by Tom Van Flandern
The
hypothesis of the explosion of a number of planets and moons of our solar
system
during its 4.6-billion-year history is in excellent accord with all known
observational constraints, even without adjustable parameters. Many of its
boldest predictions have been fulfilled. In most instances, these
predictions were judged highly unlikely by the several standard models the
eph would replace. And in several cases, the entire model was at risk to be
falsified if the prediction failed.
The successful predictions include: (1)
satellites of asteroids; (2) satellites of comets; (3) salt water in
meteorites; (4) “roll marks” leading to boulders on asteroids; (5) the time
and peak rate of the 1999 Leonid meteor storm; (6) explosion signatures for
asteroids; (7) strongly spiked energy parameter for new comets; (8)
distribution of black material on slowly rotating airless bodies; (9)
splitting velocities of comets; (10) Mars is a former moon of an exploded
planet.
Titius-Bode
Law of Planetary Spacing
|
Planet
|
Distance
|
Formula
|
Mercury
|
0.4
|
0.5
|
Venus
|
0.7
|
0.7
|
Earth
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
Mars
|
1.5
|
1.6
|
?
|
--
|
2.8
|
Jupiter
|
5.2
|
5.2
|
Saturn
|
9.5
|
10
|
Uranus
|
19.2
|
19.6
|
Neptune
|
30.1
|
38.8
|
|
Formula: distance in au
=0.4+0.3*2(n-2)
|
Where It Began –
the Titius-Bode Law of Planetary Spacing
In the
latter half of the 18th century, when only six major planets
were known, interest was attracted to the regularity of the spacing of
their orbits from the Sun. The table shows the Titius-Bode law of planetary
spacing, comparing actual and formula values. This in turn drew attention
to the large gap between Mars and Jupiter, apparently just large enough for
one additional planet. Today we know of tens of thousands of “minor
planets” or asteroids with planet-like orbits at that average mean distance
from the Sun.
With the
discovery of the second asteroid in 1802, Olbers proposed that many more
asteroids would be found because the planet that belonged at that distance
must have exploded. This marked the birth of the exploded planet
hypothesis. It seemed the most reasonable explanation until 1814, when Lagrange
found that the highly elongated orbits of comets could also be readily
explained by such a planetary explosion. That, unfortunately, challenged
the prevailing theory of cometary origins of the times, the Laplacian
primeval solar nebula hypothesis. Comets were supposed to be primitive
bodies left over from the solar nebula in the outer solar system. This
challenge incited Laplace supporters to attack the exploded planet
hypothesis. Lagrange died in the same year, and support for his viewpoint
died with him when no one else was willing to step into the line of fire.
Newcomb’s
Objection – All Asteroids Can’t Come From One Planet
In the
1860s, Simon Newcomb suggested a test to distinguish the two theories of
origin of the asteroids. If they came from an exploded planet, all of them
should reach some common distance from the Sun, the distance at which the
explosion occurred, somewhere along each orbit. But if asteroids came from
the primeval solar nebula, then roughly circular, non-intersecting orbits
ought to occur over a wide range of solar distances between Mars and
Jupiter.
Newcomb
applied the test and determined that several asteroids had non-intersecting
orbits. He therefore concluded that the solar nebula hypothesis was the
better model. Newcomb’s basic idea was a good one. But only a few dozen
asteroids were known at the time, and Newcomb did not anticipate several
confounding factors for this test. Because Newcomb didn’t realize how many
asteroids would eventually be found, he didn’t appreciate the frequency of
asteroid collisions, which tend (on average) to circularize orbits. He also
did not appreciate that planetary perturbations, especially by Jupiter, can
change the long-term average eccentricity (degree of circularity) of each
asteroid’s orbit. Finally, Newcomb did not consider that more than one
planet might have exploded, contributing additional asteroids with some
different mean distance. In Newcomb’s time, no evidence existed to justify
these complications.
When
Newcomb’s test is redone today, the result is that an explosion origin is
strongly indicated for main belt asteroids. In fact, the totality of
evidence indicates two exploded parent bodies, one in the main asteroid
belt at the “missing planet” location, and one near the present-day orbit
of Mars. This article will review that evidence.
Where Did All the
Mass Go?
Although
over 10,000 asteroids have well-determined orbits, the combined
mass of all other asteroids is not as great as that of the largest
asteroid, Ceres. That makes the total mass of the asteroid belt only about
0.001 of the mass of the Earth. A frequently asked question is, if a major
planet exploded, where is the rest of its mass?
Consider
what would happen if the Earth exploded today. Surface and crustal rocks
would shatter and fragment, but remain rocks. However, rocks from depths
greater than about 40 km are under so much pressure at high temperature
that, if suddenly released into a vacuum, such rocks would vaporize. As a
consequence, over 99% of the Earth’s total mass would vaporize in an
explosion, with only its low-pressure crustal and upper mantle layers
surviving.
