Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Planetary Science
 Exploded Planet Hypothesis

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Format Mode:
Format: BoldItalicizedUnderlineStrikethrough Align LeftCenteredAlign Right Horizontal Rule Insert HyperlinkInsert EmailInsert Image Insert CodeInsert QuoteInsert List

* Forum Code is ON
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

  Check here to include your profile signature.

T O P I C    R E V I E W
Larry Burford Posted - 02 Feb 2011 : 21:19:07
Jim asked this question on another forum ...

Gravity and Relativity/Requiem for Relativity 28 Jan 2011:18:33:53

... where it is off topic, so I decided it was time to create an EPH specific forum.

[Jim] "LB, Your last post is all good (but) As far as I know there is nothing in human writing indicating a planet size object has any way to explode but TVF had observational data that lead him to use EPH to explain the data. There was a half light/half dark planet as well as several other observations that he was using as guide lines-I know other people made those observations no problem with that and if anyone wants to look into it they can. I just want to understand why he proposed EPH as the answer that fit those observations (whatever that are)."
14   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
Larry Burford Posted - 24 Feb 2011 : 15:06:19

Planet crossing orbits are rarely stable for more than a few tens of millions of years. When planet crossers exist it is because their origin is recent. This can be from a one-time recent event such as the explosion we are talking about or from a recurring source such as collisions in a belt of objects with stable orbits that replenishes the individual crossers as they are lost over time.

Larry Burford Posted - 24 Feb 2011 : 14:58:30
[Stoat] "This thing would be essentially a part of the core ... "

In a true central explosion of a 4 to 5 Earth-mass (or larger) planet, essentially 100% of the planet is vaporized. The 4 to 5 Earth-mass constraint is of course theory (model) dependent. For smaller planets, as the mass drops below the divding line and some mass is not vaporized, the crust is the part that survives.

[Stoat] "I still haven't worked out the time this explosion took."

That wil be hard to do with any certainty. There are a lot of factors that can influence this and until we see a few of these things happen in person we can only come up with a range of possibilities.

[Stoat] " ... inner moons would fly off into solar orbits once the bulk of the exploding planet was outside their orbits. This would be at different times."

An explosion of this size is a process, not an event. Your intuition is working well. Even so, the process will run its course in a matter of hours. The less energetic the explosion the longer it will take, but if the available energy is too low the explosion will fizzle.
    Some internal material might be vaproized and escape. Some crustal material might be propelled into space, mostly with less than escape velocity. The planet will be destroyed, but it will not explode in the way we normally imagine. It will continue to move as a single mass in its usual orbit.

Suppose it takes 15 hours from start (first burp) to finish (trailing edge of blast wave sweeps past a moon with a million kilometer orbit). The moons will be almost in the same place, moving with almost the same velocity, the whole time. Very close asteroidal moons might be an exception.

But whether the explosion takes a year or a microsecond (or half a moon's orbital period versus a tiny fraction of that period), the directions of travel of the moon or moons will be random and their speeds will be what they are prior to the explosion.

Stoat Posted - 24 Feb 2011 : 04:29:14
Hi larry, did Tom ever consider that the third planet to explode was the remains of the 8 Earth mass planet that Mars hypothetically orbited? This thing would be essentially a part of the core and would have a lunar mass but it would be rather exotic stuff and perhaps would be more likely to explode again.

The first planet to explode, the one out at the edge of the asteroid belt is less of a problem.

Up to now I've only been able to get Cruithne type orbits form exploding a gas giant but it's early days and I still haven't worked out the time this explosion took. Obviously inner moons would fly off into solar orbits once the bulk of the exploding planet was outside their orbits. This would be at different times.

