Okay, so let's get down to some concrete examples on why I distrust peer review with regard to novel scientific thought (my first topic from last week). This also touches on several points just made in the FTL / Tom van Flandern topic next door. (i.e. Tom's theoretical work on Mars does not relate much to the face on mars / cydonia, though he has favorably "peer reviewed" and published some others work in this area (Carlotto and so forth)).

Remember, I am not a scientist. I don't read the technical journals, I get my observations mainly from the mass-media, or the nearly mass media. Plus, for better or worse, I've had this close connection to at least one scientist who is "bad," and have read about others.

This addresses, in part, the question of whether Tom has too many gripes with the mainstream, and whether he offers predictions along with his theories that are testable (i.e. does he follow scientific method)?

So, for example...

Just yesterday I read in Science News (Dec. 14 2002, vol 162, p.372) about a "new" idea regarding where martian water might have come from (I'm a little behind in my reading. That, and I get my copies of Science News delayed from someone else who actually has the subscription. It's a good thing: recycling).

The new idea is that the water was brought from impactors onto mars. Comets and asteroids contained the water and deposited it on Mars during some epoch when they were crashing into the planet a lot (according to authors, Segura and Toon, in the early solar system some 3.5 billion years ago. A paper was published in the Dec. 6 Science).

(First I've got my own complaint on this: martian water features are no way 3.5 billion years old. They would have weathered away by now. I mean look at how badly the Face on Mars has weathered in merely 3 million years!;-)

Toon is quoted: "This is a new idea, and there hasn't been a new idea in this field for quite some time now."

But this is what Tom van Flandern has been shouting out for at least a decade:

1. that martian water is not from mars
2. that martian water is relatively young
3. that martian water was short lived (in surface liquid state).

in sum that martian water came from off planet, from impacting debris. Specifically, debris from a larger water-rich planet that broke up or exploded nearby. (Tom posits that Mars was a moon of this planet).

Tom's planetary science work is centrally anchored by his Exploded Planet Hypothesis (EPH), and with this theory he has successfully explained many long-term enigmas in Solar System science, and made successful predictions, as the scientific method requires. But he continues to be ignored.

(For example he also predicted that Mars "cratered" side would have the thicker crust, and the smooth side the thinner crust. I believe mainstream thought had been the reverse until recent orbiter observations showed the opposite. Surprise! Did everyone follow all those reversals?)

Of course, the biggest problem in EPH is that no one has ever seen a planet explode all by itself, therefore it cannot happen. (Or have they? Things are always exploding/bursting all over the universe, it seems...) Or because the explosion mechanism is unknown (That's why the sun couldn't shine prior to the 1940s). It's just like large meteors can't wipe out whole ecosystems on earth, because no one has ever seen that before either... (Uh, I guess mainstream thinking has finally come around to the plausibility of this).

(And for another topic: TVFs EPH theory predicts not just one or two big impactors for given earth epochal events, but waves of many hundreds of impactors scattered across the globe. Recent news is that these boundaries like KT, archaeologists keep finding more and more impact craters for a given boundary.... his prediction is being verified, folks).

What's the most galling is that even as van Flandern makes successful predictions, his work is ignored by the very people who will then claim to have new ideas about the matter, when they finally come around to seeing it his way. But I suppose one can't blame them, because these are the same population of people who (appear to) block Tom's attempts at getting published... so how could Toon have known otherwise?

Ideas?

Boris

Something a bit nitpicky first...
What it could be is that the water was introduced 3.5 billion years ago, stuck around for a while, created those martian features, and then through some process disappeared from our view.

I think that another way to possibly support his argument would be to find debris orbiting the sun in a plane at some angle to the ecliptic (the plane in which the planets generally orbit around the sun). When Mars' partner blew up, it would've sent debris flying in all sorts of directions. I'm not sure how likely it is that some would follow a similar orbit to Mars but angled - the debris would probably be very elliptical and hard to find. However, if anything like that is found - a fair amount of debris with similar orbits, that pass close to Mars' orbit but are angled off the ecliptic - I'd think it'd help his case for sure!

__________________
Tristo è quel maestro che non venga superato dal suo allievo
-Galileo Galilei

That is one of the foundations for Tom's exploded planet hypothesis (EPH). The debris is found all over the place: asteroids (and more recently TNOs) and comets. The debris has evolved over the past several millenia into these two populations because the major (remaining) planets sweep up the rest.

So if at first you had debris moving rapidly away in all directions (actually there is a full range of velocities and directions). What remains for us to observe are:

1. the asteroid belt(s) - slow moving debris not yet swept up (and not likely to, because of the unique orbital parameters - I.e. this is the "lucky" debris)

and

2. comets - fast moving debris, where the resulting orbits are so large that only a few passes through the solar system have occurred since the explosion event. In effect comets are the same debris that has had less exposure to the inner solar system in the epoch since explosion.

