Planet found in reverse orbit for the first time

Aug 13th, 2009 | By | Category: Science

An exoplanet that orbits its star backwards has been found for the first time. The planet is also the most bloated found to date, and some astronomers suspect that both properties can be traced back to an earlier close encounter with a planetary sibling.

The solar system generally rotates like a record album, with most objects orbiting the sun in the same direction as the sun itself spins. This is thought to result from the fact that everything formed from the same natal cloud of gas and dust.

However, some objects, including a number of comets and asteroids, move in orbits that are so tilted with respect to the orbital plane of the planets that they end up travelling in the opposite direction. Astronomers think they were gravitationally thrown out of their original orbits by passing objects.”

I found the appearance of this discovery especially coincidental for me as 3 days ago I had a discussion with an ex girlfriend who had just started to devoutly believe in the Lord and creationism. Funny enough one of her supporting claims for a god-created universe was that planets spin and orbit always in the same direction.  In a random universe why would they always be the same as if designed?   The wonderful thing about my belief in science was that I had theories but my ego also had no problems saying ‘I don’t know, but because we haven’t discovered it yet that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist’ , that being that science is malleable and can change when new evidence presents itself whereas religion for the most part is written in stone(pun intended).

Well here we have it, a planet spinning backwards, with only 5-10% of the universe even visible to us, let alone known or understood, and countless new sciences waiting to be discovered, we have a long path of debunking religious mysteries ahead of us.

Tags: , ,

5 Comments to “Planet found in reverse orbit for the first time”

  1. The ex says:

    It is interesting that your findings actually help to prove the creation theory. 
    By looking at the laws of inertia: The term “inertia” is more properly understood as shorthand for “the principle of inertia” as described by Newton in his First Law of Motion. This law, expressed simply, says that an object that is not subject to any net external force moves at a constant velocity. In even simpler terms, inertia means that an object will always continue moving at its current speed and in its current direction until some force causes its speed or direction to change.

    The evolution therory promotes that eons ago, “nothing” exploded into everything we know today… This means when this ” nothing” exploded all of the particles would follow the laws of interia, and continue spinning outwards in the same direction.

    So why then are there moons, and as Ryan has found a planet spinning or orbiting in the oposite direction as everything else? Why is it that we can’t even look at the possibility of there being a creator? Yes both stances are faith based, but the more you start to look the more overwhelming the evidence towards creation. I also found the golden ratio, the fibanchi sequence extremely amazing. If common sense prevails it should be very apparent thy there are some very big holes in the evolution therory. Keep an open mind to all the facts.

  2. admin says:

    Big Bang Theory = The universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day. Used to describe and understand the moments immediately after the universe formed, there is no pretense at all about what existed before. Scientists speculate but they have no problem saying ‘I don’t know’ to that question
    Evolution Theory = Traits that ensure greater degree of survivability will increase the species ability to propagate and pass that trait on to subsequent generations.

    Two very different theories described radically different things that have little to do with one another.

    With the peppered moth, drug-resistant bacteria and other occurrences that happen before our eyes, anyone can conduct the same tests and arrive at the exact same conclusions with 100% consistency. IE: The darker peppered moths survive at a much greater rate in heavily polluted english forests than the lighter colored moths which we’re their precursor. There is no faith involved in this, just the simple fact that darker moths get eaten less by predators in darker forests and therefor have more babies which breed out the lighter ones. God didn’t make the moths darker, the birds just ate more of the lighter ones because they could be seen better against the backdrop of the trees which are now much darker because heavy industrial pollutants killed off all of the light lichen that used to grow on them

  3. The Lesser R^2 says:

    I don’t think she was refering to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, but possibly the Theory of Evolution of the Universe, which has a component known as the Big Bang Theory. But no where in the BBT does it state that there was a perfect explosion resulting in the perfectly symetrical expansion of the universe in all dimensions. However, if you consider the laws of quantum mechanics it is understood that the elementary particles behave randomly and as a result anything can happen to them, so when the universe was infinitesimally small the explosion would have not been symetrical at all but would have resulted in random directions of energies and random ditribution of the matter in the infinitesimally small space. And through this random distribution, once the universe has sufficiently expanded to a larger scale negate the small scale forces such as nuclear forces and electro-magnetic forces of course, and other forces such as gravitational effects lead to clumping and clustering of what we can see now as galaxies, and also resulted in their sub-components such as gas clouds, stars and, of course, their orbiting bodies.

    What happened before the big bang? There are some higher level theories in physics that attempt to answer these qutions but very few people in the world actually understand them.

    Why is the universe random at the quantum level? Well actually, as far as we know it appears to be random, but it could actually be anything but random. It just appears random to our understanding of the components of matter. Sure you can say, well it’s random because god made it that way. But who knows, maybe 10 years from now we’ll have a better understanding of quantum mechanics and it won’t be random actually at all, so maybe then you can say that it’s not random because god made it that way.

    It does just come to a matter of faith with an argument always ending with a result of the creation theory being: God made it that way. Unfortunatly science has never been about faith or lack of faith, it has strictly been founded upon the ideals that anything in science can be proven wrong, and until that happens, it is a theory. The longer a theory remains evidently unproven to be false then the idea that the thoery is true in principle grows in confidence and so it becomes a property of the universe itself.

  4. My theory is that planets are driven by the gravitational field between them and the center of mass. If I am right then bodies that orbit the sun more slowly than the rotation of the sun should be increasing in speed and moving into higher orbits. Any body that moves in reverse should be experiencing gravitational braking if I’m correct. So if you hear that the above mentioned planet is slowing down, remember me. 🙂

    Another part of my theory is that most planets come from the sun they orbit and are not a chance happening but a continuous birthing process of planets and life. If I am correct, then Venus will someday take our position as we move away from the sun. That would also indicate, that if traces of life are to be found on another planet, then Mars would be the right place to look. Unfortunately, after hundreds of millions of years, it may be difficult to find any trace of anything, except possibly below the surface.

    To me, gravity is like the attraction of two magnets. The field between them is trying to seetle in a state where the two bodies are joined into one. If not for the driving force of the field as the sun rotates, one would expect all bodies in our solar system to be moving toward the sun to their doom.

    Feel free to write me at that web address.

  5. humble reader says:

    thank you leonard and sheldon.
    all jokes aside, i find it strange this is from 2009, because i remember my teacher telling me about such a thing discovered, back in 2006 (2006 being when he told me about it, not when he said it was, that part i dont know). so today i was thinking back to what he said and felt like searching for it, anything about this article, and discovered this post. i really wonder what could cause such a thing. and i really wonder how my teacher could tell me about something in 2006, that wasnt actually discovered till 2009

Leave a Comment