Article with photo of boulder-strewn surface of Enceladus
These scientists are idiots. Everything they need to know is right here: http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/asteroids/near/NEARChallengeResults.asp, which discusses Tom Van Flandern's predictions of a boulder strewn surface on the asteroid Eros. Strewn boulders on an airless body in space indicate moonlets that have come to rest, or ejecta from impacts. This ain't rocket science people. Or maybe it is.
In the case of Eros, a much smaller body than Enceladus, Van Flandern predicted roll-marks to be in evidence behind the boulders, indicating a rolling touchdown after the boulders'/moonlets' orbits degraded. Our point here is NOT that Van Flandern specifically predicted boulders on Enceladus, but that by the terms of his theory, boulder-strewn surfaces are emphatically NOT a surprise. There may be no roll-marks behind these boulders but it is clear that the planet has been through some changes since the touchdown of its debris cloud, what with the fresh, giant fissures and all. The fields of boulders represent a former debris cloud in orbit around this moon, whose origin may have been in the planetary explosion that created the asteroid belt itself. (Enceladus in this scenario is a piece or remnant of the exploded planet, and was captured by Saturn.) Aternatively, the boulders could possibly be ejecta from impacts, possibly a single giant impact. In the case of a single giant impact, Enceladus could have been nearly shattered, or completely shattered with the separate pieces still bound gravitationally. In these cases, extrusions of crustal grinding may force material out of the breaks, ie the giant fissures that criss-cross Enceladus, which also explains why the boulders have not filled in the cracks - because they are ejected/extruded from the cracks. Any one of these scenarios stays comfortably within the limits of Van Flandern's analysis of the history of the solar system, which led to his demonstrably correct understanding of its orbital mechanics. None of these scenarios are available to the idiot-scientists and their world-view. Van Flandern and his small coterie of conspirators are the only scientists in the world not surprised by the surface of Enceladus.
The reason the mainstream will not investigate Van Flandern's record of correct predictions is that they do not acknowledge his starting point: that the asteroid belt is the remains of an exploded planet. All his orbital mechanics stem from his analysis of the physics of that event. That is why Ton Van Flandern understands these results better than anybody else in the field: He has done extra-credit work that they have not. He has all their training and experience PLUS the extra insight into orbital mechanics that his theory yields. It predicts these kinds of results, and is therefore the most correct theory on the block. The idiot-scientists are constantly saying things like, "I don't understand what I'm seeing," which they said in this case and the case of the Eros asteroid. Van Flandern can point to the fruitfulness of his theory and can legitimately put this one in his column as well. Nice work Tom. Don't let the bastards get you down.
In the case of Eros, a much smaller body than Enceladus, Van Flandern predicted roll-marks to be in evidence behind the boulders, indicating a rolling touchdown after the boulders'/moonlets' orbits degraded. Our point here is NOT that Van Flandern specifically predicted boulders on Enceladus, but that by the terms of his theory, boulder-strewn surfaces are emphatically NOT a surprise. There may be no roll-marks behind these boulders but it is clear that the planet has been through some changes since the touchdown of its debris cloud, what with the fresh, giant fissures and all. The fields of boulders represent a former debris cloud in orbit around this moon, whose origin may have been in the planetary explosion that created the asteroid belt itself. (Enceladus in this scenario is a piece or remnant of the exploded planet, and was captured by Saturn.) Aternatively, the boulders could possibly be ejecta from impacts, possibly a single giant impact. In the case of a single giant impact, Enceladus could have been nearly shattered, or completely shattered with the separate pieces still bound gravitationally. In these cases, extrusions of crustal grinding may force material out of the breaks, ie the giant fissures that criss-cross Enceladus, which also explains why the boulders have not filled in the cracks - because they are ejected/extruded from the cracks. Any one of these scenarios stays comfortably within the limits of Van Flandern's analysis of the history of the solar system, which led to his demonstrably correct understanding of its orbital mechanics. None of these scenarios are available to the idiot-scientists and their world-view. Van Flandern and his small coterie of conspirators are the only scientists in the world not surprised by the surface of Enceladus.
The reason the mainstream will not investigate Van Flandern's record of correct predictions is that they do not acknowledge his starting point: that the asteroid belt is the remains of an exploded planet. All his orbital mechanics stem from his analysis of the physics of that event. That is why Ton Van Flandern understands these results better than anybody else in the field: He has done extra-credit work that they have not. He has all their training and experience PLUS the extra insight into orbital mechanics that his theory yields. It predicts these kinds of results, and is therefore the most correct theory on the block. The idiot-scientists are constantly saying things like, "I don't understand what I'm seeing," which they said in this case and the case of the Eros asteroid. Van Flandern can point to the fruitfulness of his theory and can legitimately put this one in his column as well. Nice work Tom. Don't let the bastards get you down.
posted by Jim Richardson at 9:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home