For followers of Dr. Tom Van Flandern's Exploded Planet Hypothesis, here's an interesting story that was shared by Mr. S.D., and which I pass on:
Now why is this significant? For one thing, in Dr. Van Flandern's exposition of the Exploded Planet Hypothesis, the size of the now-missing planet was much larger than the mass of the Earth, and it was a solid planet. The trouble with his exposition, at the time, was the fact that such planets, as the article makes clear, was not thought to be possible:
"The theorists didn’t see this coming. The orthodoxy was that, beyond about 10 Earth masses, a planet would hold on to so much hydrogen gas that it would become like Jupiter or Saturn. Kepler-10c suggests that plus-size planets can stay rocky, with clearly defined surfaces, rather than becoming gaseous and bloated."
The discovery of such a massive solid planetary body removes one persistent difficulty with Van Flandern's theory, and with scenarios (such as the present author's "cosmic war" hypothesis) based upon it. To be sure, other difficulties remain, many of them having to do with the difficulties of chronology of trying to reconcile ancient texts with various modern scientific theories of this type.
But there's another implication of this article for those interested in the possibilities of comparing ancient texts and mythological lore, with scientific theories. That implication is suggested here in the article:
"Gravity at the surface is nearly three times that of Earth. If there were creatures somehow bounding around, they would probably be rather squat. The planet is 2.3 times the diameter of Earth but is much denser, particularly toward the core." (Emphasis added)
I have remarked about this aspect of the implications of Van Flandern's theory of a massive solid planet which was once in the asteroid belt's orbit, and which may have been home to intelligent life. There are two possibilities, perhaps, One of them, suggested by the article, is that in such a high gravity, creatures would be squat (and probably massively boned). The implication is that on planets with less gravity than the Earth, and home to intelligent hominoid-type life, might have creatures of much larger or taller stature than those of Earth: giants. And that seems to reconcile with those ancient stories of giants. One need only think of those old Mesopotamian depictions of kings as being of large stature compared to the smaller "servants" attending them. Academia tends to interpret such depictions in simply a metaphorical or symbolic sense, while within the alternative research community they tend to be interpreted as reality. The second possibility is the converse: that in such a high-gravity environment, creatures might have evolved with a much larger and more massive skeletal structure.
In any case, the discovery of Kepler-10c, as the article implies, means that planetary science's theoretical models might have to be revised, and it appears to indicate, at least for the moment, that one of the difficulties of Van Flandern's version of the 19th century's Exploded Planet Hypothesis has been removed.
See you on the flip side...