"... we are lead to ask 'Do planets explode?!'" -- Thomas C. Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993
"Our story continues when man has advanced to the point where he begins to rediscover evidence of the explosion -- the year 1772. ... The astronomer Daniel Titius notices a curious fact about the spacing of the planets: each of the six planets is roughly twice the distance of the previous one from the Sun, with only one exception, a gap between Mars and Jupiter. The gap is just the right size to hold exactly one additional planet." -- Thomas C. Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993
"Is there other evidence that comets and minor planets originated in the 'recent' explosion of a planet? Yes, a great deal. We can study the orbits of comets, and by using the laws of gravitation we can do what amounts to tracing these orbits back in time. We find a statistical tendency to emanate from a common point between Mars and Jupiter about three million years ago...." -- Thomas C. Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993
"... we know enough now to want to ask two very important questions: What caused the explosion? And why did it happen only three million years ago?" -- Thomas C. Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993
"It is intrinsically unsettling to conclude that planets explode because, after all, we live on a planet ourselves and are totally dependent upon it for survival. Nevertheless, we wish to know the truth." -- Thomas C. Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993
"Additional evidence for a recent and nearby nova or supernova (or planetary explosion) event exists in the form of excess Aluminum-26 in the local interstellar medium. The half life of this radioactive isotope is only about a million years, requiring a recent source to inject the abundant quantities we see today." -- Thomas C. Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993
"... the most natural way to produce the isotopic anomalies observed in meteorites, and supply abundant energy, is by a matter-antimatter explosion. This speculative possibility might result from magnetic separation and storage of the antimatter in a planet over billions of years before the explosion; or from some sort of chain-reaction high-energy antimatter generation process; or from the intervention of intelligent beings. In my opinion, the last possibility should not be dismissed out of hand." -- Thomas C. Van Flandern, astronomer, 1993
"'Intervention by intelligent beings' implies the existence of such beings in the first place, and secondly, implies their knowledge of a physics capable of blowing up a planet, and their possession of the technological means to do so. This is a consequently breathtaking statement for someone of Van Flandern's stature to make! Van Flandern is gingerly and delicately implying that his exploded planets might have been blown up in deliberate acts of war. Yet ... it is precisely this model that the abundance of ancient texts actually supports!" -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
38 comments:
so
much
to
learn
and
no
enough
time
...
carlos
Haha.
Hi Carlos; welcome to the website.
So the asteroid belt is a planet blown up in a war?
How big was this planet? Jupiter's gravitional influence doesn't allow planets to form in that area... only dwarfs like Ceres, Vesta, etc...
The total mass of the asteroid belt is estimated to be 3.0×10^21 to 3.6×10^21 kilograms, which is just 4% of the Moon.
On the Titus-Bode relationship... it's wrong. It gets you the correct orbit for Ceres and Uranus, but fails utterly with Neptune and Pluto. The other ice dwarfs Out There do not conform to it at all.
We find a statistical tendency to emanate from a common point between Mars and Jupiter about three million years ago...."
Van Flandern was mislead. The Kirkwood Resonance Gaps that he saw as important form all the time, and send rocks hurtling toward the inner planets. You posted about this a few days ago.
Additionally, 3 million years ago is far too long for human beings to have witnessed the event and blogged about it in the ancient texts.
Didn't happen, sir. But you keep trying, you do get stuff right on occasion.
Jeffery,
According to Michael Ovenden the planet was the size of Saturn and larger than all the minor planets put together.
October 27, 2009
Nuclear weapon Issues are Irrelevant for a Truly Space Capable Civilization
Someone from the herd suggested that planets remain on the ecliptic due to "gravity" despite the motion of the Sun through the galaxy, suggesting that a force is maintaing these bodies at right angles to the high speed motion.
Why do Saturn's rings only occur at right angles to the magnetic polar axis?
No one word answers allowed!
To those who have commented so far:
I am unconvinced by your arguments.
The idea that a planet exploded appears reasonable.
I would like to see more specific material before accepting that it would be a reasonable hypothesis that it was accomplished by non natural means. A massive CME may have struck a planet at this location. Electrical/magnetic forces may have been sufficient to cause massive eruptions in the planet. Subsequent sweeping by Jupiter will have knocked debris into the inner sytem, much ending up in the Sun.
I see the herd have not offered an attempt at an hypothesis. Sad.
Fungus,
Nonsense. Saturn's rings orbit in the plane its former satellite orbited. Comets and other material have fed the rings over time.
I have commented before on this blog about the magnetic effects observed since 1986 or so in the ring system.
Gravity is sufficiently powerful to keep planets in orbit around a star. Mass cannot compete against some effects of gravity, such as a large planet or star interacting with a solar system, thus we see what may be rogue planets drifting through space, torn from their home systems.