(Edited) changed the mass to Earth mass, rather than Jupiter mass as I'd idiotically wrote at first.
Jim Posted - 23 Feb 2011 : 13:34:54
Data is good-the near Earth/orbit crossing objects will be gone at sometime in the future(?) and so many of them have been lost since they were created(?) Do you have a "halflife" estimate for these objects that could be retrofitted into the current state of this model? It might help to figure the original mass(or not?) The data of the event 3.8bya is on the moon (so I have been told) so maybe data of the event 65mya also is on the moon.
Larry Burford Posted - 23 Feb 2011 : 10:47:15
There are at least 13 medium to large craters on Earth that date to approximately 65 MYA. Chicxulub on the northern edge of the Yucatan Peninsula is one of them. It is often cited as the cause of the dinosaur extinction and the iridium layer at the C-T boundary.

It's not impossible that a single asteroid impact could have caused the extinction and the world wide deposits, but a blast wave and multiple hits is a more viable explanation. The Chicxulub impact by itself was small enough that it would have had trouble doing the job. Throw in a few dozen more impacts (some not yet discovered), even if Chicxulub was the largest, scattered around the world and you have a serious smoking gun.


The observed population of Earth-crossing asteroids and comets ought to have caused a cratering rate on Earth and Luna that is about eight times larger than the observed cratering. This discrepancy goes away if the observed population of potential impactors has only been this high for a few million years.


Such a high population of Earth-crossers has another time related problem. They will either hit Earth or be ejected from the solar system or into the sun by near misses that this high population density can only last for a a few million years.


Erosion rates on Mars and Venus are too high to account for the observed crater populations, especially since these craters show so little signs of the expected erosion. If many of the craters are only a few million years old, the problem goes away.


Until we can go to these places and spend some time studying them, much of this evidence has to be considered provisional. But there are dozens to hundreds of bits of evidence like this. The statistics of this mass of evidence also point in the direction of one or more planetary break-ups. To decide at this point that the Failed Planet Hypothesis must be correct and the Exploded Planet Hypothesis must be wrong is premature.

Jim Posted - 22 Feb 2011 : 23:51:15
Several times the solar system was pelted by millions of huge rocks we call meteors. One of these several events can be dated to 3.8bya. Can any of the other events be dated?
Larry Burford Posted - 22 Feb 2011 : 22:47:15
All of the planets and moons have been pelted by millions of bits of stuff on several occasions, including the event 3.8 BYA. And some of the bits left evidence that they were way too large to have come from an explosion that was not inside the solar system.

Most of the evidence we have for these events is here on Earth (for obvious reasons), but not all of it. Evidence from elsewhere in the solar system includes the moon Iapetus at Saturn. It takes nearly three months to rotate.

Deduce the consequences - if a planet really did explode between Mars and Jupiter, the blast wave from it would take about one or two or three or four weeks to sweep past Iapetus, depending on the speed of the wave and how much of the planet was vaporized and so on (IOW, depending on your model of the explosion). Since Iapetus rotates so slowly, it would have recieve its pelting of millions of bits of stuff all on one side, and since it is airless the deposited material would remain in place for a long time. What do we see when we look at Iapetus? One side is much lighter than the other, as if a blast wave had swept past it and deposited a lot of stuff on the side facing the blast.

The speed of an explosion's blast wave is primarilly dependent on the energy of the explosion. Supernovas can eject some material at 10% or more of the speed of light, with the average speed for all ejected material probably running around 1%. A planetary explosion is not likely to result in a blast wave maximum speed of more than a few times escape velocity. Average for all material ejected can be under escape velocity.

Once again, the devil is in the details and until we actually see some of these planetary explosions our attempts to create a model to help us think about them will be little more than guesswork. But if we are careful with our guessing, we can probably come up with proposed answers that are within the ball park. We just need to remember that the answers are not exact.

Jim Posted - 22 Feb 2011 : 15:29:51
The SN model suggests mass is ejected from the SN event at about 1% of light speed and is partly heavy elements. Would this matter slow down over time? And how fast would stuff from the proposed EPH event be moving? It seems to me the velocity is well above the escape velocity of the solar system and so only a small amount of the total mass would stick around the sun.
Jim Posted - 19 Feb 2011 : 19:47:30
The Earth was pelted by millions of bits of stuff from somewhere about 3.8 billion years ago. That could have been stuff from a nearby SN event and there would be no evidence of said event that could have dated back a few billion years from the date when the blast wave past through the solar system which would have been in some other zone of the galaxy at 3.8bya. It had a very big effect on our planet.
Larry Burford Posted - 18 Feb 2011 : 22:43:36
[Jim] "... it seems to me near SN events are much more logical places to look than an EPH model. There is no reason to think many nearby SN events have occurred over the past 5 or 10 billion years."

