PDA

View Full Version : On a Planet's Evolution



Corvidus
09-22-2012, 05:13 PM
I am not sure if theory exist on this subject, but it's been something on my mind for the last few weeks. If anyone knows of anything related, it would be quite helpful, as all my facts are taken from wikipedia... :confused:
And if not, most likely a group project then. Or some sort of team building exercise.

The question driving my post is if any greater keys toward a philosophic stone can be seen in the relation of the planets in their--if not physical--philosophic evolution.

The general idea, or progression, or evolution is this:

The Sun burns off elements and projects them into space, which collect and form a planet. The first would be considered our Mercury. Step One.

The Mercury has no atmosphere on account of it's small size and youth, but once it has collected enough mass it would start attracting the lighter particles to form an atmosphere. Step Two.

According to my awesome source, Venus' atmosphere contains much sulfuric acid (H2SO4). My thoughts are that this breaks down into sulfur and water, but I do not know if this is truth. Step Three.

This water attracts more out of space, from the sun, or wherever it may be until the planet reaches 70% water and an Earth is formed. Life is nurtured. Glory be to God. Step Four.

There comes a point when the Earth dries up. Not sure how or why, I'm just speculating. After all the nature of earth is cold and dry. This I see in Mars. It is red due to it's dryness (and dry on account of it's heat), and it's ice caps account for it's cold. Will Earth's core ever become so hot as to cause our water to boil off? :p Step Five I suppose.

I think we're missing a planet, or at this point in the evolution of a planet there is a necessary putrefaction or calcination of some sort. An opening up anyways. I only have a dream to back up my statement on this. But in order to take the step from water to hydrogen as a gas and oxygen as a solid (with silicone, the core of Saturn, apparently, thanks wiki) something is needed to break them apart. Step Six.

Then comes a Jupiter. The first gas giant. This calcined/distilled/sublimated (not sure which) planet collects itself again in the form of a gas. Jupiter is made mostly of hydrogen, all that is missing is the bond to oxygen and you'd be back at Mars with it's ice or Earth with water. Step Seven.

And lastly a Saturn is created. The atmospheric pressure of a Jupiter is probably enough to start a condensation or crystallization of some sort, and Saturn is said to have a dense core of liquid hydrogen and at the very center metallic hydrogen. The lighter particles are pushed to the outermost and form rings. Hey! Step Eight.

I assume Uranus and Neptune would eventually come about, but I am not much interested in those two at this point in my life so will not include them. Steps Nine through Twelve maybe.. Also my laptop is running low on battery power and my cup is out of tea.. So I might as well stop talk-typing.

Any thoughts?

Bel Matina
09-23-2012, 12:13 AM
I think you've read the stars quite nicely here. Astrology first became popular in its current form because it was the cutting edge of science and people wanted to know what it meant - when the Persian dynasty came to power, the paths of the planets had just been mathematically defined that century, and the new rulers were the first to commission natal horoscopes.

I'm not aware of a mundane connection, for example, that breaks down the sulfuric acid on Venus into free sulfur and water on earth, but the philosophical connection certainly holds.

The planets don't collect mass as they age. Rather, Mercury's proximity to the Sun (or more specifically its violent rays) has stripped it of all but the heaviest earths, which were pushed into farther reaches of the system by solar wind. Venus, Earth, and Mars are roughly the same size and not too different in their overall composition, and show a better image of progressive cooling, which for systemic purposes is a good model of age - the sun will progressively expend its heat until its quintessence is expended; then after a great conflagration, it will die. The planets, analogously, were compressed with great heat, and will cool, slowly changing faces, until the sun burns hot, returning them to their youth, although they will trade orbits; Earth, for example, will be blown out to the orbit of Mars, and Venus similarly far, while Mercury will not be fast or far enough to escape and rather will be consumed entirely and die with the Sun.

There was in fact a time when the Earth was more like Venus, bathed in a halo of clouds and a constant torrent of acid rain. When the clouds parted and the rain broke, it was still not the world we know today. The sea was green, but not with plants - the plants released oxygen in the air, and bound up the iron, and from that period come most of our iron deposits. They also pulled greenhouse gasses out of the air at a rapid pace, and there was a long time when the earth was covered in ice. The rececurred, actually, once or twice - the last "snowball earth" event appears to be responsible for the rise of complex life.

The Moon was in fact another planet which collided with the Earth - or perhaps its better said that two other planets collided to make the Moon and Earth, since they mixed thoroughly before marrying in lockstep from then until the present. They have been growing steadily apart, and at some point it will be time for the Moon to leave and take its own orbit around the Sun.

Mars has a great deal of water on it, and appears perhaps at one point to have oceans - these are now frozen beneath the soil. It also appears to have had plate tectonics, like the earth, but these plates have fused and are now fixed. It has the thickest crust of any body in the solar system, and thus can support the largest mountains. Olympus Mons is the largest volcano (dead) in the solar system, likely the last fissure in the plant's crust from which lava could escape under the pressure of its tremendous new coat of rock.

Beyond Mars the planets are not really planets in the same sense that ours is. Rather, they are abortive suns - If Jupiter had been larger, it might have itself ignited. For Moons they have planets like ours, though mostly a bit smaller. Quite a few, most of the identified ones around Jupiter (probably as an artifact of that it's the most studied) have crusts of ice with liquid oceans underneath, like Earth did in its snowball phase (most famously Europa, of course.

The rings are currently thought to be the detritus of past collisions - Saturn's would be the largest because its last collision was the most recent.

The stillborn stars become smaller and colder as you go out - like the Sun and its planets, they will eventually suffer heat death, although on their own schedule and not ours.

The Dwarf Planets are as easily Giant Comets.

Look into the Centaurs.

