The Exploded Planet

nobulart.com/the-exploded-planet/

Source : The Exploded Planet Hypothesis

by Thomas Van Flandern (2000)

Published :August 26, 2023•Updated :August 27, 2023

Abstract
The hypothesis of the explosion of a number of planets and moons of our solar system
during its 4.6-billion-year history is in excellent accord with all known observational
constraints, even without adjustable parameters. Many of its boldest predictions have
been fulfilled. In most instances, these predictions were judged highly unlikely by the
several standard models the eph would replace. And in several cases, the entire model
was at risk to be falsified if the prediction failed. The successful predictions include: (1)
satellites of asteroids; (2) satellites of comets; (3) salt water in meteorites; (4) “roll marks”
leading to boulders on asteroids; (5) the time and peak rate of the 1999 Leonid meteor
storm; (6) explosion signatures for asteroids; (7) strongly spiked energy parameter for
new comets; (8) distribution of black material on slowly rotating airless bodies; (9) splitting
velocities of comets; (10) Mars is a former moon of an exploded planet.

Where It Began – the Titius-Bode Law of Planetary Spacing

In the latter half of the 18th century, when only six major planets were known, interest was
attracted to the regularity of the spacing of their orbits from the Sun. The table shows the
Titius-Bode law of planetary spacing, comparing actual and formula values. This in turn
drew attention to the large gap between Mars and Jupiter, apparently just large enough
for one additional planet. Today we know of tens of thousands of “minor planets” or
asteroids with planet-like orbits at that average mean distance from the Sun.

1/19
Titius-Bode Law of Planetary Spacing

Formula: distance in au=0.4+0.3*2(n-2)

Planet Distance Formula

Mercury 0.4 0.7

Venus 0.7 0.7

Earth 1.0 1.0

Mars 1.5 1.6

? - 2.8

Jupiter 5.2 5.2

Saturn 9.5 10

Uranus 19.2 19.6

Neptune 30.1 38.8

With the discovery of the second asteroid in 1802, Olbers proposed that many more
asteroids would be found because the planet that belonged at that distance must have
exploded. This marked the birth of the exploded planet hypothesis. It seemed the most
reasonable explanation until 1814, when Lagrange found that the highly elongated orbits
of comets could also be readily explained by such a planetary explosion. That,
unfortunately, challenged the prevailing theory of cometary origins of the times, the
Laplacian primeval solar nebula hypothesis. Comets were supposed to be primitive
bodies left over from the solar nebula in the outer solar system. This challenge incited
Laplace supporters to attack the exploded planet hypothesis. Lagrange died in the same
year, and support for his viewpoint died with him when no one else was willing to step into
the line of fire.

2/19
Most of this ancient space rubble can be found orbiting our Sun between Mars and
Jupiter within the main asteroid belt. Asteroids range in size from Vesta – the largest at
about 329 miles (530 kilometers) in diameter – to bodies that are less than 33 feet (10
meters) across. The total mass of all the asteroids combined is less than that of Earth’s
Moon. Source

Newcomb’s Objection – All Asteroids Can’t Come From One

Planet
In the 1860s, Simon Newcomb suggested a test to distinguish the two theories of origin of
the asteroids. If they came from an exploded planet, all of them should reach some
common distance from the Sun, the distance at which the explosion occurred,
somewhere along each orbit. But if asteroids came from the primeval solar nebula, then
roughly circular, non-intersecting orbits ought to occur over a wide range of solar
distances between Mars and Jupiter.

3/19
Newcomb applied the test and determined that several asteroids had non-intersecting
orbits. He therefore concluded that the solar nebula hypothesis was the better model.
Newcomb’s basic idea was a good one. But only a few dozen asteroids were known at
the time, and Newcomb did not anticipate several confounding factors for this test.
Because Newcomb didn’t realize how many asteroids would eventually be found, he
didn’t appreciate the frequency of asteroid collisions, which tend (on average) to
circularize orbits. He also did not appreciate that planetary perturbations, especially by
Jupiter, can change the long-term average eccentricity (degree of circularity) of each
asteroid’s orbit. Finally, Newcomb did not consider that more than one planet might have
exploded, contributing additional asteroids with some different mean distance. In
Newcomb’s time, no evidence existed to justify these complications.

When Newcomb’s test is redone today, the result is that an explosion origin is strongly
indicated for main belt asteroids. In fact, the totality of evidence indicates two exploded
parent bodies, one in the main asteroid belt at the “missing planet” location, and one near
the present-day orbit of Mars. This article will review that evidence.

Where Did All the Mass Go?

Although over 10,000 asteroids have well-determined orbits, the combined mass of all
other asteroids is not as great as that of the largest asteroid, Ceres. That makes the total
mass of the asteroid belt only about 0.001 of the mass of the Earth. A frequently asked
question is, if a major planet exploded, where is the rest of its mass?

