Deep Impact Predictions

[bubbahyde]

At that point, who cares. Hand me another beer. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

Bubba, I discuss science with more people than I can count in any given week. I do not "stifle" discussion, nor have I ever done so with anyone save him (and perhaps Cs_specialist, who I occasionally butt heads with). The problem with me is not the science or lack of degree - it's the godwaful, stony-faced certainty I get from him. And that's all.<br /><br />Here's an odd point...I have never once challenged Dmj as to his expertise in business. Not once. Nor would I. But he seems to feel free to do so with others in their professional capacities. Now how the hell is *that* right?<br /><br />With all due respect, if you don't or can't understand that you just can't "pick up" certain things without education and experience, then you have no idea what you're talking about. <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">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.</font><br /><br />So I'm busy. If you can't imply that by looking at the wide range of times I post, too bad. And you claim to be observant. Huh.<br /><br />I don't "perceive" your lack of expertise, Dmj. You have none. You have no education in it, no accreditation, no work experience in it. Now how do you think people gain expertise in a difficult topic? Adsorption?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">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? </font><br /><br />Now who's being selective and absolute? I have never said that to you. What I have said is I discuss these topics with people, including trying to do so with you. And then *you* state absolutes with the precision of a fanatical monomaniac. At that point, there *is* no discussion. It's merely you expostulating from a soapbox.<br /><br />And frankly, I could give a rat's ass about my "status." Particularly with respect to you.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">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. </font><br /><br />No, Dmj, your methodology is well known here. You state absolutes as in "so and so is RIGHT - everyone else is WRONG." You have done this with cold fusion, crop circles, alien visitations, Tempel1. <br /><br />Everything you say here always falls into this same category. You can try to submerge this fact in now being reasonable, and using hypothesis or 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>

 

[mrmux]

Right, enough now.<br /><br />This is so simple it hurts. Yevaud: you are naturally not impressed by a non-scientist parroting someone else's theories without the deep understanding needed to support them.<br /><br />However, for a non-scientist, dmj has (from start to now) approached this thread more scientifically than you. I jest you not - I read it in one sitting before commenting, as you will recall. Re-read and imagine your posts are someone else's. Apart from the small war, dmj consistently addresses his opponents points. His opponents do not, because they deem him unworthy.<br /><br />Indeed, dmj's latest post starts grimly; by pointing out the foible that Yev likes to point out people's foible's... Well, wherever the circle started it is surely now complete. But then dmj continues with some actual, meaty debate.<br /><br />So let's stick to that. Not another personal comment as of right now. <br /><br />You want to make your opponent look foolish. What do you do? Out-debate him? Out-quote him? Out-qualify him?<br /><br />No. You stop being an evil SOB that wants to make people look foolish. Education, not humiliation.

 

[yevaud]

I'll simply state that he and I have some history and that he has pulled this nonsense on me before. And then did the "I haven't..." "I didn't..." routine also. So why should I attempt to actually debate him? I know where it leads. He will deny every and any objection, and then begin to slowly call people slurs. And then deny it.<br /><br />That is not a discussion nor a debate. <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]

That reads as though I mean you are the SOB, Yev. I mean it in a general sense. Applies to everyone.<br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

I understood that, and was not offended.<br /><br />The one singular thing that really blows my mind is how many people who are Dmj's "followers" (and he has them too, certainly) deny the importance of education and experience. And yet *I* get called a pseudoscientist by him. That's beyond laughable.<br /><br />Well, I said this before and I'll say it again. Would anyone, in their right mind, either believe or have an operation from a Neurosurgeon who had just "picked it up as he went along, by lite reading and some websites?" <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]

Yevaud said "With all due respect, if you don't or can't understand that you just can't "pick up" certain things without education and experience, then you have no idea what you're talking about." <br /><br />So let me get this straight, unless I am "educated" and if I don't have experience I am incapable of understanding this?<br /><br />What a cosmological load of fecal matter, dung, crap, Martha grab the shovels cuz it deeep in here. <br /><br />Experience, I will agree, is hard to just pick up but I can educate my feeble mind just as well from books and the internet. <br /><br />A degree means nothing more than you made it to class in spite of the hangover. Some of the dumbest people I have ever met in my life have had degrees.<br /><br />BTW, thanks for proving my point.

