[Ralph (OP)]

Size, Mass, Density, Gravity (SMDG) determine the positioning of all planets, Solid or Gass from our star - the sun. For solid planets smallest to largest, depending on SMDG and conversely with "gass" planets, Largest to smallest depending on SMDG. A simple comparative table and basic mathematics and basic deduction will support the above. This is 100% accurate for all planets EXCEPT FOR Mars. Most accept the collision theory that Theia, a Mars sized planet/orbital collided with Earth to form the Moon. I hypothesise that it was in fact Mars and not Theia that collided with Earth to form the Moon. That Mars was "forced" out of its orbit to eventually collide with Earth? Possibly also causing the "tilt" axis for Earth? Earth would not have four seasons but one. Tropics maxed at +- 12.25deg? Can such a simple deduction debunk so many esteemed scientist?

[Ralph (OP)]

PLANETS POSITIONING FROM SUN MASS,DENSITY,GRAVITY,DIAMETER)            
ACTUAL     Planets   
                  SOLID                                                                            Gas
             Mercury            Venus           Earth            Mars     Jupiter          Saturn          Uranus             Neptune
 Mass         0.33            4.87           5.97                    0.64          1898.00          568.00       86.80             102.00
 Density       5427.00         5243.00           5514.00            3933.00     1326.00          687.00          1271.00         1638.00
 Gravity       3.70            8.90           9.80                    3.70          23.10          9.00                8.70             11.00
 Dia Km    4879.00           12104.00          12756.00            6792.00     142984.00    120536.00     51118.00     49528.00
1. Gravity most important. Mass/Density/Diameter viewed together. I would position Mars between Mercury and Venus. Each Star (Sun) has a different MDGD although I am not a mathematician, I am convinced that, taking our Sun's MDGD and apply an algorithm in relation to above empirical data that a Universal application may be used. Mars just "shouts" out that it does not fit into the positioning of Solid planets.                         

[chiralSPO]

My understanding is that any Mars-sized body that crashed into the Earth would have been completely obliterated, and is now part of both the Earth and our moon.

I also think there are some issues with the SMDG theory, but Halc has already beaten me to that point.

[Kryptid]

I've got a strong suspicion that this "trend" does not hold for many exoplanetary systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_876

[Ralph (OP)]

Using our solar system as a yardstick. The Theia (Mars sized) collision theory does not imply a direct impact but rather a "glancing" impact of low speed 4km/s. If one uses the L4/L5 orbital path and subsequent collision with Earth, then simply replace the name Theia with Mars. This is not about isotopes or exoplanetary reasoning. But rather, put the numerical data (empirical data) onto an excel spreadsheet.  It is crudely put, a simple numbers game and the relationship from one planet to another. Between solid and gas planets relying on four categories, ie Mass, density, Gravity, Diameter. Do the spreadsheet, sit back and make an observation re the positioning of Mars. I will stick to my observation that Mars did, at one point in time, find itself between Mercury and Venus. As this is in direct contrast to existing theories, put them aside for a moment and let the numbers speak to you.

[chiralSPO]

Ok, sure, let's set aside other solar systems, and analysis of isotopes for the moment.

You are suggesting that a simple analysis of the mass and density of the terrestrial planets is sufficient evidence to show that Mars was once closer to the Sun than Venus is now, and that it hit Earth on the way out to where it is now?

While there is time to discard old theories in light of new evidence, either that evidence needs to be very strong and there needs to be some logical explanation or mechanism to explain how, or in the absence of logic/mechanism, the evidence needs to be very, VERY strong.

Since there is no explanation of how a planet inside the orbit of Venus would suddenly move out to a new orbit more than 100,000,000 km larger in radius (which would require a vast amount of energy, even if it didn't lose a bunch of energy in an impact with the Earth along the way). Thus, it looks like we are stuck looking for very, VERY strong evidence that this happened.

Using a set of 4 data points (let's even say that it is 8, counting both density and mass) is not particularly strong evidence for finding a trend like this. And then arguing that 25% of that data should be reordered based on this makes it far weaker.