Consider what would happen if the Earth exploded today. Surface and crustal rocks would
shatter and fragment, but remain rocks. However, rocks from depths greater than about
40 km are under so much pressure at high temperature that, if suddenly released into a
vacuum, such rocks would vaporize. As a consequence, over 99% of the Earth’s total
mass would vaporize in an explosion, with only its low-pressure crustal and upper mantle
layers surviving.

The situation worsens for a larger planet, where the interior pressures and temperatures
get higher more quickly with depth. In fact, all planets in our solar system more massive
than Earth (starting with Uranus at about 15 Earth masses) are gas giants with no solid
surfaces, and would be expected to leave no asteroids if they exploded. Bodies smaller
than Earth, such as our Moon, would leave a substantially higher percentage of their
mass in asteroids. But the Moon has only about 0.01 of Earth’s mass to begin with.

In short, asteroid belts with masses of order 0.001 Earth masses are the norm when
terrestrial-planet-sized bodies explode. Meteorites provide direct evidence for this
scenario of rocks either surviving or being vaporized. Various chondrite meteorites (by far
the most common type) show all stages of partial melting from mild to almost completely
vaporized. Indeed, it is the abundant melt droplets, called “chondrules”, that give
chondrite meteorites their name.

Modern Evidence for Exploded Planets

4/19
Two important lines of evidence that asteroids originated in an explosion are the
explosion signatures (described later in this article), and the rms velocity among
asteroids, which is as large as is allowed by the laws of dynamics for stable orbits. In
other words, the asteroid belt is certainly the remnant of a larger population of bodies,
many of which gravitationally escaped the solar system or collided with the Sun or
planets.

Two important lines of evidence that meteoroids originated in an explosion are: (1) The
most common meteorite type, chondrites, have all been partially melted by exposure to a
“rapid heating event”. Other asteroids show exposure to a heavy neutron flux. Blackening
and shock are also common traits. (2) The time meteoroids have been traveling in space
exposed to cosmic rays is relatively short, typically millions of years. Evidence of multiple
exposure-age patterns, as would happen from repeated break-ups, is generally not seen.

Comets are so strikingly similar to asteroids that no defining characteristic to distinguish

one from the other has yet been devised. This is rather opposite to expectations of the
solar nebula hypothesis, because comets should have been formed in the outer solar
system far from the main asteroid belt. A traceback of orbits of “new” comets (that have
not mixed with the planets before) indicates statistically that these probably originated at
a common time and place, 3.2 Mya. [i] But it should be noted that galactic tidal forces
would eliminate comets from any bodies that exploded prior to 10 Mya, so only very
recent explosions can produce comets that would remain visible today.

A major explosion would send a blast wave through

the solar system, blackening exposed, airless
surfaces in its path. Most such solar system
surfaces are indeed blackened, even for icy
satellites. But a few cases have such slow rotation
that only a little over half of the moon gets
blackened. Saturn’s moon Iapetus is one such
Figure 1. Saturn’s black-and-white
case, because its rotation period is nearly 80 days moon Iapetus.
long. Figure 1 shows a spacecraft image of Iapetus.
One side is icy bright; the other is coal black. The difference in albedo is a factor of five.
Gray areas are extrapolations of black areas into regions not yet photographed. As such,
they represent a prediction of what will be seen when a future spacecraft (Cassini?)
completes this photography.

Perhaps the most basic explosion indicator is that all fragments of significant mass will
trap smaller nearby debris from the explosion into satellite orbits. So explosions tend to
form asteroids and comets with multiple nuclei of all sizes. Collisions, by contrast,
normally cannot produce fragments in orbits because any debris orbits must lead either to
escape or to re-collision with the surface. Moreover, collisions tend to cause existing
satellites to escape, leading to asteroid “families” (many of which are seen). Our
prediction that asteroids and comets would often be found to have satellites has been

5/19
confirmed in recent years. The first spacecraft finding (by Galileo) was of moon Dactyl
orbiting asteroid Ida in 1993. More recently, Hubble imagery found that Comet Hale-Bopp
has at least one, and possibly three or more, secondary nuclei. [ii]

Over 100 additional lines of evidence related to the eph and the standard models it would
replace are summarized in [iii].

Did More Than One Planet Explode?

Many lines of evidence suggest more than one planetary explosion in the solar system’s
history. The discovery of one, and probably two, new asteroid belts orbiting the Sun
beyond Neptune is especially suggestive, given that the main asteroid belt is apparently
of exploded planet origin. Evidence of the “late heavy bombardment” in the early solar
system is another strong indicator. These points are discussed later in this article.

On Earth, geological boundaries are accompanied by mass extinctions at five epochs

over the last billion years. Two of the most intense of these, the P/T boundary about 250
Mya, and the K/T boundary (and the extinction of dinosaurs) at 65 Mya, are the most
likely to be associated with the damage to Earth’s biosphere expected from a major
planet explosion.

