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

mrmux · Aug 30, 2005

Sorry Yev, you're right. Too many damned hypothetical objects out there. 'Nemesis' is the alleged dead twin to Sol, yes?

yevaud · Aug 30, 2005

Yes, correct. Supposedly a brown dwarf. <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: 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. The probability of an event has no bearing on the model of it. The probability of several fantastic things that dominate current astronomy thinking--"dark matter," "quintessence," the Oort cloud--was nil *before* observations necessitated a change in thinking. There is no difference whatsoever between theorizing something like "dark matter" and an exploded planet, neither of which are known to exist. I guess you really DO discount theories based on their premise, rather than on their ability to predict. That seems backwards to me. Yes, it's untidy and unsettling, but that's how all fundamental discoveries are made. I object to EPH opponents' objections because the consequences of discarding an accurate-but-unexpected theory are far worse than accepting an errant theory as a working model. If a model is errant, the observations will soon take it off the table as a serious competitor. Little harm is done using the EPH as a working model to see just how well it predicts. 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. The question was: IF a planet exploded...how much debris would remain in the asteroid belt? This doesn't assume a planet DID explode, or that there's an agreed upon model for planetary explosions. It merely assumes that one could calculate the answer, even if only within a broad range. I see nothing wrong with speculating on this subject. If you

dmjspace · Aug 30, 2005

Yevaud said: Because a few posts ago, you claimed that TVF hadn't proposed a planet existant where the belt is. What? I spend so much time refuting your misunderstandings or misquotes that I hardly have time to debate the rare morsels of data you bring up! I never said anything of the sort. I honestly don't know where you get this stuff.

mrmux · Aug 30, 2005

Okay, dmj. Just say 'Nope, I didn't'. It's obviously an honest mistake by one of you and I can't be bothered trawling the posts to see who. Can you at least accept that TVF is far happier with the evidence for an upheaval than he is about what caused it? Yev makes a very valid point: there are three models behind the EPH, not one. Not all can be correct. I'm sticking with mine. An exotic near-miss could cause all the observed evidence of a planet 'exploding'. It could also flip Venus, Uranus (and create the Uranian moons) and generally do anything an impact can. Here's my obvious question: does TVF rule this idea out?

yevaud · Aug 30, 2005

I guess you really DO discount theories based on their premise, rather than on their ability to predict. That seems backwards to me. Yes, it's untidy and unsettling, but that's how all fundamental discoveries are made. Incorrect. Hypothesis' are discounted all of the time due to fundamental flaws in their reasoning. Dark matter is merely fairly normal matter - which, by the way, we know exists - the "dark" refers to the fact that it doesn't radiate, so it's impossible to actually see, image, or detect. Except for it's cumulative gravitational effects - which were observed prior to the hypothesis. Read about Vera Rubinstein. And yes, there is no harm in utilizing EPH as a basis to make predictions...until such time as you have to explain the fundamentals of the idea. At which point it goes back to some concepts for which there is no evidence or, for that matter, credible mechanism to explain it. I wasn't joking when I said that I could create a model that says the sun burns phlogiston, yet explains all else nicely. But if the first premise is false, then the hypothesis is discounted. That *is* how the scientific process works. Now. As to the missing material in the Belt. "Escaped or was perturbed..." Wait, now. You've already discounted perturbation as a basis for a planet not existing in the belt. But now you say it *was* perturbed. Huh? And escaped how? That just doesn't "happen," there has to be something to cause it: a collision, an energetic event that impels it, etc. If...IF a planet were to explode, then all of that material would still be present, more or less. Whether in the belt, as earth-crossing asteroids, or something very much like it. Or, perhaps as a HUGE bombardment of some of the planets, and by that I mean a bombardment that would make the Terminal Bombardment phase look tepid by comparison. Remember, we're talking about an entire planet's worth of material. And <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 31, 2005

dmjspace: Well, since you're trying to catch others at misquoting or misrepresenting material, I thought I'd call you on one you put into your posts about kirkwood gaps: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />... 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...<hr /></blockquote> Bold is your emphasis...the other one is mine. The report says the gap is full of small stuff, and isn't empty. It doesn't deny a derth of larger objects though, merely the overall profile of the gap. You merely picked out the small bit that supported you. <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 31, 2005

Saiph said: It doesn't deny a derth of larger objects though, merely the overall profile of the gap. And? So it's only a gap for big asteroids, not small ones. How does this support the case against the EPH?

yevaud · Aug 31, 2005

No, that's wrong. A Kirkwood gap doesn't prohibit objects from being in it - but they won't, as a rule, stay, as they're perturbed out of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

silylene old · Aug 31, 2005

MODERATORS - Please move this thread to "Phenomena". Thanks <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

mrmux · Aug 31, 2005

Er... why? Granted, we are exploring the improbable here but it's a reasonable discussion and has been going for some time (especially if you count the Deep Impact Predictions thread that this spun off from). 'Phenomena' is a different league altogether. If I'd started this thread there it would be moved for being too rational.

