Exploded Planet Hypothesis Source of Earth’s Moon

First, I am compelled to set the record straight as to who was the first to publish their scientific papers as to the source of how Earth’s moon came to be. It was Dr. Tom Van Flandern who past away on the very same date (January 9th) this article was published yet 8 years prior. (see orbit)

I mention this because he was ridiculed, essentially blackballed, from the astronomical community simply because he stood firm to his convictions. No, not based on some hunch, but hard scientific research filled with countless hours of checking and re-checking his data. The only mention he received in this article was the following:

Raluca Rufu, a researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and lead author of the study are not the first to propose a multiple-impact scenario. Another paper published in 1989 raised that possibility, but “no further work was done on the subject,” Rufu said. “This paper is first to provide extensive calculations that we hope will stimulate others to reexamine the issue.”

In 1989, Dr. Van Flandern published is paper titled “Exploded Planet Hypothesis” identifying the early nature of our solar system. I would call that more than just “another paper published in 1989”. Does this latest article seem to strike a note of a personal nature? Yes it does. It is known Tom was more than just a scientist I had on my show several times, we became friends – he was more of a mentor, perhaps knowing of what I would go through as I was presenting new data supporting my Sun-Earth-Extreme Weather hypothesis.

Dr. Van Flandern’s pedigree far exceeds my own, yet when he could no longer tow-the-line of his colleagues simply because he could not deny the outcome of his research. It was sometime after 1989 he became the target from the very agencies he worked with. From 1963 to 1983, Tom was the top shelf astronomer at the U.S. Naval Observatory becoming Chief of the Research Branch and later becoming Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of the Nautical Almanac Office.

Tom Van Flandern held memberships in the International Astronomical Union, the American Astronomical Society (and in its Divisions on Dynamical Astronomy and Planetary Sciences), and several other scientific organizations. He received second prize from the Gravity Research Foundation in 1974 and the Astronomy Award from the Washington Academy of Sciences in 2000.

And now, in an article published on Jan. 9th 2017, he is addressed as “just some another paper published in 1989 blah blah blah”. They appear to have taken his research mostly known as “Exploded Planet Hypothesis” and renamed it “Multiple Impact Hypothesis”. Yes, this really happened.
See the article below….

Earth’s Moon Formed in ‘Moonlet’
Mash-Up After Many Earth Impacts

Earth’s moon may be the product of many small moonlets that merged after multiple objects as big as Mars collided with Earth, leaving disks of planetary debris orbiting the planet, a new study suggests.

This idea that multiple impacts led to the moon’s birth challenges the most prevalent theory of lunar formation, which suggests that one giant impact led to the formation of the moon.

The new, multiple-impact hypothesis suggests that about 20 moon- to Mars-size objects struck the Earth, flinging debris from the planet into orbit. There, the debris formed disks around the Earth that looked somewhat like Saturn’s rings. Over centuries, debris in several disks accreted to form moonlets that migrated farther and farther from the Earth due to tidal interactions. Eventually, the moonlets settled at a distance known as the Hill radius, coalescing to form one big moon.

This process isn’t too far off from the “Giant Impact Hypothesis,” which states that a planet-size rock named Theia struck the Earth, leaving behind a jet of debris that went on to form the moon. But there’s one problem with this theory: it doesn’t provide a good explanation for the strong similarity between the composition of the moon and the Earth.

“The multiple-impact scenario is a more natural way of explaining the formation of the moon,” Raluca Rufu, a researcher at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel and lead author of the study, told Space.com. “In the early stages of the solar system, impacts were very abundant; therefore, it is more natural that several common impactors formed the moon, rather than one special one.

In a giant impact scenario, the object that struck the Earth would have needed an Earth-like composition to create a moon that is made of the same materials as Earth. If the impactor were composed of different stuff than Earth, the moon would not be so Earth-like in composition.

Authors of the new study, which was published today (Jan. 9) in the journal Nature Geoscience, performed several numerical simulations of moon-forming processes and determined that a multiple-impact scenario better explains the moon’s Earthly composition.

“Moreover, the composition similarity between the Earth and the moon in the giant impact cannot be explained without using a special Earth-like impactor,” Rufu added. “However, if multiple of bodies contribute to the final moon, their chemical signatures can even out, therefore the traces of the various impacts will be masked.”

Rufu also said that no existing evidence points more strongly to a single-impact hypothesis, though some studies have found that it is possible to reproduce the moon’s composition with a single impact if it strikes with enough angular momentum. Such an impact “will excavate more Earth material; hence the final moon composition is similar to Earth,” she said. “After the impact, the Earth-moon system has to lose the excess angular momentum.”

