Deep Impact Predictions

[dmjspace]

I see you skipped a number of points. It's almost as if you are in a hurry to get through the discussion of specific evidence so we can get back to tossing insults. <br /><br />Yevaud said: <font color="yellow"> This is exactly what you said in a recent post: that it would be a few meters of ice, underneath which is rock. </font><br /><br />I never said anything like that. The EPH suspects comets are asteroids with a deep, dusty regolith. The ice is in pockets throughout, which is why comets occasionally exhibit temporary outgassing.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Then you have nothing. </font><br /><br />Actually, what the EPH has going for it a long track record of successful predictions. It is the predictions that increase confidence in the hypothesis' validity, not the other way around.<br /><br />In other words, using your logic, if we ruled out every hypothesis that did not have an already proven mechanism behind it, we would never discover any new mechanisms.<br /><br />Is that how science is supposed to work? A theory must be proven before you can prove it? Sounds more like Alice In Wonderland to me.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> No, of course not, even though Pluto and Sedna appear to conform to that theory. </font><br /><br />The discovery of large planet-like bodies far beyond Pluto also conforms to the EPH, as published long before those discoveries.<br /><br />In any case, using your logic above, one cannot prove the existence of the Oort cloud--regardless of the success of its predictions--until the Oort cloud is actually confirmed!<br /><br />Or are you simply applying a double standard here because you *believe* in the Oort cloud, but don't *believe* in the EPH?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Let's see now...we have only recently been able to image multi-Jovian planets, yet you say the above. That's inconsistant. </font><br /><br />My only point is that if you discount a hypothesis based on the idea that it has never been o

 

[mrmux]

It's just taken me over an hour to read all this thread from start to finish. Wahey! Like a soap opera. If I may be so bold as to offer a few observations for you all:<br /><br />Dmj was the last to get personal. Yevaud was fine up until being called pseudosceptic, which offended him. dmj doesn't like 'pseudoscientist' either. Steve loses debates, even if he does know all the textbooks (sorry, dude, but you do. You have to rebut point-for-point, not just flame off when you can't be bothered answering.). When you three are actually debating the nitty-gritty though, it's great.<br /><br />Although there is indeed plenty of new-age non-science claptrap out there, it's not fair to lump every odd theory into some catch-all of 'kooky', etc. Just debate it into submission (it is never a KO). Not so long ago you would have been burned at the stake for what is now orthodoxy. Some theories are more cooky than others (sorry...)<br /><br />As for the purpose of this thread (predicting the impact) the honours must go to thunderbolts & co (I do hope geos isn't actually one of them), followed by EPH and NASA is a distant third place at the moment. I'll explain why.<br /><br />I'm not endorsing one theory over another here, but you have to admit NASA was gleefully amazed by the results. The kooks were not. Thunderbolts (not a great name, I grant you) got it spot on. EPH was close. NASA was gobsmacked. Okay, big deal, lucky guess, etc. But one overlooked point here: the results were so unexpected it actually compromised the experiment itself.<br /><br />Almost every other result would have been captured perfectly by the instruments in place. This caught them out - they were not prepared for a huge dust cloud obscuring the view. That's significant.<br /><br />Another theme I see between you three. Dmj almost persuades you both that it really, blatantly, isn't a snowball, then just as you're about to say 'yeah, ok' you suddenly think of the physics behind exploding planets and snap back to re

 

[yevaud]

Almost as if I want to go back to tossing insults?<br /><br />Looky here...I am working 56 hours this week...I am the CTO of a non-profit started by me and a friend...I am preparing to take a bunch of classes in a few weeks...my sister is visiting from overseas...I teach a class for veteran's on science topics...I am acting as an informal case manager where I work...I am preparing to yet again volunteer at my school's observatory...<br /><br />Etc. If you don't understand people having busy lives, well...<br /><br />*sigh* <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]

