Tim Cullen: The Other Big Bang Theory

Posted: April 27, 2013 by tallbloke in Analysis, methodology, solar system dynamics

The Comet Family of Jupiter

The origin of “the other big bang theory” dates back to 1766 when the astronomer Johann Daniel Titius of Wittenberg noted a strange “gap” [or “empty space”] in the pattern of planetary distances.

If one began a numerical sequence at 0, then included 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, etc., doubling each time, and added four to each number and divided by 10, this produced a remarkably close approximation to the radii of the orbits of the known planets as measured in astronomical units.

This pattern, now known as the Titius–Bode law, predicted the semi-major axes of the six planets of the time (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) provided one allowed for a “gap” between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.

In his footnote Titius declared,
“But should the Lord Architect have left that space empty? Not at all.”


Inner Solar System


Titius–Bode law


Astronomers concluded that there must be another planet in the “gap” between Mars and Jupiter.

When William Herschel discovered Uranus in 1781, the planet’s orbit matched the law almost perfectly, leading astronomers to conclude that there had to be a planet between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.


However, the astronomers could only find planetary triage in the “gap” between Mars and Jupiter.

On January 1, 1801, Giuseppe Piazzi, Chair of Astronomy at the University of Palermo, Sicily, found a tiny moving object in an orbit with exactly the radius predicted by the Titius–Bode law. He dubbed it Ceres, after the Roman goddess of the harvest and patron of Sicily. Piazzi initially believed it a comet, but its lack of a coma suggested it was a planet.

Fifteen months later, Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers discovered a second object in the same region, Pallas. Unlike the other known planets, the objects remained points of light even under the highest telescope magnifications, rather than resolving into discs. Apart from their rapid movement, they appeared indistinguishable from stars.


William Herschel observed Ceres [950 kilometres diameter] and Pallas [544 kilometres diameter] and suggested [in 1802] that they should be placed in a separate category called: asteroids.

Neither the appellation of planets, nor that of comets, can with any propriety of language be given to these two stars … They resemble small stars so much as hardly to be distinguished from them.
From this, their asteroidal appearance, if I take my name, and call them Asteroids;


Therefore, it is unsurprising that the astronomers began to speculate that the asteroids were created when a planet exploded in the “gap” between Mars and Jupiter.

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.


Unfortunately, support for the “planetary explosion” theory was effectively silenced by the mainstream [in 1814] because it challenged the prevailing theory of cometary origins.

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.


However, the “planetary explosion” theory was revived in the 1990s when [the late and great] Tom Van Flandern published “Dark Matter Missing Planets and New Comets”.

Dark Matter Missing Planets and New Comets - Tom Van Flandern

The revived “planetary explosion” theory [updated by Tom Van Flandern in 2000] provides compelling evidence [via the http://www.metaresearch.org link below] in support of the theory.

The Exploded Planet Hypothesis 2000
Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research

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 Exploded Planet Hypothesis would replace. And in several cases, the entire model was at risk to be falsified if the prediction failed.

The successful predictions include:
(01) Satellites of asteroids;
(02) Satellites of comets;
(03) Salt water in meteorites;
(04) “Roll marks” leading to boulders on asteroids;
(05) The time and peak rate of the 1999 Leonid meteor storm;
(06) Explosion signatures for asteroids;
(07) Strongly spiked energy parameter for new comets;
(08) Distribution of black material on slowly rotating airless bodies;
(09) Splitting velocities of comets;
(10) Mars is a former moon of an exploded planet.


In addition to the evidence provided by Tom Van Flandern it is very interesting to note the trajectories of the Jupiter-family of comets [that are confined to the inner solar system] which the mainstream claims originated in the Kuiper Belt.

Jupiter-family comets have orbital periods less than 20 years and direct orbits with inclinations below 40°.

An example is Comet 16P/Brooks 2, whose orbit was shortened from an initial period of 29 years to only 7 years after passing within 0.001 AU of Jupiter in 1886. The comet’s perihelion distance was decreased from 5.48 to 1.95 AU. Tidal disruption by Jupiter’s gravity split the nucleus of Comet Brooks 2 into several fragments.