Meteorites provide direct evidence about their parent bodies. Yet this evidence strongly
indicates at least 3-4 distinct parent bodies. Oxygen isotope ratios are generally similar
for related planetary bodies, such as all native Earth and Moon rocks. These ratios for
meteorites require at least two distinct, unrelated parent bodies, and probably more.
Cosmic ray exposure ages of meteorites indicate how long these bodies have been
exposed to space, because cosmic rays can penetrate only about a meter into a solid
body. Collisional break-up can reset the exposure ages for some meteorites, and produce
“double exposure” or other complexities for others. The data show clusterings of
exposure ages around several different primary epochs, suggesting multiple explosion
epochs.

Main belt asteroids come in many types, but most of these are sub-type distinctions. 80%
of all main belt asteroids are of type C (“carbonaceous”), and most of the remaining 20%
are of type S (“silicaceous”). The former are found predominately in the middle and outer
belt, while the latter are mostly in the inner belt, the part that lies closest to Mars. These
two types are unlikely to have had the same parent body.

Finally, it should be noted that we can estimate the total mass of the body that exploded
to produce all the comets seen today. (The lifetime of those comets is limited to 10 million
years by galactic tidal forces and planetary perturbations.) That parent body mass is
almost certainly less than the size of our Moon, because the carbonaceous meteorites
most closely associated with comets indicate a parent body that was too small to
chemically differentiate.

Explosion Signatures in the Main Asteroid Belt

6/19
In Figure 2, we show a plot of average
orbital eccentricity (called “proper
eccentricity”) versus average mean
distance (called “proper semi-major axis”)
for thousands of main-belt asteroids. We
included the numbered asteroids having
periods between one-half and one-third
the period of Jupiter. If the primeval solar
nebula hypothesis were correct, numbers
of asteroids with near-zero eccentricity
would be roughly equal at all mean
distances well away from the orbits of
Mars and Jupiter. Indeed, nebular drag
and collisions would ensure that orbits
with zero eccentricity were preferred. By
contrast, if the exploded planet Figure 2. Semi-major axis (mean distance from
hypothesis is correct, a minimum Sun) vs. eccentricity for main belt asteroids near
eccentricity, increasing to either side of a theoretical parent planet distance, showing an
mean distance of about 2.8 au, should be explosion signature.

evident in the plot. The “V”-shaped line

shows the theoretical minimum eccentricity, according to the eph.

We see in Figure 2 that, despite about as much scattering across the minimum line as
expected (increasing toward Jupiter on the right), the densest number counts trend up
and away, paralleling the V-shaped line, on both sides of the inferred exploded planet
distance, 2.82 au. It is difficult to imagine this explosion-predicted low-eccentricity
avoidance occurring by chance – especially since the primeval solar nebula hypothesis
predicts a preference for low eccentricity values. What we are seeing here is Newcomb’s
argument applied with modern knowledge and data. The expected characteristic of
fragments that originated in an explosion is seen. The expected characteristic of objects
present since the solar system’s beginning, even if only collisional fragments thereof, is
not seen.

Energy Parameters for “New Comet” Orbits

7/19
 Figure 3. Comet energies before (left) and after (right) passage through planetary
region. Plot shows number of comets (ordinate) versus energy parameter
(abscissa).

Astonishingly, a great many comets are discovered that have energy parameter values
close to zero, the threshold of gravitational escape, in units where Earth’s energy
parameter is –100,000. Before mixing with the planets, a clustering of energy parameters
near –5 exists, as shown in the left half of Figure 3. However, as these same comets
recede again far from the planets, the clustering property is virtually destroyed, as shown
on the right side of Figure 3. The scattering is so great that no clustering near –5 or any
other value will exist the next time around. So these comets must have been making their
first visit to the planetary part of the solar system. For that reason, they are called “new
comets”.

These new comets, first noted by Oort, were not the belt of comets beyond Pluto
expected by the primeval solar nebula hypothesis. They arrive from all directions on the
sky, with no tendency to be concentrated toward the plane of the planets. Also, they move
in directions opposite to the planets as often as in directions consistent with the planets.
Because of these traits and a mean distance of 1000 times greater than that of Pluto from
the Sun, the far-away source of Oort’s new comets was designated the “Oort cloud”.

The exploded planet hypothesis predicted something similar. The energy parameter
implies a particular period of revolution around the Sun. If a planet exploded “x” years
ago, then new comets returning for the first time today would arrive on orbits with period
“x”. Comets with shorter periods would have returned in the past, mixing with the planets
and eventually being eliminated (or now in the process of being eliminated). Comets with
longer periods would not yet have returned for the first time. So the eph predicts that all
new comets should have the same period “x”, and therefore the same energy parameter
corresponding to a period of “x”. The center of the spike on the left side of Figure 3
corresponds to a period of 3.2 million years, which is therefore the time since the last
explosion event.

