Deep Impact Predictions

[shuttle_rtf]

Fun here, isn't it <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Has anoyone got a link to a one page - or so - round up of the results so from gained from Deep Impact.<br /><br />Thanks.

 

[dmjspace]

Shuttle_RTF said: <font color="yellow"> Fun here, isn't it </font><br /><br />Actually, it is amusing to see the total lack of composure the Defenders of the Status Quo around her have when it's suggested a mainstream hypothesis might not be all it's cracked up to be.<br /><br />After all, if I'm such a pseudoscientist, and if my science is SO flawed, and if I understand *nothing* about what I'm discussing, wouldn't you think it would be easy to merely point out the flaws using specific evidence, rather than launching into multiple posts attacking my character and background?<br /><br />But this is what "skeptics" do...they seek to divert attention from facts and failing theories by focusing on anything but the data at hand.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Has anoyone got a link to a one page - or so - round up of the results so from gained from Deep Impact. </font><br /><br />Yeah, here's a comprehensive link to all the independent observatories' results so far. Nothing yet has come out of JPL or NASA, to my knowledge. Those results might not be public until January 2006, I hear.

 

[yevaud]

Fun? Why yes...yes it is.<br /><br />Hmmm...Telfrow's post with the links has now disappeared. Now certain why. However...<br />Hey, Dmj: I just heard the recent interview with Lucy McFadden, co-investigator at The University of Maryland for the Tempel1 impacter analysis. She's a Spectroscopist...and guess what?<br /><br />Ummm, sorry. Van Flandern theory over. They did *not* image or detect huge plumes of rock. It was ice, dust, and hydrocarbons. More to follow, certainly, and no doubt some surprises, but no huge proportions of rocky material. At all.<br /><br />Don't you just hate it when that happens? <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>

 

[telfrow]

Yevaud:<br /><br />I deleted the post with the links because I had posted those same links earlier in this thread [I forgot]. Didn't think it was right to repost them (they're on page 28 of this thread). <br /><br />However, the findings/papers will be presented at the 37th annual meeting of the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society, Sunday September 4 to Friday September 9 2005, University of Cambridge, UK.<br /><br />Also, here's a link to raw data from Keck: http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/science/deepimpact/KeckDeepImpact.html<br /><br />Warning: <b>Huge</b> files.<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>

 

[yevaud]

Tel: well, thanks for the post, deleted or no, as I managed to link to the McFadden interview (obviously) before you did so.<br /><br />Quite interesting. And despite some surprises (there always are - as McFadden said, "well, it's an experiment" - the results so far look quite interesting...and depict a mostly water-ice cometary body. <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>

 

[yevaud]

And now I'm going to make a prediction here. I noted that Dmj was online and read all of that, or mostly, and then suddenly was not logged on anymore. <br /><br />Why, he's even as we speak looking for another 10,000 word data dump that's supposed to contradict the to-date findings of one of the mission scientists, and prove Van Flandern right.<br /><br />Watch and see. <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>

 

[telfrow]

Oh, what the heck. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Here's the interview link again:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Deep Impact Begins to Reveal Comet Secrets <br /><br />Planetary Radio Show for July 18, 2005 <br /><br />Airdate: July 18, 2005 <br />Play time: 28:50 <br /><br />Deep Impact Co-Investigator Lucy McFadden joined millions watching the spacecraft's spectacular collision with comet Tempel 1. Now she has to figure out what it all means. </font><br /><br />http://www.planetary.org/audio/pr20050718.html <br /><br />Starts: 3:16 <br />Ends: 20:15 <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>

 

[yevaud]

Thanks. I truly want him, and everyone else, to hear the interview. <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>

 

[telfrow]

That's the same reason I originally posted the link for our friends in Phenomena. <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>

 

[yevaud]

Answer:<br /><br />Composures become cracked because *you* are the one who doesn't listen, and *you* are the one who throws around those subtly-veiled insults. <br /><br />I have never seen you - ever - accept someone's proof of the incorrectness of your point of view. Not once. No matter what objection someone raises to one of your points, you never agree you might be wrong.<br /><br />That is the mark of a smug amateur.<br /><br />And multiple posts attacking your character? Gee, remember once I showed, proof positive that you verbally attack or otherwise insult people at a rate tens of times as myself? Shall I do so again?<br /><br />And the data at hand shows you are wrong. And that comes from one of the investigators themselves. <br /><br /><i>"The Emperor Has No Clothes."</i> <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>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Thanks everyone for the prompt responses and the links. Very much appreciated.