Saiph · Aug 31, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Saiph said: It doesn't deny a derth of larger objects though, merely the overall profile of the gap. And? So it's only a gap for big asteroids, not small ones. How does this support the case against the EPH?<hr /></blockquote> I didn't say how it applied to the EPH. I don't care. I was just pointing out how you are also mis-representing quotes (that others have been accused of as well). <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 · Sep 1, 2005

Yevaud said: No, that's wrong. A Kirkwood gap doesn't prohibit objects from being in it - but they won't, as a rule, stay, as they're perturbed out of it. Okay, I'll buy that. I still want to know why the smaller asteroids continually populate the gaps, why the large ones are gone and are not replenished, and how this supports the "dirty snowball" comet model.

yevaud · Sep 1, 2005

*That* was not the point. TVF believes that a planet at least the mass of Earth once existed where the Asteroid Belt is. The point was to demonstrate that perturbation prevents such a body from coalescing in the first event. How would that be possible, when any material there is always perturbed out of that orbit? (more correctly, those orbits. There are several Gaps) Nothing prevents something from being impelled into one of the Gaps...but it won't remain for long. It is ultimately perturbed out of it. It's not a stable orbit. The more mass the material has, the more likely/faster that resonance will perturb the object back out of the Gap. Simply put. As far as supporting the theory, well, it was stated that it derived from an exploded planet that was once present there. If this is purportedly the source of the cometary material - whether Icy, Stony, Nickel-Iron, or made of Blue Cheese, and that material derived from a former planet - it beggars the question of that it's not possible for it to remain there long enough to form a planet in the first event. That's what I meant. <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 · Sep 1, 2005

Actually, I can't imagine that the larger objects would be shifted out faster than the little ones, especially if it's just jupiter doing that. The entire gravitational acceleration is proportional to mass thing means the big and small bodies will act the same. What's more likely is the smaller bodies are deflected into the gap more regularly during their meanderings in the asteroid belt. The large ones, once out, will tend to stay out more. When they collide with something, the large object will maintain a relatively unaltered orbit, while the small one will be sent on a deflected trajectory (moreso anyway), which will likely cross through the gaps. <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>

yevaud · Sep 1, 2005

Ah. Not my speciality, I'm afraid. I live and learn. As it should be. I can't quite put my finger on why (I know about gravity acting equivalently on large and small masses), but I knew there was some reason why the smaller masses remained longer - or at least predominated. See, Dmj...people in science don't know everything by any means, but we're generally more than willing to admit "we don't know," and then learn some more. <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 · Sep 1, 2005

Saiph said: What's more likely is the smaller bodies are deflected into the gap more regularly during their meanderings in the asteroid belt. The large ones, once out, will tend to stay out more. When they collide with something, the large object will maintain a relatively unaltered orbit, while the small one will be sent on a deflected trajectory (moreso anyway), which will likely cross through the gaps. This is in line with what I would expect, though I am certainly not an expert in astrophysics. It also begs the following question: How long can this collision/deflection process continue? I'd suspect that five billion years of this would lead to a situation much more stable than that noted. Now if the asteroid belt is only a few million years old, it might make more sense. In any case, Van Flandern argues that the Kirkwood gaps are an explosion signature which became dominant after the planetary breakup. He's saying the gaps were not present when the system was forming. Once again, I don't know enough about the Kirkwood gap debate to have an educated opinion about whose side is right. It appears that there is significant uncertainty on both sides.

Saiph · Sep 1, 2005

how long can it continue? Indefinetely. It's a swarm of objects (though not nearly as dense as you think) being stirred by large objects in the solar system. It's a highly complex and chaotic system. Three objects alone have a chance of completely ejecting one of the set, even if they were in a stable orbit for a long time. have thousands of objects, with significant outside disturbances, and it can go on indefinetely. It's like saying the earth has had 5 billion years to settle, why hasn't the atmosphere settled out so there is no wind or weather? <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 · Sep 1, 2005

Saiph said: have thousands of objects, with significant outside disturbances, and it can go on indefinetely. I suspect this is not the case. And your analogy is inappropriate, in my opinion. Earth's atmosphere involves many forces that keep it perpetually dynamic. In the asteroid belt we're merely talking about collisions. Eventually, especially over vast time spans, orbit eccentricities are damped out and collisions should occur with less and less frequency. But since we're not talking any specific numbers here, I guess this is all just idle speculation. Here's what TVF says about the gaps: One very puzzling characteristic of the distribution of asteroid orbits is the so-called "Kirkwood gaps" in their mean distances. It is known that perturbations by Jupiter cause the asteroids to spend less time at these special mean distances than at other mean distances. But it is not known how asteroids could have originated in conventional theories without populating these empty zones with the same densities as the adjacent zones, if they formed over any period of time. All suggestions to date have been remarkably ad hoc. But if the asteroids originated all at once in an explosion, then the distribution of orbits in mean distance would be smooth at the outset, but would soon thin out in the regions where perturbations cause asteroids to spend less time. Hence the long-term average mean distances (one of the so-called "proper elements") would show gaps at those special distances, resolving the puzzle in an a priori way.

