The Other Big Bang Theory

The Comet Family of Jupiter

The origin of “the other big bang theory” dates back to 1766 when the astronomer Johann Daniel Titius of Wittenberg noted a strange “gap” [or “empty space”] in the pattern of planetary distances.

If one began a numerical sequence at 0, then included 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, etc., doubling each time, and added four to each number and divided by 10, this produced a remarkably close approximation to the radii of the orbits of the known planets as measured in astronomical units.

This pattern, now known as the Titius–Bode law, predicted the semi-major axes of the six planets of the time (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) provided one allowed for a “gap” between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

In his footnote Titius declared,
“But should the Lord Architect have left that space empty? Not at all.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt

Inner Solar System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_Solar_System

Titius–Bode law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius-Bode_Law

Astronomers concluded that there must be another planet in the “gap” between Mars and Jupiter.

When William Herschel discovered Uranus in 1781, the planet’s orbit matched the law almost perfectly, leading astronomers to conclude that there had to be a planet between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt

However, the astronomers could only find planetary triage in the “gap” between Mars and Jupiter.

On January 1, 1801, Giuseppe Piazzi, Chair of Astronomy at the University of Palermo, Sicily, found a tiny moving object in an orbit with exactly the radius predicted by the Titius–Bode law. He dubbed it Ceres, after the Roman goddess of the harvest and patron of Sicily. Piazzi initially believed it a comet, but its lack of a coma suggested it was a planet.

Fifteen months later, Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers discovered a second object in the same region, Pallas. Unlike the other known planets, the objects remained points of light even under the highest telescope magnifications, rather than resolving into discs. Apart from their rapid movement, they appeared indistinguishable from stars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt

William Herschel observed Ceres [950 kilometres diameter] and Pallas [544 kilometres diameter] and suggested [in 1802] that they should be placed in a separate category called: asteroids.

Neither the appellation of planets, nor that of comets, can with any propriety of language be given to these two stars … They resemble small stars so much as hardly to be distinguished from them.
From this, their asteroidal appearance, if I take my name, and call them Asteroids;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt

Therefore, it is unsurprising that the astronomers began to speculate that the asteroids were created when a planet exploded in the “gap” between Mars and Jupiter.

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.

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

Unfortunately, support for the “planetary explosion” theory was effectively silenced by the mainstream [in 1814] because it challenged the prevailing theory of cometary origins.

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.

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

However, the “planetary explosion” theory was revived in the 1977 when [the late and great] Tom Van Flandern published “A Former Major Planet of the Solar System” after finding “strong indications of the former existence of a planet with a mass ninety times that of the Earth” in the asteroid belt.

A former major planet of the solar system - Summary - Tom Van Flandern

A former major planet of the solar system - 60 very long period comets - Tom Van Flandern
The heliocentric orbits of 60 very long period comets

A Former Major Planet of the Solar System – Tom Van Flandern – 1977
http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1976/vanflandern.pdf

The “planetary explosion” theory was also included in “Dark Matter Missing Planets and New Comets” [1993] by Tom Van Flandern.

Dark Matter Missing Planets and New Comets - Tom Van Flandern

The revived “planetary explosion” theory [updated by Tom Van Flandern in 2000] provides compelling evidence [via the http://www.metaresearch.org link below] in support of the theory.

The Exploded Planet Hypothesis 2000
Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research

The hypothesis of the explosion of a number of planets and moons of our solar system during its 4.6-billion-year history is in excellent accord with all known observational constraints, even without adjustable parameters.

Many of its boldest predictions have been fulfilled. In most instances, these predictions were judged highly unlikely by the several standard models the Exploded Planet Hypothesis would replace. And in several cases, the entire model was at risk to be falsified if the prediction failed.

The successful predictions include:
(01) Satellites of asteroids;
(02) Satellites of comets;
(03) Salt water in meteorites;
(04) “Roll marks” leading to boulders on asteroids;
(05) The time and peak rate of the 1999 Leonid meteor storm;
(06) Explosion signatures for asteroids;
(07) Strongly spiked energy parameter for new comets;
(08) Distribution of black material on slowly rotating airless bodies;
(09) Splitting velocities of comets;
(10) Mars is a former moon of an exploded planet.

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

In addition to the evidence provided by Tom Van Flandern it is very interesting to note the trajectories of the Jupiter-family of comets [that are confined to the inner solar system] which the mainstream claims originated in the Kuiper Belt.