The
situation worsens for a larger planet, where the interior pressures and
temperatures get higher more quickly with depth. In fact, all planets in
our solar system more massive than Earth (starting with Uranus at about 15
Earth masses) are gas giants with no solid surfaces, and would be expected
to leave no asteroids if they exploded. Bodies smaller than Earth, such as
our Moon, would leave a substantially higher percentage of their mass in
asteroids. But the Moon has only about 0.01 of Earth’s mass to begin with.
In
short, asteroid belts with masses of order 0.001 Earth masses are the norm
when terrestrial-planet-sized bodies explode. Meteorites provide direct
evidence for this scenario of rocks either surviving or being vaporized.
Various chondrite meteorites (by far the most common type) show all stages
of partial melting from mild to almost completely vaporized. Indeed, it is
the abundant melt droplets, called “chondrules”, that give chondrite
meteorites their name.
Modern Evidence
for Exploded Planets
Two
important lines of evidence that asteroids originated in an
explosion
are the explosion signatures (described later in this article), and the rms
velocity among asteroids, which is as large as is allowed by the laws of
dynamics for stable orbits. In other words, the asteroid belt is certainly
the remnant of a larger population of bodies, many of which gravitationally
escaped the solar system or collided with the Sun or planets.
Two
important lines of evidence that meteoroids originated in an
explosion are: (1) The most common meteorite type, chondrites, have all
been partially melted by exposure to a “rapid heating event”. Other
asteroids show exposure to a heavy neutron flux. Blackening and shock are
also common traits. (2) The time meteoroids have been traveling in space
exposed to cosmic rays is relatively short, typically millions of years.
Evidence of multiple exposure-age patterns, as would happen from repeated
break-ups, is generally not seen.
Comets are so
strikingly similar to asteroids that no defining characteristic to
distinguish one from the other has yet been devised. This is rather
opposite to expectations of the solar nebula hypothesis, because comets
should have been formed in the outer solar system far from the main
asteroid belt. A traceback of orbits of “new” comets (that have not mixed
with the planets before) indicates statistically that these probably
originated at a common time and place, 3.2 Mya. [i][i]
But it should be noted that galactic tidal forces would eliminate comets
from any bodies that exploded prior to 10 Mya, so only very recent explosions
can produce comets that would remain visible today.
Figure 1.
Saturn’s black-and-white moon Iapetus.
|
A major
explosion would send a blast wave through the solar system, blackening
exposed, airless surfaces in its path. Most such solar system surfaces are
indeed blackened, even for icy satellites. But a few cases have such slow
rotation that only a little over half of the moon gets blackened. Saturn’s
moon Iapetus is one such case, because its rotation period is nearly 80
days long. Figure 1 shows a
spacecraft image of Iapetus. One side is icy bright; the other is coal black.
The difference in albedo is a factor of five. Gray areas are extrapolations
of black areas into regions not yet photographed. As such, they represent a
prediction of what will be seen when a future spacecraft (Cassini?)
completes this photography.
Perhaps
the most basic explosion indicator is that all fragments of significant
mass will trap smaller nearby debris from the explosion into satellite
orbits. So explosions tend to form asteroids and comets with multiple
nuclei of all sizes. Collisions, by contrast, normally cannot produce
fragments in orbits because any debris orbits must lead either to escape or
to re-collision with the surface. Moreover, collisions tend to cause
existing satellites to escape, leading to asteroid “families” (many of
which are seen). Our prediction that asteroids and comets would often be
found to have satellites has been confirmed in recent years. The first
spacecraft finding (by Galileo) was of moon Dactyl orbiting asteroid
Ida in 1993. More recently, Hubble imagery found that Comet Hale-Bopp has
at least one, and possibly three or more, secondary nuclei. [ii][ii]
Over 100 additional lines of evidence
related to the eph and the standard models it would replace are summarized
in [iii][iii].
Did More Than One
Planet Explode?
Many lines of
evidence suggest more than one planetary explosion in the solar system’s
history. The discovery of one, and probably two,
new asteroid belts orbiting the Sun beyond Neptune is especially
suggestive, given that the main asteroid belt is apparently of exploded
planet origin. Evidence of the “late heavy bombardment” in the early solar
system is another strong indicator. These points are discussed later in
this article.
On Earth,
geological boundaries are accompanied by mass extinctions at five epochs
over the last billion years. Two of the most intense of these, the P/T
boundary about 250 Mya, and the K/T boundary (and the extinction of
dinosaurs) at 65 Mya, are the most likely to be associated with the damage
to Earth’s biosphere expected from a major planet explosion.
Meteorites
provide direct evidence about their parent bodies. Yet this evidence
strongly indicates at least 3-4 distinct parent bodies. Oxygen isotope
ratios are generally similar for related planetary bodies, such as all
native Earth and Moon rocks. These ratios for meteorites require at least
two distinct, unrelated parent bodies, and probably more. Cosmic ray
exposure ages of meteorites indicate how long these bodies have been
exposed to space, because cosmic rays can penetrate only about a meter into
a solid body. Collisional break-up can reset the exposure ages for some
meteorites, and produce “double exposure” or other complexities for others.