 

[yevaud]

Nope, not what I said. Or implied. There is a point at which self-education in a subject becomes impossible, unless you're a true blue, died in the wool, natural genius like Ramanujan or Newton.<br /><br />Fecal matter, dung, crap? Ahh. I see...this is your "intelligent" response?<br /><br />Yes, certainly. Of course you can. And if having done so, you begin to understand certain realities about the universe around us. Apparently Dmj has not. You're new enough here that you likely haven't scanned all of Dmj's topics, eh? There is not a single one that is even remotely "mainstream." Every idea he has ever proposed is the weirdest, most bizarre possible.<br /><br />So what is the beef with me opposing him at every turn?<br /><br />I don't drink much, and I took school deadly serious. I suppose by your comment that you know a lot of people who didn't.<br /><br />And sure. A degree is not a prerequisite for intelligence. But then again, neither is self-education. Possibly you might think people who do that can get it dead wrong?<br /><br />What point is 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>

 

[mrmux]

Yes, experience and education matter a great deal. Einstein had neither. (Okay, that's the whole deal about Einstein and his ilk: self-taught genius. Incredible because of it's rarity.) But the layperson is historically justified in looking to the oddballs. They are not often right but when they are, my God! <br /><br />Anyway, BACK TO THE POINT, FOLKS!<br /><br /><br />TVF says planet can explode.<br /><br />We say it cannot. And I mean 'we', as I too cannot see how any internal process could explode a planet like a bomb. Unimaginable energy needed. And I think TVF thinks that as well in all honesty, as you can see he is far more comfortable discussing the after-effects of such a blast (not a bad case) than he is of how it happened (shocking case). <br /><br />But he does win bets. And a planet can be certainly be destroyed or stolen from orbit gravitationally.<br /><br />Yev and others have said (and I agree) that planets do not explode. Hence, Van Flandern and proponents are nutters (I disagree). Experimental data demands cold analysis. Ignore all insults. Get technical. Mathematical. <br /><br />Where I'm sitting, everyone is just words on a screen. I haven't seen anyone's qualifications. I've seen this thread.<br /><br />Long may it continue.

 

[yevaud]

*** post deleted *** <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 beef is the credentials crap. What you're saying in a nutshell is that one can only learn or understand so much without the sheepskin. I can see where you might think that. I find it utterly ridiculous so on that point we'll have to agree to disagree. <br /><br />My wish is that conversation take place in a civil manner. Insults, regardless of the side, only serve to weaken their argument. I'm here to learn, suck off some of that experience <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> , and it is so much easier to see the science and not the tirades. The last part of the statement is a general one and not directed directly at you.<br /><br />PS - How do you know I'm not a genius? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> My kids think I am LOL.<br /><br />added - I just saw your resume. Impressive I will admit. You've been a very busy boy LOL. You are defnitely experienced in a variety of areas.<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

Yeah. <br /><br />I began the credentials point with Dmj when he began to belittle almost every person I made mention of (another thread) who had specific expertise in the matter at hand. He's never provided me an adequate answer to my asking him his. Except to say it makes no difference, is irrelevant. Hmmm.....<br /><br />Not a problem. Seriously, if you ask around, you'll find that I rant back at one, and only one, person here. Dmj.<br /><br />Then you're a lucky man. Farther north, where I am, most kid's think their parents are doofuses, and exist specifically to tell them "no." Not that they ever listen.<br /><br />You'll find, this thread notwithstanding, that mostly we actually do debate real science here. Go look in some of the other forums. You'll see what I mean. This thread is an abberation. <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]

"Then you're a lucky man. Farther north, where I am, most kid's think their parents are doofuses, and exist specifically to tell them "no." Not that they ever listen. "<br /><br />I don't let them out much and I make them watch History Channel documentaries I've memorized LOL.<br />

 

[mrmux]

