The Exploding Theory Hypothesis. Let's get improbable...

mrmux · Aug 27, 2005

In another thread a great discussion has centred around the Deep Impact mission and Van Flandern's 'Exploded Planet' Hypothesis. In summary (and this is my personal viewpoint), there seemed to be two sides to it. One side saying, 'Look. Planets don't bloody well explode. End of discussion.' They other countered with, 'Well it sure LOOKS like one did. Beats every model you've got.' And indeed, the evidence presented for an upheaval is compelling. The physics behind exploding planets is not. You can imagine the deadlock. Now, I must point out I am not a physicist. I couldn't tell if the Le Sage model has any merit whatsoever. On issues where I am this blind I must rely on the consensus of the experts. I have to, or all science is random. The consensus on exploding planets is, for now, a resounding 'No'. So my view was, okay, planets don't just explode into nothing, never to coalesce again. But Van Flandern was making some spectacular predictions. To cut the story short, I came up with my first theory. My idea was a small, massive body passing close to the sun and causing the observed havoc. No exploding planet required. One could have been violently captured by the intruder, flinging crustal material across the solar system. And then, with an 'improbable' premise instead of an 'impossible' one, we were talking... So now I submit the idea to everyone. The axial tilts of Uranus (15 Earth masses!) and Venus took some doing. It sure looks like the moon was ripped from the Earth. A near-miss from something massive is just as destructive as a direct hit from something small. I call it the Massive Bullet Theory. For now, I submit it is the cause for the destructive removal of a planet and the observed after-effects, as postulated by VF. I do NOT submit it is the cause for every other sign of planetary upheaval, I merely point them out because no upheaval at all would be powerful evidence against this th

yevaud · Aug 27, 2005

Well, as I'd said in the other thread, I don't see why not. We know that neutron cores (my term for a neutron star that hasn't remained and has been expelled) are a reality. In fact, someone and I were recently debating about SN 1987A, and that fact that so far, nothing appears to be where a neutron star or singularity should exist. That could be simply that the expelled material from the SN is blocking our seeing it. Or it may well have been expelled. Now if such a thing were to have occurred, and it passed through our solar system, there would have been terrible chaos. Which, I suppose, is as good an idea as to why we see those anomolies we see throughout our solar system today. As I'd mentioned also, the intense gravitation of it's passage could well rip a body apart. Although one would think it wouldn't accrete so much of the original material as was proposed by TVF. After all, he states that there would have been a large planet there - at least the mass of Earth. But we only find 1/10,000 the amount of material neccessary to comprise such a body. So where is all of the material? mind you, to debate this point, I am ignoring our knowledge that a planet could not have formed where the asteroid belt is today. Perturbations from the presence of Jupiter precludes this. But for the sake of argument, let's say that Jupiter was once farther out, until this encounter, and so a planet *could* have formed there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Aug 27, 2005

I must leave for work shortly. I'll try to sneak in a few posts, as I'd said in the other thread, during the slow hours of the am. If not, I usually go online for a few hours when I get home, before I nod off for the day. Keep posting. I'll get back to you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

bubbahyde · Aug 27, 2005

Well something that Yevaud said in the DIP thread got me thinking. What if a singularity entered the solar system above or below the plane, encountered a planet and essentially sliced it into 2 pieces exposing the core to vacuum leading to an explosion? Or something I have been mulling over for some time. A planet enters a very dense part of space leading to the exertion of pressure and compression on a planetary body until the body compressed to the point of explosion. Improbable I am sure but you wanted to get improbable.

yevaud · Aug 27, 2005

Last post, I promise. I really have to go. I think it wouldn't cut a planet into two, it'd be more likely to tear it to pieces due to extreme gravitational forces. I think. At least, I can't see where a planet would be cut with such finess from such a massive object (massive in therms of mass, hence gravitational field, not sheer size). But I suspect also, that if it *were* torn up as I said, yeah, sure, there might be some sort of major release of pent-up energies. More thinking on this, surely. Later, guys. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

