Deep Impact

It appears this accomplished scientist does not agree with you either... Nor does he entirely agree with my position, but at least this man does not dismiss the obvious.

"Nobel Laureate: No Inherent Conflict between Science and Religion"

On June 13, 2005, Nobel laureate Charles H. Townes, inventor of the laser, spoke before a full house at Harvard University's Science Center on the topic "Logic and Mystery in Science and Religion." The main thrust of his speech was that science and religion are not mutually antagonistic disciplines. During his 40-minute address he stated: "I look at science and religion as quite parallel, much more similar than most people think and that in the long run, they must converge" (Powell 2005: 5).

In his speech, Townes stated (as paraphrased by the Harvard Gazette) that both religion and science "deal with large, unproved mysteries, and operate on the best knowledge available today. Faith is a central tenet of religion, but Townes said a certain amount of faith is also shown by scientists, applying theories that they know have shortcomings in an effort to understand the vast amount of the universe that remains unknown" (ibid.).

The Gazette further reported: "Among the parallels cited in his talk, Townes said that science has proven that in the big bang, there was a 'creation,' though not one described in creation stories such as the Bible. He also said that there's very little wiggle room in the laws of nature in order to allow life to arise, which prompts questions of why they are the way they are. Questions about free will, the nature of consciousness, the forces that caused the big bang – or even what came before the big bang, highlight the vastness of what humans don't know about the universe – whether from a religious or scientific standpoint, Townes said" (ibid. 6).
"Scientists, especially physicists," Townes stated in his speech, "recognize that this is a very special world. Things have to be almost exactly as they are in order for us to exist. It's a fantastically specialized universe, but how in the world did it happen?" (ibid. 6).

Townes is no slouch when it comes to scientific achievement. He won the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics while at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology "for fundamental work in the field of quantum electronics, which has led to the construction of oscillators and amplifiers based on the maser-laser principle" (ibid. 5). Donald H. Menzel Professor of Astrophysics James Moran of Harvard, who introduced Townes' speech, described him as "one of the founding fathers of radio-astronomy" (ibid. 5).

Townes is one of a growing number of top-ranking scientists who have publicly dismissed the common claim that science and religion are necessarily and perpetually antagonistic. True, Townes has not embraced the Biblical version of the origin of the universe, but he has nonetheless demonstrated that an accomplished scientist need not reject religion out of hand.

From: INVESTIGATING GENESIS
Stephen Caesar

Reference:
Powell, A. 2005. "Laser's inventor predicts meeting of science, religion." Harvard Gazette, June 16.

<i>Originally posted by Unworthy1</i>
<br />I don't like having to repeat requests. This is a science board. Please confine the discussions here to science. There are other boards where religious discussions are welcomed.

I realize that rousejohnny baited you into responding again. But kindly drop it here. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Unworthy1</i>
<br />it appears the majority of the large impactors hit the side facing earth. How does this fit with your exploded planet theory?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Any massive body in Earth's gravity field must lose its rotational momentum because of tidal friction, and ends up with one side always facing Earth. The same is true for all large, natural moons of all solar system planets -- they all keep the same face toward their parent planet. The face that ends up toward the planet is always the heavier one. Heavier objects always seek the lowest gravitational potential they can find.

The planetary explosion event bombarded all moons and planets. One side of our Moon received most of that bombardment because the Moon rotates so slowly. (This is similar to Iapetus, which likewise rotates slowly and has two very different hemispheres.)

This bombardment of our Moon left behind the lunar "mascons" under the lunar mare, discovered in 1969. Mascons are mass concentrations a small distance below the surface. They make the mare side of the Moon the heavier side. So following the explosion event, whatever the Moon's orientation was beforehand, it would librate back and forth with ever-diminishing amplitude (its momentum being lost to tidal friction) until the mare-mascon side faced Earth.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If God is the Truth, and the Bible is the Truth, which they are, then this belongs here unless you are not interested in truth.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Here, we are only interested in science, which seeks truth through reason, observation, and experiment. "Truth" gained from scripture or faith is not a part of science because such truths cannot be conveyed to non-believers.

So please confine yourself to what can be demonstrated by scientific observations, experiments, or logical syllogisms based on scientific premises. If you have some urge to proselytize, you will find more fertile ground elsewhere. -|Tom|-

OK Tom,

No more God talk from here on out. I see that this site is not open to certain differing views. I suspect it can only be because certain views are a threat to the status quo. For those of you reading this who are actually open to the possibility that the evolutionary, exploded planet, Oort cloud theories could just possibly be incorrect, you can find an alternative and competing theory well backed with documented scientific data elsewhere. Go back and read my previous posts to find out where to find it.

Tom,

The moon explanation is impressive. I can actually picture that. However, that is what one must do, because we can not say for certain that the moon ever rotated as you say, because it has never actually been observed. We can imagine it. We can theorize it. We can infer it, but that is it. It is not fact. I say the moon has never been a rotational body, and since it does not rotate today, I'd say my view has equal weight. Funny how evolutionary science is very uniformitarian, except when it does not fit the model.