The data show clusterings of exposure ages around several different primary
epochs, suggesting multiple explosion epochs.
Main belt
asteroids come in many types, but most of these are sub-type distinctions.
80% of all main belt asteroids are of type C (“carbonaceous”), and most of
the remaining 20% are of type S (“silicaceous”). The former are found
predominately in the middle and outer belt, while the latter are mostly in
the inner belt, the part that lies closest to Mars. These two types are
unlikely to have had the same parent body.
Finally, it
should be noted that we can estimate the total mass of the body that
exploded to produce all the comets seen today. (The lifetime of those
comets is limited to 10 million years by galactic tidal forces and
planetary perturbations.) That parent body mass is almost certainly less
than the size of our Moon, because the carbonaceous meteorites most closely
associated with comets indicate a parent body that was too small to
chemically differentiate.
Explosion
Signatures in the Main Asteroid Belt
In Figure 2, we show a plot
of average orbital eccentricity (called “proper
eccentricity”) versus average mean distance (called “proper semi-major
axis”) for thousands of main-belt asteroids. We included the numbered
asteroids having periods between one-half and one-third the period of
Jupiter. If the primeval solar nebula hypothesis were correct, numbers of
asteroids with near-zero eccentricity would be roughly equal at all mean
distances well away from the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Indeed, nebular
drag and collisions would ensure that orbits with zero eccentricity were
preferred. By contrast, if the exploded planet hypothesis is correct, a
minimum eccentricity, increasing to either side of a mean distance of about
2.8 au, should be evident in the plot. The “V”-shaped line shows the
theoretical minimum eccentricity, according to the eph.
Figure 2. Semi-major axis (mean distance from
Sun) vs. eccentricity for main belt asteroids near theoretical parent
planet distance, showing an explosion signature.
|
We see in Figure 2 that, despite about
as much scattering across the minimum line as expected (increasing toward
Jupiter on the right), the densest number counts trend up and away,
paralleling the V-shaped line, on both sides of the inferred exploded
planet distance, 2.82 au. It is difficult to imagine this
explosion-predicted low-eccentricity avoidance occurring by chance –
especially since the primeval solar nebula hypothesis predicts a preference
for low eccentricity values. What we are seeing here is Newcomb’s argument
applied with modern knowledge and data. The expected characteristic of
fragments that originated in an explosion is seen. The expected
characteristic of objects present since the solar system’s beginning, even
if only collisional fragments thereof, is not seen.
Energy Parameters
for “New Comet” Orbits
Figure 3. Comet energies before (left) and
after (right) passage through planetary region. Plot shows number of
comets (ordinate) versus energy parameter (abscissa).
|
Astonishingly,
a great many comets are discovered that have energy parameter values close
to zero, the threshold of gravitational escape, in units where Earth’s
energy parameter is –100,000. Before mixing with the planets, a clustering
of energy parameters near –5 exists, as shown in the left half of Figure
3.
However, as these same comets recede again far from the planets, the
clustering property is virtually destroyed, as shown on the right side of Figure
3. The
scattering is so great that no clustering near –5 or any other value will
exist the next time around. So these comets must have been making their
first visit to the planetary part of the solar system. For that reason,
they are called “new comets”.
These
new comets, first noted by Oort, were not the belt of comets beyond Pluto
expected by the primeval solar nebula hypothesis. They arrive from all
directions on the sky, with no tendency to be concentrated toward the plane
of the planets. Also, they move in directions opposite to the planets as
often as in directions consistent with the planets. Because of these traits
and a mean distance of 1000 times greater than that of Pluto from the Sun,
the far-away source of Oort’s new comets was designated the “Oort cloud”.
The
exploded planet hypothesis predicted something similar. The energy
parameter implies a particular period of revolution around the Sun. If a
planet exploded “x” years ago, then new comets returning for the first time
today would arrive on orbits with period “x”. Comets with shorter periods
would have returned in the past, mixing with the planets and eventually
being eliminated (or now in the process of being eliminated). Comets with
longer periods would not yet have returned for the first time. So the eph
predicts that all new comets should have the same period “x”, and therefore
the same energy parameter corresponding to a period of “x”. The center of
the spike on the left side of Figure
3
corresponds to a period of 3.2 million years, which is therefore the time
since the last explosion event.