Yev, online CVs are used by ID thieves.<br /><br />I am not joking, you should remove it. For once the thread strays nearer my area of expertise. Online CVs are a bad idea. <br /><br />Now... exotic near-miss hypothesis, anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

 

[yevaud]

Forewarned is forearmed, eh? Good man. Because they day they think they know more than you do... <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]

MrMux said: <font color="yellow"> Anyway, BACK TO THE POINT, FOLKS! </font><br /><br />Back to the point indeed. I'm still waiting for the dirty snowball proponents to stick their necks out. Let's make some predictions here, shall we?<br /><br />Or is that the privilege of the guy with a degree hanging on the wall? To not *need* to put his theory at risk?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> We say it cannot. And I mean 'we', as I too cannot see how any internal process could explode a planet like a bomb. Unimaginable energy needed. And I think TVF thinks that as well in all honesty, as you can see he is far more comfortable discussing the after-effects of such a blast (not a bad case) than he is of how it happened (shocking case). </font><br /><br />The after-effects are the observations, which are all we have to go by, whether you're talking exploded planets or Oort clouds. Sometimes you let the effects lead you to the cause. It doesn't matter if the planet exploded on its own or if it was someone's personal "death star." An explosion still out-predicts the snowball model.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Experimental data demands cold analysis. Ignore all insults. Get technical. Mathematical. </font><br /><br />I'm doing my best to stick with the details.

 

[maxtheknife]

It's a bad habit, Crazy.... bad habit.

 

[yevaud]

Thast's been my issue all along, Eddie. <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]

Dmj: <font color="yellow">The after-effects are the observations, which are all we have to go by, whether you're talking exploded planets or Oort clouds. Sometimes you let the effects lead you to the cause. It doesn't matter if the planet exploded on its own or if it was someone's personal "death star." An explosion still out-predicts the snowball model.</font><br /><br />Yevaud, are you understanding Dmj's position?<br /><br />Let me give you another example. I was talking about my production machines breaking down earlier. When they do break, and they do break frequently, I am <i>forced</i> to troubleshoot. What I end up having to do is apply scientific method to a real life situation.<br /><br />So if my die set is not punching correctly.... say it's an intermittant problem..... it's going up and down, but occasionally it fouls up. I have a symptom and a myriad of possible problems. It could be a signal from the computer, it could be a sticky valve, the posts on the die set may need to be oiled.... etc.<br /><br />Over the years I've learned to never rule out any possibilty while troubleshooting. No matter how ridiculous the possible solution may be.<br /><br />Let's say I cleaned the air valve from water and crud earlier that morning as part of my regular maintenance routine. Everything ran great for most of the morning, then suddenly, the die set starts acting up..... Well, it <i><b>can't</b></i> be the valve, right? I mean I just cleaned it! <br /><br />I will resist every suggestion from outside sources to open up the air valve again. I will check the computer ports, the reed relay, all the wire connections.... literally waste hours before I open up the stupid air valve.<br /><br />Finally, as a last resort, when all the other possibilties fail, I'll open up the valve. It very well may turn out I didn't do a good enough job... then again maybe I did and the problem is a little more complicated than I'd hoped..... Back to the drawing board and application of scie

 

[yevaud]

Well, Max, I am more than happy to debate virtually anything, but there are some preconditions here that I rarely have to state...but this thread is one of the few it seems I must do so in.<br /><br />1. No more 10,000 word rebuttals. That's annoying as hell. I simply don't either have the time or inclination to have to respond in kind. It a data-dump, not a give and take.<br /><br />One aspect of this at a time. Gigantic posts such as I mentioned prove nothing. And they're difficult as hell to respond to, as the sheer amount of verbiage is mind-numbing.<br /><br />2. No more of the "pseudoskeptic" or "pseudoscientist" crap (not saying you're doing it. Just in general). It fools no one, and is a lame method of trying to act/sound superior to anyone who disagrees.<br /><br />By the way, yes, I understand troubleshooting probably as well as you do. But if a device exhibits a problem, I won't go looking for some weird problem, I do it by the numbers. Divide and conquer.<br /><br />As to the prediction part, fine, But there's going to have to be some equitable give-and-take. That's a nice way to say that if I make a point or objection, it'd be a real nice thing if the response isn't always "they don't know what they're talking about."<br /><br />Also, my belief is that EPH is wrong - which is of course the issue at hand - and I'm more than happy to debate my point of view and evidence about it.<br /><br />Here's my real issue - all I seem to have gotten is "this is right and everyone else is wrong," and that's not proven by any means. As well, please remember that EPH *is* based on some bizarre concepts, and I *will* have issues with that. <br /><br />And being continually responded with "EPH successfully proves that..." is *not* a debate. It's an anti-debate. If I'm going to debate the evidence, such as it were, then that concept (and a few others here) will have to be frankly discussed, not just used as a bludgeon against all opposition. <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]

