Helium Planets

The tracing back in time shows no evidence of nearby explosions during the past 4 billion years. SETI has a track back in time showing a few impacts. Read the paper and you will see, maybe-

<b>[Jim] "The tracing back in time shows no evidence of nearby explosions during the past 4 billion years."</b>

For the six objects that hit Earth last year. What about the six thousand (or six million?) that could have but did not? If those six in the article were created at the birth of our moon (either by giant impactor or by over spin and fission) then they would have been out there for around four billion years.

Remember, it is possible that meteors and comets have been formed by <u>more than one process</u>. Experts have a tendency to throw out data that doesn't fit. They call such data "outliers". Smart people, on the other hand, have a tendency to retain these outliers and speculate about parallel processes. This is not just more logical - it is more fun. Unfortunately, it is also a lot more work. Perhaps that is why it doesn't happen more often.

***

Most new comets (astronomers can tell if a comet is new or has been around Sol one or more times before) have a period on order of 3.5 million years. Tracing them back shows a common point of origin for most of them between Mars and Jupiter. Since this is their first return to the region of the inner solar system (part of the definition of "new comet") they would have left that common point about 3.5 MYA.

Larry Burford,

That pretty much clears it up. Presumably, the phase change would be from gas to liquid. And it requires Le Sage gravity which has problems. (What's DRP?) But as I understand the theory, both the inner and outer rings of the Main Belt, and also the KB, were caused by debris from moons. I don't think a fluid planet would leave solid debris. And I imagine the difference in composition of the 2 rings of the MB is caused by difference in temperature because of different distances from the Sun. But I always wondered why the outer ring is more massive and why the KB is more massive the MB. Could it be the explosions closer to the Sun were more powerful so that more matter was vapourized?

[Solar Patroller] "Could it be the explosions closer to the Sun were more powerful so that more matter was vaporized?"

Of course this could be the case. We always have to keep in mind that our models/theories/guesses/stabs-in-the-dark of what is going on out there in the universe are not perfect.

But the power of any particular explosion is more likely to be related to the mass of the exploding body than to any other parameter.

<b>[Solar Patroller]" What is DRP?"</b>

DRP = Deep Reality Physics.

Shortly before Tom Van Flandern passed away he began to expand his "Meta Model" concept to include the sub-atomic portions of the universe as well as the the astronomical portions. In a fit of marketing genius he realized that the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics (<u>there is "no such thing as deep reality</u>) was so flawed that a counter-point to it made a lot of sense.

According to DRP, the universe is comprehensible. Of course, it will take some time for us to comprehend all of it. But if we work hard we can do it.

<b>[Solar Patroller] " I don't think a fluid planet would leave solid debris."</b>

It would not leave much solid debris. Maybe 1 or 2 percent. But then, a solid rock like Earth would not leave much debris either. Maybe 1 or 2 percent. We do not know enough about planets to say for sure how much of a ball of rock or a ball of gas might convert to little pieces of stuff after an explosion.

All we have are theories and models. After a few more thousand years of watching the universe we will probably be able to make some better guesses.