In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

[Soldier4Christ]

Theories Attempting to Explain the Origin of Comets

Seven modern theories have been proposed to explain the origin of comets. Each theory will be described below as an advocate would. Later, we will test each theory with the strange features of comets. 
Questions Precede Advances

Scientific advances require recognizing anomalies—observations that contradict current understanding and show a need for deeper insight. Unless anomalies are recognized, scientists lose focus, researchers become complacent, and future discoveries are delayed. Although comet experts will acknowledge many anomalies, textbooks seldom mention them, so teachers rarely hear about them. Consequently, students (and our next generation of teachers) are deprived of much of the excitement of science.  Critical thinking skills are not fully developed.

Some important conclusions about comets involved several scientists and were gradually accepted. However, for simplicity and to show the flow of progress, only one scientist and date are listed in each row below.  Current anomalies are italicized.

While each major discovery removes some earlier anomalies and false ideas, each discovery raises new questions. Notice how the major questions preceding 1868 have been answered. Pointing out anomalies in science may draw the wrath of some scientists, but it advances knowledge and increases the interest and excitement of most students.

[Soldier4Christ]

Hydroplate Theory.  Comets are literally out of this world. As the flood began, the extreme pressure in the interconnected, subterranean chambers and the power of supercritical water exploding into the vacuum of space launched about 50,000 comets, totaling less than 1% of the water in the chambers. (These numbers will be derived later.)  This water was rich in heavy hydrogen.

As subterranean water escaped, the chambers’ pillars were crushed and broken. Also, the 10-mile-high walls along the rupture were unstable, because granitic rock is not strong enough to support a cliff greater than 5 miles high. The bottom portions of the walls were crushed into large blocks which were swept up and launched by the “fountains of the great deep.” Carried up with the water were eroded dirt particles, pulverized organic matter (especially cellulose from preflood forests), and even bacteria.

Droplets in this muddy mixture froze quickly in outer space. The expanding spheres of influence of the larger rocks captured more and more ice particles which later gravitationally merged to form comets. Some comets and rocks hit the near side of the Moon directly and formed large basins. Those impacts produced lava flows and debris which then caused secondary impacts. Water vapor condensed in the permanent shadows of the Moon’s polar craters.

Hyperbolic comets never returned to the solar system. Near-parabolic comets now being detected are returning to the inner solar system for the first time. Comets launched with slower velocities received most of their orbital velocity from Earth’s orbital motion. They are short-period comets with elliptical, prograde orbits lying near the Earth’s orbital plane. Since the flood, many short-period comets have been gravitationally pulled into Jupiter’s family. Comets launched with the least velocity are small comets. [For a more complete description of the hydroplate theory, see pages 102–131.]

Exploded Planet Theory.54 Consistent with Bode’s “law,”55 a tenth planet once existed 2.8 AU from the Sun, between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. It exploded about 3,200,000 years ago, spewing out comets and asteroids. Many fragments collided with other planets and moons, explaining why some planets and moons are cratered primarily on one side. The fragments visible today are those that avoided the disturbing influence of planets: those launched on nearly circular orbits (asteroids) and those launched on elongated ellipses (comets). This theory also explains the origin of asteroids and some similarities between comets and asteroids.

Volcanic Eruption Theory.56 The large number of short-period comets, as compared with intermediate-period comets, requires their recent formation near the center of the solar system. Volcanic eruptions, probably from the giant planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) or their moons, periodically launch comets. Jupiter’s large, recently-acquired family suggests that Jupiter was the most recent planet to erupt. The giant planets are huge reservoirs of hydrogen, a major constituent of comets. New eruptions continuously replenish comets being rapidly lost through collisions with planets or moons, evaporation when passing near the Sun, and ejection from the solar system.

Oort Cloud Theory.57 As the solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago, a cloud of about 1012 comets also formed approximately 50,000 AU from the Sun58—more than a thousand times farther away than planet Pluto and about one-fifth the distance to the nearest star. Stars passing near the solar system perturbed parts of this Oort cloud, sending randomly oriented comets on trajectories that pass near the Sun. This is why calculations show so many long-period comets falling into the inner solar system from about 50,000 AU away. As a comet enters the planetary region (0–40 AU from the Sun), the gravity of planets, especially Jupiter, either adds energy to or removes energy from the comet. If energy is added, the comet is usually thrown from the solar system on a hyperbolic orbit. If energy is removed, the comet’s orbital period is shortened. With so many comets in the initial cloud (1012), some survived many passes through the inner solar system and are now short-period comets.Revised Oort Cloud Theory.59 As the solar system began 4.5 billion years ago, all comets formed in a comet nursery near or just beyond the outer giant planets. Because these comets were relatively near the Sun, passing stars could not eject them from the solar system. As with planets, these early comets all had prograde orbits near the plane of the ecliptic. Perturbations by the giant planets gave some comets short periods with prograde orbits near the ecliptic plane. Other perturbations ejected other comets out to form and resupply an Oort cloud, 50,000 AU from the Sun. Over millions of years, passing stars have circularized these latter orbits. Then other passing stars perturbed some Oort cloud comets back into the planetary region, as described by the original Oort cloud theory. Therefore, large numbers of near-parabolic comets are still available to fall into the inner solar system from about 50,000 AU away. An unreasonably large number of comets did not have to begin in the Oort cloud 4.5 billion years ago (where, after a few billion years, passing stars, galactic clouds, and the galaxy itself would easily strip them from the cloud). Short-period comets cannot come from the Oort cloud.