Figure 4. Comet energies before passage through
planetary region for class 1A comets (best orbits) on left, and for
classes 1B, 2A, 2B comets (less accurate orbits) on right.
|
In
the 1970s, astronomer Opik devised a test to determine if the Oort cloud
really existed, or if the “clustering” was really a spike, as predicted by
the exploded planet hypothesis. The published orbits of new comets have an
orbit quality parameter, which indicates which orbits ought to be very
accurate because of a long observed arc with lots of well-distributed
observations (class 1A); and which orbits ought to have higher
observational errors because of short arcs and/or fewer or poorly
distributed observations (classes 1B, 2A and 2B). In the standard model with
an Oort cloud of comets, there is no obvious way to tell the difference
between comets anywhere in the energy parameter range on the left side of Figure
3. So
there is no reason for any observational class of comet to be other than
randomly distributed among all the comets in that figure. If all the orbits
could be improved to class 1A, the overall average appearance of the
distribution ought to be unchanged.
However,
in the eph, the real distribution would have all the comets in a single
bin, and all the observed spread of energy parameter values would be due to
observational error. So comets of observational classes 1B, 2A and 2B ought
to have a broader distribution than class 1A comets because 1A comet orbits
are closer to reality (less observational error). And if all the comets of
classes 1B, 2A and 2B were improved to class 1A, the whole distribution
should narrow greatly. Opik’s test was to separate comets of class 1A from
the other classes to determine if the distribution was significantly
broader for the other classes than for class 1A (indicating the eph is
right), or essentially the same for both groups (indicating the Oort cloud
is right).
The
results are shown on the left side of Figure
4 for
new class 1A comets and on the right side of the same figure for new comets
of classes 1B, 2A and 2B. (Note that these orbit quality codes are assigned
by cometary astronomers using published criteria. This author had no role
in determining these designations.) The left side shows 2.6 times as many
comets in the central spike as in the immediately adjoining bins combined.
The right side shows only 0.8 times as many comets in the central spike as
in the two adjoining bins, and has a clearly broader distribution.
The
Opik test is cleanly passed by the exploded planet hypothesis, but not by
the Oort cloud model. Anyone working with the published new comet data
could arrive at the same conclusion. If skeptical readers suspect that the
author may have consciously or unconsciously selected the data so as to
give a favorable outcome, recall that Opik, who strongly doubted the eph
when he thought of this test, came to the same conclusion even with the
smaller amount of comet data available to him 20 years ago. In essence, we
have proved that Lagrange’s instinct 200 years ago was right on target:
Comets (at least most of them) acquired their extremely elongated,
planet-crossing orbits by ejection in an explosion that we can now date at
3.2 million years ago. New comets are the continuing rainback of debris
from that explosion.
Satellites
of Asteroids and Comets
If
asteroids and comets are the products of accretion from a nebula, or
even from collisional break-ups, they will invariably be isolated single
bodies because their gravitational fields are too weak to effect captures.
For example, in a break-up event, most debris escapes, and what does not
falls back onto the surface it was ejected from after one orbit. Even if it
managed to barely miss the surface, tidal forces would bring it back down
in short order.
By
contrast, in the eph, space is filled with debris just after the explosion.
Large fragments will find lots of debris inside their gravitational spheres
of influence, and these will remain in stable orbits as permanent
satellites of these larger fragments. For that reason, I presented papers
at the International Astronomical Union meeting in Argentina in 1991, and
the Flagstaff meeting of asteroid, comet, and meteorite experts in that
same year, pointing out the eph prediction. Specifically, spacecraft
visiting asteroids (or comets) should find at least one of the larger
debris bodies (satellites) in orbit around the asteroid (or comet) primary
nucleus. This prediction, also published in [[iv]iii] and [v][iv], was
considered extremely unlikely by mainstream astronomers, one of whom made a
public wager with me that it would not happen.
The
Galileo spacecraft flew by asteroid Ida in 1993, and returned images
showing a 1-km satellite (now named Dactyl) in a stable orbit around its
nucleus. Since that discovery, two telescopic discoveries of satellites of
other asteroids have been made. [vi][v] This supplements occultation
and radar evidence of long standing suggesting asteroid satellites. A year
before the NEAR spacecraft went into orbit around asteroid Eros in
February 2000, I altered the general prediction of satellites to a more
specific one: If the gravity field of an asteroid is too irregular for
stable orbits to exist near the synchronous orbit (as is the case for
Eros), then the debris that once orbited the nucleus would now be found as
intact boulders lying on the asteroid surface. [vii][vi]
These would be easy to identify because of their tangential touchdown onto
the asteroid, resulting in considerable rolling from their orbital
momentum. So “roll marks” were the predicted identifier to show that
boulders were former satellites.
Figure 5. NEAR spacecraft photo of a large crater on asteroid Eros
with a trail across a crater rim, leading to an interior boulder.
|
The first image taken by the
spacecraft from orbit around Eros is shown in Figure 5. The two blocks are areas
where contrast was stretched for better visibility of the “roll mark”. The
image appears to show a track starting in a random location, going up the
outside wall of a crater, down the inside wall, and ending in a 50-meter
boulder. Many additional examples of boulders, tracks, and boulders at the
ends of tracks can be seen in later spacecraft images.
