[.uk] Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets: Paradoxes ... (ISBN 1556432682)

Not so dark matters:
__________________ Van Flandern was a consultant to the government regarding the Global Positioning System. Doubts had been expressed that the GPS could remain accurate due to a relativistic effect known as "frame dragging", but TVF concluded that, through a slightly too convenient coincidence, "frame dragging" didn't apply to this particular narrow case. It's clear that he understands conventional theories very well, and that's what made it possible for him to develop his Meta Model, the discussion of which comprises the first half of this book. I can see how the Meta Model discussion would not get high marks, as it clearly didn't in at least one of the earlier reviews here. I read most of it, finally got bored, and skipped into the second half of the book (first edition ISBN 1556431554) which pertains to TVF's Exploding Planet Hypothesis. When he wrote the first edition, the Alvarez theory was gaining momentum elsewhere in the sciences, as the position of the impact crater that ended the Cretaceous had been located at Chicxulub (the crater had been located circa 1960, but the Alvarez theory didn't come around until 1980 -- see "Night Comes to the Cretaceous" by James Lawrence Powell, ppback 0156007037 hardcover 0716731177). TVF didn't mention any of that, spending time instead on the "Face on Mars". At that time (early 1990s) the newest surface photos from Martian orbit were still those of Viking from the 1970s. The "Face" did exist, and it was an artifact -- but it existed only in those photos, and was only an artifact of the lower resolution of the Viking cameras, as opposed to that of the recent (late 1990s) orbiter. I don't see how any reasonable person can look at the higher res photos (as opposed to both the Viking photos and the low res photos from the new orbiter, which can mimic the resolution of Viking) and conclude that the "Face" is artificial. This devotion to a completely discredited idea is not to TVF's credit, and as someone who respects his intellect and many of his ideas, I wish he'd knock it off. The best part of either edition is the discussion of TVF's Exploding Planet Hypothesis (EPH). He uses the model to explain things like the tipped axis of Uranus, disturbed moon system of Neptune, retrograde rotation of Venus, Earth-crossing objects, and various other things which have made thoughtful people wonder for a very long time. In the original edition the EPH was about 3.2 million years ago. This new edition extends the EPH by adding an earlier exploding planet dated to 65 million years ago, in order to provide a source for the object which crashed into the Earth and ended the dominion of the dinosaurs. TVF's extension seems a bit ad hoc, but once a single unexplained planetary explosion has been posited, additional ones shouldn't be considered surprising or forbidden. On the other hand, TVF had already questioned the (also ad hoc) Oort Cloud idea, and that's the leading competitor (and dominant paradigm) for a source of the Chicxulub object. Since TVF is devoted to building a single comprehensive model to explain oddball characteristics of various solar system objects to replace the dozens of (also ad hoc) unique explanations. \osee "Shoemaker by Levy" ISBN 0691002258 for some brief comments quoted from Shoemaker regarding the role played by Jupiter in sweeping the Solar System of transitory debris -- TVF needs multiple exploding planets because such debris would either be kicked out of the system or bent into untroubling orbits within ten million years, mostly due to the presence of Jupiter\c TVF's discussion of the origin of Earth's own Moon is a great reason to buy this book, and a great place to begin reading it for those who are like me, and enjoy picking at a book here and there. It's also a discussion I'd like to criticize a little. TVF discusses the four basic models of lunar formation, then picks them off one by one, as he offers his own model (fission from Earth due to overspin). The problem with his critique of the capture model is that his arguments apply also to his overspin model, and there's nothing he can do about it. Furthermore, the early presence of water on the Earth (a discovery that I think antedates this new edition of "Dark Matter") reduces the likelihood that the Moon was born of fission from Earth, either due to TVF's model or the more conventional impact model which is the dominant one of the five presented. Despite the catastrophic character of an exploding planet, TVF's model is really quite uniformitarian, and for those who object to catastrophism on a priori grounds, this book and his EPH should provide a great introduction to the topic that fascinates one's friends and neighbors without letting on to anyone that you're secretly hoping to join the winning side. :^)