What caused this planet to explode anyway? Do you have any pictures of other exploding planets out there? Why the "fourth" planet fromt the sun? What could possibly generate such a force that would not only explode the planet, but scatter it also. Why didn't it gravitationally collapse back onto itself? How does ice still remain on the moon and Mercury from a planet that exploded 3.2 million years ago? How did life on earth survive this event? Is there evidence of a mass extinction 3.2 million years ago? Why don't we see evidence of mass cratering/meteors in the geological record at 3.2 million years? How did comets form from this explosion? And you have not addressed a key question - If the many comets in Jupiters family are only expected to survive for about 12,000 years on the average, how could they have been around for 3.2 million years? They are short period comets, and it is nearly impossible for a long period comet to become a short period comet, so most started out as short period comets. They should have all been destroyed if they have been around for as long as your theory claims.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Unworthy1</i>
<br />we can not say for certain that the moon ever rotated as you say, because it has never actually been observed.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Incorrect. The Moon is still librating today just as I described. This is observed with both optical and lunar laser ranging data. The Moon has both forced librations, caused by the Moon speeding up and slowing down in its slightly eccentric, slightly inclined orbit. It also has free librations, which are much smaller, and are apparently left over from the last major impact on the Moon that tried to start it rotating again.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We can imagine it. We can theorize it. We can infer it, but that is it. It is not fact. I say the moon has never been a rotational body, and since it does not rotate today, I'd say my view has equal weight.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Uninformed viewpoints rarely merit equal weight with informed viewpoints, even though being knowledgeable and informed is no guaranty of interpreting the facts correctly.

You next list many questions about the EPH and its effects on the solar system. All of these, without exception, and hundreds more like them, have been addressed in the various Meta Research publications such as our <i>EME Notes</i> and our quarterly <i>Meta Research Bulletin</i>, with most of them published in peer-reviewed journals as well. If I simply answered your questions, you would have another dozen right behind them, and more following that, etc. So if you want the whole picture, you will need to do some reading. But I suspect from your mildly antagonistic tone that you are not trying to find the answers to these valid questions, but are instead trying to find weaknesses in the model so as to justify dismissing it. Such weaknesses may or may not exist. But with a 200-year history behind it and challenges before yours by every planetary astronomer to ever take an interest, you might have to read and study for some time before you can think of a question that has not already been answered, usually many times over.

With that in mind, I will provide very brief answers to this first list of questions here. But mostly, I will provide pointers to where you can read more. The main reference is my book, <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, 2nd edition 1999. It will then be your choice whether to become informed or remain uninformed. However, I will expect you to do some homework (reading) before asking another round of questions.

<ul><li><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What caused this planet to explode anyway?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">See metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/PlanetExplosions.asp

<li><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Do you have any pictures of other exploding planets out there??<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Classical novas are explosions of unseen bodies orbiting visible stars. There is reason to suspect these are planets exploding, not dwarf stars.</li>

<li><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why the "fourth" planet from the sun??<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Explosion is probably an end state for most planets and major moons. See metaresearch.org/solar%20system/origins/...nal-solar-system.asp for evidence of six solar system planets that have already exploded. The "fourth" was simply the most recent.

<li><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What could possibly generate such a force that would not only explode the planet, but scatter it also.?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">See the planetary explosion mechanism paper above.</li>

<li><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why didn't it gravitationally collapse back onto itself??<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The energy involved was so great that the fragment velocities exceeded escape velocity.</li>

<li><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How does ice still remain on the moon and Mercury from a planet that exploded 3.2 million years ago??<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That ice is never exposed to sunlight, and is therefore more stable than if it were in a comet.</li>

<li><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How did life on earth survive this event??<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The minor explosion at 3.2 million years ago triggered the current series of ice ages, but had minimal overall imapct on life. By contrast, the explosion of "Planet V" at 65 Mya caused the death of the dinosaurs and 70% of all species. The explosion of "Planet K" 250 Mya caused the death of over 90% of all species. See geology texts of the "K/T boundary" and the "P/T boundary", respectively.</li>

<li><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is there evidence of a mass extinction 3.2 million years ago??<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There is evidence of a minor extinction then. It is a geological boundary too.</li>

<li><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why don't we see evidence of mass cratering/meteors in the geological record at 3.2 million years??<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There are a few craters with that date, such as the one just off the coast of Argentina discovered by P. Schultz about 7-8 years ago.</li>

<li><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How did comets form from this explosion??<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Comets and asteroids are fragments from the exploded parent body ("Body C" in current terminology). Asteroids originally had comas (debris clouds) too, but most of that has since been driven away by solar radiation pressure. None of the periodic comets have been around long enough for that to happen. But some asteroids are suspected as being former comets even in mainstream models.</li>

<li><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If the many comets in Jupiters family are only expected to survive for about 12,000 years on the average, how could they have been around for 3.2 million years? They are short period comets, and it is nearly impossible for a long period comet to become a short period comet, so most started out as short period comets. They should have all been destroyed if they have been around for as long as your theory claims.?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Jupiter-family comets survive 100,000 years on average before Jupiter throws them out of the solar system, into the Sun, or into itself or another planet. Long-period comets are becoming short-period comets on a regular basis, and the process is well-understood in computer simulations; so you were misinformed on that point. That Oort cloud comets are millions of years old is not "my theory" or anybody's "theory", but is an orbital element that is learned when the orbit of a comet is determined from observations using the universal law of gravitation.</li></ul>-|Tom|-

Tom,

Just for the heck of it, can you imagine any possible mechanism (within the laws of physics) that would cause a comet to traverse a 3.2-million-year orbital path in less than 3.2 million years?