One thing the EPH predicts with respect to asteroids and comets is that they are basically the same thing - therefore one can predict a minority of objects that will form a continuum between them. So you do see a few earth orbit crossers, a few semi cometary asteroids (i.e. asteroids with occasional comae). Another big prediction that Tom made with his EPH is that most if not all asteroids will have satellites. A VERY bold prediction to make (made over twelve years ago), and it has been largely verified.

Another thing the EPH predicts is that the KT boundary (and other evolutionary epoch boundaries), which the mainstream has now come around to ascribing to large impactors, are really the result of multiple impacts, not single impactors. Tom believes that after a planetary explosion event (he sees evidence for several in the solar system), the remaining planets are peppered with impactors for months thereafter. Sounds reasonable to me, and indeed results keep coming in from archaeology, that the KT boundary was the result of multiple impacts.

And then there's the predictions about mars, which gets us back ON TOPIC.

Okay, I started three threads today, now I have to go tend to my life.

See you all tomorrow and thanks!

Boris


posted 8/29/3

No, I think the biggest problem is that he has no empirical support for such a theory. Or a mechanism. It is not enough to point to the asteroid belt and claim that as support for the theory. There is an existing explanation for the asteroid belt. Is there a reason that TVF's explanation should be any more compelling? And since the sum of all the masses of the asteroid belt don't add up to anywhere near the mass of a small planet, that alone would seem to falsify the assertion.

And predictions are fine, but predictions of events that could occur for any number of reasons do not exactly instill the greatest confidence in one particular theory.

What? These things have vastly different compositions! Comets are essentially dirty snowballs. How could they survive a birth from an "exploding planet"? The more I hear about Van Flandern, the more I think, "Preposterous."

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Cougar,

Have you ever considered reading Tom's original reasoning before opening your mouth in your regular out-throwing of dumb disbelief?

AgoraBasta, in case you come back to read this thread...

I posted a warning in the other thread where you insulted a poster, but didn't know about this one. Two major FAQ infractions warrants no sympathy from me. Goodbye.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

It's true AgoraBasta gets a little too colourful at times, but in the threads I have seen he has tended to make them more interesting. If he's from Russia he may also be used to a sharper debating style than here. How about letting him have three strikes before tossing him?

Two is enough. Read the FAQ. I don't care what style of debate people are used to in other venus. They will be polite to one another when debating here.

Empirical evidence for the Exploded Planet Hypothesis

Cougar:

You wrote a little but there's lots to reply to... I agree with much of what you say here, theoretically! But the devil is in the details, as usual. Do I need to start another topic?! I think I will. A lot of this has nothing to do with mars...

No empirical support? What does that mean exactly?

For example: if I were to walk along in a grassy field, and I come across a big hole in the ground, with debris scattered all about, would that be empirical support for a theory that an explosion had taken place?

If I then theorize there was an explosion, I might make some predictions. (I reason deductively!) I might predict that I will find chemical residues, for example. Or I might predict that I find grasses burned. Then I make more extensive observations to test my theory against those predictions.

Also, just because I don't have a mechanism right off the bat, doesn't invalidate my theory. So what do you mean, exactly, by empirical support?

That's exactly right! That's why making predictions through deductive reasoning based on your theory is so important, contrary to your dismissive remark regarding predictions!

Returning to my analogy in the grassy field, if instead of the chemical residues I find a shovel nearby, I might have to change or even abandon my theory. I might make a new theory: someone used the shovel to dig the hole. Or I might patch my old theory: the shovel was blown out of the hole by the explosion. All this leads to new predictions to be tested: Are there fingerprints on the shovel? Is there chemical residue on the shovel?


Well, yes of course there is already a theory explaining the asteroids. So you mean one should stop there? No, no, this is Science not religion! This is Astronomy! There can be no advance without skepticism!

Look, when I was a kid I learned about asteroids like the rest of us, and it seemed plausible enough. Actually, I had read some older books, where sort of an exploded planet theory was still being taught (call it the "broken up" planet hypothesis). That actually had a better ring to it! But what did I know? Having the asteroids be a planet that never formed seemed just as fine, and repeating that theory got me good grades!

Same for comets (which, I insist, relate to this topic). The Oort cloud seemed a fine theory. It explains perfectly the randomness of direction, orbit, and arrival times of comets, as well as their seeming primordial nature. After all, everyone knows they are hunks of ice left over from the birth of the solar system, how else would you get all that gas and dust sublimating off the nucleus?

The point is these are the things we were taught, and to some extent such teaching closes the mind. We don't go out looking for other answers.