Meteor Stream Theory.71 When particles orbiting the Sun collide, they exchange some energy and momentum. If the particles are sufficiently absorbent (squishy), their orbits become more similar.72 After millions of years, these particles form meteor streams. Water vapor condenses on the particles in the meteor streams as they pass through the cold, outer solar system. Thus, icy comets form continuously. This is why so many meteor streams have cometlike orbits, and why more short-period comets exist than an Oort cloud could provide.

Interstellar Capture Theory.73 Comets form when the Sun occasionally passes through interstellar gas and dust clouds. As seen from the Sun, gas and dust particles stream past the Sun. The Sun’s gravity deflects and focuses these particles around and behind the Sun. There they collide with each other, lose velocity, enter orbits around the Sun, and merge into distinct swarms of particles held together by their mutual gravity. These swarms become comets with long and short periods, depending on how far the collisions were from the Sun.

[Soldier4Christ]

Evaluation of Evidence vs. Theories   

Table 14 summarizes how well each modern theory explains the many strange things associated with comets. Each column corresponds to a theory, and each row represents a strange detail requiring an explanation. As with a traffic light, a green circle means “go”; that is, in my opinion, the column’s theory provides a reasonable explanation for that row’s diagnostic detail. Yellow (caution) and red (stop) circles indicate moderate and serious problems. Numbers in Table 14 refer to amplifying explanations below.  Table 14 shows both details and the broad perspective—“the trees and the forest.”

[Soldier4Christ]

Details Relating to the Hydroplate Theory

1. circlegreen.jpg ImageFormation Mechanism, Ice on Moon and Mercury. About 38% of a comet’s mass circlegreen.jpg Imageis frozen water. Therefore, to understand comet origins, one must ask, “Where is water found?” Earth, sometimes called “the water planet,” must head the list. (The volume of water on Earth is ten times greater than the volume of all land above sea level.) Other planets, moons, and even interstellar space74 have only traces of water, or possible water. Some traces, instead of producing comets, may have been delivered by comets or by water vapor that the “fountains of the great deep” launched into space.

How could so many comets have recently hit the Moon, and probably the planet Mercury, that ice remains today? Ice on the Moon, and certainly on hot Mercury, should disappear faster than comets deposit it today. However, if 50,000 comets were ejected recently from Earth and an “ocean” of water vapor was injected into the inner solar system, the problem disappears. On Mars, comet impacts probably created brief saltwater flows which then carved “erosion” channels. [See Figure 137 on page 249.]

[Soldier4Christ]

To form comets in space, should we start with water as a solid, liquid, or gas?

Gas. In space, gases (such as water vapor) will expand into the vacuum if not gravitationally bound to some large body. Gases by themselves would not contract to form a comet. Besides, the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation breaks water vapor into hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), and hydroxyl (OH). Comets would not form from gases.

Solid.  Comets might form by the combining of smaller ice particles, including ice condensed as frost on microscopic dust grains that somehow formed. However, one icy dust grain could not capture another unless their speeds and directions were nearly identical and one of the particles had a rapidly expanding sphere of influence or a gaseous envelope. Because ice molecules are loosely bound to each other, collisions among ice particles would fragment, scatter, and vaporize them—not merge them.

Liquid.  Large rocks and muddy water were expelled by the “fountains of the great deep.” The water would partially evaporate, leave dirt behind, rapidly radiate its heat to cold outer space, and freeze.  (Outer space has an effective temperature of nearly absolute zero, -460°F.) The dirt crust encasing the ice would prevent complete evaporation. (Recall that the nucleus of Halley’s comet was black, and a comet’s tail contains dust particles.)

High-velocity water escaping from the subterranean chamber would erode dirt and rocks of various sizes. Water vapor would concentrate around the larger rocks escaping from Earth. These “clouds” and expanding spheres of influence would capture other nearby particles moving at similar velocities. Comets would quickly form.76

Other reasons exist for concluding that water in a gas or solid state cannot form comets.77 Water from the “fountains of the great deep” meets all requirements.

2. circlegreen.jpg ImageCrystalline Dust.  Sediments eroded by high-velocity water escaping from the subterranean chamber would be crystalline, some of it magnesium-rich olivine.

3. circleyellow.jpg ImageNear-Parabolic Comets.  Because the same event launched all comets from Earth, those we see falling from the farthest distance (near-parabolic comets) are falling back for the first time and with similar energy. Other comets, launched with slightly more velocity, will soon be detected.

[Soldier4Christ]

If the comets represented by the red bar in Figure 125 on page 213 are falling in from distances of 50,000 AU, their orbital periods are about 4 million years. How then could they have been launched from anywhere in the solar system if the flood began only about 5,000 years ago?

