Not sure what to make of this

[corydoras]

technically there is a missing Planet

No technically there is not any missing planet.

[Now there's a right un.]

No technically there is not any missing planet.

 

 

 

Many years ago I, with my Father, watched a documentary that stated that there was a missing planet in our solar system.

I was only young and it was stated that where the Asteroid belt is there was a planet or should have been a planet.

 

Now, okay it could be wrong but I remember watching it.

 

Now, you may dismiss it but how many times have things been dismissed only to be found in the future to be accurate?

 

An open mind.

[Renrag39]

There's probably dozens of missing planets tbh...

[Ken L]

If say many thousands of years ago ET's came here with our level of scientific knowledge or better they would be called Gods.

 

"Raëlism (or the Raëlian Church) is a UFO religion that was founded in 1974 by Claude Vorilhon, now known as Raël" and if the statement that you have made above is a distillation of their teachings, then the man was a plagiarizer of the first order.

In 1962, Arthur C Clarke wrote the essay "Hazards of Prophecy in which he outlined his three "laws" of prediction. The third of these was "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

 

As for jet packs, genetic manipulation, alien visitation and the like, as there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any of this happened and in the case of human development, there is a good and growing body of fossil evidence to show that it all occurred via that tired old principle of natural selection, I look to my good friend Occam to tell me where the truth lies. He suggests that all those stories were made up or are gross misrepresentations of actual events.

[corydoras]

Many years ago I, with my Father, watched a documentary that stated that there was a missing planet in our solar system.

I was only young and it was stated that where the Asteroid belt is there was a planet or should have been a planet.

 

Now, okay it could be wrong but I remember watching it.

 

Now, you may dismiss it but how many times have things been dismissed only to be found in the future to be accurate?

 

An open mind.

I don't doubt that you watched a documentary about Phaeton when you were a youngster. The hypothesis was based on the now discredited Titius–Bode law. Modern day astronomy uses the accretion model to explain the formation of solar systems.

 

According to the Accretion model the asteroids in the main belt are remnants of the protoplanetary disk, and in this region the incorporation of protoplanetary remnants into planets was prevented by the large gravitational perturbations induced by Jupiter.

 

An open mind is a fine thing, I keep one myself, I just don't open my mind up so much that my brain is in danger of falling out

Edited February 20, 2012 by corydoras

[Now there's a right un.]

I don't doubt that you watched a documentary about Phaeton when you were a youngster. The hypothesis was based on the now discredited Titius–Bode law. Modern day astronomy uses the accretion model to explain the formation of solar systems.

 

According to the Accretion model the asteroids in the main belt are remnants of the protoplanetary disk, and in this region the incorporation of protoplanetary remnants into planets was prevented by the large gravitational perturbations induced by Jupiter.

 

An open mind is a fine thing, I keep one myself, I just don't open my mind up so much that my brain is in danger of falling out

 

 

 

@ Ken.L---I was using them as an example only. But again if ET came down on an uneducated and ignorant population he could control, manipulate and become "God".

 

 

@ Cory---My mind is the only thing I have left that isn't crippled and so I keep mine well out of the box.

 

Your counter is sound and plausible also.

[Steve Walker]

I don't doubt that you watched a documentary about Phaeton when you were a youngster. The hypothesis was based on the now discredited Titius–Bode law. Modern day astronomy uses the accretion model to explain the formation of solar systems.

 

According to the Accretion model the asteroids in the main belt are remnants of the protoplanetary disk, and in this region the incorporation of protoplanetary remnants into planets was prevented by the large gravitational perturbations induced by Jupiter.

 

A good example of how science responds to a mismatch between theory and observations - though I did like the quote from the Infinite Monkey Cage chemistry vs physics episode, "Chemistry, because if something doesn't work you can't pretend that it does by sticking the word 'dark' in front of it"

[corydoras]

Incest is supposedly a Sin?

Anyway, understanding genetics, there would be so many fatal mutations from such close inbreeding as to make the story impossible.

Don't knock incest too much, it may be taboo but without it neither you nor I would be here. Below is a simple treatise on incest and population genetics.

 

There is a simple mathematical equation for calculating how many progenitors you have at different generations. The formula is 2^{^n} where n is the number of generations one wants to go back. Using this formula we can generate the table below. The left hand column is how many generations you want to go back, and the right hand column show the number of direct ancestors at that generation. Sorry about the crappy formatting but for some reason AN does not support the BBCode Table tag.

1	2	2	4	3	84	16	5	32	6	64	7	128	8	2569	512	10	1,024	11	2,048	12	4,096	13	8,19214	16,38415	32,768	16	65,536	17	131,072	18	262,144	19	524,288	20	1,048,576	21	2,097,152	22	4,194,304	23	8,388,608	24	16,777,216	25	33,554,432	26	67,108,864	27	134,217,728	28	268,435,456	29	536,870,912	30	1,073,741,824	31	2,147,483,648	...64	18,446,744,073,709,600,000

If your parents had not copulated precisely when they did, perhaps to the nano-second, you would not be here, and if their parents had not procreated in a similar timely manner, you wouldn't be here, and if their parents and their parents before them had not bonded in a similarly precise manner, you would not be here.

 

March backward through time and your ancestral debts begin to add up.

 

Go back just eight generations to the time of Charlie Darwin and Abe Lincoln and there are 256 individuals upon whose timely couplings your existence depends.

 

Go back fourteen generations to the time of the voyage of the Mayflower and there are 16,384 ancestors diligently exchanging genetic code in a way that would eventually and miraculously result in you.

 

Twenty generations ago and there are 1,048,576 individuals procreating away on your behalf. Five generations before that and there are 33,554,432 upon whose tireless couplings your very existence depends. Can you see where this is going yet?

 

By thirty generations ago your total number of forbears, (remember we are not talking about cousins or aunts and uncles, just parents and parents of parents) has risen to 1,073,741,824. If you go back sixty-four generations to approximately the time of the Romans and there are 18,446,744,073,709,600,000 which is approximately 171,433,828 times more than the number of people who have ever lived. Has something suddenly gone wrong with my maths here? The answer is that neither your line nor my line nor anyone else's line is pure. None of us could be here without quite a lot of incest taking place at a genetically discrete remove. With so many millions of ancestors in your family tree there will be many times when someone on your mothers side of the family tree procreated with some distant cousin from your fathers side.

 

If you are in a partnership with someone of ones own race and country the chances are excellent that you are at some level related to each other. If you look around you on a train, a pub, or any busy place most of the people that you see are very probably relatives. In the most fundamental sense we are ALL family. Compare your genetic material with ANY other member of the human race and they will be 99.9% the same. This is what makes us a species. The tiny differences in that remaining 0.1%, about one nucleotide base in every thousand is what gives us our individuality.

 

You have probably heard much over the last few years about the human genome, but there is no such thing as THE human genome. Every human genome is different, if not we would all be identical. It is the continuous recombinations of our genomes that makes us what we are, as individuals and as a species.

Edited February 20, 2012 by corydoras

[captain cojones]

great post cory.

 

very interesting.

[Renrag39]

That's not how they do it in Norfolk Cory! And lets face it, who wouldn't want gills and webbed hands, living in Norfolk?

 

Damn good post mate.