|
Meta Research Bulletin ©2006
In
the 1860s, Simon Newcomb suggested a test to distinguish the two theories of
origin of the asteroids. If they came from an exploded planet, all of them
should reach some common distance from the Sun, the distance at which the
explosion occurred, somewhere along each orbit. But if asteroids came from the
primeval solar nebula, then roughly circular, non-intersecting orbits ought to
occur over a wide range of solar distances between Mars and Jupiter.
Newcomb applied the test and
determined that several asteroids had non-intersecting orbits. He therefore
concluded that the solar nebula hypothesis was the better model. Newcomb’s
basic idea was a good one. But only a few dozen asteroids were known at the
time, and Newcomb did not anticipate several confounding factors for this test.
Because Newcomb didn’t realize how many asteroids would eventually be found, he
didn’t appreciate the frequency of asteroid collisions, which tend (on average)
to circularize orbits. He also did not appreciate that planetary perturbations,
especially by Jupiter, can change the long-term average eccentricity (degree of
circularity) of each asteroid’s orbit. Finally, Newcomb did not consider that
more than one planet might have exploded, contributing additional asteroids
with some different mean distance. In Newcomb’s time, no evidence existed to
justify these complications.
When Newcomb’s test is redone
today, the result is that an explosion origin is strongly indicated for main
belt asteroids. In fact, the totality of evidence indicates two exploded parent
bodies, one in the main asteroid belt at the “missing planet” location, and one
near the present-day orbit of Mars. This article will review that evidence.
|