Figure 4. Comet energies before passage through planetary region for class 1A
comets (best orbits) on left, and for classes 1B, 2A, 2B comets (less accurate orbits)
on right.

8/19
In the 1970s, astronomer Opik devised a test to determine if the Oort cloud really existed,
or if the “clustering” was really a spike, as predicted by the exploded planet hypothesis.
The published orbits of new comets have an orbit quality parameter, which indicates
which orbits ought to be very accurate because of a long observed arc with lots of well-
distributed observations (class 1A); and which orbits ought to have higher observational
errors because of short arcs and/or fewer or poorly distributed observations (classes 1B,
2A and 2B). In the standard model with an Oort cloud of comets, there is no obvious way
to tell the difference between comets anywhere in the energy parameter range on the left
side of Figure 3. So there is no reason for any observational class of comet to be other
than randomly distributed among all the comets in that figure. If all the orbits could be
improved to class 1A, the overall average appearance of the distribution ought to be
unchanged.

However, in the eph, the real distribution would have all the comets in a single bin, and all
the observed spread of energy parameter values would be due to observational error. So
comets of observational classes 1B, 2A and 2B ought to have a broader distribution than
class 1A comets because 1A comet orbits are closer to reality (less observational error).
And if all the comets of classes 1B, 2A and 2B were improved to class 1A, the whole
distribution should narrow greatly. Opik’s test was to separate comets of class 1A from
the other classes to determine if the distribution was significantly broader for the other
classes than for class 1A (indicating the eph is right), or essentially the same for both
groups (indicating the Oort cloud is right).

The results are shown on the left side of Figure 4 for new class 1A comets and on the
right side of the same figure for new comets of classes 1B, 2A and 2B. (Note that these
orbit quality codes are assigned by cometary astronomers using published criteria. This
author had no role in determining these designations.) The left side shows 2.6 times as
many comets in the central spike as in the immediately adjoining bins combined. The
right side shows only 0.8 times as many comets in the central spike as in the two
adjoining bins, and has a clearly broader distribution.

The Opik test is cleanly passed by the exploded planet hypothesis, but not by the Oort
cloud model. Anyone working with the published new comet data could arrive at the same
conclusion. If skeptical readers suspect that the author may have consciously or
unconsciously selected the data so as to give a favorable outcome, recall that Opik, who
strongly doubted the eph when he thought of this test, came to the same conclusion even
with the smaller amount of comet data available to him 20 years ago. In essence, we
have proved that Lagrange’s instinct 200 years ago was right on target: Comets (at least
most of them) acquired their extremely elongated, planet-crossing orbits by ejection in an
explosion that we can now date at 3.2 million years ago. New comets are the continuing
rainback of debris from that explosion.

Satellites of Asteroids & Comets

9/19
If asteroids and comets are the products of accretion from a nebula, or even from
collisional break-ups, they will invariably be isolated single bodies because their
gravitational fields are too weak to effect captures. For example, in a break-up event,
most debris escapes, and what does not falls back onto the surface it was ejected from
after one orbit. Even if it managed to barely miss the surface, tidal forces would bring it
back down in short order.

By contrast, in the eph, space is filled with debris just after the explosion. Large fragments
will find lots of debris inside their gravitational spheres of influence, and these will remain
in stable orbits as permanent satellites of these larger fragments. For that reason, I
presented papers at the International Astronomical Union meeting in Argentina in 1991,
and the Flagstaff meeting of asteroid, comet, and meteorite experts in that same year,
pointing out the eph prediction. Specifically, spacecraft visiting asteroids (or comets)
should find at least one of the larger debris bodies (satellites) in orbit around the asteroid
(or comet) primary nucleus. This prediction, also published in [iii] and [iv], was considered
extremely unlikely by mainstream astronomers, one of whom made a public wager with
me that it would not happen.

The Galileo spacecraft flew by asteroid Ida in 1993, and returned images showing a 1-km
satellite (now named Dactyl) in a stable orbit around its nucleus. Since that discovery, two
telescopic discoveries of satellites of other asteroids have been made. [v] This
supplements occultation and radar evidence of long standing suggesting asteroid
satellites. A year before the NEAR spacecraft went into orbit around asteroid Eros in
February 2000, I altered the general prediction of satellites to a more specific one: If the
gravity field of an asteroid is too irregular for stable orbits to exist near the synchronous
orbit (as is the case for Eros), then the debris that once orbited the nucleus would now be
found as intact boulders lying on the asteroid surface. [vi] These would be easy to identify
because of their tangential touchdown onto the asteroid, resulting in considerable rolling
from their orbital momentum. So “roll marks” were the predicted identifier to show that
boulders were former satellites.

