Deep Impact Predictions

[dmjspace]

crazy said: <font color="yellow"> February 13, 2000: No one has ever seen the Oort cloud, that spherical envelope of comets and their residues that surrounds our Solar System. No one has ever measured its size and density or counted the objects in it. Nor is anyone likely to do so in the foreseeable future: the Oort cloud is too distant, and the objects in it too small and too dim to be detected by our instruments. </font><br /><br />Well isn't that conveeeeeenient. But yet:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> not only do scientists agree that this ethereal cloud is out there, but they are so confident that they actually argue about its exact composition and characteristics. </font><br /><br />Confidence and agreement do not an observation make. These scientists *must* be confident about the existence of this imaginary place...without it, their entire theory would fall apart. They have no choice.<br /><br />One might argue that the EPH is the same way: it *needs* exploded planets. The difference between the EPH and the Oort cloud is that the EPH makes successful predictions with far fewer variables, which is exactly what Occam's razor demands.<br /><br />Tell me...what successful predictions has the Oort cloud ever made?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Furthermore, we know it's there, because we can calculate the orbits of comet with simple math and that where they appear to come from. </font><br /><br />There is nothing simple about this. The calculations do NOT point to the Oort cloud. They point to our solar system as the origin. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> But our knowledge of the Oort Cloud is solid science. </font><br /><br />Yeah, an imaginary, undetected, undetectable, constantly replenished cloud of comets, supported by a computer model that was designed under the assumption that the Oort cloud exists exactly where it *has* to be.<br /><br />That's real <b> solid </b> science there. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br></br>

 

[telfrow]

<font color="yellow">Telf, don't forget to wait 15 minutes after eating before you go in the pool.</font><br /><br />I'll make it a half an hour, Max... just to be safe.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[geos]

"When billions of chunks of rock and ice move at high speed and in close proximity to each other, there are bound to be lots of scrapes, bumps, and crashes"<br /><br />When were they EVER in close proximity to each other? It's the Oooort Cloud - a trillion times as empty as anything ever imagined.

 

[geos]

You are posting things that I would have !!<br /><br />I think the chance of the Standard Model explaining ANYTHING is as likely as any two objects in the Ooooort Cloud slamming into each other.

 

[dmjspace]

Geos said: <font color="yellow"> You are posting things that I would have !! <br /><br />I think the chance of the Standard Model explaining ANYTHING is as likely as any two objects in the Ooooort Cloud slamming into each other. </font><br /><br />So far, the "dirty snowball" model has failed to predict anything, upon actual observation of comets, that other models didn't predict more accurately and/or simply.<br /><br />I don't know much about other comet models (the "electric universe" theories, for example), though I have read Eric Lerner's book, in which he discusses Hannes Alfven's theories at length. (Alfven earned a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970, lest anyone jump in to instantly label him a kook, as some members are eager to do here.)<br /><br />One thing's for certain...no comet's density has ever been measured, so we don't know what comets contain under their rocky crusts (a feature which, of course, was never expected under the snowball model in the first place).<br /><br />The EPH says comets are simply asteroids without their volatiles boiled away, which means that comets and asteroids alike have densities typically associated with asteroids (1-7gm/cc, with an average around 2gm/cc).<br /><br />In other words, "dirty snowballs" just plain don't exist, which means the Oort cloud need not exist. These are good things for science, because science depends on observation, and neither of these imaginary entities has ever been observed.

 

[dmjspace]