Yeah, it is a long thread, isn't it?<br /><br />You're correct - I personally don't like being called a "pseudoscientist," as I actually did the work, and Dmj didn't. That being said...having a point of view, or discussing something is all fine and well. However:<br /><br />Name me a single instant in this thread, or any other, where he has ever admitted that he might just be wrong. It can't be done. He won't, ever. <br /><br />Do you like smugness? I sure in hell don't. Worse when it's someone who can't really explain themselves, except to continually repeat, endlessly, the same self-referential sources. Note that every single source of "proof" he states goes right back to Van Flandern.<br /><br />I once made the point to him that he'd be offended if someone arrived at his place of work, and stated that all of his expertise in the business world was crap because some sophist said so. And he replied that "well, if they knew what they were talking about, I'd listen to them." But he does *not* know what he's talking about. It's incredibly disingenuous. <br /><br />Each and every time I raise an objection, he waves it away with someone else's weird ideas, one after another after another. It's a frigging sophistic domino effect. Self-reference as "evidence" is no evidence at all. I base what I state on Planck, and Einstein, and Greene, and Geller, and Guth, and Rubinstein, and on and on. My sources are known, and their success is shown by our ability to use them reasonably successfully in the real world, time and again. <br /><br />Are many of them imperfect approximations? Sure. But they work, more or less. And to prove *my* point, I don't have to start raving about scientific conspiracy theories, or telling *everyone* under the sun that they're all wrong, except those who utterly agree with me. <br /><br />In point of fact, Dmj is one of only four people I have ever raved at for their sophistic viepoints - in 5 years.<br /><br />Ever conversed with an arch conspir <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]

Oh, and to respond to something Dmj said previously:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Yeah, I posted it right after my two degrees.</font><br /><br />Yes. Your two BUSINESS degrees. Not science. What part of that don't you understand? I don't claim any expertise in the business arena, except that which I have obtained in a hard, real-world sense. You?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">And just paying a membership fee ain't going to get you into MENSA.</font><br /><br />I have taken a MENSA test (17 years ago), and passed with a very high scoring. Not joining is a personal decision based on my belief that "why should I do this? It proves nothing, except for my ability to pass a test."<br /><br />Membership in a mutual back-patting club is not expertise, Dmj. Not that you'll ever acknowledge that. <br /><br />What I DO know from repeated encounters with you is that you have somehow gone from reading a couple of books, magazines, and website scans to full-blown "I are a scientist." That is frigging ASTOUNDING. Now how in the hell did you manage to do that?<br /><br />See this is where the pedal-meets the-metal. You dodge and swerve and ooze around this fundamental question, every time. WHAT IS YOUR EDUCATION IN SCIENCE?<br /><br />You can't answer that, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NONE.<br /><br />And THAT little fact, buddy-boy, is so glaring a fact, it's as if you have a great big red S for "Sophist" tattooed onto your forehead. You can't avoid it. You can't explain it away. You can't do anything, except to slick around the issue.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">You know nothing about my works and accomplishments</font><br /><br />What I do know about your purported accomplishments is that they're not in any scientific field. One thing that is a mystery to me is your continually repeated, vast contempt for mainstream science. <br /><br />Where did this contempt come from, I wonder? Your inability to actually aim your life towards a scientific career, be <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]

Now, Dmj. What's your answer to these blunt objects of questions I just posted? "Oh you're insulting me?" "You're a Pseudo-[whatever]?" - or possibly another several thousand word post, effectively chanelling Van Flandern, or someone like him?<br /><br />Well?<br /><br />Challenge for Dmj:<br /><br />1. Describe past scientific education and experience.<br /><br />2. List professional track in science and engineering.<br /><br />3. Show clear proof he was a member of SDC in 1999. <br /><br />Period. End of discussion. <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>

 

[mrmux]

Okay, first point. Dmj referring to TVF all the time. Er, yes... but isn't that the point of this thread? It started quite openly with a prediction of the impact result based purely on Van Flandern's theories. Most had differing predictions and NASA's list of probable outcomes (a list is to be expected from a group, of course) pretty much had TVF last.<br /><br />Now to a neutral observer, Mr Van F won that one. Or to be more accurate, a lot of other people didn't. The dirty snowball model, the aggregated clumps model, the tissue of nothing with the probe going straight through model - all either being repaired or beyond it. <br /><br />As a journo with no credentials I care to... er, have (and for God's sake dmj, leave Mensa immediately and never mention it again), one thing I look for is the reactions of those who know. That impact surprised the mission team. It wasn't what they expected, evidenced by the demonstrable fact that ol' copper cannon was either too big or too small, depending on your (dusty) viewpoint.<br /><br />It's absolutely true to say that as yet, the impact has proved nothing. Maybe even now a little copper satellite orbits the comet, having burrowed deep into the raspberry jelly interior only to be gently farted back out on a jet of fruity steam. Still, the impact was pretty much expected to confirm the dirty snowball theory and it didn't.<br /><br />As for my 'believing' Van Flandern has proved a few points (which is not the same thing as proving the EPT, nor does anyone say so), be fair now, he has. The guy won his asteroids-and-moons bet from a scientist more bonafidy than I'll ever be.<br /><br />Don't be too hard on 'pseudo-scientists.' They said Einstein was mad (and he probably was, in many ways). Debate the issues instead of personalities. That is, after all, the scientific way. <br /><br />An issue for you then, because as I noted earlier your main objection is the improbability of a planet 'exploding'. Even if comets and asteroids are the same,

 

[mrmux]

In case you're wondering, the forum's over-eager filter thought I was being all white supremacist... To paraphrase without innocent typing of the 'n-word', you would all point at me and snicker.<br /><br />And who cares about dmj's CV? For one, he freely admits it ain't his theory. It's Van Flandern's. His CV is not too shabby and besides, we all know what university dropouts and patent clerks are capable of. <br /><br />Back to the core of the argument (ahem), can a passing neutron star trash a planet? Do we have a possible mechanism?

 

[maxtheknife]

MrMux: <font color="yellow">Do we have a possible mechanism? </font><br /><br />Hi MrMux, how about war?

 

[yevaud]

Well, yes, of course he's referring *to* it. Not what I meant. It's the constant referral back to Van Flandern as the only source of "proof" that I object to.<br /><br />Quite frankly, I had *no* preconceived notions about Tempel1.<br /><br />I know that the mission team found some surprises, and I expected them. That's one thing. As I'd stated, theories are approximations that do work. However, as I've gone along, they're not finding anything *that* radical.<br /><br />Honestly, I've attempted to debate him reasonably, but here's the issue: I do not claim expertise in a subject without the credentials or expert knowledge to back it up. That's not the same as debating the topic.<br /><br />There is an irreduceable line one can cross, whereby you exceed your understanding or expertise. This is the point I get very steamed with him, as he doesn't believe that line exists.<br /><br />So a debate about the issue is fine and well. It's the constant rock-solid certainty, bar nothing, that angers me. 'nuff said.<br /><br />I suppose, sure, an encounter with an expelled neutron core of free singularity is entirely possible. But that would leave a huge amount of evidence across the solar system, and it's not (yet anyways) seen.<br /><br />Edit: assuming of course, as Eddie accurately points out (thanks, Eddie), it's highly unlikely. But if it *did* occur, it's gravitational effects are huge, and we'd see evidence of it everywhere.<br /><br />It's not any single point that Van Flandern makes that's at issue with me. It's that he's taken multiple, very odd and thoroughly unproven concepts for which no mechanism exists, and woven a tale out of it. And that *does* violate the scientific process.<br /><br />For example: an encounter with a neutron core would show intense gravitational effects strewn across the entire solar system, and they wouldn't be minor effects either. Even more so for a singularity.<br /><br />The mechanism stated by VF for the hypothetical planet exploding is she <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>

 

[bubbahyde]

My first post here and I would sincerely like to comment about Tempel 1 but as I have no scientific degree and I haven't worked on a satellite program, I will not. <br /><br />Statements like "you don't have the credentials" is only an attempt to stifle the conversation and belittle anyone, not just DMJ, with a theory or an idea of what happened or could have happened previously in the universe. I'm a layman, and I'll admit it. However, it doesn't prevent me from using my brain to read, do the math and come to my own conclusions. <br /><br />I'm after the truth plain and simple. I don't give a hoot nor holler about what is "established science." If the theory holds up under scrutiny, keep it, if not chuck it, EPH, dirty snowball, space turds whatever. If it doesn't meet muster it needs to be thrown out and replaced. Established science or should I say Science Dogma is disproven regularly and has been since humans began walking upright. If we knew it all already there would be no need for science, theorizing and thinking what if.<br /><br />The thing that surprises me most is that those refuting theories because it is unobservable then referring to unobservable theories to prove their point should IMO step back and take a second look. If, for something to be proven or real it must be observable, then all of the textbooks regarding Einstein's theories MUST be removed and the theory that they use to prove their point should also be rendered invalid following their own logic.<br /><br />There is so much that we DO NOT know. Science has not arrived with all of the answers and I find it arrogant of those who think they know it all. As our knowledge increases and techncial know-how increases we'll be able to see, measure and know more about our universe but today EVERY theory whether a standard theory or a new one is just that a theory. <br /><br />