“To match both compositional and angular momentum constraints, the single giant-impact hypothesis requires such a specific type of collision that the moon’s formation becomes an uncomfortably improbable coincidence,” Gareth Collins, a planetary scientist at Imperial College London who studies impacts throughout the solar system, wrote in an accompanying Nature News & Views article. Collins wrote that the study revives “the hitherto largely discarded scenario that a series of smaller and more common impacts, rather than a single giant punch, formed the moon.”

Rufu and her colleagues are not the first to propose a multiple-impact scenario. Another paper published in 1989 raised that possibility, but “no further work was done on the subject,” Rufu said. “This paper is first to provide extensive calculations that we hope will stimulate others to reexamine the issue.”

Further research into the multiple-impact hypothesis is already underway. One of Rufu’s collaborators, physicist Hagai Perets of the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, is already working to find out the efficiency of moonlet mergers. Rufu and her adviser also plan to study the moonlet-merging process “to understand the mixing of the moonlets inside the final moon.”

Special Notice: I Will Be On Coast to Coast AM Radio Tonight

I will be the guest tonight on Coast to Coast radio show with host Richard Syrett beginning at 11PM (PST) 1AM (CST) 2AM (EST). For your local AM station Click Here .

Here is a list of the topics we will most likely address:

-Signs of Coming Poll Shift – “We’re closer than you think.”

-There is a Big difference between the terms “Global Warming” and “Climate Change”

-What is the cause of ‘warming and cooling’ trends?

-Galactic Cosmic Rays and its effect on our Solar System, Sun, and Earth

-Why a full solar eclipse causes a spike in earthquakes, volcanoes, and various extreme weather events

-Likewise, why a full lunar eclipse can cause a spike in events – but for a different reason

-Fracking; a very bad idea.

I mentioned “likely” to address because it is “live” radio and you never know where a conversation will take us.    Cheers, Mitch

__________________

Special Offer to Former Earth Changes Media
Members – ONE TIME ONLY

As a result of natural disasters occurring more often (no surprise for us paying attention), I find myself engaged in the onsite events more often, and less available to maintain my alternative ventures keeping SOC healthy. But thanks to my wife’s exorbitant creative thinking, I believe we found a way to stay on top.

Between now and January 15th 2017, by donating $10 you will be grandfathered into a full one year membership. Beginning January 1st 2017, we will be going back to our annual memberships starting at $34.95 per year. Yes, this is to say with just $10 you will have a full membership for the next full year of 2017.

For those of you who can do a bit more, we graciously appreciate when you can provide larger amounts – it truly goes a long way in keeping us alive and well.

Go to the following link which takes you to a page. On the right side of our home page under where it says “Science of Cycles Community Support” you will find a drop-down menu to choose your amount. Beginning next year we will have other methods for you to purchase a membership, for now please use PayPal. Remember, you do not have to join PayPal to use it. Just look for the tap that says Pay with Debit or Credit Card. No sign-up is necessary.……..CLICK HERE

BREAKING NEWS: NASA Mission Tries to Discern Comets From Asteroids

First, let me address the traditional explanation of the difference between comets and asteroids. Secondly, I will inform you of what traditional explanations omit – by accident or purposeful is for you to decide. My personal research has come to the following conclusion: In the most simple of terms: “An asteroid is nothing more than an outgassed comet…period.”

Traditional
The main difference between asteroids and comets is their composition, as in, what they are made of. Asteroids are made up of metals and rocky material, while comets are made up of ice, dust and rocky material. Both asteroids and comets were formed early in the history of the solar system about 4.5 billion years ago. Asteroids formed much closer to the Sun, where it was too warm for ices to remain solid. Comets formed farther from the Sun where ices would not melt.

New Thought
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 or ad hoc helper hypotheses.

Many of its boldest predictions have been fulfilled. In most instances, these predictions were judged highly unlikely by the current standard models. Moreover, in several cases, the entire exploded planet model was at risk of being falsified if the predictions 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) the strongly spiked energy parameter for new comets; (8) the distribution of black material on slowly rotating airless bodies; (9) splitting velocities of comets; (10) the asteroid-like nature of Deep Impact target Comet Tempel 1; and (11) the presence of high-formation-temperature minerals in the Stardust comet dust sample return.

By all existing evidence, the exploded planet hypothesis has proved far more useful than the half-dozen or so hypotheses it would replace. Among the many important conclusions are the following. (a) Perhaps as many as six former planets of our Solar System have exploded over its 4.6-billion-year history. (b) In particular, Mars is not an original planet, but a former moon of an exploded planet. (c) As a major player in Solar System evolution, the exploded planet scenario must be considered as a likely propagation vehicle for the spread of biogenic organisms.