mrmux · Aug 27, 2005

Thanks everyone for your input. For the record, stevehw just wound me up to the point of proving I could never be a counsellor (DIP thread). I ask your forgiveness for temporarily becoming what I despise, and will now maintain the dignified silence I preached in the first place. Bubba: You shouldn't think of the terrestrial planets as solid objects. They are more akin to enormous blobs of liquid with the slightest of frosting. And when I say 'liquid', think the T-1000 from Terminator 2. The liquid wants to be one big blob. If you smash planets apart they will reform. Tear them in half and the halves will reform. There is an unimaginable mass there when it come to 'explosion'. That means blowing the whole lot away. Every one of those countless billions of tons of solid iron (!), gone. Blasted to oblivion. Rupture of a planet, yup. Cracking and even shattering, sure. Tear a chunk off even, but it always heals and the chunk usually stays around. Seen those supercomputer models of colliding galaxies? The 'bits' swirling and flying around like a couple of smoke rings meeting each other, then settling into new formations? It's the same with a hypothetical 'ripped apart' planet. The bits reform (Just look at the Earth and moon), they don't just vanish. My point: an explosion, no matter how powerful, can only 'destroy' a planet temporarily. We need a mechanism that removed one entirely (to support VF's theory). The main effect of a near-miss by a small, dense object would be a tidal 'stretching' of the subject body. A tiny singularity would indeed be capable of ripping great swathes of material away, flinging it around explosively, and capturing what's left. I submit!

yevaud · Aug 28, 2005

Ummm...as you move farther out is the solar system, there is less and less dense material. The percentage of the total Earth's mass that is fissionable material is already negligible here, on Earth. It'd be even less where "Planet X' is supposed to exist. Well. Suppose the mechanism of the "natural nuclear catastrophe" were to have occurred in Planet X...I don't think it'd be sufficient to vaporize an entire Earth-sized world. But for the sake of argument, suppose an expelled neutron core *did* encounter our solar system...it'd explain a modest amount of the anomolous behavior of several planets. Hmm... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

mrmux · Aug 30, 2005

I think the main problem with natural nuclear reaction is the collosal amount of uranium required. There probably is some at the Earth's core already, along with all manner of heavy elements, and we know it's obscenely hot already. Imagine it does heat up enough to cause a phase change. Would it matter? It's still inside the mother of all pressure cookers. I could certainly picture a superheated bubble rupturing the mantle and crust, but that's a long, long way from completely, PERMANENTLY, destroying a planet. That's the problem here. All the remaining 'bits' are rocky chunks with a total mass that is negligible. Everything else is no longer part of the solar system - unless it's in the Sun. If you like, it isn't blowing the planet up that's so difficult. It's keeping it blown up.

yevaud · Aug 30, 2005

<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Exactly so. I don't mind throwing around some ideas, however. What the hell, I'm in an amenable mood today. The point of this all - assuming if it did happen - is that the material from the rending of an entire planet sized body wouldn't just disappear, even over several tens of millions of years. Which is a huge problem with the Van Flandern hypothesis. As previously noted, there is only enough material present in the Belt to comprise a body 1/10,000 the size of Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

robnissen · Aug 30, 2005

"If you like, it isn't blowing the planet up that's so difficult. It's keeping it blown up." Blowing up a planet is pretty darned hard too. But you are right, even if some unknown mechanism (passing neutron star, collsiion with another planet, the tooth fairy), could blow up a planet, most of the mass of the planet should still be around. The fact that that mass does not exist, should completely bury the exploding planet hypothesis, assuming arguendo that it was ever alive in the first place.

yevaud · Aug 30, 2005

Oddly, I made that precise point to Dmjspace wrt to "Planet X." Hell, Said I, perturbations from Jupiter make it impossible to occur, and the presence of the Kirkwood gaps in the Belt show this clearly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

dmjspace · Aug 30, 2005

Yevaud said: Oddly, I made that precise point to Dmjspace wrt to "Planet X." Hell, Said I, perturbations from Jupiter make it impossible to occur, and the presence of the Kirkwood gaps in the Belt show this clearly. When are you going to get it right? "Planet X" is not the source of the asteroid belt! What evidence do you have that Jupiter's influence is capable of ripping apart a planet? There are three proposed explosion mechanisms. Those proclaiming a planetary break-up is impossible should read this article and examine the proposals critically before commenting.

