The satellite must mysteriously set itself up so that it is neither pulled back by gravity nor let loose into space. It must have that perfect balance between just enough gravity but not too much gravity.
I wonder why you think this is a problem. Cosmologists & astrophysicists can run the orbit equations backwards and see what happens, and they don't see any problems cropping up in the 4.5 billion or so period of existence of the solar system.
It must have that perfect balance between just enough gravity but not too much gravity.
There are literally an infinite number of orbits that any planet can have around a star. Thus there is no "perfect balance" to be achieved, rather one out of an infinite number of possibilities.
We can even restrict earth to orbits within the habitable zone and there are still an infinite number of possibilities.
How did the satellites get to that perfect spot in the first place?
Planets, moons, and asteroids condensed out of material that was already in orbit, so they were already in orbit when they were formed.
Some of those orbits were stable and some were not. Those with unstable orbits have been eliminated (crashed into other objects or ejected into space), so what you are seeing are the remnants that have been stable enough to survive the last 4.5 billion years. But orbits are not totally stable, they are still changing, and there are still collisions between objects (Schumacher-Levy is one example).
To look at these remnants and wonder why they have such "perfectly" stable orbits is a
post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy coupled with an argument from incredulity.
Enjoy.
Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2