Other celebrated Jupiter-family comets are Encke, Giacobini–Zinner, Grigg–Skjellerup, Tuttle–Giacobini–Kresák, 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (the target of the Rosetta probe), and 81P/Wild 2 (visited in 2004 by the Stardust mission).

Comets in the Jupiter family probably originated from the Kuiper Belt. As of the end of 2010 over 400 members of the family were known.


However, an examination of the Jupiter-family trajectories clearly indicates a convergence point [just beyond the current orbit of Mars] which strongly suggests these comets had an explosive origin in the very recent astronomical past.



Perspective view of the Jupiter family comets
Perspective view of the Jupiter family comets (salmon) together
with the orbits of the planets out to Saturn.

The Kuiper Belt and Other Debris Disks – Jewitt, David

The trajectories of the Halley family of short-period comets also display the signature of an explosive origin. The trajectories display a limited “clear zone” [top-centre of the diagram] which indicates the Sun directly absorbed [and cleared] a small sector in the 360 degree “blast zone”.

Halley family comets
Halley family comets

The Kuiper Belt and Other Debris Disks – Jewitt, David

The trajectories of long-period comets also display the “clear zone” signature of an explosion.

Long Period Comets

Orbits of the nearly 200 long period comets

The Kuiper Belt and Other Debris Disks – Jewitt, David

The cometary trajectories clearly indicate that the solar system has an explosive history.
The Asteroid Belt and the Kuiper Belt are clearly debris fields.
The Oort Cloud is a just a figment Jan Hendrik Oort’s imagination
[Inventions and Deceptions: Oort Cloud http://malagabay.wordpress.com/?s=oort+cloud ]

Kuiper belt

  1. Gerry says:

    Nice post, Tim.

  2. oldbrew says:

    ‘an examination of the Jupiter-family trajectories clearly indicates a convergence point [just beyond the current orbit of Mars]’

    Re the convergence point, check the orbital period of Mars here.

    Now compare with the orbital period of this Saturnian moon.

    Any comments?

  3. Douglas says:

    There is a theory that the centre of the Earth is a natural nuclear reactor. Could an expansion of a plastic mantle into a uranium rich crust where the uranium differtantially concentrates by density towards the core become a runaway? Doubt it actually, but still …

    The composition and proportion of meteorites (taking account of relative survival-to-ground ratios based on compositional robustness) says what sort of body such a beast would have been (not uraniferous). A planetary collision, not an explosion, seems more reasonable.

    My knowledge of meteorites is low,though of course I own some (and visited Arizona meteor crater – cool!). The grouping of types vs density would be interesting, especially for the metallics. A liquid (“solid” under pressure) core in a spinning world should not, in principle, maintain a compositionally different but equal density character. If two or more examples break out, I’d suggest multiple initial source bodies.

    Geological knowledge is definitely not settled or certain. Curry would say it has “deep uncertainty”. We have surprisingly little predictability. Perhaps that is why geologists are consistent skeptics. We only know what we find despite our best theories: if not, we’d all be rich.

    Geology also puts the lie to much statistical analysis. The world is not a stochastic phenomenon, it is one unique outcome of a churned but somewhat chaotic process. There is only one history though inadequate data allows us to construct multiple, internally consistent stories. All but one are wrong.

    The IPCC create scenarios that reflect not just the uncertainty of future human contribution to the atmosphere but what outcomes come from any one setup. This dual uncertainty is not understood in the MSM. The MSM think that only our contribution determines the outcome. The graphs show differently, but few understand graphs other than the central trend line. But just like the past, the future has only one unique outcome. All others in the scenarios ls wrong.

    All but one are wrong: this would seem trite but it is not. As we learn the range of scenarios should shrink. They have not. In a geologist’s world, this would be like our map didn’t change despite new drilling, despite not all drills being successful.