In the meantime, evidence for
comet satellites was mounting as well. The Giotto spacecraft was the
first to approach a comet, where it found “brightness concentrations” in
the inner coma referred to as “dust spikes”. [viii][vii] Then Hubble Space
Telescope observations of Comet Hale-Bopp showed at least one, and
probably three secondary nuclei orbiting the primary comet nucleus. [[ix]ii] Although this finding was
controversial, the satellite interpretation was subsequently confirmed as
the most reasonable explanation by other investigators. [x][viii] The largest of these
secondary bodies is a 30-km satellite of an estimated 70-km primary
nucleus.
Comet Split Velocities
Another strong test
distinguishing the eph from the standard models comes from comet
split-velocity data. The
eph leads to what I call the “satellite model” as an explanation of what a
comet is and how it behaves. The standard model for comets is the so-called
“dirty snowball” model. In the former case, comets are rocky asteroids
surrounded by a debris cloud. In the latter case, they are a snow-ice
mixture contaminated with dust packed into a lone nucleus that is eruptive
when exposed to sunlight. It ought to be easy to distinguish these two
extreme possibilities from observations. And indeed, it is. One of the
strongest such tests follows.
Some comets are observed to
“split” into two or more comets. That was unexpected behavior in the dirty
snowball model, but is explained after the fact as the breaking apart of
the snowy nucleus under the action of strong jets. “Splitting” is required
by the satellite model because, as the comet approaches the Sun and its
gravitational sphere of influence shrinks, some outer satellites may find
themselves outside the sphere of influence. Such objects then escape into
independent solar orbits. The escape event will appear to a distant
observer as a “split” of the comet into two or more pieces. [Please note that proponents of electric
universe hypotheses have a very different view of comets – they regard them
as simply being asteroids with extremely hyperbolic orbits, accumulating
charge by moving deeply through the plasma exiting from the Sun – N.I. Ed]
The test involves the
velocity of the fragment comets relative to the original comet from which
they split. In the dirty snowball model, the velocity is the result of jet
action. The energy source might be entirely internal to the comet, in which
case the velocity of ejection of split comet fragments will be independent
of the distance from the Sun at which the split occurs. Alternatively, the
energy for the split in the dirty snowball model might come from solar
light, solar heat, solar wind, solar magnetism, or something associated
with the Sun. In all such cases, the energy ought to increase inversely
with the square of solar distance, which will yield relative velocities
that are inverse with solar distance to the first power. The dirty snowball
model, because it does not predict such splits, is not specific about which
mechanism, a solar or a non-solar energy source, is the correct one.
Figure 6. Comet split
velocities (V) vs. solar distance (R). C = comet internal energy; S =
solar energy; E = eph satellite model; shaded area is one sigma
observational upper and lower bounds.
|
By contrast, the eph and its satellite model require
gravitational escapes of satellite comets as the sphere of influence of the
primary nucleus shrinks upon approach to the Sun. The laws of dynamics
require that “split” fragment velocities be escape velocities, which vary
inversely with the square root of solar distance. Any other observed
relationship would falsify the model.
In Figure
6, we
show a plot of split-comet component relative velocities, V, versus solar
distance of the comet in astronomical units at the time of splitting, R, on
a log-log scale. The data and its one-sigma spread lie within the shaded
region. For comparison, three theoretical curves are shown, labeled “C”,
“S”, and “E”. These represent a comet-internal energy source, a solar
energy source, and gravitational escape energies as predicted by the eph,
respectively. All curves have been shifted vertically to intersect at 1 au
because only the slopes are relevant.
It is apparent that the theoretical curve predicted by the eph
model falls within the one-sigma data region, and is therefore fully in
accord with the observations. Both of the possibilities for the dirty
snowball model fall well outside the data range by at least four sigma.
This means the dirty snowball model is excluded as an explanation at the
statistical level of better than 10,000-to-1.
In summary, we see that the satellite model for the nature of
comets, based on the eph model for the origin of comets, is consistent with
the observational data; whereas the standard model is strongly excluded by
the data.
The
Late Heavy Bombardment
Planetary and moon explosions are not just a recent phenomenon.
There is direct evidence for the explosion of one or more very large
planets in the very early solar system. From studies of lunar rocks it is
now known that the Moon, and presumably the entire solar system with it,
underwent a “late heavy bombardment” of unknown origin not long after the
major planets formed. The following are relevant descriptions of the event:
[xi][ix]
“[The late heavy bombardment] occurs relatively late in the
accretionary history of the terrestrial planets, at a time when the vast
majority of that zone’s planetesimals are already expected to have either
impacted on the protoplanets, or been dynamically ejected from the inner
planets region.”
“It appears that a flux of impactors flooded the terrestrial
planets region at this point in the solar system’s history, and is
preserved in the cratering record of the heavily cratered terrain on each
planet.”
“An essential requirement of any explanation for the late
heavy bombardment is that the impactors be ‘stored’ somewhere in the solar
system until they are suddenly unleashed about 4.0 Gyr ago.”