There are 24 ways that we could order these four planets (4 × 3 × 2 × 1). Of these there is only one case where they are strictly increasing in mass, and one case in which they are strictly decreasing in mass (ABCD and DCBA). So even then, if we found that they were all lined up, there's still just a 1/12 (about 8%) chance of that happening randomly. If we allow one of those planets to be "out of order" and the remaining three be "in order" this dramatically increases the chances of this happening just by chance. And by dramatically, I mean: 100% of all orderings of four planets can be made to be strictly increasing or strictly decreasing by moving one of the planets (as long as there are no requirements on how far it can be moved). So this is not exactly overwhelming evidence.

PS: please "reply" to comments within the same thread, rather than starting new topics with each reply.

[Ralph (OP)]

As mentioned this is a basic observation of known facts of our planets that fall within our solar system. Just a point of order:
1. In no way am I suggesting that you only use Mass and density. But rather Gravity, Mass, Diameter and Density.(GMDD)
2. That you compare all the planets solid and gas planets, i.e. eight and not four planets.
3. Keeping in mind that gas planets are different to solid planets by nature of their Density.
4. I agree that the amount of force required to dislodge a planet from its orbit would have to be extraordinary. But who are we to prescribe that in 4.5 billion years this force? could not have taken place? And in particular to Mars.
5. Back to the numbers and a table reflecting attributes of all our planets:

                               Mass                Density          Gravity        Diameter         Type
Mercury                   0.33                  5427              3.7              4 897              Solid
Venus                      4.87                  5243              8.9              12 104            Solid
Earth                       5.97                  5514              9.8               12 756            Solid
Mars                       0.64                   3933              3.7               6 792             Solid
Jupiter                    1898                  1326              23.1             142 984          Gas
Saturn                    568                     687               9.0               120 536          Gas
Uranus                    86.8                   1271             8.7                51 118            Gas
Neptune                  102                    1638             11.0              49 528            Gas

* Note the low density of the gas planets in relation to solid planets.                   

On the "specifications" of each planet, in relation, to other planets would this table not "read" better if Mars was slotted in between Mercury and Venus?
6. As stated this is a theory. As with theories we can us the facts on hand and the apply observed conjecture to promote and support such a theory. Unfortunately not all theories are 100% factual based. Wouldn't be a theory then?
7. As I have stated, I am neither a mathematician nor a terrestrial scientist, so I have no idea how your 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 will change? Or your ABCD - DCBA?
8. I have simply looked at the numbers as set out above and tried to find the most credible (albeit flawed) explanation to explain such an anomaly.
9. Thank you for you feedback. Looking forward to your and other responses.
Thanks for the assistance re the reply. Has saved me a lot of time.

[chiralSPO]

I really don't see how either adding in the gaseous planets or the density information helps your case.

Even if I grant that there is somehow a reason why the terrestrial planets and gaseous planets should have opposite trends from each other (and I don't see why that would be the case), the four gaseous ones still don't follow the reversed trend perfectly (Neptune is more massive than Uranus). Which, again means that there is no way to arrange these four gaseous planets "out of order", if you're willing to accept one error.

If we go by densities, then there is no pattern. If anything both Mars and Saturn are the anomalies.
How does the bottom graph look any better than the top???

Screen Shot 2019-03-13 at 4.09.27 PM.png (120.51 kB . 682x866 - viewed 3587 times)

[chiralSPO]

You have proposed that the "fit" is better if Mars moved.... why not propose that Mars has shrunk?

To illustrate the problem with finding trends in datasets that are too small, I provide the example of US Ivy Leage Universities:
Data available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_League#Members

There is a clear trend matching date of founding and 2017 endowment (older is richer)

Harvard        $37.1B   1636
Yale              $27.8B   1701
Princeton      $23.8B   1740
UPenn          $12.2B   1746
Columbia      $10.0B   1754
Cornell          $7.2B     1865 
Dartmouth    $5.0B     1769
Brown           $3.5B     1764

Cornell is the clear outlier of this trend, so clearly they are either lying about their foundation date or their endowment right? I mean, call the lawyers! Fraud! Fraud!

(or there is something real that this simplistic "by the numbers" model doesn't account for...)