 

[yevaud]

More than pleased to. Thanks for asking. <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"> Hey, Dmj: I just heard the recent interview with Lucy McFadden, co-investigator at The University of Maryland for the Tempel1 impacter analysis. She's a Spectroscopist...and guess what? <br /><br />Ummm, sorry. Van Flandern theory over. They did *not* image or detect huge plumes of rock. It was ice, dust, and hydrocarbons. More to follow, certainly, and no doubt some surprises, but no huge proportions of rocky material. At all. </font><br /><br />It's funny...no, wait, hypocritical...that you're cautioning me on making interpretations based on what you claim was one piece of data. <br /><br />And, yet, you listen to one interview and are concluding that "Van Flandern theory over." (Didn't you just "learn" me that the EPH is actually a hypothesis and not a theory? Oh well, I digress...)<br /><br />Actually, there are several data points from several independent observatories, but you seem intent on ignoring them to paint the illusion that the EPH has not been making successful predictions for over a decade now, including one that made Deep Impact scientist Don Yeomans eat crow several years ago.<br /><br />I guess it's okay for you to throw caution to the wind when the data purportedly supports your position. How predictable. And you wonder why I refer to you as a pseudoskeptic. (By the way, unlike Yevaud, who uses a whole arsenal of condescending insults to attack me, the only "insult" I use is the term pseudoskeptic, which merely means "false skeptic." The only thing I can say is that if you're offended by the term, maybe it's because you're worried it might be true.)<br /><br />But at least you're moving in the right direction...toward a discussion of data--by bringing up the McFadden interview.<br /><br />So let me get this straight. Deep Impact did not detect huge plumes of rock, only ice, hydrocarbons and dust. Wait a minute...dust? What are you proposing rocks are made out of if not dust? Did you suppose that giant boulders woul

 

[yevaud]

Hypocritical? Van Flandern was based on *no* data. And now, here's a data point that supports standard thought on the composition of Comets. Nice try.<br /><br /><br />Yeah, well, I find I have to use the two terms interchangeably, else I have scads of people asking me, "huh?"<br /><br />And "Peseudoskeptic" is the only verbal attack you use? Hardly. You use these numerous cutting, derisive comments frequently. In fact you did so just several posts prior to this. Don't try to play semantical games. I am well familiar with specious rhetoric-cutting.<br /><br />Dust did not predominate. And largely, what was understood to be the composition of cometary matter was, in fact, imaged.<br /><br />You haven't explained any real mechanism for an entire Earth or larger sized planetary body "vaporizing," except some fantasy idea involving a sudden, catastrophic release of ZPE. How convenient it happened to occur to "vaporize" planet X.<br /><br />If you are stating mass versus spectra, no, that's true. However, the <b>hypothesis</b> Van Flandern states is that these are rocky bodies - remnants - covered with a thin veneer of water-ice and other various volatiles. That's not what was seen.<br /><br />Apparently you don't know squat about spectroscopy either. How energetic did you think that collision would be? It probably made an impact crater many dozens of meters deep, yet all they have seen is dust (which is accreted during it's long transits through the solar system), H2O (expected) and hydrocarbons (expected).<br /><br />And by the way - I have done extensive work in the military with explosives. Yes, I would indeed expect large pieces of rock to have been ejected, had Tempel1 been as Van Flandern states. And they weren't seen.<br /><br />And you state that whoops! they expected huge water jets to appear. Odd. I haven't heard that assertation mentioned by the mission scientists. And besides, it's an *experiment* which, while demonstrating some surprises, does not conform <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]

Yes, I encourage anyone to listen to the McFadden interview. Thanks for the link, telfrow.<br /><br />I'm amused, but not surprised, that Yevaud is claiming victory for the snowball model because of McFadden's statement.<br /><br />What did she say that's got him all fired up? She said that in the few seconds after impact, her spectrometer showed emission lines due to "hot water, carbon dioxide and hot hydrocarbons." She then explains that "we designed the spectrometer to see these emission bands."<br /><br />I'm not sure if that means they excluded other possible bands (God, I hope not), but the fact that these three bands showed emissions is not a surprise to either model. The key is whether rocky elements or other substances, such as carbonates, which are unexpected in the snowball model, appear too.<br /><br />According to the Spitzer spectra, all rock-forming elements (except iron) appeared in their Tempel data. So is McFadden saying they didn't see the same spectra Spitzer did, or is she simply confirming they saw emission lines from the expected materials?<br /><br />My guess is the latter. I'll look forward to seeing the anomalous data, rather than the expected data, after they sort out the wealth of "surprising" data scientists at JPL keep hinting at.<br /><br />One thing of more importance (and pretty much the only other specific detail McFadden mentions) is that the Deep Impact team was "surprised by the opacity" of the debris cloud kicked up by the impact. McFadden says that so much dust saturated Deep Impact sensors that it "fogged us out."<br /><br />Unexpectedly high opacity (i.e. cloudy) images suggest the presence of huge amounts of dust.<br /><br />There appears to be nothing of substance in McFadden's interview that favors the dirty snowball model over the EPH. Obviously, we need to see the full spectrum before determining what was generated by the impact.<br /><br />One last point: McFadden expressed surprise with the diversity of surface features on Tempel 1, say