The distance (50,000 AU) is in error.28 Comets more than about 12 AU from the Sun cannot be seen, so both the distances they have fallen and their orbital periods must be calculated from the small portions of their orbits that can be observed. Both calculations are extremely sensitive to the mass of the solar system. If this mass has been underestimated by as little as about 17 parts in 10,000 (about the mass of two Jupiters), the true distance would be 585 AU and the period only 5,000 years.79

Where might the missing mass be hiding? Probably not in the planetary region. The masses of the Sun, planets, and some moons are well known, because masses in space can be accurately measured if something orbits them and the orbit is closely observed.81 However, if extra mass is thinly spread within 40–600 AU from the Sun (beyond Pluto’s orbit), only objects outside 40 AU would be gravitationally affected. (Recall the hollow sphere result on page 210.) That mass, depending on its distribution, could considerably shorten the periods of near-parabolic comets, because they spend 99% of their time at least 40 AU from the Sun.

Comet Ikeya-Zhang travels about 100 AU from the Sun and last returned to the inner solar system in March 2002. It is the one periodically observed comet that ventures most deeply into this region, 40–600 AU from the Sun. Its previous return was in January 1661, 341.13 years earlier. However, its orbital period, based on the accepted mass of the solar system, should have been 366.95 years. The simplest explanation for this 25.82-year discrepancy is that some extra mass is about 40 AU from the Sun.

Comet Herschel-Rigollet, which ventures 57 AU from the Sun, has the second longest period. It last returned in August 1939, 4.2 years ahead of schedule based on the traditional mass of the solar system. It too seems to have encountered extra mass beyond 40 AU.82

What if two comet sightings, a century or more apart, were of comets which we assumed had such long periods that they should not be the same comet, but whose orbits were so similar they probably were the same comet? We might suspect that both sightings were of the same comet, and it encountered some extra mass beyond 40 AU that pulled it back much sooner than expected. Twelve “strange pairs” are known, suggesting that extra, unseen mass beyond Pluto’s orbit affects long-period comets but is not felt within the planetary region. These “strange pairs” are explained in Figure 127 and Table 15.

This “missing” mass could be composed of particles as small as gas molecules up to asteroid-size objects 100 miles wide. They would be difficult to detect with our best telescopes. However, with recent technical advances, dozens of large, asteroid-size objects are being discovered each year beyond Neptune’s orbit. They are called transneptunian objects. So far, 923 have been discovered. Of course, no one knows their total number or mass.

Much is unknown about the distant region 40–600 AU from the Sun. For example, spacecraft launched from Earth many years ago are now entering that region’s inner fringes. These spacecraft are experiencing a slight, but additional, gravity-like acceleration toward the Sun. So far, efforts to explain this acceleration have failed. While its magnitude is too small to give near-parabolic comets 5,000-year periods, the effect is strengthening as the spacecraft begin to penetrate this region.83

[Soldier4Christ]

Figure 127: An Orbit’s Fingerprint. A comet’s orbit closely approximates an ellipse. Each ellipse and its orientation in space are specified by five numbers, two of which are shown above. The first, i, is the angle of inclination—the angle the plane of the ellipse makes with Earth’s orbital plane. A second number, q, measures in astronomical units (AU) the distance from the Sun to the perihelion. The other three numbers (e, w, and W) need not be defined here but are explained in most books on orbital mechanics or astronautics.

In the last 920 years, almost 1,000 different comets have been observed accurately enough to calculate these five numbers. Surprisingly, 12 pairs of comets have very similar numbers. Could some “strange pairs” really be the same comet on two successive orbits? The estimated period (the far right column in Table 15), the time to complete one orbit, for each member of the “strange pair” is so extremely long they should not be the same comet. However, if the comets were all different, the chance of any two randomly-selected comets having such similar orbits is about one out of 100,000.80 The chance of getting at least 12 “strange pairs” from the vast number of possible pairings is about one out of 7,000. If the solar system’s mass has been slightly underestimated, orbital periods are much shorter. If so, some “strange pairs” are almost certainly the same comet, and the estimated period (far right column) is wrong. Other reasons are given in this chapter for believing that a slight amount of extra mass exists in the solar system. It should be approximately the mass of about 70 Jupiters but spread thinly outside the planetary region—where long-period comets spend most of their time.

Each pair of rows in Table 15 describes two sightings of comets with remarkably similar orbits. The far left column tells when, to the nearest tenth of a year, the comet passed perihelion. The next five columns specify the comet’s orbit. The bottom two pairs may be the same comet seen in 1097, 1538, and 1947.

   
4. circlegreen.jpg ImageRandom Perihelion Directions. Comets were launched in almost all directions, because the generally north-south rupture encircled the rotating Earth.

5. circlegreen.jpg ImageOrbit Directions and Inclinations, Two Separate Populations. A ball tossed in any direction circlegreen.jpg Imagefrom a high-speed train will, to an observer on the ground, initially travel almost horizontally and in the train’s direction of travel. Likewise, low-velocity comets launched in any direction from Earth received most of their orbital velocity from Earth’s high, prograde velocity (18.5 miles per second) about the Sun. Earth, by definition, has zero angle of inclination. This is why almost all short-period comets, those launched with low velocity, are prograde and have low angles of inclination.

Comets launched with greater velocities than Earth’s orbital velocity traveled in all directions. Most are long-period comets with randomly inclined orbital planes. Prograde comets launched with the highest velocities escaped the solar system, because they had the added velocity of Earth’s motion. This is why so many of the remaining long-period comets are retrograde. [See Table 12 on page 212.] (Almost all other bodies orbiting the Sun are prograde: planets, asteroids, transneptunian objects, meteoroids, and short-period comets.)

