You have made several assertions such as the above, on this and other threads, that are straw man arguments. You make an erroneous statement and then use that as support for your position. But there is an explanation, but apparently you prefer to critique without actually taking the time research the subject you are critiquing. This is obvious by statements you have made concerning the EU and it's more speculative aspect of cosmic catastrophism. A certain minimum amount of research must be done and we cannot do it for you, I for one, do not have the time.There is no explanation of how Saturn shrunk to its present size nor of the dynamics of the configuration change, so the model is not viable.
Which books or journals have you read? Cardona, Talbott, Velikovsky, Cochrane, Cook, or others; the journals Aeon or Kronos? There are several variations of the Saturn scenario, thousands of pages have been written.
Back to the issue raised in the above quote. It is thought that Saturn was originally a Brown Dwarf star with a retinue of satellites. That system was travelling through interstellar space until it came under the influence of and was captured by the Sun, causing electrical stress on the proto Saturn dwarf (Jupiter may have been involved) resulting in Saturn going nova, which was actually the brown dwarf fissioning and throwing off material; possibly giving birth to at least one planet and possibly other bodies. Comets and the asteroid belt are some of the remnants of the dismemberment of the Saturnian system and the electrical machining of the terrestrial type planets, especially Mars. What was left is the present day Saturn with it's ring system. To understand the processes described above refer to the EU model of comets. Essentially, proto Saturn and (later the young Venus, too) were on elliptical orbits of the Sun and were subjected to a scaled up version of the same plasma processes we see with the smaller comets of today. At that time the Solar System was reordered until the present state of stability was achieved.
What do you mean by "explosive?" Explosive implies, to me, a mechanical explanation such as a lithospheric collision. The EU postulates that asteroids and comets have a common origin and are basically the same type of objects; the difference being the degree of electrical stress. They are the result of electrical machining of planetary surfaces during a recent period of the solar system's history that was very different from what we have today. The asteroid belt is the scene of a recent cosmic traffic accident. There is not that much material (> 4% of the Moon) in the asteroid belt and it is spread out over a wide area. This speaks against it being the remains of an exploded planet. Though that discussion should take place on another thread.For instance, there is overwhelming evidence asteroids have an explosive origin, but the EU explanation doesn't posit explosions for them.
I am not too familiar with the comparison, however, this thread is not about Van Flandern's model and that would be off topic. Feel free to open a new thread on your preferred topic in the NIAMI board. I would certainly be interested in reading and maybe asking some questions. Anyway, comparisons with the EU model and its' alleged lack of evidence would make for a nice discussion on that, yet to be created, thread.How does the EU model for planetary formation compare with Van Flandern and Jacot? The EU model is not elaborated so it is hard to assess, but it doesn't seem to compare favorably.
The Saturn scenario definitely got it's start from a comparative analysis of myths, tales, rituals, and literary references...but to say that there is no physical explanation is wrong. The only reason that the theory has persisted for so many years is that there has been a series of observational supports in the observed behaviors of plasmas in space. This led to the Electric Universe as we presently know it. The myth aspect provides us with a clue, a directional pointer, it is viewed as our ancestors' subjective and traumatized interpretation of extinction threatening cosmic events. There is plenty of support from all fields, including all and any of the "hard" sciences. The approach is forensic and interdisciplinary and it is simply untrue that it is based "entirely on myth." As a simple example - almost every culture tells of the planet gods hurling deadly thunderbolts at each other and at the Earth. If the planets are charged bodies in plasma this is exactly what would happen when one planet encroaches upon another's plasma sheath, that begs the question of how ancient cultures would have this knowledge without having witnessed such events? Did they make it up? Why did they distinguish between celestial lightning and ordinary terrestrial lightning? The interpretation involves the modern discoveries in plasma physics applied to ancient testimony, and that is only one example of the approach.As well, the Saturn aspect is not worked out dynamically, and is based entirely on myth, which is important evidence, but until there is a physical explanation it can't be considered adequate (which is the word I should have used instead of "not viable").
By stating it has not been "worked out dynamically" it seems you are implying that there should be some kind of Newtonian calculations to support the hypothesis. See the Thornhill article referred to earlier in this post: Newtons Electric Clockwork Solar System