Tom Van Flandern was a brilliant Harvard physicist who died in 1997, who seems to have reached some of my conclusions in physics about gravity perhaps moving at much faster than light. Van Flandern speaks of many ideas used in physics like what Maxwell and Newton hoped to achieve with a particulate physics for the way of gravity. I hope to carry on with the brilliant line of Van Flander's work. CLICK HERE for my physics synopsis for you.
The other main line of research I'm aware of by that author is about the Exploding Planet Hypothesis. This was Van Flandern's hoped for spin on the belief by other authors that each star or planet may actually have a natural fission powered reactor in the core, like the natural reactors found from billions of years ago in geology where a lump of one kind of lava flowed into another and both had radioactivity to ignite the reactor. The lumps of the lava in the core would perhaps be separate from formation (the Earth's core from sonar sounding has been found to actually have a giant canyon, magnetic fields are constantly changing and so on.) Van Flandern shows by simple computation, there is enough power in the lump of natural reactors to explode even a smaller planet like Jupiter, and then goes on on his site to describe how Mars' higher and lower altitude N and S realms were caused not by a great moonlike impactor like some have believed; rather the distinction here would have been because Mars was originally a satellite of one of the pseudo Jupiters and the explosion may have merely burnt one side of Mars, which then moved to its present zone of orbit.
TWO PROBLEMS
Jupiter and Saturn were both found by the 70's to be radiant (after the moon, Jupiter is the brightest object in the radio wave (heat) realm of energy seen in the heavens to astronomers). It's been believed by those who were enlightened and "radiant with glowing" reviews at the time about the how Jupiter and Saturn were formed in the 70's article I read, "A Star is Born, Almost" comparing the birth of Jupiter and Saturn to the old Barbera Striesand cinema, there is lots of sand on the celestial beaches like Sagan would speak volumes of, at any rate.
Those who believe in the natural reactors of planets or stars have tried to claim the cause of dark matter as being merely that stars without the uranium that could have formed never did without enough power to ignite the fusion. The problem is if f the stars were like Jupiter and Saturn they would give off much radio and microwaves. We look up to above the galaxy and we know by the way of the bending of starlight that 97% of the mass of the galaxy is in the round halo, where almost all the dark matter would seem to be, if it were no more than common stars that didn't fuse there would be radio and microwaves we could see easily. Thus the natural reactor can't claim it's the author of dark matter. I believe any cause of the bending of the light would attract common mass, if it attracts itself to hold together, and the light too, there seems to be no reason it wouldn't attract other mass also, and this mass would have the same problem of vi sable radiation. My solution here is what that the halo may be made of gravitons, light enough by their own motion to stay of overall lower density yet heavy enough via all their huge number to have the mass to change the starlight as seen. This is my own explanation and the only explanation I've ever heard of that fits all the observations in a cool sort of way! Click Here for my complete page, including all the other things this could be the cause of as observed, ect.
The Science News article's conclusion was that Saturn and Jupiter are actually putting out lots of energy not by coincidence, rather they actually were almost up to the level of ignition by the more common method of fusion. If the exploding planets were actually the size of a Small Jupiter and they did explode, the core uranium is heavy. As I say, Contrary to what General Relativity says, a massive body attracts more than a light, so more uranium from the same creation would presumably have gravitated to Jupiter. The problem would be that if we assume the average attraction for a given mass is mostly constant, more mass would have that much more uranium and other radioactive elements, adding that much more power to the explosion, so we presume Jupiter and Saturn would have also have exploded. If they can already be accounted for by fusion, even a small extra amount of fission would seem to have also have exploded Jupiter and Saturn. Jupiter and Saturn have mostly a solid core but it's small in relative size so it might not blend and it might be more fickle. Thus the question of core viscosity to mix the lumps, a balance between explosion and viscosity may be important to the EPH. Since Jupiter type planets are common we may be able to calculate the probablility of explosion. If planets like Jupiter and Saturn are usually near explosion which the Exploding Planet hypothesis involves in geologic time why haven't they if they're larger?
