no bearing on where they are in the Solar System, as can be evidenced by the fact that planets in the Solar System aren't arranged in order of size.

Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar System - in terms of diameter, it is ten times bigger than Earth and eleven times smaller than the Sun.

When it was first formed it WAS the furthest planet from the Sun but in 700,000 years moved to its current orbit.
It can't be as you said: the Sun in fact is tremendous in size it comparison to Earth or Jupiter or any other planet. The Sun is more than a million times bigger than Earth.
The other notion which you mentioned about the early formation of Jupiter is only the repeating of the words of some astronomers, which is only postulations and almost is not correct.
Sun
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
45,575
1,203
113
It is only an example to explain the arrangement of the planets around the sun according to their sizes.
And in fact, it is excellent to demonstrate how the big will go farther and the smaller will go nearer on account of the Eccentric Repelling Power.

It's a rubbish demonstration and a rubbish experiment.

The only force acting on those balls of wool as you twizz them round your fingers is the centrifugal force pushing them outwards away from your fingers. This is unlike the Solar System where the planets are forced inwards, towards the Sun, as a result of its gravitational pull.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
45,575
1,203
113
It can't be as you said: the Sun in fact is tremendous in size it comparison to Earth or Jupiter or any other planet. The Sun is more than a million times bigger than Earth.
The other notion which you mentioned about the early formation of Jupiter is only the repeating of the words of some astronomers, which is only postulations and almost is not correct.
Sun

The Sun's diameter is around ten times Earth's diameter, which means around a million Earths can fit inside the Sun.
 

Torch light

Council Member
Dec 4, 2017
2,499
19
38
The size of planets has no bearing on where they are in the Solar System, as can be evidenced by the fact that planets in the Solar System aren't arranged in order of size.

The size or mass of planets should have relation to their sites away from the Sun, for they cannot arrange haphazardly. And now you refer to the present convention about the sizes of the planets and their sizes: while it is about this point that we disagree.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
45,575
1,203
113
In 2019, Swedish scientists discovered that when Jupiter was first formed it was around the size of Earth and lay four times further away from the Sun than it is now and that it moved inwards to its current orbit in just 700,000 years. They came to this conclusion by looking at the different sizes of the Asteroid Belt (between Mars and Jupiter) and the Oort Cloud, on the edges of the Solar System beyond Pluto. The Oort Cloud is much larger than the Asteroid Belt. The Swedish scientists came to the conclusion that this size anomaly could only come about by Jupiter switching orbits the way it did.
 

Torch light

Council Member
Dec 4, 2017
2,499
19
38
It's a rubbish demonstration and a rubbish experiment.

The only force acting on those balls of wool as you twizz them round your fingers is the centrifugal force pushing them outwards away from your fingers. This is unlike the Solar System where the planets are forced inwards, towards the Sun, as a result of its gravitational pull.
It is not rubbish, the balls are attached to the finger by the strings, and without the repelling centrifugal force, the balls will come to the finger, and will not go centrifugally.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
45,575
1,203
113
The size or mass of planets should have relation to their sites away from the Sun, for they cannot arrange haphazardly. And now you refer to the present convention about the sizes of the planets and their sizes: while it is about this point that we disagree.

But science shows that not to be the case. There are other planetary systems that we have discovered where the larger planets, around the size of Jupiter or even larger, are very close to their star.

There was a theory that the small rocky worlds in our Solar System formed closer to the Sun because the proto-planetary disc during the birth of the Solar System contained heavier gases and silicates closer to the Sun, whereas lighter gases were found further from the Sun, producing the four has giants. But this theory has been largely discredited.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
32,959
1,277
113
Vancouver Island

Torch light

Council Member
Dec 4, 2017
2,499
19
38
In 2019, Swedish scientists discovered that when Jupiter was first formed it was around the size of Earth and lay four times further away from the Sun than it is now and that it moved inwards to its current orbit in just 700,000 years. They came to this conclusion by looking at the different sizes of the Asteroid Belt (between Mars and Jupiter) and the Oort Cloud, on the edges of the Solar System beyond Pluto. The Oort Cloud is much larger than the Asteroid Belt. The Swedish scientists came to the conclusion that this size anomaly could only come about by Jupiter switching orbits the way it did.
The Swedish scientists were wrong because they compared the Asteroid Belt without considering it had been a planet in this orbit that had been broken up to form the present Asteroids in this site.
The size of the broken planet is bigger than Mars and smaller than Jupiter.
The mistake of Astronomers about the Asteroids 1
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
45,575
1,203
113
It is not rubbish, the balls are attached to the finger by the strings, and without the repelling centrifugal force, the balls will come to the finger, and will not go centrifugally.

The balls would come closer to the finger if you let the balls dangle and not spin them, but it would be Earth's gravity acting on the balls and not your finger's much much weaker gravity.

In the Solar System the planets are forced inwards towards the Sun, which is the OPPOSITE to your spinning balls of wool. Your experiment with the wool would only be accurate if the rotating planets around the Sun displayed centrifugal force, which they don't.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
32,959
1,277
113
Vancouver Island
The balls would come closer to the finger if you let the balls dangle and not spin them, but it would be Earth's gravity acting on the balls and not your finger's much much weaker gravity.

In the Solar System the planets are forced inwards towards the Sun, which is the OPPOSITE to your spinning balls of wool. Your experiment with the wool would only be accurate if the rotating planets around the Sun displayed centrifugal force, which they don't.
Who cares about science when you have a pedophile prophet to give you talking points.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 55Mercury