Whoa! Hold up there, Buddy! If he was posting all of the aspects of EPH, what other possible conclusion can any person reach?<br /><br />That EPH is correct, of course.<br /><br />The quotes on EPH being destroyed by some catastrophic release of a never seen or likely possible mechanism comes from Van Flandern himself. And I previously posted the link to it too. What I received in response was, "well, why don't you go read what Van Flandern says..."<br /><br />Huh?<br /><br />Now you can say "observation," and say there was no mention or alluding to these things. Well, here's one of his comments:<br /><br /><i>Oh, I'm well aware of your figures. The problem is, they are guesstimates with huge potential errors. Even the authors of the papers (when the source is even given, that is) outline the gigantic variances.</i><br /><br />Now, wait a minute. That comment directly violates what you, and he, said about "observation," doesn't it? How can you say that a hypothesis based on several never observed mechanisms is spot-on - yet make the above commentary about someone else's objection?<br /><br />Guesstimates? As opposed to what? <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 everyone, back to the topic at hand. <br /><br />I'm going to stick my neck out so far I will be amazed if it isn't chopped off within ten minutes. Here goes:<br /><br />I submit the inner solar system has actually had a near-miss with an exotic interstellar body.<br /><br />I further submit: this body came close enough to a planet to rip material from it, flinging such material across the solar system and beyond. It either captured the damaged planet or flung it out of the solar system.<br /><br />Do you know what? I'm even going to give it a name. Call it the Massive Bullet Theory.<br /><br />Now please rip it - not me - to shreds. I'll try to defend the theory, or offer counter-arguments to yours. Be warned: I'm not a scientist, I'm a features writer. That means I'll double-check facts and sources if you cite them.<br /><br />The impasse is this: No known way a planet could be violently torn apart and all but removed from the solar system. If we can show it can be, then TVF no longer relies on a seemingly impossible premise. <br /><br />The debate will be much more civil as well. Everyone can work with 'improbable'.

 

[yevaud]

Mux, my post is *directly* answering Cs. He states "debate the evidence," based on Observation, but, as you accurately point out, there isn't even a *mechanism* (discounting your hypothesis, that is) for EPH to have occurred. So where's the observational evidence for EPH? There isn't any.<br /><br />That places me into a situation of a double-standard, where I must prove an entire history of scientific thought, observation, and evidence - but the other side of the debate is exonerated from doing so. I have been placed into that situation on SDC frequently, and I won't tolerate it.<br /><br />In answer to your concept, yes, that could be a valid mechanism. The odds of it happening are small, but that's how the odds work, eh?<br /><br />But I do think that there would be significant evidence of the passage of such an object present now. Evidence of extreme gravitational stresses.<br /><br />Still and all, it's an intriguing idea. <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">as you accurately point out, there isn't even a *mechanism* (discounting your hypothesis, that is) for EPH to have occurred.</font><br /><br />Yes, thank you.<br /><br />Guess what the problem was, Yevaud..... turns out the temperature in the production room was..... <i>too cold</i>. The air valve needed heat so that the tolerances of the valve permitted movement. After all, as I'm sure you already know, the cylinder in the air valve and the piston itself, are actually made of two different metals. <br /><br />I didn't have a mechanism... yet the problem was.... <i>the air valve.</i>