yevaud · Aug 30, 2005

Yevaud said: Oddly, I made that precise point to Dmjspace wrt to "Planet X." Hell, Said I, perturbations from Jupiter make it impossible to occur, and the presence of the Kirkwood gaps in the Belt show this clearly. When are you going to get it right? "Planet X" is not the source of the asteroid belt! You have said as much yourself. So has Van Flandern. All I'm doing is responding to the assertation. So sorry... What evidence do you have that Jupiter's influence is capable of ripping apart a planet? Now that's an odd comment. Because you're now stating a planet was there to be torn apart in the first event. Nor did I state that a planet there would be torn apart. I've said that perturbations from the presence of Jupiter would prevent one from forming there in the first place, and that's *all* I said. There are three proposed explosion mechanisms. Yes, and all three not possible. Those proclaiming a planetary break-up is impossible should read this article and examine the proposals critically before commenting. And now you're back to a planet breaking up. Well, which is it? Better yet, I will end this part of the discussion with TVF's own words. And I am quite surprised at you, Dmj...you're the one who keeps referring people to go to TVF's site and read it. And he says these things there. TVF in next post... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Aug 30, 2005

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? ... 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. That's part one. 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 definin <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

Saiph · Aug 30, 2005

well, I took a look at those exploding mechanisms... Phase changes...I really doubt there is enough energy in a phase change to cause a planet to explode. Cause some earthquakes and general crustal upheaval, sure, blow it up...highly doubtful (it takes a LOT of energy to do so). Nuclear explosion: Sure, they may obtain a critical mass...but not enough of one, in a short amount of time, to release enough energy to blow up a planet. The mass may accrete to an appreciable density, then explode while it's still small, and likely far weaker than some of our smallest warheads. That doesn't do didly to the center of the earth. The Le Sage model, I don't have enough time right off hand to wade through it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

dmjspace · Aug 30, 2005

Yevaud said: The point of this all - assuming if it did happen - is that the material from the rending of an entire planet sized body wouldn't just disappear, even over several tens of millions of years. Just how much of the debris *would* be left over after the vaporization of inner layers, dispersal of larger debris as comets and asteroids and subsequent perturbations? Scientists such as Piazzi, Lagrange, Olbers, Brown and Patterson, and Ovenden have been working on this question for almost 200 years. Brown and Patterson concluded there is irrefutable evidence that asteroids are part of a larger parent body. What do SDC posters know that these scientists didn't? IF a planet broke up via explosion, the force needed to overcome the body's binding energy would surely vaporize a good portion of the planet, and disperse chunks far and wide. How much would you *expect* to reside in the former planet's stable orbit? It's disingenuous to say that there's not enough debris to form a planet. Well, duh. There is no model in existence that suggests you simply slap together the pieces and get the original mass. There is a big difference between an impossibility and an unknown. In this case, the mechanism for the EPH is an unknown and its causes are unmodelled. All the more reason to stick instead to the observations and work backwards from there. Forensic scientists do it all the time. Why can't astronomers? Oh, wait. I forgot. That *is* what astronomers have done with the Oort cloud. Or, as Carl Sagan once wrote: Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence. John Maddox echoed this sentiment when he wrote succinctly in the journal Nature: ... many people would be happier if th

yevaud · Aug 30, 2005

Saiph: The LaSage model hypothesizes that (broad brush here) a sudden cascade of gravitons will transfer heat-energy to the core of a large body, providing sufficient energy to make it spontaneously explode. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

dmjspace · Aug 30, 2005

Yevaud said: And so on. He says specifically that a planet was present where the belt exists, and that it exploded. As well, he asserts that Mars is a former moon of said Planet "X." Yes, in this model a planet was present between Mars and Jupiter. The planet broke up (or "exploded," if you prefer). This is not "Planet X"! How many times do I have to say this? Actually read the passages you've so kindly cut and pasted for us. There's no mention of Planet X as the source for the asteroid belt in contention. Jeez, what a waste of time.

