A Revision of the Exploded Planet Hypothesis: Difference between revisions
Add archived full-text link (original URL dead; recovered via Internet Archive) |
infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| published = 1995 | | published = 1995 | ||
| journal = [[MetaResearch Bulletin]] | | journal = [[MetaResearch Bulletin]] | ||
| volume = | | volume = 4 | ||
| pages = 33-42 | | pages = 33-42 | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 09:17, 21 July 2026
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | A Revision of the Exploded Planet Hypothesis |
| Read in full | Link to paper (Internet Archive) |
| Author(s) | Tom Van Flandern |
| Published | 1995 |
| Journal | MetaResearch Bulletin |
| Volume | 4 |
| Pages | 33-42 |
Read the full paper here (archived copy — the original link is no longer available)
Abstract
In network discussions (on sci.astro on the Internet) of the exploded planet hypothesis, respondents have continued to raise objections about associating the explosion of a major planet in the asteroid belt ? astronomically dated at 3.2 million years ago (Ma) ? with the K/T boundary in stratigraphic layers on Earth ? geologically dated at 65 Ma ? because of the date discrepancy. Extensive evidence for the exploded planet hypothesis (eph) was presented in Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets. This date discrepancy is one of only two lines of evidence, out of over one hundred, that does not fit the hypothesis.