Deep Impact Predictions

[yevaud]

Haw!<br /><br />Where did I get these ideas? From Van Flandern's own website! www.metareasearch.org!!!<br /><br />*Chortle* <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]

<font color="yellow">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"?</font><br /><br />Possibly. If the hypothesis makes sense. This has too many *weird-maybe's* to it.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It's a hypothesis. Of course it's unproven. Just like all the hypotheses upon which the dirty snowball model rests.</font><br /><br />And a hypothesis becomes a theory when it's proven by experimentation, raw data, and observation. And this one hasn't met any of them.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Why do you think NASA just spent $333 million of our tax money to go find out what comets are actually made of?</font><br /><br />For far more reasons than you know, that's for sure.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">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.</font><br /><br />Errr, only partially. What you really meant to say was, "It depends on whether or not it makes sound predictions <b>that are then borne out by common sense, experimentation, observation."</b><br /><br />And this one just doesn't cut it. <br /><br />So as I'd said in a prior post, stop trying to assume expertise in my field, by absorption. All it does is make you a facile amateur. I worked for my expertise. You did not.<br /><br />Period. <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]

<font color="yellow"> Where did I get these ideas? From Van Flandern's own website! www.metareasearch.org!!! </font><br /><br />Oh really? Just for fun, why don't you give us the exact URL supporting your claims about TVF's ideas about Planet X?<br /><br />By the way, as usual, it is you who relies on pontification as your sole debating tactic. In 38 pages, the only contribution of specific data you've made is to quote a single statement by Lucy McFadden regarding a non-issue, the discovery of spectral emission lines expected in both models.<br /><br />Yes, your contribution of ad hominems and "emoticons" is impressive but, really, I'd suspect other readers would expect more from someone who claims to be an expert in these matters.

 

[yevaud]

I "pontificate?"<br /><br />I've been in this thread for one-two pages, tops. You have postulated for...how many did you recently mention? 37 Pages?<br /><br />Do the math. <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"> I "pontificate?" <br /><br />I've been in this thread for one-two pages, tops. You have postulated for...how many did you recently mention? 37 Pages? <br /><br />Do the math. </font><br /><br />Your accuracy in the irrelevant is just as poor as your accuracy in the rare times when it's on topic. You've been edu-ma-cating me for at least the last nine pages and, I suspect but don't care enough to look, far earlier in the thread.<br /><br />What kind of math do you do, anyway?<br /><br />In any case, I'm through with the witty banter. When Deep Impact scientists or other observatories present more data, it might be worthwhile to resurrect this thread for the second time. <br /><br />But only if someone who's serious about comparing the models shows up to discuss them.

 

[yevaud]

<font color="yellow">You've been edu-ma-cating me for at least the last nine pages </font><br /><br />Wrong. You can't count. About 2 pages.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">What kind of math do you do, anyway?</font><br /><br />The kind I went to school for. You? Oh, sorry. Never mind.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">In any case, I'm through with the witty banter.</font><br /><br />You'll let us all know when you develop that ability, surely.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">When Deep Impact scientists or other observatories present more data, it might be worthwhile to resurrect this thread for the second time.</font><br /><br />Yes, be sure to inform us when Van Flandern claims that Planet X was destroyed by aliens from the LMG, and Mars was it's 3rd moon, where a civiliziation of intelligent Squid...<br /><br /><font color="yellow">But only if someone who's serious about comparing the models shows up to discuss them.</font><br /><br />I eagerly await the day you finally understand what "serious" means. <br /><br />********************************************<br /><br />Edit: This is the page I referenced. It's Van Flandern Himself.<br /><br />Van Flandern's EPH Theory <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"> Wrong. You can't count. About 2 pages. </font><br /><br />My screen shows 39 pages in this thread. You've been "debating" a hypothesis you know nothing about since at least page 31.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Edit: This is the page I referenced. It's Van Flandern Himself. </font><br /><br />There is nothing on this page about Planet X.<br /><br />Why not go to the links I provided--the links on the Metaresearch site? They confirm everything I've said about the successful predictions of the EPH.<br /><br />Speaking of predictions...in the EPH, Tempel 1 is a piece of the crust of a former parent body. It will be mostly silicates. It won't have heavier elements (most significantly, iron) because those elements would have "sunk" to the parent body's core through differentiation.<br /><br />With this in mind, isn't it interesting that scientists are already struggling with the lack of iron in the spectra, which is required in the dirty snowball model. The scientists are saying they are sure it must be there somewhere. They're also already making excuses for why the water vapor did not increase (actually, it <b> decreased </b>) after the impact.<br /><br />Only those with utter and total blind faith in the dirty snowball model will not see these observations as detrimental to their model. In fact, they appear to be model killers.<br /><br />To recap the strikes against the dirty snowball model even at this preliminary stage:<br /><br />1. No increase in water vapor post-impact<br />2. Huge release of rocky dust from a deep regolith<br />3. All rock forming elements except iron<br />4. Huge UV flash upon impact, indicating unexpectedly hard surface<br />5. Evidence of silicates and carbonates (both of which known to occur only in the presence of liquid water)<br />6. Extremely evolved, possibly layered or differentiated terrain, with apparent cratering<br /><br />Already, the dirty snowball model is in big trouble. In order to deal wit

 

[yevaud]

<font color="yellow">So achondritic and stony-iron meteorites in general, and SNC meteorites in particular, might be the small remaining residue of objects injected into Earth-crossing orbits perhaps 65 My ago by a planetary explosion. Planet V must have been a terrestrial-type planet with extensive water oceans and a thick atmosphere on which at least primitive life arose. And a continuing residue of fragments from that former planet still occasionally fall on Earth today at a greater rate than meteorites from recent, small lunar impacts.</font><br /><br />Apparently you don't read. This is from the same Van Flandern page I posted the link to. E.g., "Planet X," the hypothetical 5th planet. That's one. So you don't even know what this paragon of whacko science writes about.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">My screen shows 39 pages in this thread. You've been "debating" a hypothesis you know nothing about since at least page 31.</font><br /><br />Two: I entered this debate with you some - now - 4 pages ago, page 16. So you didn't even look, let alone count. That is so lame. Recollect that I said "Oh, I thought this thread had died...?"<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Why not go to the links I provided--the links on the Metaresearch site? They confirm everything I've said about the successful predictions of the EPH.</font><br /><br />Three. Why should I do that? I posted what Van Flandern said *directly* about the subject.<br /><br />And by the way...successful?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Speaking of predictions...in the EPH, Tempel 1 is a piece of the crust of a former parent body. It will be mostly silicates. It won't have heavier elements (most significantly, iron) because those elements would have "sunk" to the parent body's core through differentiation.</font><br /><br />Gee, not found by one of the chief spectroscopists of the mission. And since that was your sole hope for <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]

No, incorrect. Were I with a group of my peers, we would be debating this in an entirely different way than this.<br /><br />How is a yet another 10,000 word post by Dmj "proof?" Quantity, yes - quality, no.<br /><br />He disregards entire bodies of work.<br /><br />He glosses over all of the glaring defects in the concepts he postulates, and explains them all away with the wave of the hand.<br /><br />He discounts his complete lack of training and experience in a field, and disregard someone else's expertise with yet another wave of the hand. <br /><br />And then thinks that picking up some pop science off of a website makes him well-trained, nay, skilled at scientific topics that he couldn't explain to another scientifically trained person if he had to.<br /><br />Except to just keep parrotting the words of the aforementioned idea du jour.<br /><br />And I don't really care of your opinions about Van Flandern's ideas either. I equally know Ph.D.'s who believe that his concepts, and other's like him, are the products of delusional minds.<br /><br />If you think Dmj's way of picking up knowledge and expertise is so good, why don't you go have neurosurgery conducted by someone who learned their art by picking it up off of a website. Go ahead, I dare you. What do you think the end result would be?<br /><br />Expert, my *ass* <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"> Apparently you don't read. This is from the same Van Flandern page I posted the link to. E.g., "Planet X," the hypothetical 5th planet. That's one. So you don't even know what this paragon of whacko science writes about. </font><br /><br />Again, I repeat: There is nothing about Planet X in there. It's ironic that you're telling ME I don't read, when the very paragraph you post proves you're not reading it.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> And by the way...successful? </font><br /><br />Yes, successful. Every point in favor of the EPH, which I've kindly listed for all to see, was either predicted *specifically* or is a direct logical consequence of the EPH's tenets. They also all happen to be completely unexpected in the dirty snowball model. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Gee, not found by one of the chief spectroscopists of the mission. And since that was your sole hope for Van Flandern being right, you lose. </font><br /><br />I can only conclude that you are not reading the posts because you're in such a hurry to "win" the debate. I said the <i> lack of iron </i> is a logical consequence of the comet being part of the crust of the parent body.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Wrong. All Van Flandern does *is* tack on "new variables." In fact, everything he's said is straight out of Marvel comics. </font><br /><br />What new variables has he tacked on? None. He says the comet is from the crust of a formerly chemically differentiated parent body. It should exhibit all the things that are present in the crust of a planet. It does. What it does NOT exhibit are things the dirty snowball envisions it must. Namely, vast amounts of water and iron.<br /><br />It doesn't matter what my background is, or even what Van Flandern's is (though anyone who reads his resume will surely find it impressive): the arguments st

