🚀 go-pugleaf

palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:

>I think the most persuasive arguments against the exploded (or collided)
>planet hypothesis were aesthetic rather than scientific. Catastrophism
>was "out" for a while, probably because of distaste engendered by one of
>its proponents (Velikovsky). Luis Alvarez put catastrophism back into
>favor with his identification of the K-T boundary mechanism, and it is,
>perhaps, timely for the exploded planet hypothesis to reemerge into a
>more sypathetic community.

Actually, one important reason why people turned against the exploding
planet hypothesis was the discovery that certain classes of asteroids have
compositions which are not consistent with any scenario which involves
heating above 300 K. This and the fact that the property classes
(achondrite, C1 and C2 chondrite, enstatite, etc) are on isotopic grounds
irreconciliable with any single parent body are the reasons J S Lewis
argues against it.

The best review I know of is where I got this:

J S Lewis and R G Prinn, Planets and their Atmospheres: Origin and
Evolution, Academic Press, 1984.
-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson