3. Problems of the Original Exploded Planet Hypothesis and the Revised Hypothesis
a. Astronomy versus Geology: The Chronological Problem
As noted, in its
first formulation, Van Flandern proposed that the explosion of the
planet occurred some 3,200,000 years ago. But this highlights a
clash of sciences, in this case, astronomy and
geology.
(1) Van Flandern’s Initial Reconciliation
Van Flandern first
observed this problem and noted its difficulties in the following
fashion:
Such a major explosion should leave evidence all over the solar system, and apparently has. Yet in the geological record on Earth, there is little to support the hypothesis of a major explosion specifically at 3.2 million years ago. There is evidence for the onset of a series of ice ages about then, after a long span of tropical climate. And the origin of man dates to around then. But one would have expected a global layer of carbon deposits, enrichment in the element iridium, shocked quartz from impacts, multiple impact craters, micro-tektites and micro-diamond formation, enhanced volcanism, atmospheric and ocean changes, a single global fire, mass extinction of species, and many other dramatic changes. Such things are seen in several places in the geological record, but not near 3 million years ago according to the presently adopted geo-chronology. Strikingly, all those features are seen together at the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K/T) boundary, dated at 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs and many other species became extinct. The expectations from the astronomical evidence and the realization in the geophysical evidence appear to be identical except for dating. 38
Astronomy and
geology, in other words, agreed on the event, but were in profound disagreement as regards
its timing.
Van Flandern’s
initial reconciliation of this dilemma is worth citing at
length:
Occam’s Razor virtually demands that the astronomical and geological events be reconciled. This leads naturally to the conjecture that the geological time scale (based as it is on radiometric dating, stratigraphy, magnetic reversals, sea-floor spreading, and a few other techniques) may not be interpreted correctly. For example, among the possibilities for such a drastic rewriting of the geological record, the rocks that are radiometrically dated to 65 million years ago may indeed have formed at that epoch, but were perhaps only deposited into the geological layers where we find then about 3 million years ago. Or radiation from the explosion may have falsified the radiometric ages. To pursue these conjectures, a geologist would have to consider what effect an energetic, irradiating event like the planetary explosion would have had on each type of geological clock, and then determine if there is an alternative way of synchronizing the various geological clocks. Certain existing clues, such as the mystery of the polonium halos in granitic rocks (which shouldn’t exist if the accepted chronology is correct), may be indicating that the accepted chronology does indeed need extensive modification. .39
That is, in Van
Flandern’s initial confrontation of the astronomical versus
geological chronologies, geology had to be modified on the basis of
the astronomical theory, which in order to account for the
discrepancy posited significant modifications of radiometric dating
effects as consequences of the event itself.
(2) The Failure of Van Flandern’ Initial Chronological Reconciliation
Van Flandern was led
to reformulate his hypothesis in order to account for this
chronological discrepancy, as well as to account for new classes of
evidence not adequately accounted for in the original
theory:
Numerous unusual geological anomalies associated with the K/T boundary layers on Earth closely match the predicted consequences of an exploded planet, especially their global nature. But the geological dating of that layer, (to approximately 65 million years ago)40 and an even more devastating event recorded in geological layers at (250 million years ago), do not match the well-established dating of the most recent solar system explosion event at 3.2 (million years ago). Some meteorites came from a chemically differentiated parent body, while others came from an undifferentiated parent. New findings in the outer solar system strongly hint at a second asteroid belt beyond Neptune. Even main-belt asteroids come in two chemically distinct types. And cosmic ray exposure ages of meteorites have several age clusterings. These and other data, while still favoring an exploded planet origin over the standard model, are inconsistent with a single such event. We here introduce the multiple exploded planet hypothesis (MEPH), and conclude that the most recent and best-defined astronomical event serving as the origin of all comets at 3.2 (million years ago) was the explosion of a modest, probably moon-sized, body. Comets originating from explosions cannot survive in orbits that bring them within observable ranges for longer than 10 million years, so earlier explosions, even of major bodies, show only asteroidal, meteoric, and geological evidence.41
Thus, as far as the
timing of the event was concerned, the conflict between the
astronomical and geological models was simply too great to be
resolved or reconciled along the lines that he initially suggested,
as he himself acknowledges:
The geological dating of the K/T event at (65 million years ago) by radiometry is confirmed by multiple independent methods yielding similar dates, which makes calibration errors in using the method unlikely. I considered that radiation from the explosion might have falsified the radiometric clocks in rocks used for this dating. But it is difficult to invent a realistic scenario in which the stratigraphic layers on Earth both below and above the K/T boundary layer, typically 5 km below the Earth’s present surface, could still show a continuous pattern of radiometric ages from zero near the present surface to hundreds of millions of years at depths greater than the K/T boundary. So I then considered possibility that all rocks suitable for radiometric dating originated on the planet that exploded, and simply mixed with a large amount of inert terrestrial matter on impact. However, the predicted discontinuity of radiometric dates at the K/T boundary under that scenario is not observed.42
Thus, for this and
other reasons, Van Flandern was led to posit more than one planetary explosion, at different
dates, to explain the geological record of the Earth, as well as to
square the hypothesis with other types of evidence.