 

[dmjspace]

Yevaud said: <font color="yellow"> 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). </font><br /><br />A crater dozens of meters deep, in any version of the dirty snowball model, would necessarily liberate a literal tidal wave of water. Where's the water?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> And you state that whoops! they expected huge water jets to appear. Odd. I haven't heard that assertation mentioned by the mission scientists. </font><br /><br />That's because they're too chickensh*t to go on record with a prediction, other than very vague ones with large margins for error.<br /><br />But other comet experts aren't too scared to make specific predictions once in a while, and there is no way around that de facto "dirty snowball" expectation. For example, ESO scientists are saying they expect <b> exactly </b> that: a giant jet or "vent."<br /><br />The whole point of the mission was to create a huge, deep crater in order to puncture the surface and expose the "pristine" innards to sunlight, so they would outgas and produce a spectrum of "primordial" materials that have been floating around for 4.5 billion years, blah blah blah.<br /><br />Earth-based telescopes detected no such jet. In fact, the impactor had no lasting effects on the comet, which "went back to sleep" shortly after it got slammed. Precisely as the EPH expected, and in direct contradiction to what the snowball model expected.<br /><br />Now, of course, I expect the "skeptics" to start attacking the ESO as some sort of "pseudoscientific" observatory, and to start denigrating the comet experts there. Afte

 

[yevaud]

Well, you would know all about "Pseudo-Science," wouldn't you? Since that's all you ever speak of.<br /><br />Oh, and thanks for yet another couple of long posts all about nothing...which is essentially all you know.<br /><br />"A tree is known by the fruit it bears." <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]

What's with the attitude, Yevaud?<br /><br />It's like you (as well as some others around here) have close personal ties to whoever it was that decided 'Nebular Theory' ought to be 'mainstream'. Remember, it's still just a <i>theory</i>.<br /><br />Keep an open mind. TVF was/is probably right.<br /><br />Things change.

 

[yevaud]