A Deep Impact conference is going on right now in Brazil. Over the next few days some details of the spectra should become available.<br /><br />One note: Deep Impact has no instruments capable of measuring bulk abundances (only a sample return could do that), so unfortunately there will be significant room for guesstimates even in the spectral data.<br /><br />To some extent, however, the predictions made by competing models of comet formation and composition should be able to be tested against observation, finally.<br /><br />To recount: the "dirty snowball" model expects the spectra to show overwhelming evidence of ice and gases.<br /><br />The EPH, on the other hand, expects significant evidence of pyroxenes--silicate material (materials composed of silicon and oxygen and one or more metals). Some carbon is expected due to the "charring" that occurred in the explosive fireball from which comets originated.<br /><br />Pyroxenes are expected because the EPH says comets are parts of larger bodies that were elementally differentiated. It says comets are NOT "pristine," icy remnants from the early solar system.<br /><br />So, in summary...<br /><br />Dirty snowball model: Almost exclusively ices and gases<br /><br />EPH: Silicates, salts, some carbon, up to 20% water (in other words, the same composition as asteroids)<br /><br />Notes: Unlike the EPH, the dirty snowball model never expected to find a dark crust on a comet, but after observerations of Borrelly and Wild 2, the model morphed from snowball to dirty snowball to "snowy dirtball." <br /><br />After the Deep Impact spectra roll in, the standard model will no doubt morph into a form even more indistinguishable from the EPH model. Eventually, they will be one and the same, thus preserving the illusion that science always moves in a forward fashion.<br /><br />Never mind that the snowball model was completely wrong and that we could have simply started with a model that was accurate from the beginning (the EPH).

 

[glutomoto]

<font color="yellow">Re: Yeah, an imaginary, undetected, undetectable, constantly replenished cloud of comets, supported by a computer model that was designed under the assumption that the Oort cloud exists exactly where it *has* to be.<br /></font><br /><br />Its been awhile but as I recall the cloud is not a physical thing, it is rather an area of probability, and it is in that area that the long term comets end the far point of their orbits (aposolar?). So it does no good to go looking for the cloud, but that doesn't make it imaginary. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I can't believe that I finally posted to this thread, it took me 3 days to read it all. yes i'm slow.<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dmjspace]

Glutomoto said: <font color="yellow"> Its been awhile but as I recall the cloud is not a physical thing, it is rather an area of probability </font><br /><br />That doesn't exactly help the case of those claiming the Oort cloud is something scientifically known, does it? Now it's only a probability?<br /><br />According to astronomy texts, the Oort cloud is an actual "shell" of trillions of comets. It was invented in an attempt to explain why comets keep coming into our solar system unexpectedly.<br /><br />The reason is it a virtually useless concept is that one has to suppose that passing stars perturb comets out of this gigantic cloud (which, together, weighs only 40 earth masses), rendering predictions impossible, but allowing any comet to be "explained."<br /><br />Convenient, but not very scientific.<br /><br />There are other, better explanations for the observation that comets are "local." See a discussion of comet velocities and trajectories here, for example.

 

[nexium]

I read about 5% of this thread, but I will comment anyway. It is generally assumed that the mantal of Earth is about 1000 degrees c =1832 f. This is well below the boiling point in a vacuum of 90% of the material we think the mantle is made of. An impact that blows away 1/2 of the crust does reduce the pressure at the exposed surface of the mantal. As the boiling volitiles expand into the space formally occupied by the crust, carring some of the plastic mantle; the expanding volitiles cool, and loose their pressure/density, because that is what volitiles do, as the pressure decreases. 1% (not 99%) of Earth's mass might be hureled out at escape velosity. The rest will fall back, within hours. 1% can make thousands of mid size asteroids, which you can say are the same thing as comets, if you wish.<br /> Even worse for the planetary origin of asteroids and comets; most of the mantle of Earth, Mercury and Mars may be cooler than 1000 degrees c. The other planets have such dense atmospheres, less than 1% if the ejecta is likely to be at escape velosity by the time it reaches the top of the atmosphere. Neil

 

[dmjspace]