 

[dmjspace]

Yevaud said: <font color="yellow"> Dust did not predominate. And largely, what was understood to be the composition of cometary matter was, in fact, imaged. </font><br /><br />How do you know dust didn't predominate? You just acknowledged that the spectra can't determine mass. McFadden merely mentioned they saw the expected emission lines. Big deal. Those lines are expected in both the snowball AND the EPH. <br /><br />You should know that data expected in competing models does nothing to differentiate the two. Perhaps you're just suffering from confirmation bias.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> You haven't explained any real mechanism for an entire Earth or larger sized planetary body "vaporizing," except some fantasy idea involving a sudden, catastrophic release of ZPE. </font><br /><br />I already corrected you on this, yet you continue to get it wrong. None of Van Flandern's explosion mechanisms rely on "ZPE." Either you're willfully misrepresenting his position because you know "ZPE" carries with it the "woo woo" factor, or you're just plain not paying any attention. Probably both.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> However, the hypothesis Van Flandern states is that these are rocky bodies - remnants - covered with a thin veneer of water-ice and other various volatiles. That's not what was seen. </font><br /><br />I don't know where you got that idea. The EPH suggests comets and asteroids alike are rocky bodies with interstitial ice pockets. When heated, they sometimes outgas. But they are mostly rocks by volume.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> It probably made an impact crater many dozens of meters deep, yet all they have seen is dust </font><br /><br />We don't know how deep or wide the crater is. If Tempel 1 is mostly rock, however, it will be only a small crater. In any case, if it penetrated dozens of meters, where's all the water that

 

[dmjspace]

Yevaud said: <font color="yellow"> Dust did not predominate. </font><br /><br />The European Southern Observatory disagrees with your off-the-cuff assessment.<br /><br />When asked "What was the effect of the impactor on the comet?", the ESO scientist responded:<br /><br /><i> <b> A major release of thin dust. </b> The effect was rather short lived, as it seems that the dust slowly dispersed. This dust cloud was superimposed to the "usual" pre-impact coma. Once dispersed, the coma went back to its normal state. It seems therefore that the impact did not induce any long-term changes on the comet. </i><br /><br />So far, what we know about Deep Impact is that there was a huge kick-up of regolith dust, no new jet, a UV impact flash and a temporary brightening of the coma due to the opaque dust cloud, with no lasting effects on the comet.<br /><br />Or, as Van Flandern wrote on his site before Deep Impact hit its mark:<br /><br />"The comet nucleus is a single, solid asteroid. The impact will leave a small, shallow crater perhaps 10-20 meters in diameter, will produce no new jet, and will have no lasting consequences on the comet. It will simply produce an impact flash as the probe vaporizes, then will cause the comet’s coma to temporarily brighten as new carbonaceous dust is ejected from the asteroid regolith and the impact crater."<br /><br />The only thing left to see is the size and depth of the crater. Unfortunately, if they haven't seen it by now, we may not ever know.

 

[yevaud]

You seem to be supremely good at this, Dmj:<br /><br />Now how many people have theorized, experiment, or observed the solar system? Thousands? Tens of Thousands? More?<br /><br />And so far, with some modification, almost everything they've said has worked out as predicted.<br /><br />Along comes Van Flandern. He has a hypothesis. And you say, "he's right, everyone else is wrong." And you further say that now *I'm* the one who's basing everything on a single data point.<br /><br />Wrong again.<br /><br />Essentially you're saying - predictable, really, you've done this before - that <b>every single hypothesis, theory, experiment, piece of data, and observation</b> until now is wrong, false, and that Van Flandern is correct.<br /><br />Perhaps you can see why people might take issue with it.<br /><br />So you say to me, "ignore all of the weight of evidence and observation about cometary matter," because Van Flandern has spoken! <br /><br />In short - once again - you sagely inform people that everything they know must go out the window, because Van Flandern says so.<br /><br />I really don't think so.<br /><br />Recollect I once pointed out that it was incumbent on the "new kid on the block" to prove his theory, not for what has already been accepted to have to defend itself? But, here you are again, attempting, at each and every post, to do just this. Everybody must be wrong, only Van Flandern is right.<br /><br />Typical.<br /><br />Sorry, not going to do that.<br /><br />You really don't understand science and the process and methodologies it uses, do you? Once again, you show that you are an amateur.<br /><br />Oh, and you still haven't answered about you constantly using insults and slurs, but accuse others of. And you still haven't answered as to your experience and training. Done just what I'd said...smoked right past it, as if it hadn't even been asked.<br /><br />Finally, oh yeah, that was also predictable. I don't care a fig what Van Flandern says. McFadden, who is <b>on</b> <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>

