Monday, August 10, 2009

Van Flandern Confirmed Again - Asteroid 1994 CC Has Satellites

In his book "Dark matter, missing planets and new comets," the late Dr. Tom Van Flandern postulated, based on his Exploded Planet Hypothesis (EPH), that virtually all asteroids would be found to have orbiting satellites. This was based on his initial observation that chunks of debris from tests of Russian anti-satellite weapons had a tendency to orbit each other, smaller chunks assuming orbit around larger ones. This observation has now been confirmed numerous times, with the latest being asteroid 1994 cc. Radar observations at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico have confirmed that 1994 cc is indeed 3 objects, not one, as is assumed by the conventional models.

This is simply more evidence in support of Van Flandern's theory, which looks stronger by the day. Since very few Near Earth Objects or other asteroids have been observed, and a sizable percentage have now been found to have satellites, it follows that a very high percentage of asteroids have satellites or moons, and that strongly implies that his EPH is correct.


  1. "This was based on his initial observation that chunks of debris from tests of Russian anti-satellite weapons had a tendency to orbit each other, smaller chunks assuming orbit around larger ones. "

    I knew and liked Tom, since the 1970s, but he could misread a news story and run over the horizon with it before anybody could catch and correct him. This idea that some satellites in Earth orbit are in orbit around each other is preposterous. There mutual gravitational attraction is so much smaller than external perturbing forces that it's physically impossible -- it's dismaying that Tom couldn't even do that math. As an idea man, he was a gem. Otherwise... Sigh.

  2. Jim,

    I think your misinterpreting my statement. What Tom observed was the debris chunks from exploded target sats. And given that he was the head of the celestial mechanics branch of the US Naval Obervatory, and you... weren't, I'll take his math over yours any day of the week.

    Maybe you should read his book. I'll be glad to send it to you for Christmas, unless you've got a birthday coming up before then.

  3. So aside from your own say-so, where's the evidence -- any evidence -- that pieces of satellites were discovered to be in orbit around other pieces. Aside from your own claim, I mean -- where's the real evidence?

  4. Whoa, that was about 50 pounds ago...

  5. I'm just posting for the hell of it.

    Stuff orbits other stuff all the time. Cool.

    So what's new?


    Hathor -- Playing the coquette


  6. Stuff orbits other stuff when it's inside the sphere of influence of that original stuff and not the sphere of influence of some much larger body that's farther away. That's why a satellite can orbit the Moon when it's 1000 miles from the Moon, but not when it's 100,000 miles from the Moon -- it then falls into orbit around Earth. A spacecraft can orbit Earth when it's 100,000 miles from Earth but not when it's two million miles from Earth -- it then falls into orbit around the Sun. The sphere of influence concept, well known to astronomers for centuries, is based on a comparison of one object's purturbing force on the attraction of another object, and vice versa -- whichever is greater, is the sphere of influence dominating the motion of that object, and so it is the body that the second object orbits around.

    It's easy enough to apply the same argument to a piece of space debris orbiting Earth at a given range. The ratio of the two masses can be calculated. The 'sphere of influence' of the piece of debris, that region in which even smaller objects can orbit around it stably, depends on assumptions, but it's going to be measured in microns, which is smaller than the physical diameter of the debris. The only stable orbit around a piece of space junk would be one INSIDE the junk.

    Do the math. Let's all get educated.

    You CAN do math, Mike? Show us.

  7. Again Jim, you're the one making the claim. If you think you're smarter than the Yale educated Phd, have at it.

  8. Mike, I don't think you are smart enough to accurately report what van Flandern wrote. Go check on it -- did he talk about space debris from a satellite disintegration orbiting EACH OTHER or that space debris orbiting in STREAMS (parallel but related orbits around Earth) the same way that asteroids do around the Sun. My guess is that you never understood Tom and misreported his view.

  9. For newcomers at the board, Mike's cryptic comment needs translation. What it means is, "I've found out you were right but I'm never going to admit it." Happens a lot.

  10. No, Jim what it actually means is, you're the one making the claim, you prove your statement. I have far better tings to do than waste my time, as you'd like me to do, on "proving" things I already know are true, because I already did the research.

  11. Uh, I got the impression that since it's YOUR blog and your post at the top, YOU were the one making the original claim -- and the one declining to present any checkable documentation for that claim. But the point's already been made, we can move on now to your next imaginary evidence.

  12. JimO writes: "In trying to untangle the garble in Mike's posting (admittedly, a herculean task)

    Herculean is a relative term so it's understandable that someone with your limited mental capacity would feel compelled to use such a term to describe how it feels trying to keep up with what boils down to a simple layman's post (layman as it pertains to TVF's complicated research & EPH).

    I didn't find it difficult at all to comprehend Mike's post. Then again, I'm well informed and I've done LOTS of homework on ALL the subject matter... from EPH up to and including CYDONIA.

    Got CONTEXT JimO? =)

  13. I had hoped this would lead to an evidence-based discussion of the issue mike raised.

  14. Where do I file for a default judgment in my favor re this discussion?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.