My second objection to the Exploding Planet is about the asteroids and Mars. The two proto planets are believed by van Flandern to have been in the orbits of Mars and the Asteroids. If so the asteroids can't have been formed before the planet in it's orbit because they would been swept have out of the orbit by the planet. We might also imagine if the asteroids were formed after the planet in this realm if they are all in the one orbit, they must have all been formed out of just one or a few proto bodies of thier own. Kuiper argued that explosion or tidal breakup of the proto asteroid planet itself was not likely, and the most probable cause may have been an impactor. Others have tried to show that this isn't likely because "it can be shown" that if there was a single impactor proto asteroid event all the paths of the asteroids today would pass through the single path of the point common to this impactor explosion. The orbits are actually found to be in "familys" of orbits so the concensus has been that there were actually five planetoids that broke up by slow collision of medium proto starstones of this type, no **** or *$^&! This was an earlier conclusion and has been disproven by a closer look at the surface of most asteroids with many large dents and craters, all those impacts would have easily deorbited most of them and the more that were changed the more would have been changed. It seems there is no necessity that the one body and planetoid scenarios are actually exclusive of each other. The problem is that if the proto exploding planet was actually in the orbit occupying where the asteroids were to settle, after the explosion, the proto asteroids would have to have somehow all moved to this orbit and then broken up. At the least I would believe only one large proto asteroid planet would even possibly have settled into the orbit now seen, not several. Thus the only form of the proto Ceres (goddess of baseball in arenas in Sh Booms) or Juno (goddess of What do you Know) would be one proto planet settled into orbit left unoccupied by the EP giant planet, and then was broken up by an outside impactor itself. (The single proto impactor planet is possible because the same idea that many medium sized bodies broke up by their own friction can also be used to change the orbits of all of the smaller bodies from the parent planetoid. The argument that there is no 3 body problem for masses like Ceres or Juno doesn't necerally hold over the solar system's duration of evolution, the gravity alone would randomize all the orbits, collisions even more. After all this is how all the other 99% of planetoids from the original mass are presumed have been deorbited from the realm between Mars and beyond. Even a few collisions would seem to be enough for complexity to arise, rather like the lever arm of time for our own events where the small virus that caused FDR to be stronger than otherwise may have changed our world by his triumph in WW II. The idea that the asteroids all must pass through a single path if from a single source seems implausable. This is why the combination of first the asteroid planet from either the EP or Archeotex (what some have named the asteroid planet) alone being broken up to medium sized blocks by an impactor and then the gradual wearing down of these by the convention in use seems to fit the observations best.)
If there was one original planet that formed the asteroids to then break up into medium sized planetoids that then formed the asteroids while the orbits can be grouped into 5 familys of common orbit, the chemical and physical composition of the asteroids is actually of just two mostly continuous general groups, with a line of relatively sharp seperation, as if from a central core and the outer mantle with some blending. There would seem to be five families like the great distinctions between the satellites of Jupiter or saturn not two if the outside of these masses can be changed by changes in orbit after they break up while the inside speaks of more ancient events.
As Kuiper says the original 1 (asteroid forming) body seems better than the scenario of many planetoids that were unable to form into a larger body, which seems unlikely. As calculations show, the parent body would have been 100X the mass of the asteriods themselves, enough to overcome the resistance to cohesion. The satellites of Jupiter and Saturn are of smaller mass than the presumed protoasteroid planet, and the tidal forces between the two moons of Jupiter, Europa and Calisto is so strong it causes enough tides to cause constant eruptions of sulphur from Io the most volcanic planet or satellite of any kind in the solar system. If the asteroid planet actually was more massive, the tides in the present realm where the asteroids were otherwise presumably limited in formation to five smaller bodies would have been not nearly strong enough to cause the gravity to not form them into one planet, the asteroid planet.