“A plausible explanation for the late heavy bombardment
remains something of a mystery.”
“...it seems likely that the late heavy bombardment is not the
tail-off of planetary accretion but rather is a late pulse superimposed on
the tail-off. Nor is there any reason to suppose that it was the only such
pulse; it may have been preceded by several others which are not easily
discernible from it in the cratering record.”
In short, the late heavy bombardment, a real solar system
event, sounds like an early planetary explosion event.
The K/T Boundary Event at 65
Mya
The following documented geological events at the terrestrial
K/T boundary at 65 Mya can easily be associated with a planetary explosion
event, most likely the explosion of “Planet V” near the present-day orbit
of Mars.
- two boundary
layers (ash and clay) of global extent
- at least
eight known major impact craters across globe from that epoch
- “hot zones”
of radioactivity found in Africa at the K/T boundary
- the Deccan
Traps in India – the 2nd largest episode of volcanism in Earth history
- changes in
atmospheric and ocean composition
- a single
global fire
- the
extinction of 70% of all terrestrial species
- the absence
of corresponding layers in the Antarctic
This last point might need some clarification. If an event
occurs at a great distance from the Earth, it would potentially affect just
one hemisphere of the Earth if it is a quite sudden phenomenon. But if it
lasts for more than 12 hours, as would occur for the spread in arrival
times of a blast wave from a distant planet explosion, then the Earth would
rotate on its axis, exposing most parts of the planet to the event.
However, because of the tilt of the Earth’s axis to the mean plane of the
planets, one polar region of Earth would remain continuously hidden from
such an event unless its duration continued over many months. For the K/T
boundary event, apparently one of Earth’s polar regions has shielded. This
emphasizes the likelihood that the event was of distant origin and global
extent, rather than terrestrial origin and concentrated mainly in one area
(as for a single major impact such as the Chicxulub crater formation in the
Yucatan).
Mars
May Be a Former Moon of a Now-Exploded Planet
Evidence that Mars is a
former moon
- Mars is much less massive than any planet not itself suspected
of being a former moon
- Orbit of Mars is more elliptical than for any larger-mass planet
- Spin is slower than larger planets, except where a massive moon
has intervened
- Large offset of center of figure from center of mass
- Shape not in equilibrium with spin
- Southern hemisphere is saturated with craters, the northern has
sparse cratering
- The “crustal dichotomy” boundary is nearly a great circle
- North hemisphere has a smooth, 1-km-thick crust; south crust is
over 20-km thick
- Crustal thickness in south decreases gradually toward hemisphere
edges
- Lobate scarps occur near hemisphere divide, compressed
perpendicular to boundary
- Huge volcanoes arose where uplift pressure from mass
redistribution is maximal
- A sudden geographic pole shift of order 90° occurred
- Much of the original atmosphere has been lost
- A sudden, massive flood with no obvious source occurred
- Xe129, a fission product of massive explosions, has
an excess abundance on Mars
The above summarizes evidence that Mars was not an original
planet, but rather a moon of a now-exploded planet occupying that
approximate orbit. Many of these points are the expected consequences of
having a massive planet blow up nearby, thereby blasting the facing
hemisphere and leaving the shielded hemisphere relatively unscathed.
Especially significant in this regard is the fact that half of Mars is
saturated with craters, and half is only sparsely cratered. Moreover, the
crustal thickness has apparently been augmented over one hemisphere by up
to 20 km or so, gradually tapering off near the hemisphere boundaries. This
“crustal dichotomy” is also readily seen in Martian elevation maps, such as
in Figure
7.
Figure 7.
Mars crustal dichotomy. Cratered highlands (white), lowland plains
(shaded). Left: western hemisphere, 180° à
0°. Right: eastern hemisphere, 360° à
180°. From Christiansen & Hamblin (1995). [xii][x]
|
The
Original Solar System
Putting all this evidence together, we have strong hints for
two original planets near what is now the main asteroid belt:
hypothetical “Planet V” and “Planet K”. These were probably gas giant
planets with moons of significant size, such as Mars, before they exploded.
We have hints of two more asteroid belts, probably from the explosions of
two more planets (“Planet T” and “Planet X”) beyond Neptune. And we have
hints for two extra-large gas giant planets, “Planet A” and “Planet B”,
that exploded back near the solar system beginning.
Of the existing nine major planets today, we have strong
evidence that Mercury is an escaped moon of Venus [xiii][xi], Mars is an
escaped moon of Planet V, and Pluto and its moon Charon are escaped moons
of Neptune [xiv][xii].
If we eliminate these, then perhaps the original solar system consisted of
12 planets arranged in 6 “twin” pairs. Such an arrangement would be
consistent with origin of all major planets and moons by the fission
process. [xv][xiii]
This model makes a major prediction that will soon be tested: Extrasolar
planets should arise in twin pairs also, with 2-to-1 orbital period
resonances common. If so, then many cases that now appear to be single
massive planets on highly elliptical orbits will turn out, when enough
observations are accumulated, to be twin resonant planets on near-circular
orbits.