    The search for truth is a process of elimination as well as addition. Sometimes, especially in the beginning, you add more than you remove; the truth is elusive. Geology and astronomy are part of the more elusive despite their different abilities to ground-truth their ideas. Climate scientists feel they are somehow untouched by this fact of others.

  4. tchannon says:

    Orbital period 1.88 years
    Of Mars 1.88 years

  5. tchannon says:

    The earth is pervaded by radioactive elements but this has never been significant: we know because of the way decay over time occurs. On the surface there have been natural fission “reactors”, long gone. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor)

    Going bang by that kind of process seems to be impossible. What man managed to do was extremely difficult precisely because there are natural opposing processes, ie. tends to stability.

    If a planet was extremely massive there are bizarre conditions deep inside.

    Another factor in this is the atomic distribution of material which is uneven. Note the outer planets are gas planets. Do they have a metallic core or what? We do not know. Under those pressures matter is in odd states not found on earth.

  6. tallbloke says:

    OB: The square of the orbital period is proportional to the cube of the radial distance from the parent body. So Mars and Saturn’s moon having the same orbital period should mean an independent check on the mass of Saturn can be made by comparing it to the mass of the Sun.

  7. oldbrew says:

    TB: Paaliaq is about 15.1 million km. from Saturn, Mars is 227 million from the Sun.

    227/15=15.13, so it looks like the square root of the Mars figure.
    Don’t have any mass figures to hand.

  8. Tim Cullen says:

    oldbrew says: April 27, 2013 at 7:58 pm
    tchannon says: April 27, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    The moons of Jupiter are a very curious bunch:

    The planet Jupiter has 67 confirmed moons.
    This gives it the largest retinue of moons with “reasonably secure” orbits of any planet in the Solar System.

    Eight of Jupiter’s moons are regular satellites, with prograde and nearly circular orbits that are not greatly inclined with respect to Jupiter’s equatorial plane. The Galilean satellites are ellipsoidal in shape, due to having planetary mass, and so would be considered (dwarf) planets if they were in direct orbit about the Sun. The other four regular satellites are much smaller and closer to Jupiter; these serve as sources of the dust that makes up Jupiter’s rings.

    The remainder of Jupiter’s moons are irregular satellites, whose prograde and retrograde orbits are much farther from Jupiter and have high inclinations and eccentricities. These moons were probably captured by Jupiter from solar orbits.


    The rings of Jupiter are also a very curious bunch:

    The main and halo rings consist of dust ejected from the moons Metis, Adrastea and other unobserved parent bodies as the result of high-velocity impacts.

    The moons of Saturn are also a very curious bunch:

    Twenty-four of Saturn’s moons are regular satellites; they have prograde orbits not greatly inclined to Saturn’s equatorial plane.

    The remaining 38, all small except one, are irregular satellites, whose orbits are much farther from Saturn, have high inclinations, and are mixed between prograde and retrograde.

    These moons are probably captured minor planets, or debris from the breakup of such bodies after they were captured, creating collisional families.


    The rings of Saturn are also a very curious bunch:

    The rings of Saturn are made up of objects ranging in size from microscopic to hundreds of meters, each of which is on its own orbit about the planet.

    Thus a precise number of Saturnian moons cannot be given, as there is no objective boundary between the countless small anonymous objects that form Saturn’s ring system and the larger objects that have been named as moons.

    At least 150 moonlets embedded in the rings have been detected by the disturbance they create in the surrounding ring material, though this is thought to be only a small sample of the total population of such objects.

    Given this perspective it is very easy to envision that [both] Jupiter and Saturn are surrounded by vast debris fields [caused by the Other Big Bang] that are slowly being assimilated.

  9. tallbloke says:

    What we do know is that orbits have been changing. Saturn is moving outwards for example. One of the gas giants moons is thought to have liquid water under the ice crust due to gravitational squeezing.