While this explains how two populations formed, one must ask if comets could be launched from Earth with enough velocity to blast through the atmosphere, escape Earth’s gravity, and enter large, even retrograde, orbits.

To escape Earth’s gravity and enter only a circular orbit around the Sun requires a launch velocity of 7 miles per second. However, to produce near-parabolic, retrograde orbits requires a launch velocity of 33 miles per second! Earth’s atmosphere would offer little resistance at such speeds. In seconds, the jetting fountains would push the thin atmosphere aside, much as water from a firehose quickly penetrates a thin wall.

Water pressurized by only the weight of 10 miles of rock would launch comets from Earth’s surface at a mere 0.5 mile per second. However, calculations show that two powerful effects, (1) water hammers and (2) expanding gases from supercritical water, would do the job. The energy for this second effect comes from the Moon’s orbit and the Earth’s orbit about the Sun. All this is explained on page 112.

Water Hammers. During the early days of the subterranean chamber’s collapse, giant water hammers would create enormous pressures. Today, water hammers occur, often with a loud bang, when fluid flowing in a pipe is suddenly stopped (or slowed) by a closing (or narrowing) valve—a device, such as a faucet, that controls the flow. A water hammer is similar to the collision of a long train with an immovable object. The faster and more massive the train (or volume of water), the greater the compression (or pressure jump) throughout the pipe. A water hammer concentrates energy, just as a hammer striking a nail concentrates energy. A moving hammer can produce forces many times greater than a resting hammer.

The subterranean chamber acted as the pipe. What was the valve? Once the water began to escape upward through any crack, a chain reaction would begin. The escaping flow from the chamber would start collapsing pillars (explained in Figure 53), beginning with those nearest the crack. Adjacent pillars, suddenly carrying additional loads, would also collapse like a house of cards. The crust would vibrate (flutter) in complex, wavelike patterns, like a flag held horizontally in a strong wind. Each narrowing of the chamber’s thickness would, in effect, partially close a valve, slow trillions of tons of water, and create a water hammer.

Forces familiar to us will not compress water much. However, the weight of 10 miles of rock resting on the trapped subterranean water would compress it by about 14%.84 Water, compressed by the vibrating crust, would act as trillions of springs. Those “springs” and the massive fluttering crust would have primary vibrational periods of about a minute. In other words, vibrations closed “valves” which created water hammers which created more vibrations, etc. Most people have heard water pipes banging or have seen pipes burst when only a few cubic feet of water were slowed. Imagine the excruciating pressures from rapidly slowing a “moving underground ocean.”85

[Soldier4Christ]

What Is Flutter?

Flutter occurs when a fluid flows over a solid surface, such as the wing of an airplane or a flat plate, and initiates a vibration.  If (a) a fluid flows along a wing or plate and continuously “thumps” or pushes a deflected wing or plate back toward its neutral position, and (b) the “thumping” frequency approaches any natural frequency of the wing or plate, large, potentially damaging oscillations can occur.  This is called flutter.

Water beneath the crust would have allowed the crust to vibrate, and a hydroplate’s large area would have given it great flexibility. Flowing water below the vibrating crust would have produced water hammers that “thumped” the crust at each of its natural frequencies. Undulations in the crust would have rippled throughout the crust, producing other water hammers and more undulations.

Figure 128: Adoption into Jupiter’s Family of Comets. If comets were launched from anywhere in the inner solar system, many, such as comets A and B, would have aphelions within a few astronomical units (AU) of Jupiter’s orbit. Comets spend much of their time near aphelion, where they move very slowly. There they often receive gentle gravitational pulls (green arrows) of long duration, toward Jupiter’s orbit, 5.2 AU from the Sun.

Comet C’s aphelion is far beyond the outermost planet. (At this figure’s scale and based on any Oort cloud theory, Comet C would be 1/5 mile from where you are sitting.) Comet C steadily gains speed as it falls toward the inner solar system for thousands of years, crossing Jupiter’s orbit at tremendous speed. To slow C down enough to join Jupiter’s family would require such powerful forces that the comet would be torn apart, as shown in Figure 122 on page 211. (Comets are fragile.) Could many smaller gravitational encounters pull C into Jupiter’s family? Yes, but close encounters are rare, and about half of these encounters would speed the comet up and probably throw it out of the solar system. Once in Jupiter’s family, the average comet has a life expectancy of only about 12,000 years.26

Clearly, comets must have originated recently from the inner solar system (the home of the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) to join Jupiter’s family.  Such comets could not have come from beyond Jupiter’s orbit.

6. circlegreen.jpg ImageJupiter’s Family.  A bullet, when fired straight up, slows to almost zero velocity near the top of its trajectory—its farthest point from Earth. A comet also moves very slowly near its aphelion. If a comet’s aphelion is ever near Jupiter during any orbit, Jupiter’s large gravity will pull the nearly stationary comet steadily toward Jupiter. Because a comet spends a relatively long time near its farthest point, Jupiter’s gravity acts strongly for an equally long time, gently pulling the nearly stationary comet toward Jupiter’s orbit. Even a comet’s orbital plane is slowly but steadily aligned with Jupiter’s. Thus, aphelions of short-period comets tend to be pulled toward Jupiter’s nearly circular orbit, regardless of whether the aphelion is inside, outside, above, or below that circle. The closer a comet’s aphelion is to Jupiter’s orbit, the more likely it is that the comet will be rapidly drawn toward Jupiter’s orbit. 128

One can think of Jupiter’s mass as being spread out in a hoop that coincides with Jupiter’s orbit. (This “hoop analogy” simplifies the analysis of many long-term gravitational effects.) Comets feel more pull toward the nearest part of the hoop.

