Helium Planets

OK.

You must have some "impression" of what the EPH is. Why don't you tell us of this impression, and I will do my best to show you where you are right (in your understanding) and where you are wrong (in your understanding).

As always, we do not insist that you agree. Only that you understand.

Regards,
LB

PS - I still think you ought to re-read the book chapters. And the other papers and articles posted on this site. At the least this will provide you with a source of question to ask.

Good luck.

My impression of EPH is it is an attempt to explain several odd data found all over the solar system. These odd data are not explained in the standard model. My interest is in the data-not the model.

<b>[Jim] "These odd data are not explained in the standard model."</b>

This is mostly true. But the "odd data" we have collected over the last few centuries are described in the EPH. And then they are explained. Like all theories the EPH makes a few assumptions (e.g. moon and planet sized masses can explode), so any conclusions (explanations) it makes depend on how closely those assumptions match reality. The jury is still out.

No one has ever observed a planet explode. At least not that we know of. We have seen lots of explosions all over the universe. It is possible that some of them were planets or moons. It is also possible that none were. Neither option can be ruled out at this time, except by closing your mind.

<b>[Jim]"My interest is in the data-not the model."</b>

It is fascinating, isn't it?

The basic data is laid out in Tom's book. He has published (here and elsewhere) some articles and papers that expand on what is in the book. And he has had lengthy discussions about this data with others in this forum and in other forums that reveal nuances that are interesting.

If you ask specific questions about something I will try to help. Take your time and do some reading if necessary.

What is possible and far more logical is the solar system has crashed into clouds of stuff ejected from nearby SN events many times in the past rather than being perturbed by exploding moons and planets. Back when EPH appeared no one knew about anything beyond the galaxy. You can estimate nearby SN events as once in a billion years or so and it might take several million years for the cloud to reach our system and pas on by in a few months leaving only odd data in its wake. BTW, what is the average speed of debris clouds from SN events?

Space.com reported recently that the blast wave from a supernova 10,000 ly away was measured at nearly 13 kps. Estimates of blast wave speed for some large supernova events have been as high as 10% of light speed (30,000 kps).

We have almost certainly been hosed by such blast waves a few times, but they aren't going to explain data such as Iapetus, one of the moons of Saturn. It's airless, icy surface is coated with a dark substance on one side only. Iapetus rotates in about 80 days, so for a blast wave to produce a one-side-only coating it would have to be no more than 5 to 10 days thick.

<ul><li>A blast wave coming from a large distant explosion would be years or even decades thick.</li><li>A blast wave coming from a small local explosion would be days thick.</li></ul>

This obviously rules out the large distant explosion for this this particular odd bit of data. It is more logical, but of course not certain, that the coating on Iapetus was caused by a small local explosion.

Another odd bit of data, small glassy meteorites called tektites, are found covering millions of square kilometers over various parts of Earth. Analysis shows that they were melted rapidly shortly before they fell to Earth, and then were partly remelted (during atmospheric entry).

The larger an object is the more energy it takes to blow it up. Once you get up to about 5 Earth masses it takes so much energy that no solid bits of matter survive. All of the object's mass is vaporized (reduced to atoms).

A small local explosion is a logical conclusion for the source of our tektites. A large distant explosion is ruled out.

But again, just because a small local explosion could have created this evidence, it is not certain to have done so. If you put both of these together, the odds go up a bit. And of course there are dozens of other odd data points that also point to a small local explosion. When all of them are evaluated as a whole the odds start to favor the small local explosion theory quite a bit.

But does that prove it? I guess that depends on the person doing the evaluation. We each have different criteria for such things.

LB

So Jim,

What are your thoughts about these two odd bits of solar system data I have mentioned?

And, are there any of the thirty or forty <u>other</u> odd bits of solar system data that you have an interest in?

LB