The first image taken by the spacecraft

from orbit around Eros is shown in Figure
5. The two blocks are areas where
contrast was stretched for better visibility
of the “roll mark”. The image appears to
show a track starting in a random location,
going up the outside wall of a crater, down
the inside wall, and ending in a 50-meter
boulder. Many additional examples of
boulders, tracks, and boulders at the ends
Figure 5. NEAR spacecraft photo of a large
of tracks can be seen in later spacecraft
crater on asteroid Eros with a trail across a crater
images.
rim, leading to an interior boulder.

10/19
In the meantime, evidence for comet satellites was mounting as well.
The Giotto spacecraft was the first to approach a comet, where it found “brightness
concentrations” in the inner coma referred to as “dust spikes”. [vii] Then Hubble Space
Telescope observations of Comet Hale-Bopp showed at least one, and probably three
secondary nuclei orbiting the primary comet nucleus. [ii] Although this finding was
controversial, the satellite interpretation was subsequently confirmed as the most
reasonable explanation by other investigators. [viii] The largest of these secondary bodies
is a 30-km satellite of an estimated 70-km primary nucleus.

Comet Split Velocities

Another strong test distinguishing the eph from the standard models comes from comet
split-velocity data. The eph leads to what I call the “satellite model” as an explanation of
what a comet is and how it behaves. The standard model for comets is the so-called “dirty
snowball” model. In the former case, comets are rocky asteroids surrounded by a debris
cloud. In the latter case, they are a snow-ice mixture contaminated with dust packed into
a lone nucleus that is eruptive when exposed to sunlight. It ought to be easy to distinguish
these two extreme possibilities from observations. And indeed, it is. One of the strongest
such tests follows.

Some comets are observed to “split” into two or more comets. That was unexpected
behavior in the dirty snowball model, but is explained after the fact as the breaking apart
of the snowy nucleus under the action of strong jets. “Splitting” is required by the satellite
model because, as the comet approaches the Sun and its gravitational sphere of
influence shrinks, some outer satellites may find themselves outside the sphere of
influence. Such objects then escape into independent solar orbits. The escape event will
appear to a distant observer as a “split” of the comet into two or more pieces.

The test involves the velocity of the fragment comets relative to the original comet from
which they split. In the dirty snowball model, the velocity is the result of jet action. The
energy source might be entirely internal to the comet, in which case the velocity of
ejection of split comet fragments will be independent of the distance from the Sun at
which the split occurs. Alternatively, the energy for the split in the dirty snowball model
might come from solar light, solar heat, solar wind, solar magnetism, or something
associated with the Sun. In all such cases, the energy ought to increase inversely with the
square of solar distance, which will yield relative velocities that are inverse with solar
distance to the first power. The dirty snowball model, because it does not predict such
splits, is not specific about which mechanism, a solar or a non-solar energy source, is the
correct one.

11/19
 Figure 6. Comet split velocities (V) vs. solar distance (R). C =
comet internal energy; S = solar energy; E = eph satellite
model; shaded area is one sigma observational upper and
lower bounds.

By contrast, the eph and its satellite model require gravitational escapes of satellite
comets as the sphere of influence of the primary nucleus shrinks upon approach to the
Sun. The laws of dynamics require that “split” fragment velocities be escape velocities,
which vary inversely with the square root of solar distance. Any other observed
relationship would falsify the model.

In Figure 6, we show a plot of split-comet component relative velocities, V, versus solar

distance of the comet in astronomical units at the time of splitting, R, on a log-log scale.
The data and its one-sigma spread lie within the shaded region. For comparison, three
theoretical curves are shown, labeled “C”, “S”, and “E”. These represent a comet-internal
energy source, a solar energy source, and gravitational escape energies as predicted by
the eph, respectively. All curves have been shifted vertically to intersect at 1 au because
only the slopes are relevant.

It is apparent that the theoretical curve predicted by the eph model falls within the one-
sigma data region, and is therefore fully in accord with the observations. Both of the
possibilities for the dirty snowball model fall well outside the data range by at least four
sigma. This means the dirty snowball model is excluded as an explanation at the
statistical level of better than 10,000-to-1.

In summary, we see that the satellite model for the nature of comets, based on the eph
model for the origin of comets, is consistent with the observational data; whereas the
standard model is strongly excluded by the data.

12/19
The Late Heavy Bombardment
Planetary and moon explosions are not just a recent phenomenon. There is direct
evidence for the explosion of one or more very large planets in the very early solar
system. From studies of lunar rocks it is now known that the Moon, and presumably the
entire solar system with it, underwent a “late heavy bombardment” of unknown origin not
long after the major planets formed. The following are relevant descriptions of the
event: [ix]

“[The late heavy bombardment] occurs relatively late in the accretionary history of the
terrestrial planets, at a time when the vast majority of that zone’s planetesimals are
already expected to have either impacted on the protoplanets, or been dynamically
ejected from the inner planets region.”