My statistical examination of all historical sightings of every orbit (almost 500) of every comet in Jupiter’s family confirms this effect. The hydroplate theory places the source of comets at Earth—well inside Jupiter’s orbit. Therefore, many comets reach their slowest speeds within a few astronomical units of Jupiter’s hoop. Thousands of years of gentle gravitational tugs by this hoop have gathered Jupiter’s family. Although Jupiter sometimes destroys comets or ejects them from the solar system, many comets in its family remain, because they were recently launched. A similar but weaker effect is forming Saturn’s family.  [See Figure 123.]

7. circlegreen.jpg ImageComposition, Heavy Hydrogen.  When “the fountains of the great circlegreen.jpg Imagedeep” erupted, many rocks were crushed, eroded, sometimes reduced to clay, and mixed with carbonate-rich, salty, subterranean water—which contained sodium, because salt (NaCl) contains sodium. Organic compounds, including methane and ethane, are found in comets, because this water contained pulverized vegetation from preflood forests, as well as bacteria and other traces of life, from within hundreds of miles of the globe-encircling rupture.

Comets are rich in heavy hydrogen, because the water in the subterranean chambers was isolated from other water in the solar system. Our oceans have half the concentration of heavy hydrogen that comets have. So if the subterranean chambers held half the water in today’s oceans (as assumed on page 111), then almost all heavy hydrogen came from the subterranean chambers.

[Soldier4Christ]

Page 214 lists six surprising materials discovered on comet Tempel 1 by the Deep Impact mission in 2005. Only the hydroplate theory seems to explain the fluffy, porous texture of comets, and items a–e on page 214: crystalline silicates, clays, calcium carbonates, organic material, sodium, oxygen, and, of course, liquid water. Dust particles brought back to Earth by the Stardust Mission in 2006 were also crystalline and contained “organics” and “water.”

Item f (thick surface layers of very fine dirt with the consistency of talcum powder) is probably loess, a type of dirt composed of fine particles in the muddy ice that formed comets. Each time Tempel 1 came near the Sun in its 51/2-year orbital period, more of the ice on the comet’s surface sublimated, leaving behind the imbedded powdery dirt. Loess is described in more detail on pages 185 and 190.

8. circlegreen.jpg ImageSmall Comets.  Muddy droplets launched with the slowest velocities could not move far from Earth, so their smaller spheres of influence produced small comets. Their orbits about the Sun tend to intersect Earth’s orbit more in early November than mid-January. Because small comets have been falling on Earth for only about 5,000 years, little of our oceans’ water came from them—or from any comets. Few small comets can reach Mars.

9. circlegreen.jpg ImageRecent Meteor Streams, Crater Ages.  Disintegrating comets produce meteor circlegreen.jpg Imagestreams. If meteor streams were older than 10,000 years, the particles in a meteor stream would be sorted by size. [See “Poynting-Robertson Effect” on page 36.] Because this is not seen, meteor streams and comets must be younger than 10,000 years. Only the hydroplate theory claims comets began this recently.  Impact craters on Earth are also young.

10. circlegreen.jpg ImageOther/Enough Water.  Did the subterranean chamber have enough water to supply all the comets the solar system ever had?

Consider these facts. First, the oceans contain 1.43 x 109 cubic kilometers of water. Also, Marsden and Williams’ Catalogue of Cometary Orbits (1996 edition) lists 124 periodic comets—comets observed on at least two different passages into the inner solar system. (Halley’s comet, for example, has been observed on 30 consecutive orbits dating back to 239 B.C.) In recorded history, 790 other comets have been observed with enough detail to calculate orbits. So we know of 914 comets. (Small comets and fragments of a few comets that have been torn apart by passing too close to the Sun are numerous. However, their mass is only about 1% of the mass of all known comets combined, so they will not be considered here.)

Some comets escaped from the solar system—either directly at launch, or later when perturbed by a planet’s gravity. Other comets have never been counted, because they never came close enough to Earth in modern times to be seen, or because they collided with the Sun or a planet.  So let’s presume 50,000 comets were launched.

The average radius of a short-period comet nucleus is about 4.9 kilometers.86 If comet Tempel 1 (the most accurately measured comet to date) is representative of all comets, then comet densities are about 0.62 gram per cubic centimeter, and about 38% of a comet’s mass is water.3 If the subterranean chamber contained half of the water now in the oceans, then less than one-hundredth of the subterranean water was expelled as comets.

[Soldier4Christ]

With such a small fraction of the available water required, comets could have easily come from Earth.

11. circlegreen.jpg ImageOther/Near Side of Moon. Moonquakes, lava flows, and large multiringed basins are concentrated on the Moon’s near side, as one would expect if comets came from Earth.

