PDA

View Full Version : Bad Science-the Planetismal Hypothesis



Pilote Tempête
11th May 2014, 14:53
New discoveries about other solar systems have totally unsurprisingly contradicted the planetismal hypothesis--for instance, close-in Earths like Kepler 78b. These are entirely expected and explained in solar fission theory, promoted by Jacot, Van Flandern (see MetaResearch.Org), Storetvedt, and electric universe theory, because if a planet evolves from the sun at some point early in its evolution it will be close to its sun. The Flandernian version is the only model that explains the twinning of planets (and moons), but also explains coplanar and circular orbits, angular momentum distribution, the planetoid belts, and the small size and orbital anomalies of Mars and Mercury. PH cannot explain any of these things.

The evidence for exploding planets is voluminous, but the claim, even by some heterodoxers, is always that they can't blow up through natural means. However, I was never able to find any calculations, simulations, nor any other evidence to support the claim, and I put out the challenge to provide any evidence and it was never taken up, and I asked a couple of physicists for it but they never provided it. I also submitted the question to 3 Ask an Astronomer sites but so far no answer.

The mechanism for such an explosion: when tidal stresses reach a maximum and internal conditions are otherwise suitable they can act as a trigger for a sudden planetary core collapse blocking the planet's normal heat flow and leading directly to an explosion.

And Van Flandern (1999, p. 163-64) points out that gamma rays (which have the shortest wavelengths, therefore the highest frequencies, therefore the most energy) coming from the galactic center have an energy of 511,000 Ev which is exactly the energy produced by the mutual annihilation of electron-positron pairs, and gamma-rays at 2 mln. Ev are also detected from the galactic center, which implies the decay of the short-lived radionuclide (radioactive isotope) Al 26, usually found involved in supernova explosions, which is found in disproportionately large amounts in carbonaceous meteorites. Also, it is suggested (Hartmann, 1983, p. 164) that large bodies broke up due to tidal stresses.

All of the 4 planets known to have left debris from a cataclysm are postulated to be helium-stage by Van Flandern.

As well, since stars blow up, it isn't much of a stretch that planets would, too, especially solar ones, since they are much like the sun, as planets (and moons) would require less energy for it, not more, since they're less massive, and the mechanism/cause would be the same, thermonuclear core collapse. And planets do have nuclear cores (see J. Marvin Herndon n Van Flandern). And there is evidence of a natural fission reactor in the Earth’s geological past (Cowen, 1976). And it is postulated by Herndon and Daniel Hollenbeck that a nuclear reactor might be the cause of the Earth's magnetic field (Berardelli). So all planets and moons could very well have nuclear reactor cores and could very well blow up given the necessary conditions.

araucaria
11th May 2014, 19:57
Technology. Didn't Tesla have the technology to blow up the planet?

Pilote Tempête
14th May 2014, 13:15
The exploded planets are in pairs and the pairs are didstant from each other n there is evidence of explosions (which astronomers call collisions) in other solar systems, so it 's not likely there are people blowing up planets; it looks much more like they blow up naturally. But there may have been 1 or 2 blown up in a war. The planet was won in a war n all others warned off.