Planetary
Explosion Mechanisms
The most frequently asked question about the eph is “What
would cause a planet to explode?” We will mention three
theoretical conjectures, although in-depth work must await a wider
recognition of the phenomenon in the field at large.
The earliest and simplest theoretical mechanism is that of
Ramsey [xvi][xiv],
who noted that planets must evolve through a wide range of pressures and
temperatures. This is true whether they are born cold and heat up under
gravitational accretion, or born hot and cool down by radiation of heat
into space. During the course of this evolution, temperatures and pressures
in the cores must occasionally reach a critical point, at which a phase
change (like water to ice) occurs. This will be accompanied by a volume
discontinuity, which must then cause an Earth-sized or smaller planet to
implode or explode, depending on whether the volume decreases or increases.
The second explosion mechanism, natural fission reactors, is
currently generating some excitement in the field of geology. [xvii][xv]
A uranium mine at Oklo in the Republic of Gabon is deficient in U-235 and
is accompanied by fission-produced isotopes of Nd and Sm, apparently caused
by self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions about 1.8 Gyr ago. Later, other
natural fission chain reactors were discovered in the region. Today,
uranium ore does not have this capability because the proportion of U-235
in natural uranium is too low. But 1.8 Gyr ago, the proportion was more
than four times greater, allowing the self-sustaining neutron chain
reactions. Additionally, these areas also functioned as fast neutron
breeder reactors, producing additional fissile material in the form of
plutonium and other trans-uranic elements. Breeding fissile material
results in possible reactor operation continuing long after the U-235
proportion in natural uranium would have become too low to sustain neutron
chain reactions. This proves the existence of an energy source in nature
able to produce more than an order of magnitude more energy than
radioactive decay alone. Excess planetary heat radiation is said to be
gravitational in origin because all other proposed energy sources (e.g.,
radioactivity, accretion, and thermonuclear fusion) fall short by at least
two orders of magnitude. But these natural reactors may be able to supply
the needed energy. Indeed, nuclear fission chain reactions may provide the
ignition temperature to set off thermonuclear reactions in stars (analogous
to ignition of thermonuclear bombs).
The third planetary explosion mechanism relies on one other
hypothesis not yet widely accepted, but holds out the potential for an
indefinitely large reservoir of energy for exploding even massive planets
and stars. If gravitational fields are continually regenerated, as in
LeSage particle models of gravity [xviii][xvi], then all
masses are continually absorbing energy from this universal flux. Normally,
bodies would reach a thermodynamic equilibrium, whereat they radiate as
much heat away as they continually absorb from the graviton flux. But
something could block this heat flow and disrupt the equilibrium. For
example, changes of state in a planet’s core might set up an insulating
layer. In that case, heat would continue to be accumulated from graviton
impacts, but could not freely radiate away. This is obviously an unstable
situation. The energy excess in the interior of such a planet would build
indefinitely until either the insulating layer was breached or the planet
blew itself apart.
Conclusion
We have covered most of the successful predictions of the
exploded planet hypothesis mentioned in the abstract: (1) satellites of
asteroids; (2) satellites of comets; (4) “roll marks” leading to boulders
on asteroids; (6) explosion signatures for asteroids; (7) strongly spiked
energy parameter for new comets; (8) distribution of black material on
slowly rotating airless bodies; (9) splitting velocities of comets; (10)
Mars is a former moon of an exploded planet. Two additional successes and
one additional new prediction will be mentioned briefly here.
Abstract (3): salt water in meteorites. This refers to an
obvious corollary of the eph, never explicitly put in writing in so many
words. If meteorites come from the explosion of planet-sized bodies, the
water from such bodies can be ocean water (as on Earth and as suspected for
Jupiter’s moon Europa), and would therefore be expected to contain salt from
run-off of minerals from solid portions of the planet. Only recently has
meteorite water been tested for salt content for the first time, with the
surprising result that sodium chloride was found. [xix][xvii] Certain
aspects of this discovery suggest that water was flowing on the parent body
from which the meteorite came. ’The existence of a water-soluble salt in
this meteorite is astonishing,” wrote R.N. Clayton of the University of
Chicago in the reference cited. True, unless one had the exploded planet hypothesis
in mind.
Supplementing the idea of salt water in meteorites, we did
explicitly predict salt water in comets. [xx][xviii] “In March, a
long sodium tail was discovered in Comet Hale-Bopp. Aside from the general
interest in this new type of comet tail, it was noted that the sodium ions
have a half-life of just half a day, too short to survive a trip from the
nucleus to the farthest parts of the tail. So the sodium must be conveyed
as part of a parent molecule that is split by the solar wind into sodium and
some other ions. The significance of this for comet models is that the
exploded planet hypothesis says that comets originated in the explosion of
a water-bearing planet. If that planetary water was salt water, as
planetary oceans on Earth all tend to be, then water in comets would be
salt water. The parent molecule for the salt escaping the comet’s coma into
the tail would be sodium chloride (salt), and the “other ions” would be
chlorine ions. The unknown parent molecule has not yet been officially discovered.