12. circlegreen.jpg ImageOther/Death and Disaster.  Comets, launched at the onset of the flood, are being steadily removed from the solar system. For centuries after the flood, comets would have been seen much more frequently than today. Some must have collided with Earth, just as Shoemaker-Levy 9 collided with Jupiter in 1994. People living soon after the flood would have seen many comets grow in size and brightness in the night sky over several weeks. Some of those frightening sights would have been followed by impacts on Earth, daytime skies darkened with water vapor dumped by comets, and dramatic stories of localized destruction. Somehow, memories of these experiences spread worldwide. Perhaps the founders of different cultures learned from their ancestors that comets were first observed right after the flood, so comets became associated with death and disaster worldwide—hence the word “disaster”: dis (evil) + aster (star).

[Soldier4Christ]

Details Relating to the Exploded Planet Theory

13. circleyellow.jpg ImageFormation Mechanism.  Explosions produce a wide range of fragment sizes. Rock fragments from an exploded planet would vary from the size of dust up to maybe a quarter of the planet itself. The rocks seen in comets and on asteroids are much more uniform in size. Also, comet dust is mixed uniformly within comet ice. How would a planet, before exploding, have dust mixed within its water?

14. circlered.jpg ImageIce on Moon and Mercury.  It is highly unlikely that billions of tons of ice from a distant explosion 3,200,000 years ago would still survive and be found in craters on the Moon and Mercury.

15. circlered.jpg ImageJupiter’s Family.  If comets suddenly formed 3,200,000 years ago, why would Jupiter’s large family now have so many comets with life spans of only about 12,000 years?

16. circleyellow.jpg ImageComposition.  If comets formed as this theory claims, why would they have organic matter, including methane and ethane? Vegetation and bacteria could not live in the cold, dim asteroid belt, 2.8 AU from the Sun. This theory does not explain any of the discoveries of the Stardust mission or the six discoveries of the Deep Impact mission listed on page 214.

17. circleyellow.jpg ImageSmall Comets.  Comets originating 2.8 AU or farther from the Sun 3.2 million years ago would not concentrate small comets at Earth’s orbit today. Certainly, they would not tend to strike Earth ten times more frequently in early November than in mid-January.

18. circlered.jpg ImageMissing Meteorites. If comets are as old as this theory claims, many more iron meteorites should have been found below the topmost layers of the Earth’s sediments.

19. circleyellow.jpg ImageRecent Meteor Streams.  See item 9 above.

20. circlered.jpg ImageCrater Ages.  If a planet exploded 3,200,000 years ago, many craters on Earth should have corresponding ages. Even if one accepts evolutionary dating techniques, craters do not cluster at that age, or at any age.87

21. circlered.jpg ImageOther/Scattering.  The total mass of all asteroids is less than 0.05% of the Earth’s mass. Combining all asteroids would hardly produce a planet.

Exploding and dispersing a typical planet requires enormous energy.88 Even if a planet composed of pure TNT suddenly exploded, it would collapse back upon itself because of the large, mutual gravitational attraction of all its pieces. Napier and Dodd have shown that no known chemical, gravitational, or plausible nuclear source of energy appears capable of exploding and scattering any known planet.89 A head-on collision between two planets at 2.8 AU could provide the needed energy but would not evenly disperse comet-size chunks or give them the energy distribution shown in Figure 125 on page 213.

[Soldier4Christ]

Details Relating to the Volcanic Eruption Theory

22. circlered.jpg ImageFormation Mechanism, Crystalline Dust.  The giant planets, circlered.jpg Imagebasically big balls of frigid gas, have essentially no dust. They are also too cold to have powerful volcanoes.

23. circlered.jpg Image Ice on Moon and Mercury.  Same as item 14.

24. circleyellow.jpg ImageRandom Perihelion Directions, Orbit Directions and Inclinations.  circlered.jpg ImageA few, relatively brief, volcanic eruptions from planets or moons would launch primarily prograde comets in specific directions with similar orbital planes and perihelion directions. Instead, long-period comets, about half being retrograde, have randomly oriented orbital planes and perihelions.

The most violent volcanic eruption seen anywhere in the solar system occurred not on Earth, but on Io, Jupiter’s moon. The energy released was less than a thousandth of the energy needed to launch even a few comets from Io. Besides, Io was expelling sulfur dioxide, not water.90 Eruptions from volcanoes, anywhere, would lose too much energy in passing up through narrow volcanic conduits and vents. High pressures cannot build up unless the increase in pressure is contained by a solid. The surfaces of gaseous planets are obviously not solid.

25. circlered.jpg ImageSmall Perihelions.  Long-period comets have perihelions concentrated in the 1–3 AU range. Had they been launched from a giant planet (those lying 5–30 AU from the Sun), their perihelions would be farther from the Sun.

26. circleyellow.jpg ImageHigh Loss Rates of Comets.  Vsekhsvyatsky, this theory’s leading advocate, by assuming billions of years of comet accumulation, estimated that at least 1020 grams of comets are expelled from the solar system each year.91 Other cometary material should have been lost by evaporation and collisions. On Earth, all volcanoes combined eject only about 3 x 1015 grams of material into the atmosphere each year.92 Therefore, according to this theory, cometary material is being lost from the solar system thousands of times faster than Earth’s volcanoes are ejecting material only a few miles above Earth’s surface.

Matter expelled from a planet or moon might later collect gravitationally into a comet if a large amount of it traveled together. However, volcanoes eject small amounts of matter over wide angles. Ejected material must also travel far enough from the planet to have a large sphere of influence. For the giant planets, this is difficult. Jupiter’s escape velocity, for example, is 38 miles per second. Astronomers have never seen matter being permanently expelled from a giant planet.