Saiph · Sep 1, 2005

And there are many aspects working on the asteroid belts as well. The heating and cooling of an asteroid, along with it's rotation can alter the orbit for instance. Jupiter is having a large influence as well. as for: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />But it is not known how asteroids could have originated in conventional theories without populating these empty zones with the same densities as the adjacent zones, if they formed over any period of time<hr /></blockquote> The entire point is jupiter keeps these areas relatively clear of small objects, before, during, and after formation. It doesn't require them to be put there at the same time (via explosion) to get the effect. <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>

mrmux · Sep 3, 2005

dmj, you never answered my question. What do you think of the exotic near-miss scenario?

dmjspace · Sep 3, 2005

MrMux said: dmj, you never answered my question. What do you think of the exotic near-miss scenario? You mean the Magic Bullet Theory? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Just kidding. Actually, the MBT sounds like one of the many "solar system intruder" versions as suggested by Sitchen, Von Daniken, Velikovsky et al. Others I've read about include the "Dark Star" theory, Alan Alford's "The Phoenix Solution" (which is actually based on the EPH), and Paul LaViolette's galactic "superwave" theory. My inclination is toward the EPH (obviously), but if a version of the "intruder" hypothesis is correct, I would tend to think it's a cyclical thing, i.e. the Earth passes through debris fields and experiences catastrophic bombardment leading to extinctions, etc. There's some pretty interesting (even scholarly) debate about extinctions being tied to periodic bombardments which have been found to occur over 26 million year cycles. Raup is the scientist. And another guy...I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment. The debate raged for a while and has died down. I'm sure it will get resurrected though with our newfound worries over catastrophes, which eventually will have to include serious discussion of how to deal with asteroid strikes on Earth. The problem with many of these theories, as I understand it, is that it's really, *really* hard to get things to smash directly into each other in the vast emptiness of space.

mrmux · Sep 3, 2005

The problem with many of these theories, as I understand it, is that it's really, *really* hard to get things to smash directly into each other in the vast emptiness of space. Agreed. Almost as soon as I thought of the MBT (ahem!) I realised a near-miss was vastly more likely than an impact, and could yield similar results. And although a tiny rocky planet would have trouble attracting a passing interstellar body, the sun itself would fare better (and therefore the inner solar system would fare worse). As I've said before, nobody works with what they consider 'impossible'. Everyone can work with improbable, though.

vonster · Mar 23, 2006

- if you sail far enough out to sea, you'll fall off. because the earth is flat - everything revolves around the earth - if man were meant to fly, he'd have wings - if you try and fly faster than the speed of sound, you'll die - light is either a wave or a particle: make up your mind - life couldnt possibly in extremely cold environments, like underneath artic ice - life couldnt possibly exist in extremely hot environments .. like, next to a deep undersea vent - all the moons out beyond the HZ are frozen solid, how could there be water .. oh yeah .. and: - planets cant explode <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The probability of an event has no bearing on the model of it. The probability of several fantastic things that dominate current astronomy thinking--"dark matter," "quintessence," the Oort cloud--was nil *before* observations necessitated a change in thinking. There is no difference whatsoever between theorizing something like "dark matter" and an exploded planet, neither of which are known to exist. [to] discount theories based on their premise, rather than on their ability to predict ... seems backwards to me. Yes, it's untidy and unsettling, but that's how all fundamental discoveries are made<hr /></blockquote> totally agree. you know, i try and approach everything like this with an open critical attitude ... and ... i dont 100% agree with everything ive seen from Van Flandern. however ... i think he's onto something with this. it predicts a lot of what we're finding out now, it explains a lot of things that have always had unconvincing explanations, and its just wierd enough to be true its just the kind of thing that comes along every 50 years or so that upsets all the stodgey egotistical scientists that are kissing ass to keep thier research grants comi

centsworth_II · Mar 23, 2006

"planets cant explode? yeah? what makes anybody so sure they're all that stable?" Simple physics, I gather. "occam's razor. i like it" To me the simplest explaination for most of the comets and asteroids in the solar system is that they are the remnants of the planet-building age, left overs. That they are the result of a fully constructed planet that later met with some misfortune seems an unnecessary and unfounded complication. One that no true adherent to occam's razor would tolerate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

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

mrmux

Guest

yevaud

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

mrmux

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Saiph

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

yevaud

Guest

silylene old

Guest

mrmux

Guest

Saiph

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

yevaud

Guest

Saiph

Guest

yevaud

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

Saiph

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

Saiph

Guest

mrmux

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

mrmux

Guest

vonster

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page