Neil,<br />I don't know where you get your figures and I'm not sure what your point is. The EPH does not postulate an impact. It postulates an explosion. There are several proposed explosion mechanisms. See, for example, this page: <br /><br /><i> Where Did All the Mass Go?<br /><br />Although over 10,000 asteroids have well-determined orbits, the combined mass of all other asteroids is not as great as that of the largest asteroid, Ceres. That makes the total mass of the asteroid belt only about 0.001 of the mass of the Earth. A frequently asked question is, if a major planet exploded, where is the rest of its mass?<br /><br />Consider what would happen if the Earth exploded today. Surface and crustal rocks would shatter and fragment, but remain rocks. However, rocks from depths greater than about 40 km are under so much pressure at high temperature that, if suddenly released into a vacuum, such rocks would vaporize. As a consequence, over 99% of the Earth’s total mass would vaporize in an explosion, with only its low-pressure crustal and upper mantle layers surviving.<br /><br />The situation worsens for a larger planet, where the interior pressures and temperatures get higher more quickly with depth. In fact, all planets in our solar system more massive than Earth (starting with Uranus at about 15 Earth masses) are gas giants with no solid surfaces, and would be expected to leave no asteroids if they exploded. Bodies smaller than Earth, such as our Moon, would leave a substantially higher percentage of their mass in asteroids. But the Moon has only about 0.01 of Earth’s mass to begin with.<br /><br />In short, asteroid belts with masses of order 0.001 Earth masses are the norm when terrestrial-planet-sized bodies explode. Meteorites provide direct evidence for this scenario of rocks either surviving or being vaporized. Various chondrite meteorites (by far the most common type) show all stages</i>

 

[glutomoto]

ok so area of probability is a bad choice, but even saying<br /><font color="yellow">"According to astronomy texts, the Oort cloud is an actual "shell" of trillions of comets."</font> doesn't negate the point I was trying to make. The best telescopes can't see it, because the individual bits are spread so very thin.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Re: There are other, better explanations for the observation that comets are "local." See a discussion of comet velocities and trajectories here, for example.</font><br /><br />Since the oort cloud is gravitationally bound to sol and is thought to be a remnant of the original nebula that collapsed to form the Sun, then any comet originating from said cloud is of "local" origin.<br /><br /><br /><br />Does that site you refered me to really belong to Tom Van Flandern, or was it posted by his fan club ?? The reason I ask is because I would hope a "Professional Astronomer" who is trying to popularize a new idea, would avoid even the smallest application of snake oil. That page almost drips the stuff. One of my favorites is the bit about "A traceback of orbits" that is such a rich lie that the laughter broght tears to my eyes, my loud gufaws and supine position had my wife and kids wondering if they should call an ambulance or the dog catcher. thanks.<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dmjspace]

cs said: <font color="yellow"> So many binaries have been discovered now that asteroid moonlets are no big deal. But prior to the discovery of Ida's moon Dactyl, Van Flandern was one of the few astronomers arguing for their existence, and he did so based upon the EPH. </font><br /><br />This is the case where Don Yeomans, currently involved in the Deep Impact mission, made a bet with Van Flandern that there was no way satellites would be detected around asteroids. He lost.<br /><br />This is also a prime example of how mainstream theories quietly morph into competing theories to preserve the illusion of scientific progress without having to admit that they were flawed from the beginning.<br /><br />By the way, there's a new report out of UCSD suggesting that the "protosun" was of surprising brightness when asteroids were supposedly originating about five billion years ago.<br /><br />The UCSD team concluded this based on an examination of asteroid composition, which suggests that they formed under conditions of strong UV light.<br /><br />Of course, in the competing model (the EPH), asteroids were only created millions of years ago when the sun was more or less in its current state, not billions of years ago. There is no need to postulate an unexpected highly evolved protosun.<br /><br />Then again, if asteroids were formed out of an explosion, particularly if the exploded parent body already had organic material, this would wreak havoc with any interpretation coming out of UCSD or elsewhere.

 

[dmjspace]

Glutomoto said: <font color="yellow"> That page almost drips the stuff. One of my favorites is the bit about "A traceback of orbits" that is such a rich lie that the laughter broght tears to my eyes </font><br /><br />Here is the part where you explain exactly why you believe this is a rich lie. <br /><br />Now don't leave us hanging like so many other pseudoskeptics have. I can't wait for your detailed analysis and sources for your statement.<br /><br />Especially, I'd like your analysis of the data Van Flandern was using, given that they were generated by another scientist who was initially opposed to the EPH.