27. circlered.jpg ImageComposition, Heavy Hydrogen. The giant planets are primarily gas—hydrogen circlered.jpg Imageand helium. Those planets do not have the higher concentrations of heavier elements that are in comets. Comets are 20 times richer in heavy hydrogen than Jupiter and Saturn. If oxygen, carbon, silicon, magnesium, nitrogen, sodium, and other relatively heavy elements in comets came from any giant planets, they must have come from deep within, where they would sink. Eruptions from deep within gaseous planets would be easily suppressed by viscous drag. If comets came from any giant planets or their barren moons, why would comets have organic compounds, such as methane and ethane? This theory does not explain any of the six discoveries of the Deep Impact mission listed on page 214.

28. circlered.jpg ImageSmall Comets.  See item 17.

29. circleyellow.jpg ImageRecent Meteor Streams.  See item 9 on page 224.

[Soldier4Christ]

Details Relating to the Original Oort Cloud Theory

30. circlered.jpg ImageFormation Mechanism, Heavy Hydrogen.  According to this circlered.jpg Imagetheory, comets began, as did the rest of the solar system, as a cloud of dust and gas (including water vapor) orbiting the Sun. If so, the concentration of heavy hydrogen in comets should be 20 times less, typical of the rest of the solar system.

Supposedly, solar radiation never broke apart (or dissociated) the water vapor, because it was shielded by other dust particles. Water vapor could then condense as frost on the dust. However, in a virtual vacuum, dust particles coated with ice would have tiny, relatively fixed spheres of influence, so they would not capture each other to form larger clusters—let alone comets—even over billions of years. Instead, rare collisions would scatter particles held together by their weak mutual gravity. No experimental evidence has shown how, in the vacuum of space and in less than several billion years, many billions of tons of particles can merge into even one comet—much less 1012 comets. (A similar problem exists for planets.) Also unexplained is how interstellar dust formed.

31. circlered.jpg ImageIce on Moon and Mercury.  Same as item 14.

32. circlered.jpg ImageCrystalline Dust.  Dust that formed in outer space should be noncrystalline. Comet dust is crystalline. Therefore, comet dust did not form in outer space as this theory assumes.

33. circlered.jpg ImageNear-Parabolic Comets.  If comets have been falling in from an Oort cloud for only a few million years, let alone since the solar system supposedly evolved 4.5 billion years ago, many long-period comets should be coming in for the second, third ... or one hundredth time. There is a recognized lack of such comets. [See Figure 125 on page 213.]

Some believe we do not see second-pass comets because the Oort cloud was perturbed recently. This overlooks the presence of many comets in Jupiter’s family and the absence of a perturbing star.  [See item 44 below.]

34. circlered.jpg ImageRandom Perihelion Directions. If a passing star did stir up the Oort cloud, causing many comets to fall toward the Sun, comet perihelions should cluster on the same side of the Sun.  Actually, comet perihelions lie in all directions.93

35. circlered.jpg ImageNo Incoming Hyperbolic Orbits.  If passing stars or other gravitational disturbances “shake” comets from an Oort cloud, some of those comets should have obvious hyperbolic orbits as they enter the planetary region. None has been reported, so there is probably no Oort cloud.

Comets that formed around other stars should also be ejected by passing stars. Such interstellar comets should enter our solar system every year or two—on hyperbolic orbits. Because incoming comets with hyperbolic orbits have never been seen, the formation processes described above probably do not happen. Leading advocates of the Oort cloud theory acknowledge this problem.29

36. circlered.jpg ImageSmall Perihelions.  Using the scale in Figure 128 on page 223, visualize comets in an Oort cloud 1/5 of a mile from the blue circle (less than an inch in diameter) representing the inner solar system. Perturbations from a passing star would not be precise and delicate enough to cluster comet perihelions inside the relatively tiny blue circle.

Fernández94 and Weissman95 showed, using Oort cloud theories, that perihelions of near-parabolic comets would not cluster in the 1–3 AU range (inside “the blue dot”), yet they do. Instead, the number of perihelions would increase as their distance from the Sun increases.

37. circleyellow.jpg ImageOrbit Directions and Inclinations.  Explaining how planets evolved is difficult enough, but at least they have some common features such as prograde orbits in planes near the ecliptic—all within 40 AU of the Sun. To also evolve comets 50,000 AU from the Sun, moving in randomly oriented planes, and with some in retrograde orbits, would require even more mysterious processes. Most long-period retrograde comets that “evolved” into short-period comets should still be retrograde.  Few short-period comets are retrograde.

Long-period comets are inclined at all angles and rarely become short-period comets. A slight majority of observed long-period comets are retrograde. However, almost all short-period comets are prograde and lie near Earth’s orbital plane. Gravitational interactions with planets might decrease the periods, but are unlikely to change retrograde orbits at all inclinations into prograde orbits near Earth’s orbital plane.

38. circlered.jpg ImageTwo Separate Populations.  An Oort cloud only 10,000 AU away would be too tightly bound to the Sun to allow enough stellar perturbations for this theory to work. If the cloud were 50,000 AU away, passing stars and galactic clouds would disperse the Oort cloud in a few billion years. Fernández recommended a distance of 25,000 AU, because it allows the most comets to pass through the inner solar system after 4.5 billion years. Only these comets might become short-period comets. But even if planetary perturbations continued for as long as one wished, only about 1% of the short-period comets we see would be produced. Notice that 25,000 AU is inconsistent with Oort’s 50,000–150,000 AU estimate that gave birth to this theory.