Deep space may be filled with such loners, but they are so small and cold, they cannot be detected with current technology.
As for planets remaining on the eliptic, they don't. The path of least resistance in orbital mechanics seems to be an alignment of two bodies' eliptical planes, but the vast majority of bodies in our solar system are off the eliptic all together. Check a diagram of minor planet groups, many of them have inclinations of 25 degrees or more. The closer you get to the sun, the tighter the inclinations become.
Could there be a magnetic element to all this? Almost certainly. It is well known that magnetic fields profoundly affect the protostellar disk during planetary formation, perhaps it is this early magnetic imprint that defines the eliptic in the first place.
Planets tend to stay in this plane unless disturbed by a larger object (see the previous discussion of Resonance Gaps and their long-term affect on orbits).
Also, I do not find the idea of a planet exploding to be outlandish at all. I just want to know where the extra mass went.
According to Michael Ovenden the planet was the size of Saturn and larger than all the minor planets put together.
It's a Christmas Miracle! How the hell did he come to that conclusion?
OIM,
Another idiotic post. There is nothing original offered beyond a few quotes... But that is all you do. If you like, explore how and when Saturn or one of its satelite may have exploded including energistics involved and measurabe evidence left, not quotes of dead farts... This would mean you have to think, not cut and paste.
Jeffery,
He's an astronomer so he may have reached the conclusion via the scientific method.
KV,
"There is nothing original"
I agree.
He's an astronomer so he may have reached the conclusion via the scientific method.
He also thinks Abiogenesis is impossible because its "too unlikely."
Call that science, cause I don't.
What work of his are you citing that Nibiru or whatever he thinks it was, was the size of Saturn?
OIM,
Now apply "There is nothing original" to all the dead farts you quote...
They were copying and pasting who?
And, apply to hot rock throwers, and they were fakes as well...
Jeffery,
"He also thinks Abiogenesis is impossible because its "too unlikely."
Call that science, cause I don't."
The scientific method requires observation and experiment.
Unfortunately for you abiogenesis has never been observed or repeated in a lab.
Wrong.
Jack Szostak has been at it a while.
But to bring this back on topic... I will look for a quote from Ovendon about the size of planets V & K... though I wonder about it because Van Flandern and Ovendon can't both be right.
A Saturn-sized world at 2.7 or so seems very gravitationally disturbing to the inner solar system.
Van Flandern would have us believe that 99% of this world would have "vaporized," blown to dust by the sudden exposure of its hot, inner regions. All of which is blown into interstellar space by the solar wind. (No cold mantles in the Oils Cosmology, remember?)
Lose 99% of Saturn, you still have a collection of objects nearly the size of Earth (0.95 Earth masses). (Cue Oils claiming this is Venus at 0.81 Earth Masses, close enough for him, I suppose) The asteroids only account for 4% of the moon's mass, which, relative to Earth is 0.000492%, half of which is embodied by Ceres.
Huh.
Then add to this that there is no well-defined mechanism for a sudden planetary explosion. Gravitational shearing (Roche Limit violations), impacts etc, but not just "blowing up."
I have a retraction.
More reading of Ovendon reveals he is, in fact, completely on board with the Theory of Evolution, but that doesn't give him a pass on EPH or MEPH, does it?
Jeffery,
You honestly believe abiogenesis has been observed and repeated in a lab?
You honestly believe abiogenesis has been observed and repeated in a lab?
Where is your "maverick spirit" on this one?
I'll tell you: you do not believe in a natural origin of life. If Szostak is successful, if he gets these little proto-cells to work, then we have our natural explanation, observation and experimentation. That would stop a lot of arguments. (Just like how evolution has been proven in similar lab conditions)
You're just part of a different herd, ain't ya?
I think we're too close to say it will never happen. Szostak's little bubbles are competitive and can reproduce, it's only a matter of time.
Fact: Life has an origin.
Question: What are we gonna do about it?
Answer: Jack Szostak.
Jeffery,
"You're just part of a different herd, ain't ya?"
Yeah. The scientific method herd. We require observation.
Except when its a dusty scroll from 3000 years ago, and then it beats any experiment anyone alive could do.
Oh... I forgot to mention, there was no sign of cancer in my biopsy. So that's good news. Last week's rambles about it were my doctor's speculations... this time I have proof!
Looks like Olelog is studying the plate tectonics of Lake Baikal
Jeffery,
Dusty scrolls from 3000 years ago ARE proof.
Anyway, I am very happy for you Jeffery that is excellent news.
QF,
Olelog?
Dusty scrolls from 3000 years ago ARE proof.
They are proof that some folks of those ages could write well, make some pretty remarkable inferences, form postulates, give estimates about the natural world and make shit up off the top of their laurel-wreathed heads.
But proof of planets flinging around the solar system like pinballs? Hardly.