“It appears that a flux of impactors flooded the terrestrial planets region at this point in the
solar system’s history, and is preserved in the cratering record of the heavily cratered
terrain on each planet.”

“An essential requirement of any explanation for the late heavy bombardment is that the
impactors be ‘stored’ somewhere in the solar system until they are suddenly unleashed
about 4.0 Gyr ago.”

“A plausible explanation for the late heavy bombardment remains something of a

mystery.”

“…it seems likely that the late heavy bombardment is not the tail-off of planetary accretion
but rather is a late pulse superimposed on the tail-off. Nor is there any reason to suppose
that it was the only such pulse; it may have been preceded by several others which are
not easily discernible from it in the cratering record.”

In short, the late heavy bombardment, a real solar system event, sounds like an early
planetary explosion event.

The K/T Boundary Event at 65 Mya

The following documented geological events at the terrestrial K/T boundary at 65 Mya
can easily be associated with a planetary explosion event, most likely the explosion of
“Planet V” near the present-day orbit of Mars.

two boundary layers (ash and clay) of global extent

at least eight known major impact craters across globe from that epoch
“hot zones” of radioactivity found in Africa at the K/T boundary
the Deccan Traps in India – the 2nd largest episode of volcanism in Earth history
changes in atmospheric and ocean composition
a single global fire
the extinction of 70% of all terrestrial species
the absence of corresponding layers in the Antarctic

13/19
This last point might need some clarification. If an event occurs at a great distance from
the Earth, it would potentially affect just one hemisphere of the Earth if it is a quite sudden
phenomenon. But if it lasts for more than 12 hours, as would occur for the spread in
arrival times of a blast wave from a distant planet explosion, then the Earth would rotate
on its axis, exposing most parts of the planet to the event. However, because of the tilt of
the Earth’s axis to the mean plane of the planets, one polar region of Earth would remain
continuously hidden from such an event unless its duration continued over many months.
For the K/T boundary event, apparently one of Earth’s polar regions has shielded. This
emphasizes the likelihood that the event was of distant origin and global extent, rather
than terrestrial origin and concentrated mainly in one area (as for a single major impact
such as the Chicxulub crater formation in the Yucatan).

Mars May Be a Former Moon of a Now-Exploded Planet

Evidence that Mars is a former moon:

Mars is much less massive than any planet not itself suspected of being a former
moon
Orbit of Mars is more elliptical than for any larger-mass planet
Spin is slower than larger planets, except where a massive moon has intervened
Large offset of center of figure from center of mass
Shape not in equilibrium with spin
Southern hemisphere is saturated with craters, the northern has sparse cratering
The “crustal dichotomy” boundary is nearly a great circle
North hemisphere has a smooth, 1-km-thick crust; south crust is over 20-km thick
Crustal thickness in south decreases gradually toward hemisphere edges
Lobate scarps occur near hemisphere divide, compressed perpendicular to
boundary
Huge volcanoes arose where uplift pressure from mass redistribution is maximal
A sudden geographic pole shift of order 90° occurred
Much of the original atmosphere has been lost
A sudden, massive flood with no obvious source occurred
Xe129, a fission product of massive explosions, has an excess abundance on Mars

The above summarizes evidence that Mars was not an original planet, but rather a moon
of a now-exploded planet occupying that approximate orbit. Many of these points are the
expected consequences of having a massive planet blow up nearby, thereby blasting the
facing hemisphere and leaving the shielded hemisphere relatively unscathed. Especially
significant in this regard is the fact that half of Mars is saturated with craters, and half is
only sparsely cratered. Moreover, the crustal thickness has apparently been augmented
over one hemisphere by up to 20 km or so, gradually tapering off near the hemisphere
boundaries. This “crustal dichotomy” is also readily seen in Martian elevation maps, such
as in Figure 7.

14/19
 Figure 7. Mars crustal dichotomy. Cratered highlands (white), lowland plains (shaded). Left:
western hemisphere, 180° à 0°. Right: eastern hemisphere, 360° à 180°. From Christiansen &
Hamblin (1995). [x]

The Original Solar System

Putting all this evidence together, we have strong hints for two original planets near what
is now the main asteroid belt: hypothetical “Planet V” and “Planet K”. These were
probably gas giant planets with moons of significant size, such as Mars, before they
exploded. We have hints of two more asteroid belts, probably from the explosions of two
more planets (“Planet T” and “Planet X”) beyond Neptune. And we have hints for two
extra-large gas giant planets, “Planet A” and “Planet B”, that exploded back near the solar
system beginning.