(Did you mean to say there "is NO reason"? I am assuming you meant to say that there "is reason".)

Supernova remnants found in our galaxy suggest the the average time between such explosions is on the order of 50 years. However, this is an average and our mileage appears to have varied. The last observed supernova in the Milky Way was in 1604.

It was 6 kiloparsecs from here (about 20,000 lightyears), and was visible in broad day for almost a month. Not exactly near by, but with 20 or so every thousand years there should have some much closer.

So yes, near by supernovae are probably at least as common as exploding planets.


Have you thought about the differences between the physical evidence that ought to be left by a planetary explosion within the solar system and the physical evidence that ought to be left by a stellar explosion outside the solar system? Even if it were nearby.

Jim Posted - 15 Feb 2011 : 15:09:46

LB, Most of the questions I have are with regard to many intertwined puzzles about stuff that has been kicked around for at least a century or more-not stuff about models though. Data that has been used to construct models are what my questions focus on. For example; redshift is used to construct a long favored model. This causes people to filter data through that model thereby supporting said model while hiding other data that might be useful to learning about things rather than being educated to conform to the current belief system. The 20th century is rich in such methods of education. But, I rant. Anyway, it seems to me near SN events are much more logical places to look than an EPH model. There is no reason to think many nearby SN events have occurred over the past 5 or 10 billion years.
Larry Burford Posted - 14 Feb 2011 : 23:27:52
[Jim] "... TVF had observational data that lead him to use EPH to explain the data.
... I just want to understand why he proposed EPH as the answer that fit those observations ... "

The basic reasons he did this are 1) he was open minded, and 2) he would not throw away an observation simply because it did not fit the Accepted Theory. Over time, as he became familliar with more and more peices of the puzzle that did not fit anywhere, he became less willing to ignore them as a whole. And this led him to wonder if the Accepted Theory might have some flaws. Or some competition, another explanation altogether. The only other serious possibility (planetary break up) was proposed at about the same time as the failed planet idea, but had been passed over by the majority of explorers largely because of the relative popularity of the scientists that supported each idea when they were originally proposed.

So Tom finally asked himself the question "Suppose that a planet between Mars and Jupiter actually had exploded. What sort of evidence would it leave behind?" He then spent several years deducing the consequences. This is a long and tedious chore, because you have to make assumptions about exactly where this planet was, how big it was, how much mass, how energetic the explosion was, etc. and you have to do a lot of calculations, which means that if no one else has built a model, you have to. And you have to try a number of combinations of these things.

After a while he began comparing his predictions with the puzzle peices that did not fit the other theory, and found that there was a pretty good match.

Many years later, as the new outer belt was discovered, he realized that there must have been more than one planet that exploded.

And so on.

The details of the evidence that led him down this path are in his book. If you have specific questions I'll try to answer them.

Jim Posted - 14 Feb 2011 : 21:06:15
LB, Concepts are always of interest to me-silly or not they are all of some interest-even stuff like BB or GW which are silly to me are none the less interesting--
Larry Burford Posted - 09 Feb 2011 : 10:27:26
[Jim] "As far as I know there is nothing in human writing indicating a planet size object has any way to explode ...


How important is it to YOU that there be a recognized mechanism before you will consider a particular concept? (If anyone else wants to answer this question, please do so.)

FYI, most educated explorers feel that this is somewhat-to-very important. It is part of what we are taught at college.

Tom used to think this, also, but later changed his mind. I have always treated such things as indeterminate, pending new data. I will look at them and think about them a little bit, but I keep one eye on my BS detector all the time.


Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated © © 2002-? Meta Research Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.86 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03