Jupiter-family comets have orbital periods less than 20 years and direct orbits with inclinations below 40°.

An example is Comet 16P/Brooks 2, whose orbit was shortened from an initial period of 29 years to only 7 years after passing within 0.001 AU of Jupiter in 1886. The comet’s perihelion distance was decreased from 5.48 to 1.95 AU. Tidal disruption by Jupiter’s gravity split the nucleus of Comet Brooks 2 into several fragments.

Other celebrated Jupiter-family comets are Encke, Giacobini–Zinner, Grigg–Skjellerup, Tuttle–Giacobini–Kresák, 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (the target of the Rosetta probe), and 81P/Wild 2 (visited in 2004 by the Stardust mission).

Comets in the Jupiter family probably originated from the Kuiper Belt. As of the end of 2010 over 400 members of the family were known.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100027293

However, an examination of the Jupiter-family trajectories clearly indicates a convergence point [just beyond the current orbit of Mars] which strongly suggests these comets had an explosive origin in the very recent astronomical past.

THE COMET-FAMILY OF JUPITER
DESIGN OF THE UNIVERSE
THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH
FRITZ KAHN – 1954

http://www.americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=PDFsml_AD/Design_Of_The_Universe-Fritz_Kahn-1954-377pgs-PHY.sml.pdf&id=213

2004 - The Comet Family of Jupiter

Simulation of the Landing of Rosetta Philae on Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
M. Hilchenbach – Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung – Katlenburg-Lindau
http://www.simpack.com/fileadmin/simpack/doc/usermeeting04/um04_maxplanck_hilch.pdf

Perspective view of the Jupiter family comets
Perspective view of the Jupiter family comets (salmon) together
with the orbits of the planets out to Saturn.

The Kuiper Belt and Other Debris Disks – Jewitt, David
http://inspirehep.net/record/793687/plots

The trajectories of the Halley family of short-period comets also display the signature of an explosive origin. The trajectories display a limited “clear zone” [top-centre of the diagram] which indicates the Sun directly absorbed [and cleared] a small sector in the 360 degree “blast zone”.

Halley family comets
Halley family comets

The Kuiper Belt and Other Debris Disks – Jewitt, David
http://inspirehep.net/record/793687/plots

The trajectories of long-period comets also display the “clear zone” signature of an explosion.

Long Period Comets

Orbits of the nearly 200 long period comets

The Kuiper Belt and Other Debris Disks – Jewitt, David
http://inspirehep.net/record/793687/plots

The Wikipedia image for the Kuiper Belt [as at 1st January 2000] has “pronounced gap at the bottom is due to difficulties in detection against the background of the plane of the Milky Way”.

Kuiper belt

Known objects in the Kuiper belt, derived from data from the Minor Planet Center.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

However, there is a “pronounced gap” in the Trojans of Jupiter which could be interpreted as the “clear zone” signature of an explosion.

The pronounced gap in the Trojans of Jupiter

Therefore, the pronounced gap in the Kuiper Belt could also be interpreted as the “clear zone” signature of an explosion.

The pronounced gap in the Kuiper Belt

If the pronounced gaps in the Kuiper Belt and the Trojans of Jupiter were caused by the same explosive event between Mars and Jupiter then we should expect to see two “clear zones” in the Kuiper Belt. The bigger “clear zone” would be caused by the Sun whilst a smaller “clear zone” would be caused by Jupiter.

Unfortunately, [as at 1st January 2000] the two pronounced gaps were not in alignment because the Trojans of Jupiter are orbiting the Sun at a faster rate than the Kuiper Belt object.

However, with the aid of a graphics package it is possible to align the two “clear zones” perfectly.

The explosive clear zones in the Kuiper Belt

The cometary trajectories clearly indicate that the solar system has an explosive history.
The Asteroid Belt and the Kuiper Belt are clearly debris fields.
The Oort Cloud is a just a figment Jan Hendrik Oort’s imagination
Inventions and Deceptions: Oort Cloud https://malagabay.wordpress.com/?s=oort+cloud

UPDATE 22 Sept 2017
The results from the Stardust fly past of Comet 81P/Wild are simply stunning.

Comet 81P/Wild, also known as Wild 2, is a comet named after Swiss astronomer Paul Wild, who discovered it on January 6, 1978, using a 40-cm Schmidt telescope at Zimmerwald, Switzerland.