Tom van Flandern's position is quite different from ours though, and I recognize this as an opportunity to see the world from another perspective. He is a celestial mechanicist, whose professional career consisted of calculating orbits of Solar System bodies. Most of his theorizing is based on this foundation. It might be a boring foundation, but it is very, very solid.

(I sound like I'm rambling here, but really this pertains precisely to your points above)

So Tom spends twenty or thirty years analysing orbits and observes some pretty strange stuff. He sees the strange orbital system of Uranus. The oddity that is Pluto's orbit (as well as the oddity of the relatively huge satellite). The asteroids and comets. The earth crossing asteroids, etc. Along the way he notices other strange things like the assymetrical coloring of some solar system bodies (Iapetus I think it is but I can't recall just now). I say "strange" things, but I mean things that are simply unexplained. So all these things are in need of a theory, so to speak. They may all get their own individual theory or...

And one day (I don't actually know how suddenly the theory came into his mind) he says, wait a minute, all these things have something in common. When you find a lot of strange things with something in common, you give a pause. There could be a causal link. This is like finding the hole in the ground with debris scattered all about. You notice the hole and theorize. Another fellow notices the debris and theorizes. Along comes a third fellow and notices both things at the same time!

This is partly the answer to your question "Is there a reason that TVF's explanation should be any more compelling?" It is that TVF's EPH explains all these things. AND allows him to make remarkable predictions. (Frankly I totally don't understand your dismissal of the importance of predictions. predictions are the only thing we have to test theories. Any fool can observe something and make a theory; it is the tested predictions that matter in solidifying theory. Theories are not tested by whether or not a mechanism is understood, or whether or not they sound reasonable. That is not scientific.)

To address your comment about comets and asteroids being separate items completely, let me turn the table around. Let's discuss the current comet model. On what basis was the Oort cloud theory developed? Wasn't it simply to explain the randomness of comets? The fact that they appear to come from "everywhere?" Good idea. But how do you test the idea? What predictions has the Oort cloud theory made? What TESTs has it passed? And since you mention the need to understand the mechanism (I disagree with the need to know the mechanism, but I'll take it up in this attack on Oort), doesn't the "passing star disturbing the Oort cloud" seem a little farfetched? Has this actually been observed?? I didn't think it had. As far as I'm concerned, the mechanism for knocking comets out of the Oort cloud has not been demonstrated. THAT part of the theory is pure speculation. Which is fine with me as long as the theory can make some other predictions and pass some tests.

You also mention the "dirty snowball" model for comets, which I think is ironic. The "dirty" part of this model is itself a PATCH to the original theory that comets are icy primordial remnants. Observational evidence came in (as telescopes got more and more powerful - yet were still unable to resolve the nuclei of comets) that the nuclei of cometary nuclei must be of very low albedo. These observations in effect falsified the theory that they were icy. Subsequently the theory is patched: Oh, they must be icy remnants with a dark "dirty" surface. Current research tries to theorize how the surface got so dark.

It all sounds reasonable. But note that this is an example of where a theory is made (comets are icy bodies) predictions follow (cometary nuclei must be high albedo), predictions fail (nuclei turn out very dark). At this point you can abandon your theory or patch it. But the failure in prediction remains, and in my view weakens the theory.

Finally I'd like to address your two specific concerns regarding the notion of an exploded planet (aside your complaint that no one has proposed a mechanism, which I'll grant, for now).

You say:
And since the sum of all the masses of the asteroid belt don't add up to anywhere near the mass of a small planet, that alone would seem to falsify the assertion.

and:
Comets are essentially dirty snowballs. How could they survive a birth from an "exploding planet"?

These concerns sound reasonable and do seem to falsify the theory. BUT...

Who said all the debris has to remain behind? That is the old planet "breakup" theory. This theory is different. The planet EXPLODED fer cryin out loud. Poof! Vaporized! What little remained of it went into very very large orbits (comets), and even less remained in relatively stable nearby orbits (asteroids). Some other small fraction was swept away or swept up by the gas giants (witness their increasingly, ridiculously numerous harems of satellites - another PREDICTION of the EPH)

As for the survival rate of "icy" comets in a planetary explosion, since we don't know the mechanism I can't say why any fraction of the planet survived at all. There's just no way to know that right now, and it is part of the mechanism, which I propose (again) is largely irrelevant to testing this theory. (Besides which I've already given you a HINT that comets may not be icy. They may be mostly rocky. And THAT is called a prediction. And by THAT you and I may someday know whether or not this theory is worth anything.)

Now I came on this BB to find people to educate me and disabuse me of all these crazy notions. I hope I've not come in vain!

respectfully!

Boris

Other Venus? Surely, you're not suggesting an Venus X, or an antivenus, or maybe an intravenus...