That's all I've got for now.

Corvidus
09-23-2012, 12:53 AM
Thank you Bel Matina and welcome to my first thread! :p


The planets don't collect mass as they age. Rather, Mercury's proximity to the Sun (or more specifically its violent rays) has stripped it of all but the heaviest earths, which were pushed into farther reaches of the system by solar wind.

I am now curious of your opinion on this video: Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ). My thinking is that if it can happen to Earth, why not other planets when given the proper condition? Water a plant and watch it grow. "As below, so above" line of thinking.

The question driving my post, which I suppose now I should have started with, is if any greater keys toward a philosophic stone can be seen in the relation of the planets in their, if anything, philosophic evolution.

What you wrote here quoted interests me. The Sun strips Mercury of its volatile components. A distillation so to speak. To which planet would it most likely gravitate and condense? Being the lightest I assume one of the 'gas giants', but I am open to other opinions. I'm sure in reality most of these particles are sent out beyond the edge of the solar system, but lets say they had opportunity to pass by every planet. Do the astrological polarities of planets really make a difference, or would these particles find a home on each planet? Or would they necessarily be attracted to the planet with the most mass or influence?

I have yet to design a good experiment in the lab for this, I'm waiting on an alkahest for gemstones--said to be made of the stars (the planets) themselves.


Look into the Centaurs.

Centaurs! Sagittarius! Ceration? or was it filtration? I will definitely look into them. Either way it was meant to be, I'm a Sagittarius ;)

Corvidus
09-23-2012, 01:07 AM
They have been growing steadily apart, and at some point it will be time for the Moon to leave and take its own orbit around the Sun.

I have heard of this, and have borrowed it in the relationship between the Sun and its 'moons'. Why shouldn't Mercury drift further and further from the Sun? Another question that stumps me at the moment: does Mercury move around the Sun faster than the Moon travels about the Earth?

[edit. sorry for the double post.. I got button-confused in my excitement..]

Bel Matina
09-23-2012, 10:25 AM
I am now curious of your opinion on this video: Conspiracy of Science - Earth is in fact growing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ)

a cute video, but pure fiction. The fit of the plates is not so perfect as he implies, and their fit on both sides is explained rapidly by the fact that there has been not one Pangaea, but a whole cycle of them - the plates are much like great corks of granite floating about on a sea of magma, with a scum of (softer) congealed rock collecting on them as they go (or as I've put it elsewhere, "sticky crap"). Where it thickens the heat and weight of it can cook the scum sufficiently sometimes that its nature changes. Frequently the "corks" will adhere to each other, and every three to five hundred million years they will all be stuck together for a while. The bilateral fit is accounted for by their aggregating, breaking apart, and then drifting to become stuck together on the other side.


The question driving my post, which I suppose now I should have started with, is if any greater keys toward a philosophic stone can be seen in the relation of the planets in their, if anything, philosophic evolution.

The microcosm is like to the macrocosm. You will find keys to the art everywhere.

Mercury is at this point not transmutable to the status of another planet - as I said it was once like Venus, Earth, and Mars, but through calcination and distillation has become thoroughly metallic. It will remain as it is, and when the sun expands, burning its final quintessence, Mercury alone of the planets will be consumed.

Mercury doesn't drift as far as anyone has noticed, and the reason seems to be that the planets shepherd each other in their orbits. Mercury doesn't drift to the sphere of Venus because Venus is there already. The Moon, on the other hand, is alone with the Earth.

If you like you can always edit a post, provided it hasn't been too long.

Corvidus
09-23-2012, 03:19 PM
Aye, still getting used to things here.


The microcosm is like to the macrocosm. You will find keys to the art everywhere.

Agreed. I am however trying to unlock specific doors. I do however appreciate the astronomical perspective. It is quite grounding.


Mercury is at this point not transmutable to the status of another planet - as I said it was once like Venus, Earth, and Mars, but through calcination and distillation has become thoroughly metallic. It will remain as it is, and when the sun expands, burning its final quintessence, Mercury alone of the planets will be consumed.

Then only to reverse the order :p

Here's something about horses for those interested. Not quite centaurs, I know.


Om, Verily, the head of the sacrificial horse is the dawn, it's eye the sun, its vital breath the wind, its open mouth the Vaisvaanara fire, and the trunk of the sacrificial horse is the year. The back is heaven, the belly the intermediate region, the hoof the earth, the sides the four quarters, the ribs the intermediate quarters, the limbs the seasons, the joints the months and half-months, the feet the days and nights, the bones the stars, the flesh the clouds. Its half-digested food [in the stomach] is the sand, the blood-vessels the rivers, the liver and lungs the mountains, the hair the herbs and trees. The fore part of the horse is the rising sun, and the hinder part the setting sun. Its yawn is lightning, its shaking of the body is thunder, its making water is rain, and its neighing is indeed voice.

The day, verily, is the golden cup called mahimaan, in front of the horse, which arose pointing it out. Its source is the eastern sea. The night, verily, is the silver cup called mahimaan, behind the horse, which arose pointing it out. Its source is the western sea. These two vessels appeared at either end of the horse. As a racer the horse carried the gods; as a stallion, the gandharvas; as a runner, the demons; as a horse, men. The sea is its stable, and the sea, its source.

Gandharvas - class of demigods known as the celestial musicians.

If I remember correctly one of the meditations is to interpret the first paragraph's sacrificial horse as racer, stallion, runner and horse:
"The head of the sacrificial racer is the dawn. . ."
"The head of the sacrificial stallion is the dawn. . ."
"The head of the sacrificial runner is the dawn. . ."
and then back to: "The head of the sacrificial horse is the dawn. . ."
or something like that.

more on centaurs forthcoming.