    Speculative idea:

    A planet which was spinning very quickly back near the original evolution of the solar system might have cenrifuged its heavy elements outwards, as is thought by van Flandern to have been the case with Venus, before its heavy surface slewed off to form a moon (Mercury). If the planet was large, it may have been able to cohere despite the rapid rotation and centrifuging, and the heavy elements may have been ‘frozen in’ near the crust as it cooled. Then much later while spinning at a lower rate, it may have become very hot through ‘tidal squeezing’ as another big planet changed relations with it. Ian Wilson was saying something similar may have happened with the Moon as its orbit increased, bringing it into strong resonance with other bodies causing big tides.

    If the planet got hot enough to melt to the surface, the heavy elements would then sink to the core and concentrate. Might this have been the cause of a nuclear chain reaction and explosion? It’s hard to get your head around the idea of a planet exploding, but then, there’s quite a lot of evidence to support the possibility.

  10. hunter says:

    Wow, this is really interesting.

  11. tallbloke says:

    OB: TB: Paaliaq is about 15.1 million km. from Saturn, Mars is 227 million from the Sun.

    227/15=15.13, so it looks like the square root of the Mars figure.
    Don’t have any mass figures to hand.

    The Sun is 3500 times more massive than Saturn.
    The Cube root of 3500 is 15.18 🙂

  12. Tim Cullen says:

    tallbloke says: April 27, 2013 at 10:46 pm
    It’s hard to get your head around the idea of a planet exploding,
    but then, there’s quite a lot of evidence to support the possibility.

    Lots of possibilities… lots of interesting ideas…

    Exothermic Terrestrial Degassing of Hydrogen and Helium
    The answer to the riddle of the Earth’s atmospheric Hydrogen and Helium is very interestingly answered by an amazing paper by Arie Gilat and Alexander Vol which very convincingly extends and updates the pioneering work of Vladimir Larin.

    The Earth’s Nuclear Reactor
    In 1992 J. Marvin Herndon, a Nuclear Chemist, proposed that the excess heat radiated by Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune is generated by naturally occurring nuclear fission reactors.

    In the following year J. Marvin Herndon presented evidence for the existence of uranium and thorium in the Earth’s core which could act as a naturally occurring nuclear fission breeder reactor that powers the Earth’s geomagnetic field.

    J. Marvin Herndon’s Early Earth Formation as a Jupiter-like Gas Giant

  13. Thanks tb. From your prompt (or was it someone else’s suggestion?) I have bought Tom V F’ s book from Abe ($20 including postage I think) Only just started reading so can not comment. I will be interested in his thoughts about gravity.

  14. oldbrew says:

    ‘The moons of Saturn are also a very curious bunch’

    Yes. Re earlier comments about Paaliaq (same orbit period as Mars, 686.9 days), the orbit periods of the moons either side of it are:

    Phoebe 548.2 days
    Skathi 728.2 days

    We know the planet next to Mars is Earth, orbit period 365.25 days:

    548.2 / 365.25 = 1.501 (1.5)
    728.2 / 365.25 = 1.9937 (2)

    Can all these figures just be random? I suggest not.

  15. Tim Cullen says:

    There are also the curious “hot” objects in the Kuiper belt:

    The classical Kuiper belt appears to be a composite of two separate populations.

    The first, known as the “dynamically cold” population, has orbits much like the planets; nearly circular, with an orbital eccentricity of less than 0.1, and with relatively low inclinations up to about 10° (they lie close to the plane of the Solar System rather than at an angle).

    The second, the “dynamically hot” population, has orbits much more inclined to the ecliptic, by up to 30°.

    The two populations have been named this way not because of any major difference in temperature, but from analogy to particles in a gas, which increase their relative velocity as they become heated up.

    The two populations not only possess different orbits, but different colors; the cold population is markedly redder than the hot.

    If this is a reflection of different compositions, it suggests they formed in different regions.

    The hot population is believed to have formed near Jupiter, and to have been ejected out by movements among the gas giants.

    The cold population, on the other hand, has been proposed to have formed more or less in its current position, although it might also have been later swept outwards by Neptune during its migration, particularly if Neptune’s eccentricity was transiently increased.