 

[dmjspace]

More Deep Impact spectral data are in from the Spitzer telescope, whose operators presented at the comet and asteroid conference going on this weekend in Brazil.<br /><br />The results are preliminary, of course, but they don't bode well for the snowball model. There are a couple of bombshells in Spitzer's readings, and there are certain to be more soon.<br /><br />The first: the telescope has picked up evidence, in the spectra, of "every major rock forming element we see on Earth [except iron]."<br /><br />I probably don't have to tell anybody here that rock forming elements mean one thing...rocks. Asteroids are rocks. Comets are...well, they're supposed to be ice.<br /><br />Another shocking find: Tempel 1 spectra indicate the presence of carbonates. The scientist in charge mentioned limestone. Limestone. In a comet. I forget the scientist's actual words, but they were basically that this is going to be a big surprise to proponents of the dirty snowball model.<br /><br />Why? Because carbonates form in the presence of <b> liquid </b> water. Comets are supposed to have formed five billion years ago at 30 Kelvin (about -406 degrees Fahrenheit). There will be much spin on this point. Scientists will suggest that the carbonates formed either in a solid state (which has never been observed) or that they formed *before* the comet condensed.<br /><br />Either way they fudge it, these are major "swidgets" which add yet another variable to the dirty snowball model, and confirm that it does not predict accurately.<br /><br />According to Howe, who is herself no proponent of the EPH, the Deep Impact scientists are "still struggling with some of the data" which, according to the Spitzer team, show evidence of carbon nanotubes, or "Buckyballs," and PAHs.<br /><br />SDC fans will remember that PAHs were made almost a household word in the debate over the "Martian" meteorite back in 1996 (and afterwards). In the EPH, Martian meteorites are

 

[yevaud]

Ah. Sorry...thouaht the thread had died a while ago.<br /><br />Ok, I'll accept that Tempel 1 may well have been an icy rock, as opposed to a dirty snowball. It's not precluded, after all.<br /><br />But, I'm curious here. Whether you turn out to be right or wrong here, how does this finding relate to the very definite presence of great deals of water ice in our solar system. I assume that you're certainly not suggesting that every comet we see *must* be an icy rock?<br /><br />Or have I missed something in the thread (which is pretty damned long)? Or, as I suspect, does this maybe/maybe not finding relate to EPH?<br /><br />Just trying to get a handle on where this is all going. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[dmjspace]

Yevaud said: <font color="yellow"> Ah. Sorry...thought the thread had died a while ago. </font><br /><br />I'm sure the people who were lecturing me earlier in this thread wish it would die, since it's now becoming ever more apparent that their positions are tenuous at best.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Ok, I'll accept that Tempel 1 may well have been an icy rock, as opposed to a dirty snowball. It's not precluded, after all. </font><br /><br />Well, it certainly can't be both. And the snowball model definitely precludes Tempel 1 being an asteroid. Otherwise it would have to admit that asteroids and comets are essentially indistinguishable from each other, which is what I've been arguing all along.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> But, I'm curious here. Whether you turn out to be right or wrong here, how does this finding relate to the very definite presence of great deals of water ice in our solar system. </font><br /><br />The EPH makes very specific predictions, and I've recounted them here in detail. It's already safe to say that it is clearly the more accurate model. The only thing left is for the snowball proponents to start revising their model by adding more scientific "swidgets" which tacitly move it closer to the EPH, while maintaining that they're simply "updating" it to reflect new findings.<br /><br />Regarding water ice, it's already known that even asteroids are up to 20% interstitial water. There is still plenty of water in the universe to go around. In the EPH, the former parent body was an oceanic planet, which is why it predicts the presence of salts and carbonates in asteroids and comets.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> I assume that you're certainly not suggesting that every comet we see *must* be an icy rock? </font><br /><br />That's exactly what the EPH suggests. All comets are indistinguishable from asteroids except for a relatively small range of variation in their volatiles. No comet and no asteroid is an i

 