Of the existing nine major planets today, we have strong evidence that Mercury is an
escaped moon of Venus [xi], Mars is an escaped moon of Planet V, and Pluto and its
moon Charon are escaped moons of Neptune [xii]. If we eliminate these, then perhaps
the original solar system consisted of 12 planets arranged in 6 “twin” pairs. Such an
arrangement would be consistent with origin of all major planets and moons by the fission
process. [xiii] This model makes a major prediction that will soon be tested: Extrasolar
planets should arise in twin pairs also, with 2-to-1 orbital period resonances common. If
so, then many cases that now appear to be single massive planets on highly elliptical
orbits will turn out, when enough observations are accumulated, to be twin resonant
planets on near-circular orbits.

Planetary Explosion Mechanisms

The most frequently asked question about the eph is “What would cause a planet to
explode?” We will mention three theoretical conjectures, although in-depth work must
await a wider recognition of the phenomenon in the field at large.

15/19
The earliest and simplest theoretical mechanism is that of Ramsey [xiv], who noted that
planets must evolve through a wide range of pressures and temperatures. This is true
whether they are born cold and heat up under gravitational accretion, or born hot and cool
down by radiation of heat into space. During the course of this evolution, temperatures
and pressures in the cores must occasionally reach a critical point, at which a phase
change (like water to ice) occurs. This will be accompanied by a volume discontinuity,
which must then cause an Earth-sized or smaller planet to implode or explode, depending
on whether the volume decreases or increases.

The second explosion mechanism, natural fission reactors, is currently generating some
excitement in the field of geology. [xv] A uranium mine at Oklo in the Republic of Gabon is
deficient in U-235 and is accompanied by fission-produced isotopes of Nd and Sm,
apparently caused by self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions about 1.8 Gyr ago. Later,
other natural fission chain reactors were discovered in the region. Today, uranium ore
does not have this capability because the proportion of U-235 in natural uranium is too
low. But 1.8 Gyr ago, the proportion was more than four times greater, allowing the self-
sustaining neutron chain reactions. Additionally, these areas also functioned as fast
neutron breeder reactors, producing additional fissile material in the form of plutonium
and other trans-uranic elements. Breeding fissile material results in possible reactor
operation continuing long after the U-235 proportion in natural uranium would have
become too low to sustain neutron chain reactions. This proves the existence of an
energy source in nature able to produce more than an order of magnitude more energy
than radioactive decay alone. Excess planetary heat radiation is said to be gravitational in
origin because all other proposed energy sources (e.g., radioactivity, accretion, and
thermonuclear fusion) fall short by at least two orders of magnitude. But these natural
reactors may be able to supply the needed energy. Indeed, nuclear fission chain reactions
may provide the ignition temperature to set off thermonuclear reactions in stars
(analogous to ignition of thermonuclear bombs).

The third planetary explosion mechanism relies on one other hypothesis not yet widely
accepted, but holds out the potential for an indefinitely large reservoir of energy for
exploding even massive planets and stars. If gravitational fields are continually
regenerated, as in LeSage particle models of gravity [xvi], then all masses are continually
absorbing energy from this universal flux. Normally, bodies would reach a thermodynamic
equilibrium, whereat they radiate as much heat away as they continually absorb from the
graviton flux. But something could block this heat flow and disrupt the equilibrium. For
example, changes of state in a planet’s core might set up an insulating layer. In that case,
heat would continue to be accumulated from graviton impacts, but could not freely radiate
away. This is obviously an unstable situation. The energy excess in the interior of such a
planet would build indefinitely until either the insulating layer was breached or the planet
blew itself apart.

Conclusion

16/19
We have covered most of the successful predictions of the exploded planet hypothesis
mentioned in the abstract: (1) satellites of asteroids; (2) satellites of comets; (4) “roll
marks” leading to boulders on asteroids; (6) explosion signatures for asteroids; (7)
strongly spiked energy parameter for new comets; (8) distribution of black material on
slowly rotating airless bodies; (9) splitting velocities of comets; (10) Mars is a former
moon of an exploded planet. Two additional successes and one additional new prediction
will be mentioned briefly here.

Abstract (3): salt water in meteorites. This refers to an obvious corollary of the eph, never
explicitly put in writing in so many words. If meteorites come from the explosion of planet-
sized bodies, the water from such bodies can be ocean water (as on Earth and as
suspected for Jupiter’s moon Europa), and would therefore be expected to contain salt
from run-off of minerals from solid portions of the planet. Only recently has meteorite
water been tested for salt content for the first time, with the surprising result that sodium
chloride was found. [xvii] Certain aspects of this discovery suggest that water was flowing
on the parent body from which the meteorite came. ’The existence of a water-soluble salt
in this meteorite is astonishing,” wrote R.N. Clayton of the University of Chicago in the
reference cited. True, unless one had the exploded planet hypothesis in mind.

