The Exploded Planet Hypothesis

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.

Mo
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp

--
Usenet is filled with abusive and obsessive-compulsive-sociopathic personality disorder sufferers which makes it all the more easily ignored, dismissed and ridiculed.

Mad Scientist wrote in message t.cable.rogers.com...
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.

Mo
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp


So what mechanism do you think could cause a planet to explode?

Double-A

"Double-A" wrote in message
m...
Mad Scientist wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
Where It Began - the Titius-Bode Law of Planetary Spacing
SNIP


So what mechanism do you think could cause a planet to explode?
The Kryptonite core went critical. But no one listened to Jor-el when he
warned the grand council.

This "law" breaks down badly for the outer Solar System making it more
a suggestion than a law. Why did you bother us by posting it?

Saul Levy


On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 22:03:22 GMT, Mad Scientist
wrote:

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.

Mo
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp

In message , Saul Levy
writes
This "law" breaks down badly for the outer Solar System making it more
a suggestion than a law. Why did you bother us by posting it?

Saul Levy

Because he's a troll. Why did you reply?

Mad Scientist wrote in message t.cable.rogers.com...
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.

Mo
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp


In your copying of this from Tom Van Flandern's site, you left out the
proposed mechanism that might be of most interest to the Flowing Space
theorists among us:


"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 [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."


Double-A

In message , Double-A
writes


In your copying of this from Tom Van Flandern's site, you left out the
proposed mechanism that might be of most interest to the Flowing Space
theorists among us:


"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 [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."


Double-A

But isn't that essentially what has happened to Venus? It's got no
tectonic activity, very little vulcanism, and a thick insulating
atmosphere. So the heat builds up until you get a huge volcanic
turnover. You certainly wouldn't get containment of the astronomical
amount of energy needed to disrupt a planet.
Is Tom still proposing asteroidal moons as a proof of his idea, or has
he dropped that with the complete failure of NEAR-Shoemaker to detect
any such at Eros?
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 05:23:53 GMT, "Wally Anglesea"
wrote:


"Double-A" wrote in message
om...
Mad Scientist wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
Where It Began - the Titius-Bode Law of Planetary Spacing
SNIP


So what mechanism do you think could cause a planet to explode?
The Kryptonite core went critical. But no one listened to Jor-el when he
warned the grand council.


chuckle

Double-A wrote:

Mad Scientist wrote in message t.cable.rogers.com...

Where It Began - the Titius-Bode Law of Planetary Spacing

snip

Mo
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp

So what mechanism do you think could cause a planet to explode?

Double-A

If a newly formed planet with an extremely hot core were to cool
very rapidly, the accelerated contraction of the crust and mantle
might do it. Otherwise, I would assume a collision with a very
large NEO (as would be the case with a mature, stable planet). An
extended solar flare might glaze the surface of a planet, but it
probably wouldn't penetrate the crust. In the case of the asteroid
belt, the planet is gone, but it's orbit remains within the plane
(a "ghost" world).

Please see: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/

Michael

--
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were highly
agitated.

In message . net,
Michael Hearne writes
Double-A wrote:

Mad Scientist wrote in message
. net.cable.rogers.com...

Where It Began - the Titius-Bode Law of Planetary Spacing

snip

Mo
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp
So what mechanism do you think could cause a planet to explode?
Double-A

If a newly formed planet with an extremely hot core were to cool very
rapidly, the accelerated contraction of the crust and mantle might do
it. Otherwise, I would assume a collision with a very large NEO (as
would be the case with a mature, stable planet). An extended solar
flare might glaze the surface of a planet, but it probably wouldn't
penetrate the crust. In the case of the asteroid belt, the planet is
gone, but it's orbit remains within the plane (a "ghost" world).

But there never was a planet. The asteroids have always been small
bodies, with compositions which vary depending on where they are in the
belt. That's not to say they can't be complex, differentiated bodies, as
Vesta seems to be.
And there is no way for your newly formed planet to acquire a very hot
core, or for it to cool quickly if it did.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.