Plenty of dubious ideas:
This book sure has some wild hypotheses! But I think they tend to show not imagination and courage but poor intuition. Let's start with Van Flandern's idea that gravity propagates much faster than c, the speed of light. That is, does the Sun pull you towards where it is, or to where it was 8 minutes ago? I think Newton might well have agreed with Van Flandern's argument that were gravity to propagate at c, planetary orbits around the Sun would be gravitationally damped and unstable, and the Solar System would not exist. But this argument is false. It is the same for electromagnetism. A charge moving at constant speed pulls you towards where it will be when the field reaches you. A charge moving with constant velocity does not radiate: the lowest order radiation term is the dipole term, corresponding to an accelerating charge. And gravitational radiation depends not on the dipole term, but the typically much smaller quadrupole term, which can become significant for a body with a changing acceleration. Examinations of binary pulsars have indicated that a quadrupole moment does indeed lead to a gravitational damping and orbit decay. Not only that, the decay is consistent to within 1% of the speed of gravity equaling c. I find that convincing. Moreover, near-occultation observations of quasars may support this conclusion as well. And on top of that, a speed of gravity greater than c would transmit a signal backwards in time. Van Flandern argues that there is nothing special about c, given that we use electromagnetic waves to measure time and length. He's wrong. As Swiatecki and others have illustrated, the constancy of c is a consequence of the local spacetime manifold. Imagine a number of very thin boards with identical rectilinear grids and identical synchronized stopwatches fixed at all gridpoints on all boards. Now let the boards slide around at varying speeds and directions. Then smash one of the watches on the top board so hard that it stops all the watches directly beneath it. Later, smash another one the same way. You'll quickly discover the differential interval between spacetime events, and that will give you the value of c. And we've found c without any reference to light or to Maxwell's equations. Van Flandern supports the "fission" theory for the origin of the Moon, rather than the "giant impact" theory. While that's still possible, evidence is leaning heavily away from his idea. Now, what about a recently exploding planet creating the asteroid belt? Well, sure, there are many asteroid orbits that are unstable over really long times. But there's plenty of evidence that some asteroids have been around since the beginning of the solar system, and that what we're seeing is simply lots of collisions, not explosions. Moreover, a recent explosion, without a clear mechanism no less, is a little provincial as a theory. The funny part is that there are some wild phenomena, such as planetary migrations, especially in other stellar systems, which do bear plenty of investigation. We don't need to start by indulging in arbitrary and dubious speculations: explaining what's right in front of us is exciting enough! I think Van Flandern's comments about the "face on Mars" once again showed poor intuition. That "face" looked awfully strongly like something with a natural origin. Van Flandern does not like the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which he feels disregards the need for an underlying reality behind all the concepts. I think this actually may be a fair criticism, but there are alternative formulations of Quantum Mechanics which avoid such problems. Finally, Van Flandern goes after the Big Bang theory of the origin of our Universe. I think that's a mistake. The evidence is overwhelming that the Universe was once much denser and much, much hotter. We see that from the Hubble expansion, from the 2.7 K blackbody radiation, and most important, from the helium percentages in the visible universe corresponding to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Complaining about the beryllium percentage is very poor intuition indeed: we'd still have that dense, hot universe just as the Big Bang says. He'd have been better off attacking the Inflationary models of the early universe: these are still fair game. Um, it could be that the accelerating expansion of the universe is heading towards a singularity (called the "Big Rip") in a finite time. Perhaps in a few billion years, spacetime will reach this. In the final million years, the galaxies would disperse, including our Milky Way. In the final months, our solar system would fly apart. In the final hours, the Earth would disintegrate, as gravity would no longer bind it together. At the end, all particles would explode as well. If you like wild ideas, this one is far more realistic than most of what Van Flandern proposes.

Brand new thinking about timeless astronomical issues:
Tom Van Flandern's book adds a new dimension to cosmology--not only does it present a novel approach to timeless issues, it stands up to the closest scientific scrutiny. The author has a proven track record and top notch credentials, so when he begins his hard-hitting critique of the status quo it's a breathtaking read, for laymen and scientists alike. Let's be honest about the Big Bang Theory--even the most respected scientists today will readily admit it is full of holes. But it takes a new look, like Tom Van Flandern's book, to explain not only why the theory is wrong but what to substitute in its place. This is a significant book and if you read it you will get a thrill just as those who read Copernicus and Galileo must have gotten a thrill to realize they were reading about the future of science. Read it--you won't be disappointed.