NASA’s Stardust Mission launched a spacecraft, named Stardust, on February 7, 1999. It flew by Wild 2 on January 2, 2004, and collected particle samples from the comet’s coma, which were returned to Earth along with interstellar dust it collected during the journey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/81P/Wild

Although “water was not found” on Comet Wild-2 the Stardust spacecraft collected particle samples from the comet’s coma which were returned to Earth for analysis.

The subsequent analysis found minerals that “must have formed in the presence of water”.

These results were excitedly reported as “convincing evidence of liquid water on a comet”.

The first convincing evidence of liquid water on a comet comes from analysis of a sample of Comet Wild-2, returned to Earth by NASA’s Stardust space mission.

While actual water was not found on Comet Wild-2, the Arizona scientists did find iron and copper sulfide minerals that must have formed in the presence of water.

Evidence for liquid water on the surface of Comet Wild-2
Earthsky.org – Cecile LeBlanc – 7 April 2011

http://earthsky.org/space/evidence-for-liquid-water-on-the-surface-of-comet-wild-2

More sober minded scientists were stunned.

Firstly, the minerals “formed in the presence of water” suggested the five kilometre wide Comet 81P/Wild was once a “low-temperature hydrothermal” Space Spa.

The discovery of nickel-, copper-, and zinc-bearing iron sulfides from comet 81P/Wild 2 (Wild 2) represents the strongest evidence, in the Stardust collection, of grains that formed in an aqueous environment.

The cubanite is the low temperature orthorhombic form, which constrains temperature to a maximum of 210 °C.

The Stardust and Orgueil pyrrhotites are the 4C monoclinic polytype, which is not stable above ∼250 °C.

Taken together, these constraints attest to low-temperature hydrothermal processing.

Evidence for Aqueous Activity on Comet 81p/Wild 2 from Sulfide Mineral Assemblages in Stardust Samples and Ci Chondrites
Eve L Berger, Thomas J Zega, Lindsay P Keller, Dante S Lauretta
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta – Vol 75 – Issue 12 – 15 June 2011

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703711001839

Cubanite occurs in high temperature hydrothermal deposits with pyrrhotite and pentlandite as intergrowths with chalcopyrite.

It results from exsolution from chalcopyrite at temperatures below 200 to 210 °C.

It has also been reported from carbonaceous chondrite meteorites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubanite

Secondly, for gradualist scientists, the evidence suggested a [unthinkable] “radial mixing of material” had occurred between the Inner Solar System and the Outer Solar System.

Our analyses of these minerals provide constraints on large scale issues such as: heat sources in the comet-forming region; aqueous activity on cometary bodies; and the extent and mechanisms of radial mixing of material in the early nebula.

The sulfides in the Wild 2 collection are most likely the products of low-temperature aqueous alteration.

They provide evidence of radial mixing of material (e.g. cubanite, troilite) from the inner solar system to the comet-forming region and possible secondary aqueous processing on the cometary body.

Evidence for Aqueous Activity on Comet 81p/Wild 2 from Sulfide Mineral Assemblages in Stardust Samples and Ci Chondrites
Eve L Berger, Thomas J Zega, Lindsay P Keller, Dante S Lauretta
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta – Vol 75 – Issue 12 – 15 June 2011

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703711001839

Short-period comets originate in the Kuiper belt or its associated scattered disc, which lie beyond the orbit of Neptune.

Long-period comets are thought to originate in the Oort cloud, a spherical cloud of icy bodies extending from outside the Kuiper belt to halfway to the nearest star.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet

On the other hand, catastrophists are free to interpret these stunning results from Comet 81P/Wild as confirmation that a once watery planet exploded in the “gap” between Mars and Jupiter.

See: https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2017/09/20/the-atomic-comet-the-great-snowball-of-1950/

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Astrophysics, Books, Catastrophism, Comets, Earth, Science, Solar System. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to The Other Big Bang Theory

  1. malagabay says:

    Tom Van Flandern’s prediction that asteroids would have their own satellites was originally ridiculed… but time has obviously proved him correct.

    The above listing includes 230 objects with companions:
    220 binaries,
    9 triple systems,
    and the sextuple system of Pluto,
    for 243 companions total.