[Kryptid]

Where do the asteroid belt and dwarf planets fit into this? The fact that Pluto is no longer considered a planet is due to an arbitrary human definition. Nature would not care about how we define words.

[Ralph (OP)]

Apologies,as a Newbie, I have been incorrectly been submitting a new theory re the current positioning of Mars in relation to other planets in the PHYSIC, ASTRONOMY & COSMOLOGY forum. The body of this Theory can be found in the incorrect forum under the same banner. Following replies from Chiralispo and Halc :
ChiralISPO
Again I would like to state that it is not only ONE category that should be used in isolation. But rather the four categories combined as suggested - Gravity, Mass, Diameter and Density. Your graphs, with all the categories, combined into a singular graph will assist in motivating my point.
Density was used only to highlight the difference between solid and gas planets. In that, within the eight planets the four categories are weighted slightly differently between said solid and gas planets.
I agree 100% that Mars is significantly out of "sorts". And that there is enough reasoning to question the positioning of Uranus and Neptune, provided that Diameter does not carry increased value amongst the gas planets.

Halc:
There is no reason to doubt that both Mars and earth "shrunk". As both planets lost mass, diameter and possibly density after the collision to form the Moon. However they retained enough mass, density and diameter to realistically use the information on hand.
I agree with your analogy that such a small sample may lead to inconstancies. However, despite the Lawyer analogy of fraud or other. Just by assessing/investigating the anomaly of Cornwell (sic) will  reveal the true nature of said anomaly.

The possibility of the effects of the proposed collision on the earths axis, tilt axis, have not been accepted or debunked.

[Colin2B]

Ralph, I’ve moved your post here and combined it with this one so everyone can see it all together

[Ralph (OP)]

Thank you ColinB

[Ralph (OP)]

This is an observation/deduction from a narrow data base. That in itself opens it up to critique. I am well aware of that. However I believe that within the confines of this simplistic approach that, using the sun's (GMDD) combined/in relation to the other planets, solid or gas (GMDD) that an equation exists. It requires a person with basic mathematic knowledge (not me) who is prepared to set aside their own "subjective"  views and assist with the most basic equation, that is required to explain the positioning of planets. It should be noted that this equation does NOT predict positioning but rather explains positioning of planets. Who knows where this may lead and evolve? As Halc put it, due to the simplistic nature, it is open to incorrect deductions. While I agree with this, I also believe that by identifying these anomalies we bring attention to them to further explain them? Why are we so snowed under with doctorates etc that to possibly entertain such a basic deduction would be contrite to our very existence as astute astronomers, or other? Can such a basic deduction possibly spawn a way of thinking that will, in itself evolve. Again, I am convinced that the question pertaining to the positioning of asteroid belts will/can be explained. I am comfortable that the positioning of Pluto will fall into this equation. Who can help?

[Bored chemist]

The interesting comparison might be the speed of sound in the atmosphere and the escape velocity of a planet.

Planets that are near the Sun get hot.
And, if they are made mainly of gas, they "boil" away.

So, we know why the gas planets aren't the ones near the Sun.
Looking at the rocky ones, they all look pretty similar. Mars is a bit less dense. So what?

[Ralph (OP)]

Agreed. Gas planets are by nature more likely to be further away from the sun. As you have stated. Why is it that all the responses utilise "density"  as the point of departure?  I am saying that there is a "symmetry" across the four categories. What about Gravity, Mass and Diameter/Size? If you follow the symmetry across the solar system, then Mars is not only out of sorts in relation to its Density, but Gravity at 3.7,etc Mass …, Diameter...as well and "fantastically" out of position. At worst apply a" like vs like"  across all eight planets per category. Compare 8 gravities, 8 densities, 8 masses,8 diameters. If you go beyond density and see the symmetry, Mars sticks out like a sore thumb across the board. And then there will be the conjecture of HOW it was moved out of its orbit? And do we believe in the ever elusive Theia (Mars like in size) who collided with earth? or do we not simply rationalise what is staring us in the face? Could the Mars like "body"  not simply be Mars. Does it have to be complicated?