Jeffery,
"proof of planets flinging around the solar system like pinballs? Hardly."
Why do you think the ancients in every nation on Earth worshipped the planets as gods? Because the whole world is stupid?
"He [Tiamat] marked the positions of the wandering stars to shine in their courses, that they may not do injury, and may not trouble any one." -- Enuma Elish, Fifth Tablet of Creation
"To come now to our subject: atheism, which is a sorry judgement that there is nothing blessed or incorruptible, seems, by disbelief in the Divinity, to lead finally to a kind of utter indifference, and the end which it achieves in not believing in the existence of gods is not to fear them." -- Plutarch, historian, On Superstition, 1st century
It is pretty stupid to worship planets as gods.
Here is a link to Ovenden's paper:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/nhp01571175x6610/
And a fine memorial:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1987JRASC..81..109B/0000109.000.html
The Titius-Bode relation breaks down in the outer solar system. This does not mean that a genuine physical mechanism such as the one Ovenden proposed is not acting inside of Neptune's orbit.
How did Ovenden come to the conclusion that there was an 80 Earth mass pre-asteroidal planet at 2.8 A.U.'s ? This was the result of his principle of least interaction action. The present solar system is not in a state of dynamic relaxation that it should reach within about 80 million years. It is however very near to such a state IF there were 80 earth masses at 2.8 A.U.'s. This is only one of a number of lines of evidence that led Mike and then Tom to consider the possibility that there was a pre-asteroidal planet out there until relatively (geologically speaking) recent times. Two of the others were the reverse integration of VLP comet orbits back to an apparent common origin inside the solar system, and the possibility that Jupiter's excess thermal emissions may be explained by it accumulating some of the mass of the disrupted planet.
There is an appealing internal logic to Van Flandern's theory of comet origins. But his is certainly not the only theory. Anyone here who is not aware of it already can brush up on TVF's views here:
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp
And anyone interested in a broader view of the subject of the Origin of Comets might consider this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Comets-M-E-Bailey/dp/0080348580
This book is the finest science writing I know of. Indeed the books is so well-written that it is worth buying and reading just for the experience of seeing how well science writing can be done. No authors I have read do a better job of explaining wickedly complex issues. (I can hardly imagine what it must be like to attend classes taught by these guys!) And, after reading it you will better appreciate an important aspect of solar system history. That is the instability of VLP comet orbits, and the Oort* cloud itself over time scales much longer than a few millions or tens of millions of years. Randomly passing stars and the passage of the Sun through dense molecular clouds disrupt or destabilize any orbits that extend out tens of thousands of A.U.s. So, there is a deep and abiding mystery here. One that chafes against all those trite and dogmatic assertions that VLP comets are ancients relics of the formation of OUR Solar System. The dynamical truth of the matter is that we do not know for sure WHERE they came from. They may be captured from interstellar space.
As for the Oort cloud, one should know about this article:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1974Ap&SS..31..385L
QF,
"It is pretty stupid to worship planets as gods."
I wouldn't be so sure.
Since the planets are growing it is possible they are living organisms.
"Since the stars come into existence in the aether, it is reasonable that they possess sensation and intelligence. And from this it follows that the stars are to be reckoned as gods. For it may be observed that the inhabitants of those countries in which the air is pure and rarefied have keener wits and greater powers of understanding than persons who live an a dense and heavy climate.... It is therefore likely that the stars possess surpassing intelligence, since they inhabit the ethereal region of the world. Again, the consciousness and intelligence of the stars is most clearly evinced by their order and regularity ... the stars move of their own free will and because of their intelligence and divinity.... Not yet can it be said that some stronger force compels the heavenly bodies to travel in a manner contrary to their nature, for what stronger force can there be? It remains therefore that the motion of the heavenly bodies is voluntary...Therefore the existence of the gods is so manifest that I can scarcely deem one who denies it to be of sound mind." -- Marcus T. Cicero, philosopher, 1st century B.C.
Diatreme,
Thank you so much for your commentary and analysis. A lot to go over there.
Why do you think the ancients in every nation on Earth worshipped the planets as gods? Because the whole world is stupid?
The word you are looking for is "misinformed"
Faith is a subjective, not objective, experience. You keep railing against atheism like it's a bad thing. An agnostic myself, I tend to find deism and atheism concepts I'm not entirely down with. I do not see proof of either position. That said, atheism is the more attractive of the two.
The existance of any god is not based on physical evidence, it is a personal experience, one that I don't share.
But what has this to do with an exploding planet? Nothing.
Jeffery,
"The word you are looking for is 'misinformed'"
Misinformed by whom? Who misinformed the entire world to all believe in gods?
Misinformed by whom? Who misinformed the entire world to all believe in gods?
Misinformed by priests looking to make a buck, generals looking to win wars, politicians looking to control others and their own genes that may (or may not) play a part in a belief in that which we cannot see or explain.