 

[maxtheknife]

Hi Bubbahyde,<br /><br />I couldn't have said it better myself.<br /><br />Great to see you here.... and there! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />And... rofl, lmao... 'space turds'? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[telfrow]

Well said, crazyeddie. <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>

 

[bubbahyde]

So if one sheep jumps off a cliff the others should too?<br /><br />"The current thinking around the composition of comets is also well-supported by vast amounts of scientific data."<br /><br />Current thinking once believed the earth was flat.<br /><br />Current thinking once labeled Gallileo a heretic.<br /><br />Current thinking once believed the Sun orbited the Earth.<br /><br />I don't know if the EPH, Electric Universe or standard models of the birth of our solar system or what has happened in it is right or wrong but I am open to the idea that alternate theories are possible and could in fact be right. <br /><br />Even Einstein himself said more work needed to be done. My point in all of this is the tone that takes shape on both sides of the argument. Both sides think they are right and there is no amount of data that will sway one to the other side. When emotion creeps into science then science loses its objectivity. <br /><br />I watched a show the other night about the extinction of the dinosaurs. From the standard theory there emerged another theory by another scientist that the standard theory was flawed. The venom between the competing scientists was vicious, both saying terrible things about the other. The search for the truth devolved into nothing more than I am right and you are wrong, end of story. Instead, you would think that these scientists would be working together to find the truth. <br /><br />Science, however, doesn't work that way. It's abominable for the standard theories to be questioned. You are either a member of the club or you are not. If you are not you get no grant money, are rarely published and eventually never heard from. How much has been lost? How many plausible theories are down the drain? Had Gallileo recanted where would be be?<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[mrmux]

This is sort of a reply to both eddie and yevaud.<br /><br />Probability is remote, agreed. That is beside the point. The probability of us sentient lifeforms talking about it right now is also remote, but here we are. Also, please consider a near-miss with the sun (stellar material being flung around, etc) and the capture of a planet. It doesn't have to explode to be removed.<br /><br />As for gravitational effects of my hypothetical exotic near-miss, here I confess to being on thin ice. But if you will bear with me...<br /><br />Firstly, the solar system does show signs of disruption. Uranus and moons all tilted sideways, backwards-roating Venus, poor battered Mars, etc. Something also ripped the moon from a very ancient, but still wobbling, Earth. Finally, the asteroid belt itself looks as much like impact debris as it does primordial, un-coalesced bits.<br /><br />If the planets were all utterly uniform in behaviour, orientation and orbital eccentricity, okay. But they are not. Now I readily concede that the maths may show there is no way the solar system would have survived an exotic near-miss in any recognisable form. But I doubt it's been done.<br /><br />I also intentionally imagined the projectile body being perpendicular, or near as dammit, to the ecliptic and passing very close to the Sun. Would that not have a much more localised effect, the outer planets barely aware of it? I'm don't know if a neutron star could be 'small' enough, but singularities can be any size or mass.<br /><br />If there is any mass, velocity and trajectory that could explain things as they are, we do have enough contenders.<br /><br />There is one main sticking point here. Planets can't explode. They can certainly be destroyed by impact though and they can be stolen gravitationally. The orbital dynamics you also cite is, by your own admission earlier (3-body problem, etc - and I'll come back to that), very imprecise when you extrapolate too far into the past or future. 'A planet could not have

 

[bubbahyde]

Impossible? I'm assuming that's based on current thinking. <br /><br />In my life, I've seen many things considered impossible that were in fact possible.

 

[maxtheknife]

Well then, Crazy.... please tell us exacly which alternate theory/theories have merit.<br /><br />Seems you've managed to narrow the field to only one possibility.<br /><br />Why 'impossible premise'? Do you know something the rest of us don't?

 

[maxtheknife]

Heheh, sorry Bubba... you beat me to it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[maxtheknife]

I say again.... how about <i>war</i>?<br /><br />Cydonia aint goin' away.