    These systems include the following:
    45 near-Earth asteroids (2 with two satellites each),
    18 Mars crossing asteroids,
    84 main-belt asteroids (5 with two satellites each),
    4 Jupiter Trojan asteroids, and
    79 trans-Neptunian objects (2 with two satellites, 1 with five satellites).

    These figures include three TNOs–Pluto, (136108) Haumea, and (136199) Eris–that are so far recognized as dwarf planets under current IAU nomenclature.

    Asteroids with Satellites – Wm. Robert Johnston
    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/asteroidmoons.html

  2. tallbloke says:

    Terrific post Tim, would it be ok to repost this at the talkshop?

    Rog: Go for it 🙂 Tim.

  3. malagabay says:

    The moons of Jupiter are a very curious bunch:

    keplers third law - Jupiter moon system

    Wikipedia: Jupiter moons animation

    The planet Jupiter has 67 confirmed moons.
    This gives it the largest retinue of moons with “reasonably secure” orbits of any planet in the Solar System.

    Eight of Jupiter’s moons are regular satellites, with prograde and nearly circular orbits that are not greatly inclined with respect to Jupiter’s equatorial plane. The Galilean satellites are ellipsoidal in shape, due to having planetary mass, and so would be considered (dwarf) planets if they were in direct orbit about the Sun. The other four regular satellites are much smaller and closer to Jupiter; these serve as sources of the dust that makes up Jupiter’s rings.

    The remainder of Jupiter’s moons are irregular satellites, whose prograde and retrograde orbits are much farther from Jupiter and have high inclinations and eccentricities. These moons were probably captured by Jupiter from solar orbits.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_jupiter

    The rings of Jupiter are also a very curious bunch:

    The main and halo rings consist of dust ejected from the moons Metis, Adrastea and other unobserved parent bodies as the result of high-velocity impacts.

    The moons of Saturn are also a very curious bunch:

    Keplers third law - Saturn moon system

    Twenty-four of Saturn’s moons are regular satellites; they have prograde orbits not greatly inclined to Saturn’s equatorial plane.

    The remaining 38, all small except one, are irregular satellites, whose orbits are much farther from Saturn, have high inclinations, and are mixed between prograde and retrograde.

    These moons are probably captured minor planets, or debris from the breakup of such bodies after they were captured, creating collisional families.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_moons

    The rings of Saturn are also a very curious bunch:

    The rings of Saturn are made up of objects ranging in size from microscopic to hundreds of meters, each of which is on its own orbit about the planet.

    Thus a precise number of Saturnian moons cannot be given, as there is no objective boundary between the countless small anonymous objects that form Saturn’s ring system and the larger objects that have been named as moons.

    At least 150 moonlets embedded in the rings have been detected by the disturbance they create in the surrounding ring material, though this is thought to be only a small sample of the total population of such objects.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_moons

    Then we have the curious “hot” objects in the Kuiper belt:

    The classical Kuiper belt appears to be a composite of two separate populations.

    The first, known as the “dynamically cold” population, has orbits much like the planets; nearly circular, with an orbital eccentricity of less than 0.1, and with relatively low inclinations up to about 10° (they lie close to the plane of the Solar System rather than at an angle).

    The second, the “dynamically hot” population, has orbits much more inclined to the ecliptic, by up to 30°.

    The two populations have been named this way not because of any major difference in temperature, but from analogy to particles in a gas, which increase their relative velocity as they become heated up.

    The two populations not only possess different orbits, but different colors; the cold population is markedly redder than the hot.

    If this is a reflection of different compositions, it suggests they formed in different regions.

    The hot population is believed to have formed near Jupiter, and to have been ejected out by movements among the gas giants.

    The cold population, on the other hand, has been proposed to have formed more or less in its current position, although it might also have been later swept outwards by Neptune during its migration, particularly if Neptune’s eccentricity was transiently increased.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

    Given this perspective it is very easy to envision that [both] Jupiter and Saturn are surrounded by vast debris fields [caused by the Other Big Bang] that are slowly being assimilated.

  4. Craig M says:

    Tim,
    However, with the aid of a graphics package it is possible to align the two “clear zones” perfectly.

    Out of interest what are the allignment periods forwards and backwards?
    Thanks
    Craig

    • malagabay says:

      Craig:
      The answer to that question is on my “wish list”… and I guess it will probably stay that way until the mainstream start using their budget and resources.