The natural condition of mankind is one of need and suffering. Of unfair competition and greed. Our earliest ancestors saw a world they couldn't explain, and created spirits, then gods. Some folks realized that they could turn the worship of these gods into personal power. The shaman of 75,000 years ago was no different than today's televangelist.
Huddled in some damp cave in southern Europe, wondering where your next meal came from would be a pretty helpless condition. You can't make the food just fall over for you, you would implore the gods to create a bountiful hunt.
And who spoke to the gods? The shaman, priest, king or president.
I'm sure some of them were misinformed by Cicero:
... the stars move of their own free will and because of their intelligence and divinity....
Do you honestly believe some guy, planetbound his entire life, without the benefit of so much as a telescope would know thing one about the stars themselves?
He reasoned from the false assumption that "things are better up there."
They're not. Its harsh, impersonal and unconcerned with the affectations and needs of tiny beings clinging to the skin of some minor planet in a backwater spiral arm. It's radioactive, searing hot where it isn't freezing cold and under crushing pressure where it isn't a vaccuum. Move 50 miles in a perfectly straight line in this universe and you're dead if you don't have the technology to survive it. We are adapted to our little slice of it by natural selection and dare not move, but we do.
We send out probes and robots, telescopes to extend our sight and touch and you know what they tell us? It is very cold in space.
This is not a universe created by some loving god, or the playground of a panetheon of mighty beings.
It is home, however, and I like it this way.
"Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence."
-Leonard McCoy
Jeffery,
Your essay makes no sense to me.
"Misinformed by priests looking to make a buck"
Who misinformed the world about gods before there were priests?
"generals looking to win wars"
What have planets and gods to do with generals? Does this have to do with interplanetary warfare?
"politicians looking to control others and their own genes that may (or may not) play a part in a belief in that which we cannot see or explain."
You mean like how Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot needed belief in planets and gods to control others?
"The natural condition of mankind is one of need and suffering."
True but there is happiness in the world too. It's not all cancer is it?
"Of unfair competition and greed."
Competition is supposed to be fair and if it's not it sounds like an administrative or government problem. Of course some people will always be more successful than others. We can't all play basketball like Michael Jordan or golf like Tiger Woods.
"Our earliest ancestors saw a world they couldn't explain, and created spirits, then gods."
What about the ones who could explain the world? Did they create souls? Did they create planets? How come people who can explain the world still believe in gods?
"Some folks realized that they could turn the worship of these gods into personal power."
Logic I will never understand. My belief in planets and my faith in God gives exactly zero people power over me. However, atheists had 100% power over my early miseducation by brainwashing me (and the rest of the world) to believe in spontaneous generation, evolution, and the Big Bang.
"The shaman of 75,000 years ago was no different than today's televangelist"
Considering there was television 75,000 years ago I think I see your point.
"Huddled in some damp cave in southern Europe, wondering where your next meal came from would be a pretty helpless condition."
LOL. Oh please! So now alleged "hunter-gatherers" aren't even intelligent enough in your extreme Darwinist view to hunt and gather? There are starving people today in 2009 and there was agriculture and trade much earlier than assumed.
"You can't make the food just fall over for you, you would implore the gods to create a bountiful hunt."
I don't buy it. No one that I know of believes in gods on account of that.
"And who spoke to the gods? The shaman, priest, king or president."
And others besides but it doesn't give them power. If power were as easy as speaking to God I would be omnipotent already.
"Do you honestly believe some guy, planetbound his entire life,"
99% of astronomers are planet bound and I sill don't believe the majority of the ones that aren't.
"without the benefit of so much as a telescope would know thing one about the stars themselves?"
Mainstream scientists believe telescopes are useless.
"As [Fred] Hoyle said, 'Any time you point a new telescope at the sky now you only going to find what you already know is up there.'" -- Geoffrey Burbidge, astrophysicist, 2004
"Today, with our GPS units and navigation systems and computers, we don't need to look up at the sky."-- Sara Seager, planetary scientist, 2009
"This is not a universe created by some loving god, or the playground of a panetheon of mighty beings."
For someone as planetbound as Cicero, you sure know an awfully lot about the universe.
P.S. Love the Leonard McCoy quote.
Most of post #36 is easily dismissed as your opinion or raving delusional paranoia about the state of Big Science, especially the bits about Evolution and Spontaneous Generation (is anyone actually teaching SG?).
However...
Considering there was television 75,000 years ago I think I see your point.
...cannot be passed up.
Please, Oh Please! Give me a reference to this. I'd love to read it.
You think maybe the Antikythera Device might be an old Hellene cable TV tuner? Stonehenge is actually a broadcast station? The Nazca lines are ads for neolithic situation comedies?
It is also stupid to worship living organisms too.
Post a Comment