T or E

[LB] "An explosion this large would take perhaps a dozen minutes to happen, and the blast and debris waves would be dozens (?) of minutes to hours thick as they swept past Mars, and thicker still as they spread outward beyond the local area.)"

[tvf] "I'm not sure what your point/question was. But don't forget that Mars and Body C were spin-synchronized to always face Planet V. So the finite duration of the blast wave would not have allowed impacts to spread very much beyond one hemisphere."

This was actually an aside to my main comment. And you are right, I did forget that Mars and C were probably in synchronous rotation with their primary, so it is a moot point.

And, my main comment now seems to me to be based on a misunderstanding of Neil's comment. I thought he was saying that the line tilted 30 degrees to the present equator marks the boundary of the current north and south hemispheres.

===

Also, to emanuel's questions I'd like to add: do you have a scenario to explain how Mars went from its original rotation period of (several months?, same as its orbital period around Planet V) to its present rotational period of 24 hours?

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />Perhaps, Tom, you should write a historical narrative of the explosion events as they affected the solar system (specifically earth, Mars, and body C).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's a good idea. I've added it to my (very long []) to-do list.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">May I also suggest for clarity sake using more descriptive names for Planet V and Body C. Perhaps something like "Gas Giant V-65" and "Mars Companion Moon C-3.2" as these would help us keep in mind what they were and when they exploded.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is basically a good idea. But knowledge evolves, and there is no guaranty that properties we associate with these bodies will not change in the future. For example, even using the very generic "V" (Roman numeral for five) to designate the original fifth planet proved a very bad idea when fission theory and the Mars association indicated it was the original third planet, evolving to the fourth planet after Mercury escaped from its status as a moon of Venus.

But I agree that someting such as you propose would be very useful. So I'll try to pick up the habit of adding the explosion date (by current knowledge) with the first usage of the designation in any message, and again thereafter as seems needed.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">1. If V-65 was, indeed, a gas giant, what happened to it's twin planet ejected from the Sun?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That would be Planet K (250 Mya), associated with the C-type asteroids in the outer main asteroid belt, and with the P/T geological boundary on Earth.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">2. After V-65 exploded, what kind of mutual orbit would Mars and C-3.2 have had?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A high-eccentricity ellipse.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Would they have synchronized their orbits so one of them had one side always facing the other?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tidal forces always operate to bring about that condition. I have an open research project that includes doing the calculations to determine if there was enough time to reach a new spin-orbit synchronization.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If intelligent life were to have evolved in an "earth-like" way on C-3.2, I assume some type of stable orbit with tides and seasons would be necessary. Can you explain more about this?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm not sure what your concern is. Both the mutual orbit with Mars and the solar orbit of the pair are stable, except for the long-term effects of tidal friction. Tides and seasons are a given. The aforementioned research project will attempt to be more quantitatively specific.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">3. Could the explosion of C-3.2 have occurred as a result of having taken on so much extra mass from the V-65 explosion? Would extra mass contribute to the graviton-heat theory of exploding bodies?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The damage done to C-3.2 by the V-explosion would have been severe, but was apparently not enough to cause another explosion because C-3.2 survived for another 62 million years. I suspect that the progressively increasing tidal forces between C and Mars were the trigger that did C in at the end.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">4. Similarly, could Mars be a good candidate for the next explosion in our solar system, having taken on lots of extra mass from two near-by explosions?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think Mars was a near miss, and might have been headed for an explosion from tidal forces caused by C that produced the Tharsis uplift and massive eruptions on Mars. But with C now gone, Mars seems to have cooled and stabilized, and I suspect it is no longer an explosion candidate. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />do you have a scenario to explain how Mars went from its original rotation period of (several months?, same as its orbital period around Planet V) to its present rotational period of 24 hours?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is part of the research project I mentioned to Emanuel. But the expected periods of moons orbiting Planet V, a gas giant probably in the 5-10-Earth-mass range, would have been measured in days, not weeks or months. -|Tom|-

Thanks Tom. My interest regarding the orbit and tides on C-3.2 comes from my lay person's understanding that complex life requires a "delicate" balance of conditions to evolve. I guess I heard this on some science TV show when I was a kid. So the idea that a "two-planet" system locked in mutual orbit could produce this delicate balance is intriguing. Now I'm not sure if this "delicate balance" thing is real.

Emanuel

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />Now I'm not sure if this "delicate balance" thing is real.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We now have life indicators on Earth, Mars, and in meteorites associated with asteroids and comets. There are also organic molecules detected in interstellar dust. Some have speculated about conditions being right for life on Europa and/or Titan.

The view you quote probably arose from the religious viewpoint that Earth in general and humans in particular are special and probably unique. However, the discovery of extremophiles a decade or so ago provides practical evidence that life can exist even in what we thought were extremely hostile environments.

And the Meta Model opens another frontier -- scale. In the debate over whether fossils from a "Martina" meteorite are from a life form, it was discovered that some of the fossils violated the theoretical minimum size for living organisms. However, a known virus was able to successfully pass through a mess also designed to prevent passage of anything at the theoretical size limit or larger. So life can apparently come in much smaller forms than we previously thought. MM suggests that life's range in scale is infinite, and that no scale is unique except in accidental ways. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Larry Buford
I was thinking that this line is the boundary between the original facing and opposing hemispheres at the moment of the explosion of planet V. ("Moment" is a relative term<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You're right. I meant the dichotomy hemispheres not the geographical ones.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tom
But knowledge evolves, and there is no guaranty that properties we associate with these bodies will not change in the future. For example, even using the very generic "V" (Roman numeral for five) to designate the original fifth planet proved a very bad idea when fission theory and the Mars association indicated it was the original third planet, evolving to the fourth planet after Mercury escaped from its status as a moon of Venus.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I was wondering about that. Have you considered the possibility that Mars and P-V might also have once occupied the third position of the Titius-Bode series? (Venus-1, Earth-2, Mars-3). Intuitively, a time frame consistent with the Cambrian explosion (circa 600mya) would have been good for a change to the present positions.

Also, I am glad that the theory now includes the fact that P-V as a gas giant, could probably not have been the seat of the builder's civilization. As an evolving paradigm, the EPH avoids many of the pitfalls of ad hoc theories where the original facts or propositions are imune from criticism.

Neil