thinking about fundamentals - a tour de force:
I was extremely impressed by the amount of thinking that went into this book. Whether you agree with Van Flandern or not, he goes deep, challenging fundamental assumptions at every turn. His writing is also first rate. Van Flandern is very good at communicating difficult ideas -- not an easy thing to do. I started out skeptical about exploding planets. By the end the author had almost convinced me. In the process I learned a great deal about celestial mechanics. I found especially appealing his idea that gravity has limited range of 2 parsecs. That would explain so many things. Like Van Flandern, I regard the Big Bang as a lot of nonsense. I also suspect that he is probably correct about the origin of the Valles Marineris on Mars -- the deepest canyon in the solar system. What an ingenious idea. And I admire Van Flandern for discussing controversial subjects, such as the monuments of Mars. His updated synthesis is the best I have seen yet. Clearly R.C. Hoagland benefitted greatly from Van Flanern's ideas. What a story. I disagree with the author in several areas. Van Flandern could be correct that most comets originated from a disintegrated planet. That is plausible, though whether this happened via an explosion or a collision, I still have my doubts. I suspect there have always been rogue objects of unknown origin moving through the solar system. His explanation why these objects could not come from interstellar space was not entirely clear to me. Hale Bopp was much too large to be derived from a moon sized body. The book was published before the discoveries of Hyakutake's ephemeral tail and cometary x-rays, which in my view are diagnostic for an electrical cometary connection. I wonder if Van Flandern is aware that several years ago a physicist in New Mexico demonstrated that terrestrial lightning causes x-rays, a discovery that's been confirmed many times, since. I believe that cometary x-rays and those caused by lightning are one and the same phenomenon. I subscribe to the solar capacitor model. In my view the astronomer Bessel was correct long ago when he argued for an electrical connection between sun and comet. Van Flandern's discussion of comets touches on but neglects to discuss in full a most telling point: That comets are wildly variable in their brightness. Why, for example, was Halleys' comet 200X as bright after perihelion as before, at the same distance from the sun? Fred Hoyle described its display as a series of explosions. This sort of show could not be due to reflected light, alone, even if Van Flandern is correct that some of the material in the coma is debris from the original break up. I believe the extreme variability of X-ray generation and brightness is caused by solar flares and coronal mass ejections. In other words, there is a direct connection between sun and comet. Nor can a break up model account for the preponderance of smoke sized particles in the coma. The same is true for the vast cloud of hydrogen surrounding comets. All of this suggests electrical phenomena -- which NASA and mainstream science continue to ignore and dismiss. I believe that comets draw in ionized material from the rear via the tail. And free hydrogen is attracted to the negatively charged nucleus from all directions. This is not my model. I don't take credit for it, though I won't mention the originator's name because I promised him I would not. (His initials are J M) A few other points: I doubt very much if the rings of Saturn are as old as Van Flandern thinks. Back when the fine detail in the rings first became known, the astronomers Victor Clube and Bill Napier argued that the rings could not be older than 10-20,000 years. After which the fine detail would gradually wash out and be lost. I suspect that physicist Paul LaViolette is correct that the rings are the signature of a recent event (see his book Earth Under Fire). In LaViolette's view this was caused by a galactic superwave. LaViolette thinks the cosmic wave pushed the sun's nebular cloud of dust back into our solar system, wreaking all manner of havoc, causing the ice ages etc. The same explanation would account for the zodiacal disk, a remnant that apparently is tipped 3 degrees away from the plane of the solar system, i.e., in the direction of the galactic center. Again, this is Paul's argument. My other point of disagreement concerns Venus. Van Flandern's link with Mercury implies that Venus is a very old planet. How, then do we account for its tremendous heat? Venus should have cooled down long ago. The Magellan Mission showed that the planet is 85% volcanic -- though I suspect even this high number understates the reality. Could a greenhouse cause this? Of course not. The heat is coming from the planetary core. But why? Simple. Venus is very young, perhaps only a few thousand years old. I've studied the so called Venusian impact craters and can discern no difference between them and the planet's volcanic craters. Some of the "impact" craters actually have large associated lava extrusions. In my view most or all of them are volcanic in origin. Venus has many volcanic features unique in the solar system -- why? Simple. It is the youngest planet, by far. I believe Venus was originally a giant comet that was captured by the sun. I know celestial mechanics can't explain the how of this -- but if it's shown that large comets do attract ionized material from the rear they can actually add enormous amounts of mass, which would slow them down, shortening their period and making capture a realistic possibility. I suspect that some of the other planets (and some of the moons) had a similar origin. In short, I largely agree with Van Flandern. But I also hold for an altogether different capture mechanism (originated by J M) governed by electromagnetism. In an unpublished draft of his Principia Isaac Newton wrote: "He who investigates the laws and effects of electrical forces with the same success and certainty \oby which I have investigated celestial mechanics\c will greatly promote philosophy \oi.e., natural philosophy\c, even if perhaps he does not know the cause of these forces. First the phenomenon should be observed, then their proximate causes, and afterward the causes of the causes, should be investigated, and finally it will be possible to come down to the causes of the causes (established by phenomena) to their effects, by arguing a priori..."

The best explanation of Very Long Period comets.:
If you want to know the very best explanation of the origin of the Very Long Period comets, this is where you will find it. If you combine the section on the Missing Planet, with a pile of album cover art by Roger Dean (on the YES album covers like Yessongs) you will know more about the history of the solar system then most professional astronomers. Is this hyperbole? No. Van Flandern is right about the origin of comets, but given the mindset of the astronomical community, protons will decay before they admit it. Van Flandern is akin to A.C. Clarke in one way: Someone once said about Clarke that "if he had stuck to any one hypothesis, he would have been a dangerous man." Like Clarke, Van Flandern works many hypotheses. And if it is permissible to have a favorite Clarke book or theme, it is certainly also permissible to extol the virtures of DM,MP & NC on the basis of the MP & NC material alone. Science will advance at four times the current pace when they stop ejecting people like Halton Arp and TVF from their ranks.