You know, I had a previous long post in answer to your question, but I've edited it in favor of this, simpler one.<br /><br />This is a science forum. Dmj doesn't post science - he posts the crazy idea du jour. What a disservice for all of the people who come here to learn science. Instead, they get some smug sophist who has zero experience.<br /><br />There's no difference between his methods and that of a religious fundamentalist. Blind, unreasoning, smug ignorance.<br /><br />As simple as that. <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 suspect that I should just plain not enter threads that Dmj is involved in. He will never convince me that his postings are anything more than the ramblings of fraud's and charlatan's, using scientific words he doesn't understand.<br /><br />Of course - not that he will ever agree with this or even see it for himself - but his selfish little hogging of threads for these sophistic concepts are a vast insult for people who really want to learn and discuss science, instead of last week's episode of "Star Trek." <br /><br />Dmj: no matter how long your posts, no matter how many other people's words you use, you are not, nor will ever be a scientist. You are a Myna bird with Internet access... <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"> I suspect that I should just plain not enter threads that Dmj is involved in. He will never convince me that his postings are anything more than the ramblings of fraud's and charlatan's, using scientific words he doesn't understand. </font><br /><br />For someone who considers himself a scientist, I'm amazed at how much time you spend NOT discussing anything scientific. <br /><br />Do you think that others who happen upon this discussion don't notice that none of your posts contain anything related to the subject matter?<br /><br />As far as you not entering threads I participate in...that sounds like the best idea you've come up with yet here.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Of course - not that he will ever agree with this or even see it for himself - but his selfish little hogging of threads for these sophistic concepts are a vast insult for people who really want to learn and discuss science, instead of last week's episode of "Star Trek." </font><br /><br />Uh huh. Hogging of threads. Let's see here...<br /><br />Number of posts made by Yevaud: 7,441<br />Number of posts made by stevehw33: 4,937<br />Number of posts made by dmjscape: 293<br /><br />And the resident pseudoskeptics accuse ME of emphasizing quantity over quality.<br /><br />I'd be glad to discuss science, and only science, here at SDC...if I could just find someone who could keep to the subject matter for more than one post before launching into some whiny, condescending, armchair psychologist routine.<br /><br />Is there anybody else out there who's stuck with this thread? Do you want to have some rational discussion about Deep Impact and what the competing models expect and do not expect?<br /><br />If not, I'll wait until we get more data to post further. I don't have time to waste arguing with "scientists" who aren't interested in anything but inciting a flame war.

 

[dmjspace]

stevehw33 blathered: <font color="yellow"> Look how many times DMJ ignored my many times mentioned and oft referenced sources on the density of comets. Then he made the latest false claim that my data was "ONLY from wikipedia"! Extra-ordinary, but fully in keeping with their MO of Total data avoidance. Thus false beliefs can be maintained. </font><br /><br />Actually, I've addressed that specific claim numerous times. I even made fun of you for proclaiming proudly that you provided "over 4" sources. Remember that?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> A point by point refutation is simply a waste of time. </font><br /><br />And, yet, hundreds of painfully boring, pedantic rants and excruciatingly pointless anecdotes recited by you represent an efficient use of time?<br /><br />You know, maybe you guys are right. I never *will* understand science they way you do.

 

[dmjspace]

reikel said: <font color="yellow"> can you provide a skeleton outline of the EPH and its merits/ weaknesses in comparsin to the standard "dirty snowball" theory? Hard science links would be appreciated and most useful. </font><br /><br />If that's what you're looking for, I suggest you look at my posts, as I've attempted to provide specific data in them wherever possible. Unfortunately, those promoting the dirty snowball model have allowed their posts to be dominated by largely irrelevant appeals to other than the data, as you have clearly noted.<br /><br />Essentially, the exploded planet hypothesis (EPH) says that comets and asteroids *recently* (millions or tens of millions of years ago) came from larger parent bodies. This contention is not as "off-mainstream" as one might think. Other astronomers have made the same suggestion, though recently few scientists expect that they were planet sized bodies, as Van Flandern does.<br /><br />The "dirty snowball" model says that comets and asteroids are remnants from the solar system's formation. They are essentially pristine rocks and ices. They have been floating around for billions of years.<br /><br />The EPH makes specific predictions about comets. It says they are basically asteroids. Their densities are the same as asteroids, their reflectivities are similar, their compositions are similar.<br /><br />In short, the EPH expect the Deep Impact data to be consistent with the observation of an asteroidal body. It'll show a hard, deep regolith covered surface, dust, predominantly rocky elements with pockets of ice, salts, silicates and highly evolved materials (such as carbonates) and topography--all evidence of a chemically differentiated, crustal fragment.<br /><br />The snowball model expects a relatively lighter ball of ice with some dirt mixed in (probably less than 20% dirt by volume). It expects massive outgassing from the probe impact, i.e. a gusher of "pristine" water ice and hydrocarbons.<br /><br />Simply look a

 

[yevaud]