 

[yevaud]

That is exactly my issue with him. If he wants to go state that Werewolves exist, and he can prove it, that's all fine and well. But he's spewing out this nonsense where people come to learn science, not the pop-fantasy du jour.<br /><br />Not an iota of which he will agree with.<br /><br />You're still an unskilled, untrained, experienceless amateur, Dmj - and always will be. No matter how much verbiage you spew out. Quantity isn't quality, and will never make up for your lack of training, experience, education. Ever. <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>

 

[yevaud]

I agree. That's not the issue. There are other fora for these sort of wild, speculative things.<br /><br />Btw, Dmj: yes, I have now read some of Van Flandern's assertations. Let me see if I get this right now...<br /><br />Mars was actually a moon of planet X (unproven), which exploded (unproven). He bases all of this on some crustal anomolies (which may have many explanations), and the fact that there's some odd Achondrites - 12 of them to be exact (for which there may be many explanations).<br /><br />And even accepting the existance of planet X (unproven), it must have exploded (unproven, and the mechanisms for having done so are straight out of Star Wars).<br /><br />Oh, and he wishes away certain inconvenient aspects of this by stating that they must have been nested deep inside an asteroid (unproven), which then encountered another, impacted, and split open (pure speculation). Ah, and the explosion of planet X (unproven) also caused the demise of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago (unproven).<br /><br />12 Achondrites? That's it?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <br /><br />And you're the guy who keeps saying "prove it."<br /><br />What part of seeking the simplest explanation do either Van Flandern, or you, don't understand? <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>

 

[maxtheknife]

Yevaud: <font color="yellow">You seem to be supremely good at this, Dmj: </font><br /><br />No, not <i>seems to be</i>. Dmj <i>is</i> supremely good at this.<br /><br />

 

[maxtheknife]

Crazy: <font color="yellow">He has an almost desperate need to believe that traditional science is wrong, wrong, WRONG!</font><br /><br />And you have, not an almost, but rather <i>complete</i>, need to believe that traditional science is right, right, RIGHT!<br /><br />

 

[dmjspace]

Yevaud said: <font color="yellow"> You seem to be supremely good at this, Dmj: </font><br /><br />The only thing you seem to be supremely good at extreme overgeneralizations, such as the following:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Essentially you're saying - predictable, really, you've done this before - that every single hypothesis, theory, experiment, piece of data, and observation until now is wrong, false, and that Van Flandern is correct. </font><br /><br />This, of course--to any rational reader of this discussion--is a ridiculous statement. The only thing I've taken issue with, simply because the EPH has been so successful versus the "dirty snowball" model, is the assertion that comets are mostly ice.<br /><br />How you manage to "snowball" this claim into my discounting everything ever discovered by every astronomer, ever, is beyond me.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> And so far, with some modification, almost everything they've said has worked out as predicted. </font><br /><br />No, it hasn't. I don't know where you get this idea. First, you'll be hard pressed to find any unique predictions generated by the dirty snowball model. I mean predictions that differentiate it from competitors, such as the EPH.<br /><br />If you'd go back to Whipple's hypothesis and find specific predictions the snowball model makes, then compare its success rate to the EPH, you will find precisely what I'm saying: the snowball model has a horrible track record.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. The snowball model has <b> accommodated </b> everything to date. This is what you really mean by "some modifications." The problem is that a model that only accommodates new data (usually by adding new variables to deal with unexpected observations) is FAR inferior to a model that predicts accurately and needs little modification.<br /><br />Surely you must understand and agree with this.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Recollect I once pointed out that it was incumbent on the "n</font>

 

[yevaud]

<p>Nice try, but you're still an amateur.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p> <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"> Let me see if I get this right now... Mars was actually a moon of planet X (unproven), </font><br /><br />No. Actually, you've gotten a lot of it wrong. Where are you getting these ideas?<br /><br />Wouldn't it be better to thoroughly understand the hypothesis you are seeking to destroy than to simply pick out stuff (getting it half wrong in the process) and discounting it because it's "unproven"?<br /><br />It's a hypothesis. Of course it's unproven. Just like all the hypotheses upon which the dirty snowball model rests.<br /><br />Why do you think NASA just spent $333 million of our tax money to go find out what comets are actually made of?<br /><br />But of course the validity of a model does not depend on whether or not you believe it could be possible. It depends on whether or not it makes sound predictions.