(a) A Speculative Reconciliation of the 3,200,000 BC Explosion with the K/T Geological Bounday Layer Data
By now it is apparent
that Van Flandern initially favored a planetary explosion around a
mere 3,200,000 years ago, since this was where the preponderance of
the astronomical and mathematical data led him, and yet, this could
not be conveniently reconciled with the geological data on the
basis of the models he initially proposed.
But in my opinion, he
may have abandoned the 3.2 million years ago date as the main event
a little too quickly, for another mechanism would seem to be
available to explain the relative absence of confirming geological
debris on the Earth for such an explosion at that date. It is
possible that this explosion took place when the Earth was at or
near its farthest point from the exploding planet. In such a case,
it is conceivable that the shock wave and debris from the explosion
of the planet would have been considerably dissipated by the time
it reached the earth, nevertheless leaving the event observable from the Earth. On this model, there
would be no need to explain the K/T geological boundary, or rather,
the absence of a similar boundary at 3,200,000 years ago. One must
look, then, for other types of corroboration of the 3,200,000 years
event. Nonetheless, evidence for a planetary explosion at the time
of the K/T boundary at 65,000,000 years ago remained.
b. Two Classes if Asteroids and a New Asteroid Belt?
One type of evidence
unaccounted for in the original hypothesis but explained by the
revised version are the two types of asteroid classes, the “C”
class, composed mostly carbonaceous material, and the “S” class,
composed mostly of silicate material. “The C-type asteroids are
found predominantly in the middle and outer main belt, whereas the
S-types are concentrated toward the inner main belt. This is one of
a few lines of evidence... that suggests two different origin
events for the main belt.”43 Moreover, a recent
discovery of another belt of asteroid-like objects beyond Neptune
may indicate yet another distinct planetary event as their
origin.44
(1) And Multiple “Events”
Because of the
existence of these two very different and chemically distinct
classes of asteroids, and the possible existence of a second
asteroid belt beyond Neptune,
I now consider that there may have been at least two bodies orbiting between Mars and Jupiter (e.g. Planet V and Planet K...) that exploded at different epochs. Indeed, if it turns out that the trans-Neptune belt is a third example of an exploded body in our solar system, it might even be suggested that explosion is a not-infrequent end state for masses of lunar or planetary dimensions everywhere in our galaxy.45
Note now that what
began as an observed problem in the Titius-Bode law, that of a
missing planet, has now become a problem of a very different sort,
that of two planets in more or less the
same orbit, where the law predicts one.46
(2) The Revised Scenario Outlined
Van Flandern
summarizes the new revised Multiple Exploded Planet Hypothesis this
way:
I thus tentatively associate the earlier, larger mass-extinction event at (250 million years ago) with the explosion of Planet K in the main asteroid belt, with iron meteorites (because of their long cosmic ray exposure ages), and with most cataloged main-belt asteroids. This event occurred so long ago that it gives Mars enough time to clear out most Mars-crossing asteroids from the main belt - thereby neatly explaining the one other line of evidence that did not fit the original hypothesis....And I tentatively associate the smaller event at (65 million years ago) with the explosion of Planet V in the inner asteroid belt, with achondritic and stoney-iron meteorites (which have younger exposure ages than iron meteorites, but are also differentiated and apparently came from a planet-sized body), and with many inner-belt asteroids. Comets created by any explosion older than 10 (million years ago) would have long since vanished because of galactic tides and passing stars. The population of Earth-crossing asteroids from this event would now be reduced to a fraction of its original number. And this may have been the event that delivered large quantities of water to the inner solar system, most notably to Mars (which may have still been one of Planet V’s moons at the time of the explosion).The event at 3.2 (million years ago) that resulted in all comets that survive to the present must have been the explosion of a much smaller body in the asteroid belt. I associate this latest explosion with chondritic meteorites (which are undifferentiated, and must therefore have come from a smaller parent body), with most present-day Earth-crossing asteroids... The parent body was apparently a moon of another planet(presumably of the former Planet K or Planet V)...in many respects, the body that exploded perhaps resembled the largest asteroid, Ceres, which we have previously suspected of being a former moon of Planet K. 47
Here the probable
abundance of water on one of the (now two) original exploded
planets becomes critical, since “evidence of water erosion on
achondritic meteorites, presumed here to have originated from
Planet V, indicates that the exploded planet contained abundant
water as well, much of which would have hit Mars.“48 And that, of course,
would explain the evidence for massive, sudden flooding in the
southern hemisphere of Mars.49
In this revised
scenario, Van Flandern has both Mars and a smaller body (which he
calls C) as satellites of Planet V, which, once released by the
explosion, evolve into a small double-planetary system. Then, C
exploded ca 3.2 million years ago, peppering Mars with craters and
inundating it with water and giving rise to massive volcanism.
50