[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.But the evidence is at least suggestive.As the Tunguska Event and Meteor Crater, Arizona, also remind us, not all impact catastrophes occurred in the early history of the solar system.But the fact that only a few of the lunar craters have extensive ray systems also reminds us that, even on the Moon, some erosion occurs.* By noting which craters overlap which and other signs of lunar stratigraphy, we can reconstruct the sequence of impact and flooding events of which the production of crater Bruno is perhaps the most recent example.* On Mars, where erosion is much more efficient, although there are many craters there are virtually no ray craters, as we would expect.The Earth is very near the Moon.If the Moon is so severely cratered by impacts, how has the Earth avoided them? Why is Meteor Crater so rare? Do the comets and asteroids think it inadvisable to impact an inhabited planet? This is an unlikely forbearance.The only possible explanation is that impact craters are formed at very similar rates on both the Earth and the Moon, but that on the airless, waterless Moon they are preserved for immense periods of time, while on the Earth slow erosion wipes them out or fills them in.Running water, windblown sand and mountain-building are very slow processes.But over millions or billions of years, they are capable of utterly erasing even very large impact scars.On the surface of any moon or planet, there will be external processes, such as impacts from space, and internal processes, such as earthquakes; there will be fast, catastrophic events, such as volcanic explosions, and processes of excruciating slowness, such as the pitting of a surface by tiny airborne sand grains.There is no general answer to the question of which processes dominate, the outside ones or the inside ones; the rare but violent events, or the common and inconspicuous occurrences.On the Moon, the outside, catastrophic events hold sway; on Earth, the inside, slow processes dominate.Mars is an intermediate case.Between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter are countless asteroids, tiny terrestrial planets.The largest are a few hundred kilometers across.Many have oblong shapes and are tumbling through space.In some cases there seem to be two or more asteroids in tight mutual orbits.Collisions among the asteroids happen frequently, and occasionally a piece is chipped off and accidentally intercepts the Earth, falling to the ground as a meteorite.In the exhibits, on the shelves of our museums are the fragments of distant worlds.The asteroid belt is a great grinding mill, producing smaller and smaller pieces down to motes of dust.The bigger asteroidal pieces, along with the comets, are mainly responsible for the recent craters on planetary surfaces.The asteroid belt may be a place where a planet was once prevented from forming because of the gravitational tides of the giant nearby planet Jupiter; or it may be the shattered remains of a planet that blew itself up.This seems improbable because no scientist on Earth knows how a planet might blow itself up, which is probably just as well.The rings of Saturn bear some resemblance to the asteroid belt: trillions of tiny icy moonlets orbiting the planet.They may represent debris prevented by the gravity of Saturn from accreting into a nearby moon, or they may be the remains of a moon that wandered too close and was torn apart by the gravitational tides.Alternatively, they may be the steady state equilibrium between material ejected from a moon of Saturn, such as Titan, and material falling into the atmosphere of the planet.Jupiter and Uranus also have ring systems, discovered only recently, and almost invisible from the Earth.Whether Neptune has a ring is a problem high on the agenda of planetary scientists.Rings may be a typical adornment of Jovian-type planets throughout the cosmos.Major recent collisions from Saturn to Venus were alleged in a popular book, Worlds in Collision, published in 1950 by a psychiatrist named Immanuel Velikovsky.He proposed that an object of planetary mass, which he called a comet, was somehow generated in the Jupiter system.Some 3,500 years ago, it careered in toward the inner solar system and made repeated encounters with the Earth and Mars, having as incidental consequences the parting of the Red Sea, allowing Moses and the Israelites to escape from Pharaoh, and the stopping of the Earth from rotating on Joshua’s command.It also caused, he said, extensive vulcanism and floods.* Velikovsky imagined the comet, after a complicated game of interplanetary billiards, to settle down into a stable, nearly circular orbit, becoming the planet Venus - which he claimed never existed before then.* As far as I know, the first essentially nonmystical attempt to explain a historical event by cometary intervention was Edmund Halley’s proposal that the Noachic flood was ‘the casual Choc [shock] of a Comet.’As I have discussed at some length elsewhere, these ideas are almost certainly wrong.Astronomers do not object to the idea of major collisions, only to major recent collisions.In any model of the solar system it is impossible to show the sizes of the planets on the same scale as their orbits, because the planets would then be almost too small to see.If the planets were really shown to scale, as grains of dust, we would easily note that the chance of collision of a particular comet with the Earth in a few thousand years is extraordinarily low.Moreover, Venus is a rocky and metallic, hydrogen-poor planet, whereas Jupiter - where Velikovsky supposed it comes from - is made almost entirely of hydrogen.There are no energy sources for comets or planets to be ejected by Jupiter [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]