NASA’s NEOWISE mission has recently discovered some celestial objects traveling through our neighborhood, including one on the blurry line between asteroid and comet. Another asteroid/comet might be seen with binoculars through next week.

An object called 2016 WF9 was detected by the NEOWISE project on Nov. 27, 2016. It is in an orbit that takes it on a scenic tour of our solar system. At its farthest distance from the Sun, it approaches Jupiter’s orbit. Over the course of 4.9 Earth-years, it travels inward, passing under the main asteroid belt and the orbit of Mars until it swings just inside Earth’s own orbit. After that, it heads back toward the outer solar system. Objects in these types of orbits have multiple possible origins; it might once have been a comet, or it could have strayed from a population of dark objects in the main asteroid belt.

2016 WF9 will approach Earth’s orbit on Feb. 25, 2017. At a distance of nearly 32 million miles (51 million kilometers) from Earth, this pass will not bring it particularly close. The trajectory of 2016 WF9 is well understood, and the object is not a threat to Earth for the foreseeable future.

A different object, discovered by NEOWISE a month earlier, is more clearly a comet, releasing dust as it nears the Sun. This comet, C/2016 U1 NEOWISE, “has a good chance of becoming visible through a good pair of binoculars, although we can’t be sure because a comet’s brightness is notoriously unpredictable,” said Paul Chodas, manager of NASA’s Center for Near-Earth Object (NEO) Studies at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

As seen from the northern hemisphere during the first week of 2017, comet C/2016 U1 NEOWISE will be in the southeastern sky shortly before dawn. It is moving farther south each day and it will reach its closest point to the Sun, inside the orbit of Mercury, on Jan. 14, before heading back out to the outer reaches of the solar system for an orbit lasting thousands of years. While it will be visible to skywatchers at Earth, it is not considered a threat to our planet either.

NEOWISE is the asteroid-and-comet-hunting portion of the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) mission. After discovering more than 34,000 asteroids during its original mission, NEOWISE was brought out of hibernation in December of 2013 to find and learn more about asteroids and comets that could pose an impact hazard to Earth. If 2016 WF9 turns out to be a comet, it would be the 10th discovered since reactivation. If it turns out to be an asteroid, it would be the 100th discovered since reactivation.

What NEOWISE scientists do know is that 2016 WF9 is relatively large: roughly 0.3 to 0.6 mile (0.5 to 1 kilometer) across. It is also rather dark, reflecting only a few percent of the light that falls on its surface. This body resembles a comet in its reflectivity and orbit, but appears to lack the characteristic dust and gas cloud that defines a comet.

“2016 WF9 could have cometary origins,” said Deputy Principal Investigator James “Gerbs” Bauer at JPL. “This object illustrates that the boundary between asteroids and comets is a blurry one; perhaps over time this object has lost the majority of the volatiles that linger on or just under its surface.”

Near-Earth objects (NEOs) absorb most of the light that falls on them and re-emit that energy at infrared wavelengths. This enables NEOWISE’s infrared detectors to study both dark and light-colored NEOs with nearly equal clarity and sensitivity.

“These are quite dark objects,” said NEOWISE team member Joseph Masiero, “Think of new asphalt on streets; these objects would look like charcoal, or in some cases are even darker than that.

NEOWISE data have been used to measure the size of each near-Earth object it observes. Thirty-one asteroids that NEOWISE has discovered pass within about 20 lunar distances from Earth’s orbit, and 19 are more than 460 feet (140 meters) in size but reflect less than 10 percent of the Sunlight that falls on them.

The Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) has completed its seventh year in space after being launched on Dec. 14, 2009.

__________________

As a result of natural disasters occurring more often (no surprise for us paying attention), I find myself engaged in the onsite events more often, and less available to maintain my alternative ventures keeping SOC healthy. But thanks to my wife’s exorbitant creative thinking, I believe we found a way to stay on top.

Between now and January 15th 2017, by donating $10 you will be grandfathered into a full one year membership. Beginning January 1st 2017, we will be going back to our annual memberships starting at $34.95 per year. Yes, this is to say with just $10 you will have a full membership for the next full year of 2017.

For those of you who can do a bit more, we graciously appreciate when you can provide larger amounts – it truly goes a long way in keeping us alive and well.

Go to the following link which takes you to a page. On the right side of our home page under where it says “Science of Cycles Community Support” you will find a drop-down menu to choose your amount. Beginning next year we will have other methods for you to purchase a membership, for now please use PayPal. Remember, you do not have to join PayPal to use it. Just look for the tap that says Pay with Debit or Credit Card. No sign-up is necessary.……..CLICK HERE

Magnitude 7.2 Quake Hits Near Fiji; Tsunami Alert Issued

A powerful earthquake struck off the coast of Fiji on Wednesday, prompting a brief tsunami warning for the Pacific island nation. There were no immediate reports of damage or injuries.

The magnitude 7.2 quake, which hit at 9:52 a.m. local time, struck about 220 kilometers (135 miles) southwest of the tourist hub of Nadi, the U.S. Geological Survey said. The quake was a relatively shallow 15 kilometers (9 miles) deep. Shallower quakes generally cause more damage than ones that strike deeper.

The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center issued a tsunami warning for coastlines within 300 kilometers (190 miles) of the epicenter, then lifted the warning about an hour later. A tsunami of just 1 centimeter (less than an inch) was observed in the capital of Suva, the center said.

Fiji’s Principal Disaster Management Officer, Sunia Ratulevu, said there had been no reports of damage or injuries from the quake, and no unusual wave activity had been reported. The quake struck far offshore and was not felt in Suva or Nadi, he said.

There have been several big aftershocks in the same area. The strongest two had a magnitude of 5.2 and 5.4.

When the tsunami alert was issued, people in Suva fled their offices and headed inland, Ratulevu said. But by early afternoon, authorities were telling people the threat had passed and it was safe to return to work.

Fiji is prone to earthquakes because of its location on the “Ring of Fire,” an arc of seismic faults around the Pacific Ocean.

There was no threat to nearby Pacific island nations Vanuatu and New Caledonia, authorities said.

A 2004 quake and tsunami killed a total of 230,000 people in a dozen countries, most of them in Aceh, Indonesia.

Mitch Battros of Science Of Cycles – Coming Interview On Coast To Coast Radio

Join me Sunday January 8th on the nationally syndicated radio show C2C as I will be presenting the latest research on the Galaxy-Sun-Earth connection.

Host Richard Syrett and I will also discuss the latest trends involving earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes and various extreme weather events.

Additionally, I will bring forward the latest research challenging the often misunderstood meaning of climate change, which includes the latest findings as it relates to charged particles such as galactic cosmic rays, gamma rays, and solar rays.

Oh, one more thing…we are closer to a magnetic pole shift than many people think. Find your local radio station – click here

_____________________

Special Offer to Former Earth Changes
Media
Members – ONE TIME ONLY

Between now and January 1st 2017, by donating $10 you will be grandfathered into a full one year membership. Beginning January 1st 2017, we will be going back to our annual memberships starting at $34.95 per year. Yes, this is to say with just $10 you will have a full membership for the next full year of 2017.

As a result of natural disasters occurring more often (no surprise for us paying attention), I find myself engaged in the onsite events more often, and less available to maintain my alternative ventures keeping SOC healthy. But thanks to my wife’s exorbitant creative thinking, I believe we found a way to stay on top.

For those of you who can do a bit more, we graciously appreciate when you can provide larger amounts – it truly goes a long way in keeping us alive and well.

Go to the following link which takes you to a page. On the right side of our home page under where it says “Science of Cycles Community Support” you will find a drop-down menu to choose your amount. Beginning next year we will have other methods for you to purchase a membership, for now please use PayPal. Remember, you do not have to join PayPal to use it. Just look for the tap that says Pay with Debit or Credit Card. No sign-up is necessary.   Click Here

I have more breaking news I am sitting on right now, and will be posing and sending out over the holidays.     Cheers, Mitch

Special Offer to Former Earth Changes Media Members – ONE TIME ONLY

First, I wish to thank those of you who have been supporting ECM  aka (Earth Changes TV) and now SOC over the years by maintaining your subscription even when we ventured into making it a free site to allow the many to gain access to our valuable news and research. Without you, we would have not been able to sustain our service.

As a result of natural disasters occurring more often (no surprise for us paying attention), I find myself engaged in the onsite events more often, and less available to maintain my alternative ventures keeping SOC healthy. But thanks to my wife’s exorbitant creative thinking, I believe we found a way to stay on top.

Between now and January 1st 2017, by donating $10 you will be grandfathered into a full one year membership. Beginning January 1st 2017, we will be going back to our annual memberships starting at $34.95 per year. Yes, this is to say with just $10 you will have a full membership for the next full year of 2017.

For those of you who can do a bit more, we graciously appreciate when you can provide larger amounts – it truly goes a long way in keeping us alive and well.

Go to the following link which takes you to a page. On the right side of our home page under where it says “Science of Cycles Community Support” you will find a drop-down menu to choose your amount. Beginning next year we will have other methods for you to purchase a membership, for now please use PayPal. Remember, you do not have to join PayPal to use it. Just look for the tap that says Pay with Debit or Credit Card. No sign-up is necessary.   Click Here

I have more breaking news I am sitting on right now, and will be posing and sending out over the holidays.     Cheers, Mitch