But one can readily see that the discovery of chlorine in comets to go
along with this discovery of sodium would make a strong case for the
planetary origin scenario.”
Abstract (5): the time and peak rate of the 1999 Leonid meteor
storm. Esko Lyytinen of Finland used the exploded planet hypothesis as a
model for understanding and predicting the behavior of meteor storms. These
had never before been successfully predicted. Although nearly a dozen
professional astronomers attempted predictions for the possible November
1999 storm, only three teams had results that were correct for the time of
the event, and only Lyytinen had both the time and the peak meteor rate
correct to within the stated error bars. The complete story of this
prediction, the expedition, and its successful conclusion are beyond the
scope of this paper, but may be found in the reference. [xxi][xix]
With the documented track record the eph has now established,
it is small wonder that professional astronomers are no longer willing to
make wagers with eph proponents about the outcome of either recent or
future eph predictions. But sadly, research funding is still being poured
almost exclusively into competitor theories.
[1][i]
T. Van Flandern (1978), “A former asteroidal planet as the origin of comets”,
Icarus 36, 51-74.
[1][ii]
Z. Sekanina (1999), “Detection of a satellite orbiting the nucleus of Comet
Hale-Bopp (C/1995 O1)”, Earth, Moon & Planets in press.
[1][iii]
T. Van Flandern (1993; 2nd edition 1999), Dark Matter,
Missing Planets and New Comets, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley,
215-236; 178.
[1][iv]
T. Van Flandern (1992), “Minor satellites and the Gaspra encounter”, Asteroids,
Comets, Meteors 1991, LPI, Houston, 609-612.
[1][v]
3671 Dionysus (1997), Sci.News 152, 200; 45 Eugenia (1999), Science
284, 1099-1101.
[1][vi]
T. Van Flandern (1999), “Status of ‘the NEAR challenge’”, MetaRes.Bull.
8, 31-32. Also at .
[1][vii]
T. LeDuin, A.C. Levasseur-Rigourd & J.B. Renard (1993), “Dust and gas
brightness profiles in the Grigg-Skjellerup coma from OPE/Giotto”, in Abstracts
for IAU Symposium 160: Asteroids, Comets, Meteors 1993, Belgirate
(Navara) Italy, 182.
[1][viii]
E. Marchis, H. Bochnhardt, O.R. Hainaut & D. Le Mignant (1999),
“Adaptive optics observations of the innermost coma of C/1995 O1: Are there
a ‘Hale’ and a ‘Bopp’ in comet Hale-Bopp?”, Astron.Astrophys. 349,
985-995.
[1][ix]
P.R. Weissman (1989), “The impact history of the solar system: implications
for the origin of atmospheres," in Origin
and Evolution of Planetary and Satellite Atmospheres, S.K. Atreya, J.B.
Pollack, and M.S. Matthews, eds., Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, 247-249.
[1][x]
E.H. Christiansen & W.K. Hamblin (1995), Exploring the Planets,
2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 144.
[1][xi]
T.C. Van Flandern & R.S. Harrington (1976), “A dynamical investigation
of the conjecture that Mercury is an escaped satellite of Venus”, Icarus
28, 435-440.
[1][xii]
R.S. Harrington & T.C. Van Flandern (1979), “The satellites of Neptune
and the origin of Pluto”, Icarus 39, 131-136.
[1][xiii]
T. Van Flandern (1997), “The original solar system”, MetaRes.Bull. 6,
17-29. See also .
[1][xiv]
W.H. Ramsey (1950), “On the instability of small planetary cores (I)”, Mon.Not.Roy.Astr.Soc.
110, 325-338.
[1][xv]
(1998), EOS 79 (9/22), 451 & 456. See also <http://www.ans.org/pi/np/oklo/>.
[1][xvi]
T. Van Flandern (1996), “Possible new properties of gravity”, Astrophys.&SpaceSci.
244, 249-261.
[1][xvii]
(1999), Science 285, 1364-1365 & 1377-1379:
[1][xviii]
T. Van Flandern (1997), “Comet Hale-Bopp update”, MetaRes.Bull. 6,
29-32: [The author gratefully acknowledges Richard Hoagland of the
Enterprise Mission for this argument.]
[1][xix]
E. Lyytinen (1999), “Leonid predictions for the years 1999-2007 with the
satellite model of comets”, MetaRes.Bull. 8, 33-40; T. Van Flandern
(1999), “1999 Leonid meteor storm – How the predictions fared”, MetaRes.Bull.
8, 59-63.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Add your perspective to the conscious collective