yevaud · Aug 30, 2005

See, when you state "how much of the debris would be left..." you automatically bypass the (all right, I'll humor you here) improbability of such a thing happening in the first event. Ahh, ok, you later say "if." good. Mind you, I'm responding to you and TVF. I didn't invent these assertations. Now you say "it's disingenuous..." Wait now. It's equally disingenuous, if not more so, to state that virtually all of the material that would be there in the form of a planet-sized body would vaporize. That again makes an end-run around the issue by again assuming a planet can explode in the first place. Secondly, that's a lot of material, and it can't just vanish, you know. Where is it? Speaking of, the point about "the mechanism for the EPH is an unknown and its causes are unmodelled," is precisely what TVF is not saying. And neither did you, unless you didn't really mean that there are three mechanisms to explain it. And this goes right back to my point about beginning a hypothesis with false or incorrect assumptions. Hell, I could assume that the sun is really powered by the burning of phlogiston, and then create a model that would explain virtually everything we know about the sun today. But it would be dead wrong due to the initial assumption. I will agree with you partially as to the Oort cloud, although this ignores the iceball nature of Sedna, Quaoar, and the new planet as yet unnamed. So right there is *some* evidence of the presence of icy material preferentially in the outermost solar system. And yet, we know that the farther out into the solar system we go, less dense material predominates. That's simple astrophysics. So at least the concept of the presence of an Oort cloud is in conformation with this. EPH just makes a lot of unobserved, unknown, unreal assumptions, IMO. Don't believe me. I understand you likely respect the knowledge base of S <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

dmjspace · Aug 30, 2005

Yevaud said: I've said that perturbations from the presence of Jupiter would prevent one from forming there in the first place, and that's *all* I said. And I've said the planet was there already. Here's what TVF says about the Kirkwood gaps issue: The orbits of the asteroids are distributed throughout the entire volume of space at their distance from the Sun which is stable against planetary perturbations. They are therefore clearly just the remnants of a much larger original population from which the escaping and unstable orbits have been eliminated. And: One of the "explosion signatures" in the asteroid belt, the "Kirkwood gaps," cannot be explained without the introduction of special, ad hoc conditions in the conventional theories of origin of asteroids. But they are apparently a natural consequence of an explosion origin for asteroids. Googling the term "Kirkwood gap" simply brings up a mess of conflicting data about the gaps' source. The safest thing to say at this point is that neither TVF nor "mainstream" science has a definitive answer to how these gaps originated. For example: Since the discovery by D. Kirkwood in 1866, the orbits in the main asteroid belt with periods commensurable with that of Jupiter have been recognized as locations where no asteroids are found and thereby called "gaps". It is widely believed that asteroid gaps were formed by resonant and chaotic actions caused by the gravity of Jupiter, and they are regarded as a supply source of near-Earth asteroids (NEAs), the majority of which are sub-km-sized. Here we report that, for asteroids smaller than ~1km in diameter, the 3:1 gap (a=2.50AU) substantially does not exist and is almost filled with asteroids. Assuming that the asteroid population inside the gap is in steady state, a distribution as such was constructed from 2 x 104 yr orbital integratio

mrmux · Aug 30, 2005

I think I see the confusion. 'Planet X' is historically another name for the hypothetical 'Nemesis' or 'Tiamat'. TVF's 'Planet X' is something else. Anyway, Dmj, what do you think of massive bullets? My thread, my rules...!

yevaud · Aug 30, 2005

Oh Christ sakes, and you say everyone else focusses on irrelevancies. It's a simple title, for lack of anything else, and I use it to be consistant, and that's all. What the hell should I call it? "Planet Gustav?" WTF? Btw, it's ironic you just said "read the damned thing." Because a few posts ago, you claimed that TVF hadn't proposed a planet existant where the belt is. Which rather means you've been debating TVF, but hadn't even read him either. And here's one of TVF's comments from the cut-and-paste mentioned that you said you have now read: 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. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

telfrow · Aug 30, 2005

My thread, my rules...! Good luck with that one...<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

yevaud · Aug 30, 2005

Ahhh, no, not at all. There are numerous resonances seen all over the solar system. And note that the article from the AAS only says there are some exceptions to the rule, apparently. But it also doesn't deny the presence of those gaps due to resonance, and finishes by saying that it's still an important source for Near-Earth Asteroids, just not quite as much as assumed as before. That's *all* it says. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

yevaud · Aug 30, 2005

Ummm, Planet X is not a name for Nemesis. Nemesis isn't even a planet - and was never hypothesized to be one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

The Exploding Theory Hypothesis. Let's get improbable...

mrmux

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

bubbahyde

Guest

yevaud

Guest

mrmux

Guest

yevaud

Guest

mrmux

Guest

yevaud

Guest

robnissen

Guest

yevaud

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Saiph

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

yevaud

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

yevaud

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

mrmux

Guest

yevaud

Guest

telfrow

Guest

yevaud

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page