[dmjspace]

cs said: <font color="yellow"> Is this Linda Howe you're referring to? I checked her Earthfiles website to see if there was an article on Deep Impact there, but her site seems to be down at the moment. </font><br /><br />Yes, the site apparently was a casuality of Coast's ten million listeners. But it's back up now.<br /><br />I've written to Howe a number of times and she doesn't respond to inquiries about her giving equal time to the EPH, even though I understand she knows Van Flandern.<br /><br />She is pretty much stuck on the dirty snowball model, probably because the only scientists she interviews are strong proponents. She seems to have glossed over some of the most surprising findings made by the Spitzer team. <br /><br />She also didn't answer the radio host's question about why there is controversy over whether comets are snowballs at all. Instead she launched into an enthusiastic tirade about the the possibility of life precursors found in spectral data.<br /><br />Obviously, that is her focus (discovering whether comets seeded life on Earth), but what she is missing is the possibility that these hydrocarbons simply originated from the former parent body. If Earth exploded, for example, we would find the same things in the fragments that we are finding in comets and asteroids.<br /><br />Hey, cs, maybe you can write her and set her straight. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[dmjspace]

By the way, I know that the dubious statement by the Spitzer scientist about Tempel being "50% water" is what snowball proponents will glom on to. (After all, what else in the data so far is there to support the snowball model?)<br /><br />However, I suspect that what they've done is to make the *assumption* that Tempel is at least 80% water ice, and then find it necessary to arbitrarily revise the figure downward (but not TOO far down, only to a tolerable 50%) to make room for all the other unexpected materials they've found in the spectra.<br /><br />Yes, I may be wrong. Perhaps there is a more scientific derivation for the 50% figure. Hopefully we'll see when the full data set, which the Spitzer team says is very comprehensive, is released.

 

[dmjspace]

stevehw33 blathered: <font color="yellow"> Again, a major error. Any body with any kind of significant gravity can posses a moon. </font><br /><br />Why do you insist on advertising your ignorance so?<br /><br />People only have to go back to NASA's Don Yeomans making a bet with Van Flandern that upcoming missions would find NO satellites around asteroids or comets to see how unexpected satellites are in the snowball model.<br /><br />In standard models, comets and asteroids are supposed to have been floating around for billions of years, therefore it is highly unlikely they will still be retaining satellites, the vast majority of which should have de-orbited or dispersed via perturbation.<br /><br />The EPH, on the other hand, says asteroids and comets were only recently formed, therefore a good number of them will retain orbiting moons.<br /><br />If you understood anything about either theory you might not make such basic mistakes.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> It does NOT depend upon the much ballyhooed, but never substantiated EPH, </font><br /><br />The EPH is being substantiated before your very own eyes. Too bad they're sealed shut.

 

[dmjspace]

stevehw33 continued to advertise his ignorance by saying:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> No one, learnedly, has EVER stated that comets do not have rocks in them. (Your straw man error!) Because the meteor showers show THAT! I know this comes as a surprise to you. </font><br /><br />No, actually, it doesn't. In fact, if you had read my earlier post about the EPH's ability to predict the characteristics of the Leonids better than competing models, you might have known this.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Further, because comets do contain some rocky materials, hardly show that they are composed of all rocks. </font><br /><br />Likewise, water in the spectra does not mean comets are mostly ice. Let's all remember that when the snowball supporters start crowing about how they've found the missing water in Tempel 1!<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Seawater contains salt. That does not mean Seawater is mostly salt! Again, another fallacy. </font><br /><br />You find me a report that expected to find salts in comets before they were found in Hale-Bopp's spectrum. I'll wait.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Again, ignoring the density data of meteors and the stony asteroids, you make it sound as if comets are asteroids. </font><br /><br />I'm not making comets look like asteroids. The observations are.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Again, you quote spectral data to show your beliefs,and then ignore the spectral evidence of lots of water in comets. </font><br /><br />What spectal data shows this? Specifics, please.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Also, you ignore the density data of comets, which, again, you pointedly miss. </font><br /><br />Density data? You went to a Wikipedia page that gave an unsourced density range that spanned nearly an order of magnitude. We have NO unambiguous density data for comets. I can only c