<font color="yellow">Number of posts made by Yevaud: 7,441<br />Number of posts made by stevehw33: 4,937 <br />Number of posts made by dmjscape: 293</font><br /><br /><font color="orange">Me: actually a member here since 2000, though my membership says 2/15/05. The date is new - but the post count goes back to the great crash. I haven't been shy about pointing that out if someone asks or it comes up.<br /><br /><i>Bulk of posts in Free Space.</i><br /><br />Steve: Member since 1/3/03. Post count likely ditto.<br /><br /><i>Bulk of posts in numerous threads of all types and categories.</i><br /><br />Dmj: member since 7/15/04.<br /><br /><i>Virtually all posts in whacked-science threads, such as this one.</i></font><br /><br />And just how many posts did you think people make in several years?<br /><br />This is what I once meant about you manipulating data to favor your point of view. Nice one! Thank you for proving a point about you. Because if you fail to note those facts about me and Steve, while declaiming what you did, you're stating a false premise based on hacked data. As expected.<br /><br />By the way, I note that you are a member of MENSA, and have included that fact in your profile. <br /><br />The rest of us prefer to show our expertise and talent by our works and accomplishments (and have!), not via membership in a club.<br /><br />It does say quite a lot about you, doesn't it? <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]

<font color="yellow">For someone who considers himself a scientist, I'm amazed at how much time you spend NOT discussing anything scientific.</font><br /><br />Really? Gee, I did that with you in the Fusion thread - for over a month. And you couldn't prove anything to me, except your ability to parrot the same material and objections over and over. So I have ceased trying to use hard science with you. You don't understand it anyways.<br /><br />And I have the schooling and work experience to back up my assertations. Do you?<br /><br />Oh, sorry Man. That's right. You're a business major.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Do you think that others who happen upon this discussion don't notice that none of your posts contain anything related to the subject matter?</font><br /><br />See previous response. And as to yours, tens of thousands of words in your "techno-babble" are neither scientific, nor related, except as an excercise in someone trying to postulate some bizarre idea that they can't back up with evidence.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">As far as you not entering threads I participate in...that sounds like the best idea you've come up with yet here.</font><br /><br />Yes. Leaving you to do that vast disservice to anyone who comes here, expecting science and getting instead idiocy and false premises. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">And the resident pseudoskeptics accuse ME of emphasizing quantity over quality.</font><br /><br />Why, you do exactly that. How many multiple-thousand word posts have I made, I wonder? two? Three? Yet you can't seem to explain *anything* simply, without posting long, rambling replies of someone else's words.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I'd be glad to discuss science, and only science, here at SDC...if I could just find someone who could keep to the subject matter for more than one post before launching into some whiny, condescending, armchair psychologist routine.</font><br /><br />Yo <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]

What an august company he's included himself in.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <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]

Yep.<br /><br />His "evidence" is:<br /><br />That all cometary matter are actually rocky, stony bodies covered with a thin veneer of accreted ice (not proven).<br /><br />These are remnants of an exploded planet that once existed where the Asteroid Belt is today. This ignores...<br /><br />The mechanism for a planet to explode, as Eddie said (utterly bizarre).<br /><br />That due to periodic perturbation of the Belt, no planet can form there (perturbations proven by the presence of Kirkwood gaps in the Belt, plus the known periodic eccentricity of Jupiter's orbital path).<br /><br />That there is only enough material present in the Belt to produce a body 1/10,000 the mass of Earth. He claims the rest of it "vaporized."<br /><br />Also, that Mars is a former moon of this imagined 5th planet, which is also referred to as "Planet X." Again, not even remotely proven. And that idea is based on:<br /><br />Some minor crustal anomolies on Mars, which may have many explanations.<br /><br />Minor oddities in Martian atmospheric composition, which may have many explanations.<br /><br />A total of 12 (yes, 12) anomolous meteorites, known as "Achondrites."<br /><br />And he accuses US of having "no evidence."<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />"Go sell crazy somewhere else. We're fully stocked here..." <br /><br />Edit: oh, by the way, Dmj - here I am responding *directly* to your assertations, in a scientific sense. Happy now? <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"> And just how many posts did you think people make in several years? <br /><br />This is what I once meant about you manipulating data to favor your point of view. Nice one! Thank you for proving a point about you. Because if you fail to note those facts about me and Steve, while declaiming what you did, you're stating a false premise based on hacked data. As expected. </font><br /><br />Once again, your ability to focus on the utterly irrelevant is shown to be your greatest strength. Too bad it has nothing to do with science.<br /><br />For what's it's worth, I've been a member here since at least 1999, and my post count reset at the "great crash" too, so there is no manipulation whatsoever on my part.<br /><br />Face it: you've posted 20-30 times as much as I have in the same time period. And, as anyone can plainly see from this thread, it's not all quality.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> The rest of us prefer to show our expertise and talent by our works and accomplishments (and have!), not via membership in a club. </font><br /><br />Yeah, I posted it right after my two degrees. And just paying a membership fee ain't going to get you into MENSA. <br /><br />You know nothing about my works and accomplishments, but I can assure you that it would be embarrassing for you if you successfully hijack this thread into a pissing contest.