What possible mechanism could cause a planet to explode? The energy requirements to actually lift an entire planet out of its own planetary are pretty extreme - far beyond what any known naturally occuring energy source could supply. You'd have to somehow transform a large fraction of the planet's core into antimatter or something similar.

That's exactly right Boris! This is how it often works - the empirical evidence accumulates before a theoretical explanation. New ideas always face this challenge. Supporters of the mainstream view say, "well then how does that happen." - which of course misses the point that empirical evidence can show something appears to be happening before the explanation as to why it is happening is figured out.

Such was the case with Wegener's continental drift. He had a lot of empirical evidence that favored his idea, but he couldn't explain HOW it was happening. And a plausible mechanism was needed before the mainstream would accept the idea.

But proponents of the new ideas must face the reality that the mainstream probably will not be swayed without the mechanism - no matter how compelling the empirical evidence.

The difficulty with some of the ideas mentioned in this thread is that there has to be a problem which the new idea explains better than the current ideas. If that is shown, then the mechanism question becomes more important.

Continental Drift, or Plate Tectonics in its latest incarnation, is a great example, because its development is often seen as straightforward, but it was actually very complicated.

Some of Wegener's data in support of his hypothesis was outlandish--I seem to recall that he had measurements that showed that Europe was drifting away from North America at the rate of a few meters per year. When you latch onto something that crazy, it taints the rest of your theory.

Plus, in the case of Plate Tectonics, we still don't have a suitable mechanism. Tim Thompson and I discussed this a while back, although I'm not sure we came to a resolution.

But, in the sixties, the magnetic stripe data that clearly showed sea-floor spreading did not necessarily point to plate tectonics--at the time, the ideas about mantle viscosity showed that mantle convection could not be supporting drifting continents. In fact, one of the first researchers to notice the magnetic stripes thought to himself, "hey, maybe old Carey was right!" Carey was the guy who stumped around the world advocating the Earth expansion hypothesis--which we've also talked about on the BABB.

There's a fine line between the cutting edge, and the lunatic fringe.

I remember back in '93 - when I was finishing my Master's - having a conversation about the mechanism of plate tectonics with the Geology professor that I was working with as an assistant. He said "I don't think they've got the mechanism right."

I'm still inclined to agree today. One thing that has always bothered me is that the transform faulting along the Mid-Ocean Ridges doesn't seem consistent with simple convection models, but I haven't read up on the latest thoughts on that one. Are there any models that account for plate motions which do not involve convection as the mechanism?

The expanding earth models do need to account for convergent boundary conditions because the geologic evidence seems to favor that collisional boundaries are real.

A good reason for everyone to remember not to go labeling people as lunatics until the matter in question is resolved.

As far as I know, TVF is not a fan of earth expansion. (Has anyone heard otherwise?). But an EE type of explanation could help his exploding planet hypothesis, if we take into account that the smaller bodies are perhaps more likely to fracture if an expanding force of some kind is applied, rather than to expand, like larger, more fluid bodies such as the Earth.

Expert Man:

Tom Van Flandern does not need an expanding Earth mechanism for his EPH. He already has a pretty good mechanism developed (this is more recent work, published - natch - through alternative channels). The mechanism is closely linked to his Meta Model / c-graviton gravity theory. Here's a hint: his gravity model is a Le Sage type "pushing" gravity. The pushing particles carry momentum, and pushed matter obtains momentum/energy continuously. If the energy cannot be re-radiated away, it builds up...

We would have to start a new topic to get into that. We've gone quite afield here on the topic of Martian water. In fact, I'm rather disappointed that of all these posts, none refute Tom's thesis that Martian water came from off-planet. Oh well.

Oh, I don't dismiss the importance of predictions. I'm just pointing out that putting forward a possible explanation for the known configuration of the asteroid belt and long-period cometary orbits does not constitute a prediction in my book. It constitutes a possible explanation. And from what I've heard, the predictions van Flandern does make might be explained by any number of theories.

My mind is quite open to theories that are well supported by evidence, that is, evidence that cannot be explained in any number of ways.

What's so strange about the orbits of these bodies?

Uranus's orbit needs a theory? Asteroids, comets, earth-crossers... I didn't know these solar system features needed a new theory requiring the suspension of the known laws of physics.

It's not obvious to me how an "exploding planet" explains these things. Does van Flandern have a computer model of an exploding planet that results in something like the asteroid belt? I have a little experience with gravitational models, and I am highly skeptical that an asteroid belt would be formed by an "exploding planet."

You seem to be talking about the Nemesis theory, which is indeed a speculation as to the cause of periodic mass extinctions, not a theory about the formation of the Oort cloud.

Fact is, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I'm not seeing it.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.