Supplementing the idea of salt water in meteorites, we did explicitly predict salt water in
comets. [xviii] “In March, a long sodium tail was discovered in Comet Hale-Bopp. Aside
from the general interest in this new type of comet tail, it was noted that the sodium ions
have a half-life of just half a day, too short to survive a trip from the nucleus to the farthest
parts of the tail. So the sodium must be conveyed as part of a parent molecule that is split
by the solar wind into sodium and some other ions. The significance of this for comet
models is that the exploded planet hypothesis says that comets originated in the
explosion of a water-bearing planet. If that planetary water was salt water, as planetary
oceans on Earth all tend to be, then water in comets would be salt water. The parent
molecule for the salt escaping the comet’s coma into the tail would be sodium chloride
(salt), and the “other ions” would be chlorine ions. The unknown parent molecule has not
yet been officially discovered. But one can readily see that the discovery of chlorine in
comets to go along with this discovery of sodium would make a strong case for the
planetary origin scenario.”

Abstract (5): the time and peak rate of the 1999 Leonid meteor storm. Esko Lyytinen of
Finland used the exploded planet hypothesis as a model for understanding and predicting
the behavior of meteor storms. These had never before been successfully predicted.
Although nearly a dozen professional astronomers attempted predictions for the possible
November 1999 storm, only three teams had results that were correct for the time of the
event, and only Lyytinen had both the time and the peak meteor rate correct to within the
stated error bars. The complete story of this prediction, the expedition, and its successful
conclusion are beyond the scope of this paper, but may be found in the reference. [xix]

With the documented track record the eph has now established, it is small wonder that
professional astronomers are no longer willing to make wagers with eph proponents
about the outcome of either recent or future eph predictions. But sadly, research funding

17/19
is still being poured almost exclusively into competitor theories.

References
1. T. Van Flandern (1978), “A former asteroidal planet as the origin of comets”,
Icarus 36, 51-74.
2. Z. Sekanina (1999), “Detection of a satellite orbiting the nucleus of Comet Hale-
Bopp (C/1995 O1)”, Earth, Moon & Planets in press.
3. T. Van Flandern (1993; 2nd edition 1999), Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New
Comets, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, 215-236; 178.
4. T. Van Flandern (1992), “Minor satellites and the Gaspra encounter”, Asteroids,
Comets, Meteors 1991, LPI, Houston, 609-612.
5. 3671 Dionysus (1997), Sci.News 152, 200; 45 Eugenia (1999), Science 284, 1099-
1101.
6. T. Van Flandern (1999), “Status of ‘the NEAR challenge’”, MetaRes.Bull. 8, 31-32.
Also at .
7. T. LeDuin, A.C. Levasseur-Rigourd & J.B. Renard (1993), “Dust and gas brightness
profiles in the Grigg-Skjellerup coma from OPE/Giotto”, in Abstracts for IAU
Symposium 160: Asteroids, Comets, Meteors 1993, Belgirate (Navara) Italy, 182.
8. E. Marchis, H. Bochnhardt, O.R. Hainaut & D. Le Mignant (1999), “Adaptive optics
observations of the innermost coma of C/1995 O1: Are there a ‘Hale’ and a ‘Bopp’
in comet Hale-Bopp?”, Astron.Astrophys. 349, 985-995.
9. P.R. Weissman (1989), “The impact history of the solar system: implications for the
origin of atmospheres,” in Origin and Evolution of Planetary and Satellite
Atmospheres, S.K. Atreya, J.B. Pollack, and M.S. Matthews, eds., Univ. of Arizona
Press, Tucson, 247-249.
10. E.H. Christiansen & W.K. Hamblin (1995), Exploring the Planets, 2nd ed., Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 144.
11. T.C. Van Flandern & R.S. Harrington (1976), “A dynamical investigation of the
conjecture that Mercury is an escaped satellite of Venus”, Icarus 28, 435-440.
12. R.S. Harrington & T.C. Van Flandern (1979), “The satellites of Neptune and the
origin of Pluto”, Icarus 39, 131-136.
13. T. Van Flandern (1997), “The original solar system”, MetaRes.Bull. 6, 17-29. See
also .
14. W.H. Ramsey (1950), “On the instability of small planetary cores (I)”,
Mon.Not.Roy.Astr.Soc. 110, 325-338.
15. (1998), EOS 79 (9/22), 451 & 456. See also .
16. T. Van Flandern (1996), “Possible new properties of gravity”,
Astrophys.&SpaceSci. 244, 249-261.
17. (1999), Science 285, 1364-1365 & 1377-1379:
18. T. Van Flandern (1997), “Comet Hale-Bopp update”, MetaRes.Bull. 6, 29-32: [The
author gratefully acknowledges Richard Hoagland of the Enterprise Mission for this
argument.]

18/19
19. E. Lyytinen (1999), “Leonid predictions for the years 1999-2007 with the satellite
model of comets”, MetaRes.Bull. 8, 33-40; T. Van Flandern (1999), “1999 Leonid
meteor storm – How the predictions fared”, MetaRes.Bull. 8, 59-63.

19/19