Thus one proto asteroid planet seems best, and this leads to my second objection to Van Flandern's idea. Mars and the asteroids are presumed to have come from the explosions of two giant proto planets of Van Flandern. By the above we assume Mars and the asteroids came from the original orbit of one body each. The explosion of each Exploding Planet by internal radiance at the seperate time of each explosion would have suddenly have left Mars and the protoplanet to exit at their original general orbital speed, ect. that formed planetoids like Vesta and Ceres we see now. We assume four probabilities for each, either of the two can roam in towards the sun or out towards more distant realms. The other two probabilities are either retrograde or prograde orbits. Of these four, only one, prograde is seen at present, the probability of this is just 1/4 X 1/4 or merely 1/8, a low enough probability to be what I consider to be evidence against the Exploded Planet hypothesis.
My own belief is that Archeotex was in the original orbit there, and with the Earth's protomoon orbiting it, a high speed impactor from outside the solar system blew up Archeotex aided by the moon's own tides (outside so higher speed otherwise no cause of the explosion that would liberate and librate the moon) then roaming at the right speed already to be captured by the Earth. The breakup of Archeotex would be the source of both the protoplanets themselves and the late heavy bombardment.
The idea that the moon aided the breakup of the asteroid planet by way of tides combined with a higher speed impactor fits in with the idea that Venus always keeps the same face to the Earth because it was hit by an impactor at some time in Venus's evolution and didn't explode. It's believed Venus has been hit by something huge so the Earth's tides align Venus to us. If Venus didn't breakup with a large impactor perhaps it's not so natural for other palnets to either, if the gravity was great enough to form the planet perhaps it takes special conditions to undo the process, like the impactor and tides of the proto moon combined.
That the asteroids are found in just two groups chemically, and neither of them shows signs of extreme igneous processes would be evidence that Archeotex itself wasn't an exploding planet even though it would have had moderate pressure and heat on division by an impactor in the interior, combined with the pressure and tides of the proto moon. The moon has a place of origin, important because if it were blasted away from a giant planet it would have been vaporised or blasted to bits at the same time due to the large gravity needed to remove it, the binding energy is too extreme to allow any more than several impacts of just the right size hitting it just right which is not probable.Two Distinctions between EPH and MCI (Saving on Calls To The Higher Realms)
Both have an initial explosive event. The distinction would be in how much radioactivity was in the planetoids and elsewhere. Van Flandern proposed that there are no rocks left over from the radiant explosions because of the extreme heat of vaporization. MICS has some radiation, needed to explain why the moon has an outer few miles of radioactive uranium, thorium and plutonium dust. If this were constant to the depths, there would be so much heat the moon would overheat. There would also be radioactive rocks inside the planet Archeotex and the extreme pressure and the tides and the impactor also would produce radioactive dust throughout the solar system. If there was the EPH and the asteroids broke up with the radiance, it would merely coat the outside of each asteroid they being not so radioactive generally due to less mass than the Jupiter sized EP. Even so like the Earth Archeotex would have had considerable radioactivity inside the core and inside each asteroid from the core to also explain the dust.
Van Flandern believed that Mars has asymmetrical N and S zones would have been caused by the explosion of the EP, one side was facing the EP reducing the altitude with the explosion.
If the explosion of just Archeotex was separate from the conventional impactor that most believed caused the asymmetry, the radioactive dust would also have probably reached Mars at another angle and from a greater distance, without the two sides aligned, dust and altitude.
ADVANTAGES of MCI
The moon would have a place of origin, inside the solar system, of the right density and mass to fit the realm of where it would have been formed in the solar system, it would have been at the right saving on MCI rates to have the right speed to have then been captured by the Earth (this is the general concensus among those in selenogy (moon research) based on the moon rocks found in the 70's.). A proto moon at interstellar speeds would have blown the Earth to bits and it's believed the moon actually almost did. (The interstellar speed would have been much higher yet and the increase in speed from original orbit around Archeotex added to the speed of falling inward towards the earth is in the right range of speed to fit the capture scenario.)
And MCI also would explain how the stars got rich in gold at Reno!