      Unpicking [and back tracking] the Kuiper belt would be a major exercise…

      Firstly, there are a lot of objects.

      Distribution of Kuiper belt objects
      Distribution of Kuiper belt objects’ orbits. Objects in resonance are plotted in red (Neptune trojans 1:1, plutinos 2:3, twotinos 1:2,…). Confirmed plutinos are in dark red. Classical objects are plotted in blue. Scattered disk objects (not members of the Kuiper Belt) are shown in grey for reference.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

      Secondly, the objects are scattered far and wide…

      At its fullest extent, including its outlying regions, the Kuiper belt stretches from roughly 30 to 55 AU.
      However, the main body of the belt is generally accepted to extend from the 2:3 resonance at 39.5 AU to the 1:2 resonance at roughly 48 AU.

      The Kuiper belt is quite thick, with the main concentration extending as much as ten degrees outside the ecliptic plane and a more diffuse distribution of objects extending several times farther.

      Overall it more resembles a torus or doughnut than a belt.
      Its mean position is inclined to the ecliptic by 1.86 degrees.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

      The “30 to 55 AU” distances gives orbital periods ranging from [around] 165 to 410 years.

      This range of orbital periods implies the objects should be “well mixed” and there should be no “gap” in the Kuiper belt.

      But there is a evident “gap”.

      Therefore:
      1) There is probably a lot more to learn about the orbits of the Kuiper belt objects.
      2) The Kuiper Belt probably formed very recently.

      keplers-third-law-solar-system

      https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wheels-within-wheels-vortex-within-vortex/

      Regards
      Tim

  5. ggladyshev says:

    Titius – Bode law (Liesegang)
    There is proposed a hypothesis according to which the regular structure of planetary systems can be explained as a consequence of spatially periodic condensation of gaseous matter during the formation of the Central Body.
    According to the hypothesis, the periodic condensation on cosmic scales is analogous to the Liesegang phenomenon. Calculations indicate that the hypothesis is in agreement with certain facts: the mechanism of condensation under consideration does not contradict the basic laws of diffusion and s number of physical models:
    http://creatacad.org/?id=21&lng=eng http://creatacad.org/?id=24&lng=eng
    http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1035/eso1035.pdf
    http://www.universetoday.com/87784/applying-the-titius-bode-rule-to-exoplanet-systems/
    http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/rmaa/v47n1/v47n1a12.pdf
    Now the Titius-Bode law sometimes helps to find new exoplanets!
    According to the model Saturn is younger Earth. Titan is younger than Saturn!
    The violation of law may be in the latter stages of the evolution of planetary and satellite systems as a consequence of the action of gravitational forces.

    Sincerely,
    Georgi Gladyshev
    Professor

    Reply:
    THANK YOU for the introduction to Liesegang Rings and your very interesting work. I will follow-up with some postings over the coming weeks.
    Kind Regards
    Tim Cullen

  6. Pingback: Astral Karma – The Leonids | MalagaBay

  7. Pingback: Main Sequence – The Outer Iron Core | MalagaBay

  8. Pingback: Greenland – The Cape York Iron Meteorites | MalagaBay

  9. Pingback: The Society for the Detection of a Missing World | MalagaBay

  10. Michele says:

    http://www.ncgt.org/newsletter.php?action=download&id=149

    ON DISCOVERY OF A NEW PLANETOLOGICAL PHENOMENON: TECTONIC COUPLING OF PLANETS AND THEIR SATELLITES

    Conclusion
    The observation of impressive parallels of important tectonic and morphological features on surfaces of solid and gaseous planets and their satellites (Earth – Moon, Mars – Phobos, Pluto – Charon, Saturn – icy satellites) proves that external structuring forces are responsible for these phenomena. They are recognized as orbital forces due to celestial body movement in keplerian orbits. The observations make dubious some planetologic and geologic tectonic hypothesis such as plate tectonics and importance of the earlier giant impacts.

  11. Pingback: Justinian’s Raging Bulls | MalagaBay

  12. Pingback: The Heinsohn Horizon and The Nice Model | MalagaBay

  13. Pingback: The Arabian Horizon: The Big Chill | MalagaBay

  14. Pingback: Dallas Abbott: The Burckle Impact | MalagaBay

  15. Pingback: The Atomic Comet: The Great Snowball of 1950 | MalagaBay

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s