Endless mysteries lurk in the depths of space. To pare the list down to eight—now, there’s a challenge

“Why is the solar system so bizarre?” deserves a closer look.  Kerr said that Pluto has been partially explained as a member of a previously undiscovered population of trans-Neptunian objects.  “The mysteries of the remaining eight planets,” i.e., all of them – Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune – “are proving more recalcitrant,” he said.  Before space probes, planetary scientists expected to find patterns that would support a general theory of planetary origins.  That hope has evaporated:

• “Why is the solar system so bizarre?” deserves a closer look.  Kerr said that Pluto has been partially explained as a member of a previously undiscovered population of trans-Neptunian objects.  “The mysteries of the remaining eight planets,” i.e., all of them – Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune – “are proving more recalcitrant,” he said.  Before space probes, planetary scientists expected to find patterns that would support a general theory of planetary origins.  That hope has evaporated:

Looming over all the attempts to explain planetary diversity, however, is the chilling specter of random chance. Computer simulations show that the chaos of caroming planetesimals in our still-forming planetary system could just as easily have led to three or five terrestrial planets instead of four. Mercury may have largely formed with a thick rocky shell only to have it blown away by a chance collision with a still-forming planet nearly its own size. A rare big hit to Uranus might have not only knocked it on its side, where it spins to this day, but also shaken up its rocky core. If so, the more organized churnings of a shallow fluid shell could be generating its magnetic field, producing the observed tilt.

• Looming over all the attempts to explain planetary diversity, however, is the chilling specter of random chance. Computer simulations show that the chaos of caroming planetesimals in our still-forming planetary system could just as easily have led to three or five terrestrial planets instead of four. Mercury may have largely formed with a thick rocky shell only to have it blown away by a chance collision with a still-forming planet nearly its own size. A rare big hit to Uranus might have not only knocked it on its side, where it spins to this day, but also shaken up its rocky core. If so, the more organized churnings of a shallow fluid shell could be generating its magnetic field, producing the observed tilt.

“Ferreting out rare random events in the early days of the nascent solar system could be problematic, scientists concede. They may have to settle for working out many of the rules of the planet-making game without pinning down exactly how a particular planetary quirk came to be.”

• “Ferreting out rare random events in the early days of the nascent solar system could be problematic, scientists concede. They may have to settle for working out many of the rules of the planet-making game without pinning down exactly how a particular planetary quirk came to be.”

• Thus the “inchoate diversity” of which he spoke (inchoate meaning unorganized, disordered).  Kerr left it to future astronomers to find a way out of that chilling specter of random chance.  “As exoplanet hunters get beyond stamp-collecting planets solely by orbit and mass, they will have a far larger number of planetary outcomes to consider, beyond what our local neighborhood can offer,” Kerr ended as optimistically as possible.  “Perhaps patterns will emerge from inchoate diversity.”

What?  Science doesn’t have the answers?  These are BIG mysteries.  Some of them are the very questions for which TV animators for the Science Channel, NOVA and National Geographic offer solutions that are neat, simple, and wrong.  We deceive students by teaching simplistic, wrong answers without revealing that scientists have only partial answers, if any.  What distinguishes science, whose root means “knowledge,” from other methods of human inquiry that also have more questions than answers?

• What?  Science doesn’t have the answers?  These are BIG mysteries.  Some of them are the very questions for which TV animators for the Science Channel, NOVA and National Geographic offer solutions that are neat, simple, and wrong.  We deceive students by teaching simplistic, wrong answers without revealing that scientists have only partial answers, if any.  What distinguishes science, whose root means “knowledge,” from other methods of human inquiry that also have more questions than answers?

Batters get three strikes and are out.  Planetary scientists are zero for 8 as far as observations meeting predictions (even worse when moons like Io, Enceladus and Titan are included).  Astronomers and cosmologists are not batting any better.  In any other human endeavor, a zero score would be called utter incompetence.  Astronomers and planetologists are very good at describing  what is (i.e., stamp collecting), but NOT how it came to be.  Those two skills are completely different.  They can remain on as stamp collectors, but not as prophets.

• Batters get three strikes and are out.  Planetary scientists are zero for 8 as far as observations meeting predictions (even worse when moons like Io, Enceladus and Titan are included).  Astronomers and cosmologists are not batting any better.  In any other human endeavor, a zero score would be called utter incompetence.  Astronomers and planetologists are very good at describing  what is (i.e., stamp collecting), but NOT how it came to be.  Those two skills are completely different.  They can remain on as stamp collectors, but not as prophets.