 

[maxtheknife]

Ya know, it's funny.... When one of my machines breaks down, I don't really need an explanation right away to know that the thing isn't working.<br /><br />I can simply observe that machine has stopped producing.<br /><br />EPH makes sense. One can visualize the catastrophe simply by observing what we've found so far.<br /><br />Get used to it and start exploring it rather than trying to sweep it under the rug.

 

[dmjspace]

Wow! Now this is the kind of rational debate (mostly) that should characterize these discussions. It's rare, in my many years of experience here, but once in a while...<br /><br />First, thanks to Mr. Mux and bubbahyde for suffering through the insults and irrelevancies that mar this thread and seeking the "meat" of the competing hypotheses. After all, those are the only things that count.<br /><br />I just find it ironic that Yevaud's first post is a quickie informing me that he has too much of a life to respond to all my points, but then he manages to find the time to rip off a few lengthy entries focusing exclusively on what he perceives to be my lack of expertise.<br /><br />It's clear that Yevaud is not so much interested in which hypothesis is more right, but in defending his status and putting me in my place. How dare I discuss ideas that are outside my purview?<br /><br />Yevaud says: <font color="yellow"> Name me a single instant in this thread, or any other, where he has ever admitted that he might just be wrong. It can't be done. He won't, ever. </font><br /><br />I figured that the way I continually to carefully refer to the EPH as a "hypothesis," "model" or "theory" would imply--ESPECIALLY TO A SCIENTIST--that I acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in all of these concepts.<br /><br />I rarely say anything is proven, without doubt, or a "fact." Yevaud and his most immediate supporters, however, routinely bandy about words such as "impossible," which is as definitive a word as you can find anywhere. It's also shunned by any real scientist. Perhaps what they don't get is that there is a huge difference between an <b> unknown </b> probability and an <b> impossibility. </b> Pseudoskeptics often get those concepts confused.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Do you like smugness? </font><br /><br />Smugness is attempting to deny a theory with a long line of successful predictions by merely saying "it's impossible," or by calling its supporters crazies or

 

[maxtheknife]

You've a bad habit of making statements that are easily turned around and pointed back at yourself.

 

[maxtheknife]

Come on, Crazy... I'm waiting for an answer to this question....<br /><br />"Well then, Crazy.... please tell us exacly which alternate theory/theories have merit. "

 

[dmjspace]

Maxtheknife said: <font color="yellow"> "Well then, Crazy.... please tell us exacly which alternate theory/theories have merit. " </font><br /><br />This is really the problem in a nutshell. It is easy to take potshots at competing theories, but if you never have to define your own theories--in other words, <i> put it at risk versus others </i>--you're not adhering to the scientific process as it was meant to be.<br /><br />This tactic, which can be used by anyone seeking to disprove anything, is employed often by those I've referred to as "pseudoskeptics" at SDC.<br /><br />Typically what happens is that the accepted model is given a large range of error (such as a crater size of 50-300 meters), and such a wide range of possibilities, that hardly anything can be observed that couldn't be force fit into its ever widening framework.<br /><br />What critics of the accepted model are forced to do, then, is to make best estimates about what this vague model is really trying to say. <br /><br />In the dirty snowball model, since its proponents will not commit to anything specific, its <i> opponents </i> are left with the task of making predictions for the snowball model in order to be able to compare it with the competition.<br /><br />Naturally, when the critics of the snowball hypothesis point out that logical predictions of the snowball version are unfulfilled, adherents can simply say, "Well, THAT wasn't what we predicted!"<br /><br />And in a very sneaky, dishonest and, frankly, antiscientific way, that is correct. "They" didn't predict it explicitly. "They" hedged their bets. Or, more appropriately, some scientists went out on a limb while the majority simply sat back and said "We'll wait and see what happens before we predict anything."<br /><br />So the only honest way of comparing competing hypotheses is to outline, in advance, what the models predict will happen.<br /><br />The EPH is clear on the major points:<br />1. The crater proper (not including the ejecta blanke

 

[maxtheknife]

DMJ..... you missed your calling. You should've been a litigation attorney <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />edit: lol, "I'm a little worried about the beer situation. I mean, we have a case of beer and a case after that one.... <i><b>But THEN what?!"</b></i> -Homer