 

[dmjspace]

Yevaud said: <font color="yellow"> His "evidence" is: <br />That all cometary matter are actually rocky, stony bodies covered with a thin veneer of accreted ice (not proven). </font><br /><br />Where do you get this stuff? That's not even remotely close to what I've said repeatedly. There is no "thin veneer" of accreted ice. The ice is in pockets (interstitial). All the available evidence of comet observation supports the fact that these bodies are rocky bodies. The only debate is what the percentage of dust or rock they are.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> This ignores... The mechanism for a planet to explode, as Eddie said (utterly bizarre). </font><br /><br /> Three potential mechanisms are provided. It is true that planets have not been knowingly observed to break up, but the dirty snowball model's answer to long period comets is the Oort cloud, which is unobservable in our neck of the woods and has not been observed anywhere else in the universe. It also has seemingly magical qualities, such as an ability to replenish itself even after passing stars should have perturbed all its (supposed) inhabiting comets.<br /><br />Of course, unlike the never detected and never predicted Oort cloud, we know planets are abudant and explosions of many sorts are commonplace in the universe.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> That due to periodic perturbation of the Belt, no planet can form there (perturbations proven by the presence of Kirkwood gaps in the Belt, plus the known periodic eccentricity of Jupiter's orbital path). </font><br /><br />Those things are only true if you assume that the asteroid belt is a failed attempt at forming a planet. But the EPH says it's a former planet that has broken up. It's possible the Kirkwood gaps are directly related to the breakup. <br /><br />As far as I understand, any conventional asteroid belt forming mechanism has great dif

 

[yevaud]

<font color="yellow">Where do you get this stuff?</font><br /><br />This is exactly what you said in a recent post: that it would be a few meters of ice, underneath which is rock.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It is true that planets have not been knowingly <br />observed to break up</font><br /><br />Then you have nothing.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">but the dirty snowball model's answer to long period comets is the Oort cloud, which is unobservable in our neck of the woods</font><br /><br />No, of course not, even though Pluto and Sedna appear to conform to that theory.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">and has not been observed anywhere else in the universe.</font><br /><br />Let's see now...we have only recently been able to image multi-Jovian planets, yet you say the above. That's inconsistant.<br /><br />And you can't make that point, but insist that planets arbitrarily explode - which have never been seen - without contradicting yourself. Which is it?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">such as an ability to replenish itself even after passing stars</font><br /><br />Ah. And now we have passing stars. Space is a lot bigger than you seem to realize.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">should have perturbed all its (supposed) inhabiting comets.</font><br /><br />Assuming there was a passing star to perturb it, which we have no evidence of.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Three potential mechanisms are provided</font><br /><br />Again, inconsistant. Why is it ok for you to simultaneously base some of your rebuttals on "we have never seen," or "we have never observed," and then push this theory - which we have never seen? Make some sense, or at least stay on the same track.<br /><br />And those three mechanisms are not only of the "never seen" category, they are way, way out there.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Of course, unlike the never detected and never predicted Oort cloud, we know planets are abudant and explosi</font> <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>