why do we not see any 3D solar systems ?

[RainbowUnicorn]

it occured to me as i was reading CCs' post of the object crossing our solar system....

it occured to me that statistical probability would suggest there should be orbitting planet-like bodies that orbit on different axis, to the flat plane, that we know of as our solar system structure.

is there any particular reason why we do not see horizontally opposed orbital planets in some observable solar systems ?

thoughts ?

[Syne]

Gravity.

[C C]

is there any particular reason why we do not see horizontally opposed orbital planets in some observable solar systems ?

https://youtu.be/tmNXKqeUtJM

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmNXKqeUt...e=youtu.be

[Yazata]

it occured to me that statistical probability would suggest there should be orbitting planet-like bodies that orbit on different axis, to the flat plane, that we know of as our solar system structure.

is there any particular reason why we do not see horizontally opposed orbital planets in some observable solar systems ?

I'm just a layman regarding this stuff, but here's my take.

The reason why our Solar System's planets' orbits all fall in a plane and why they all orbit in the same direction seems to lie in how they formed from a nebula of gas and dust long ago (4.5 - 5 billion years).

The nebula gradually contracted towards its center of mass due to mutual gravity. And as it shrank, whatever angular momentum it had became more concentrated and the thing rotated ever faster (like a figure-skater tucking in her arms in order to spin faster).

The nebula's gravitational attraction led to most of it gathering at the center where its temperature rose due to pressure, fusion reactions ignited and it became a star, our Sun. The rotation of the rest of the surrounding nebula flattened it into a 'proto-planetary disk' all spinning the same way. (It must have looked very cool back then, like the Sun with giant Saturn's rings.)

Then the disk kind of coagulated into a number of planets. The largest of them had their own accretion disks, forming elaborate systems of moons (all in a plane, rotating the same way).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk

It's possible to imagine planets rotating counter to the others in orbits that aren't in the same plane. But these would presumably have different orgins. If they exist, they might conceivably be rogue planets captured gravitationally out of interstellar space or something.

[stryder]

This is where you would probably need Ben The Donkey to post on the subject, I could be very wrong but I'm pretty sure Astronomy is an area the are familiar with.
To my knowledge we do sometimes see things opposed to the Euclidean plane such as various comets, however like Yazata "I'm just a layman regarding this stuff".

[RainbowUnicorn]

983013']is there any particular reason why we do not see horizontally opposed orbital planets in some observable solar systems ?

https://youtu.be/tmNXKqeUtJM


thanks
so it appears (ignoring the twin disk)
>https://youtu.be/tmNXKqeUtJM?t=115<
= time ?

without time there is no mediating factor as gravity = x plus time = mass...etc...
though the issue occured to me that gravity as we know it is irrelivent to probability of unknown (Xy)
thus planet(Xy) which has dark matter density may be possible if dark energy is not equal to gravity of light matter... etc...
effect of (Xy) = planet forming ? yes/no/unknown ?


or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmNXKqeUt...e=youtu.be

this
>https://youtu.be/tmNXKqeUtJM?t=130<

is very interesting

what parabolic forces exist as unknown torsional effect of planetary motion... ?

[C C]

is there any particular reason why we do not see horizontally opposed orbital planets in some observable solar systems ?

https://youtu.be/tmNXKqeUtJM [...]

thanks [...] what parabolic forces exist as unknown torsional effect of planetary motion... ?

In debris discs around stars, collisions between bodies in circular or near circular orbits can result in the smaller fragments or dust particles (so called "β-meteoroids") escaping the solar system in parabolic and hyperbolic paths. Those are unbound orbits where the object gets pulled towards the star / source of gravity once and then escapes into interstellar space. Larger grains or less orbital energy objects that stay in bound orbits after collisions are categorized as "α-meteoroids".

If you're referring to a protoplanetary era disc featuring stray, lingering objects with bound orbits that curve (relatively) down into the disc as if mimicking a bullet fired on Earth... Then any minority of surviving or captured objects with paths that inclined severely away from the "flat", rotating plane would eventually get wiped-out in collisions as they passed through the ensemble angular momentum of the disc and its residents. Vaguely similar to a nearly extinct species of deer running across a highway getting splattered by its traffic; the loss of the latter's vehicles in the collisions is insignificant since they constitute the overwhelming majority of objects (that conform to the highway's protocol).

- - -

[RainbowUnicorn]

is there any particular reason why we do not see horizontally opposed orbital planets in some observable solar systems ?

https://youtu.be/tmNXKqeUtJM [...]

thanks [...] what parabolic forces exist as unknown torsional effect of planetary motion... ?

In debris discs around stars, collisions between bodies in circular or near circular orbits can result in the smaller fragments or dust particles (so called "β-meteoroids") escaping the solar system in parabolic and hyperbolic paths. Those are unbound orbits where the object gets pulled towards the star / source of gravity once and then escapes into interstellar space. Larger grains or less orbital energy objects that stay in bound orbits after collisions are categorized as "α-meteoroids".

If you're referring to a protoplanetary era disc featuring stray, lingering objects with bound orbits that curve (relatively) down into the disc as if mimicking a bullet fired on Earth... Then any minority of surviving or captured objects with paths that inclined severely away from the "flat", rotating plane would eventually get wiped-out in collisions as they passed through the ensemble angular momentum of the disc and its residents. Vaguely similar to a nearly extinct species of deer running across a highway getting splattered by its traffic; the loss of the latter's vehicles in the collisions is insignificant since they constitute the overwhelming majority of objects (that conform to the highway's protocol).

- - -

could this be defined as a law of physics ?

[C C]

In debris discs around stars, collisions between bodies in circular or near circular orbits can result in the smaller fragments or dust particles (so called "β-meteoroids") escaping the solar system in parabolic and hyperbolic paths. Those are unbound orbits where the object gets pulled towards the star / source of gravity once and then escapes into interstellar space. Larger grains or less orbital energy objects that stay in bound orbits after collisions are categorized as "α-meteoroids".

If you're referring to a protoplanetary era disc featuring stray, lingering objects with bound orbits that curve (relatively) down into the disc as if mimicking a bullet fired on Earth... Then any minority of surviving or captured objects with paths that inclined severely away from the "flat", rotating plane would eventually get wiped-out in collisions as they passed through the ensemble angular momentum of the disc and its residents. Vaguely similar to a nearly extinct species of deer running across a highway getting splattered by its traffic; the loss of the latter's vehicles in the collisions is insignificant since they constitute the overwhelming majority of objects (that conform to the highway's protocol).

- - -

could this be defined as a law of physics ?

Such bare depictions and contingencies themselves wouldn't qualify as such (and they don't introduce or beckon anything new).[*]

- - -

[*] The motions and organizations of solar system affairs (of any era / stage of development) fall out of a variety of classical mechanical interactions, principles, laws, effects, contact forces, action-at-distance forces (the classical category also includes Chaos theory, nonlinear dynamics, etc). Or rather the technical descriptions via those accommodate what happens slash happened as representations / simulations, predictions, and explanations. In areas where Newton's abstract descendants run into problems, the other major sub-field of quantum mechanics takes over.

- - -