  16. Gray says:

    Very interesting post, so are we looking at an electromagnetic pulse trying to reach Jupiter and being focused onto an exploding inner planet.

  17. oldbrew says:

    ‘NASA’s Cassini spacecraft has provided the first direct evidence of small meteoroids breaking into streams of rubble and crashing into Saturn’s rings.’ [Apr. 25, 2013]


  18. Tim Cullen says:

    The Wikipedia image for the Kuiper Belt [as at 1st January 2000] has “pronounced gap at the bottom is due to difficulties in detection against the background of the plane of the Milky Way”.

    However, there is a “pronounced gap” in the Trojans of Jupiter which could be interpreted as the “clear zone” signature of an explosion.

    Therefore, the pronounced gap in the Kuiper Belt could also be interpreted as the “clear zone” signature of an explosion.

    If the pronounced gaps in the Kuiper Belt and the Trojans of Jupiter were caused by the same explosive event between Mars and Jupiter then we should expect to see two “clear zones” in the Kuiper Belt. The bigger “clear zone” would be caused by the Sun whilst a smaller “clear zone” would be caused by Jupiter.

    Unfortunately, [as at 1st January 2000] the two pronounced gaps were not in alignment [in the Wikipedia image] because the Trojans of Jupiter are orbiting the Sun at a faster rate than the Kuiper Belt object.

    However, with the aid of a graphics package, it is possible to demonstrate that the hypothesis is viable and that the two Kuiper Belt “clear zones” could be caused by the same explosive event.

  19. TammoNL says:

    I might completely mock myself, but i don’t rule out edge theories beforehand. Lloyd Peye presents some controversial ones. Here is one where he tells the stories from the Sumerians, how they already described the solar system thousands of years ago. There is your missing planet.
    (the video is about all kind of crazy things, the planet part starts at 1:14:00 )


    [Reply] The best scientific estimate of the timing of the explosion is 3 million years ago.

  20. TammoNL says:

    Well, Peye has strong arguments that it was NOT an explosion, but a collision between tiamat and niburu.

  21. TammoNL says:

    (oops, to clarify, the sumerians told these stories thousands of years ago, not that the events happened thousands years ago)

  22. tallbloke says:

    OK, but whether it was an explosion or a collision, the trajectories of the resulting asteroids indicate the event took place around 3.2M years ago.

  23. feet2thefire says:

    Two quik comments (only part-way through):

    I was going to bring up Tom van Flandern, and wsa quite pleased to see it not only mentioned but the cover. I have that same cover on mine.

    “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.”

    Now if there is one thing that distinguishes a scientific theory from gossip, legend, myth, religion or blogging (lol), it is that the theory makes predictions based on its understanding (and also explains WHY the prediction should be true).

    That being the case, Olbers’ hypothesis should be given great weight.

    . . . Now back to reading the rest of this. . .

    Steve Garcia

  24. Georgi says:

    Dear Colleague,
    I am sending you information. Have a look at it please.
    Georgi Gladyshev
    Professor of Physical Chemistry

    Titius – Bode law (Liesegang)
    There is proposed a hypothesis according to which the regular structure of planetary and satellites systems can be explained as a consequence of spatially periodic condensation of gaseous matter during the formation of the Central Body.
    According to the hypothesis, the periodic condensation on cosmic scales is analogous to the Liesegang phenomenon. Calculations indicate that the hypothesis is in agreement with certain facts: the mechanism of condensation under consideration does not contradict the basic laws of diffusion (mass transfer) and s number of physical models:
    http://creatacad.org/?id=21&lng=eng http://creatacad.org/?id=24&lng=eng http://creatacad.org/?id=23&lng=eng

    Click to access eso1035.pdf


    Click to access v47n1a12.pdf

    Now the Titius-Bode law sometimes helps to find new exoplanets!
    According to the model Saturn is younger Earth. Titan is younger than Saturn! See also: http://creatacad.org/?id=23&lng=eng !
    The violation of law may be in the latter stages of the evolution of planetary and satellite systems as a consequence of the action of gravitational forces.