 

[exoscientist]

Dmjspace, the finding of carbonate on Tempel 1 is a very interesting and exciting result. As you say carbonate requires the existence of liquid water. <br /> Actually the existence of liquid water on comets early in the Solar Systems history had been predicted before. It's based on the idea of radioactive heating in their interiors. This led some scientists to propose that life could have existed within comets early in the Solar Systems history.<br /> Note that there was good reason to believe that carbonate would be found in comets because carbonaceous chrondite meteorites contain significant carbonate and they are believed to stem from comets.<br /> So we now have three separate and independent pieces of evidence to support the idea of liquid water on or within comets: the theoretical studies showing radioactive heating could have kept their interiors warm enough for liquid water, the carbonaceous meteorite evidence, and now the evidence from the Deep Impact mission of carbonate within the comet.<br /> Actually there is also a fourth piece of evidence to support the idea comets have or had a source of radioactive heating: it was observed the deep Kuiper belt object Quaoar has indications of an internal heating source:<br /><br />Chilly Quaoar had a warmer past. <br />Mark Peplow <br />Crystalline ice suggests remote object has radioactive interior. <br />http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041206/pf/041206-7_pf.html <br /><br /> In the Earthfiles article, it was mentioned amino acids or proteins were not found in the Tempel 1 spectra only precursor life chemicals. However keep in mind that amimo acids were seen in carbonaceous meteorites which very likely stem from comets. But of course they appear in small amounts compared to the meteorite rock's mass. Then you would not expect them to be detectable at the distance of the Spitzer space telescope.<br /><br /><br /><br /> Bob Clark <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chew_on_this]

Don't forget Encelodus for interior heating.

 

[chew_on_this]

You'll learn steve is simply a sycophant to the opposing view to just about every arguement against anything new. His patronizing to other members who take a somewhat more reasoned stance is almost sickening.

 

[dmjspace]

exoscientist said: <font color="yellow"> Actually the existence of liquid water on comets early in the Solar Systems history had been predicted before. </font><br /><br />Where and by whom was this prediction made?<br /><br />The "dirty snowball" model will undoubtedly accommodate the findings, but I disagree strongly that carbonates were expected. This is supported by the fact that the Spitzer scientist was already providing ad hoc explanations for what he knew would be a surprise to most scientists.<br /><br />On the other hand, since the EPH says that comets and asteroids were part of a former large body that was chemically differentiated, it expects to see signs of the activity which created the differentiation.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Note that there was good reason to believe that carbonate would be found in comets because carbonaceous chrondite meteorites contain significant carbonate and they are believed to stem from comets. </font><br /><br />Contrary to stevehw33's earlier statement, meteorites are typically associated with <b> asteroids, </b> not comets. <br /><br />Needless to say (though I'll say it anyway), the fact that meteorites with asteroid origins show the same composition we now see in Tempel 1 is NOT support for the dirty snowball model.<br /><br />It is support for the idea that comets and asteroids are basically the same type of entity, which is exactly what the EPH demands.<br /> <br />I think what we're seeing is that wonderful, rare event in science called a "paradigm shift." Eventually, the dirty snowball model of comets is going to morph into the slightly-icy-asteroid model.

 

[yevaud]

I have to agree with you. That is both what I was taught, and what the weight of evidence shows.<br /><br />As far as you being constantly contrary, all I have to say is that's not my experience. What you *do* I have long since come to understand is play Devil's Advocate to these sort's of topics - and that is *exactly* required.<br /><br />Finally, a response to a comment by CS:<br /><br /><i>Are you saying it's not possible to trace back an orbit to a past date? You're wrong. There's no mathematical difference between that and predicting an orbit at a future date, which is done all the time.</i><br /><br />Care to contemplate how many moving, shifting, and constantly altering objects there are in the Solar System? Ever heard how difficult predicting the result of a three-body problem is? And what you're so casually blowing off is possibly a ten-thousand-body problem, over time, in which the full astrophysical record is not known.<br /><br />Bizarre. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>