39. circlered.jpg ImageJupiter’s Family.  Comets falling in from 50,000 AU would reach very high speeds. The only way to slow them down enough to join Jupiter’s family is by gravitational interactions with planets. However, tidal effects would tear most comets apart or fling them out of the solar system. Those that slowed down over many orbits would continually risk colliding with planets and moons while slowly vaporizing with each passage near the Sun. Few comets would join Jupiter’s family.

Comets in Jupiter’s family have an average life span of only about 12,000 years. They could not have accumulated over millions of years.

40. circleyellow.jpg ImageComposition.  Same as item 16 on page 224.

41. circlered.jpg ImageSmall Comets.  See item 17 on page 224.

42. circleyellow.jpg ImageRecent Meteor Streams.  See item 9 on page 224.

43. circleyellow.jpg ImageCrater Ages. If an Oort cloud were populated with about 1012 comets 4.5 billion years ago, the Earth should have been heavily bombarded. The farther back in time, the greater the bombardment rate. Craters and other evidence of this bombardment should be increasingly visible in the deeper sedimentary rock layers. Instead, craters are almost exclusively found in surface layers.

44. circlered.jpg ImageOther/Missing Star.  If a passing star deflected comets in an Oort cloud toward the Sun, where is that star? Our nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is 4.3 light-years away, or 270,000 AU. It, and the two stars gravitationally bound to it, could not have stirred up an Oort cloud, because they are moving toward the Sun, not away from it. A study that projected stellar motion back 10 million years found that no star would have come within 3 light-years of the Sun. Therefore, no star would have stirred up an Oort cloud 0.8–1.5 light-years away during the last 10 million years.96

[Soldier4Christ]

Another Possibility: Creation

Some might say comets were created along with the Sun, Moon, and stars, but that view cannot by itself qualify as a scientific theory. Good scientific theories relate and explain, through well-established cause-and-effect relationships (the laws of physics), many otherwise strange observations. Little, if any, historical or scientific evidence supports or refutes the proposal that comets were created in the beginning. Claiming that comets were created out of nothing raises many questions about strange comet characteristics and patterns. The simplest explanation that is consistent with the laws of physics and explains many diverse, otherwise puzzling, observations is probably the best—regardless of the starting point. [See “How Can the Study of Creation Be Scientific?” on page 260.]

Final Thoughts

People are surprised at how many theories try to explain comet origins. Ironically, most theories explain the facts better than the theory currently in vogue—the Oort cloud theory. Having only one theory taught or popularized by the media, usually as a fact, leads to its dominance and continuation as the only theory taught—despite a growing number of scientific problems.

Thomas Kuhn wrote the preeminent book on how science works.107 In it, he shows that such monopolies continue in science, often for centuries, until startling new evidence arises along with a theory that better explains all the evidence. Then a slow reeducation process begins, accompanied by hostility from those whose income, power, pride, and prestige are rooted in the old theory or paradigm.

If, as you drove across the country following a map, you found more and more details contradicting your map, you might suspect that you made a wrong turn somewhere. Admitting a mistake may be difficult, and backtracking and finding the correct road can consume time and fuel. In science, paradigm shifts are costly and slow, damage some reputations and businesses, and even destroy major world views of certain segments of society. Fundamental changes in thinking are strenuously resisted by some, but are inevitable if the scientific evidence supports those changes.

Theories must be based on evidence, but new evidence that helps explain comet origins is rare and expensive. In 2014, the European Space Agency hopes to have the Rosetta spacecraft orbit comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko, take measurements, and place instruments on it. If successful, Rosetta will provide the critical information needed to test many theories described in this chapter. The greatest advances in understanding usually come from testing conflicting predictions of better theories.108 This will require landing softly on a comet and sending data, and ultimately samples, back to Earth.

New evidence spawns new theories, and the testing cycle begins again. However, when only one explanation is taught and seldom questioned, the cycle stops. In science, we should never think we have a final or proven answer.

[Soldier4Christ]

Figure 129: Asteroid Ida and Its Moon, Dactyl.  In 1993, the Galileo spacecraft, heading toward Jupiter, took this picture 2,000 miles from asteroid Ida. To the surprise of most, Ida had a moon (1 mile in diameter) orbiting 60 miles away. Both Ida and Dactyl are composed of earthlike rock. We now know sixty other asteroids that have moons.1 According to the laws of orbital mechanics (described in the preceding chapter), capturing a moon in space is unbelievably difficult—unless both the asteroid and a nearby potential moon had very similar speeds and directions and unless gases surrounded the asteroid during capture. If so, the asteroid, its moon, and each gas molecule were probably coming from the same place and were launched at about the same time. Within a million years, passing bodies would have stripped the moons away, so these asteroid-moon captures must have been recent.

From a distance, large asteroids look like big rocks. However, many show, by their low density, that they contain either much empty space or something light, such as water ice.2 Also, the best close-up pictures of an asteroid show millions of smaller rocks on its surface. Therefore, asteroids are flying rock piles held together by gravity. Ida, 35 miles long, does not have enough gravity to squeeze itself into a spherical shape.