Deep Impact Predictions

[yevaud]

You didn't have a mechanism...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />And what, pray tell, what would you describe the actions of the two metals with differing specific heat parameters under those conditions? Would that be, perhaps, a "mechanism?"<br /><br />Hmmm...? <br /><br />And you guys say, "*I* don't discuss science."<br /><br />It would be a really fine thing if you didn't try to mix simple troubleshooting and engineering with astrophysics.<br /><br />Thanks. <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]

Be fair now, Yev. His analogy was merely how human stubborness often sends us on wild goose chases. Hence, 'It was the last thing I would have expected' is a commonly heard phrase in many disciplines - and physics is definitely no exception. Just ask the Deep Impact team.<br /><br />That's why I propose the MBT (wow, I made an acronym). I'm persuaded that TVF may be onto something, that there is plausible evidence of a violent event.<br /><br />I'm not persuaded planets explode, though. Nonetheless, that just makes me think, okay - could anything else happen with after-effects that would look almost as if... no, surely not... a planet had exploded?<br /><br />If yes, then we can cheerfully explore TVF's evidence of such an event without being burdened by his current explanation behind it - which even he is obviously not too happy with.<br /><br />Or to use another well-known analogy; not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (Although that could never happen, as even a half-filled bath requires at least two adults to lift and the odds of both being that stupid... where do these phrases come from anyway?)

 

[yevaud]

No Sir. His post was intended to state what a dumbass I am. He posted an analogy saying, broadly, "oh, here's a conundrum. And I didn't have to figure out a mechanism to solve it, you idiot." <br /><br />And right after I made the, "lay off the 'pesudoskeptic,' etc." request. It's merely the same thing expressed in a different way.<br /><br />I plain don't know what could make a planetary sized body explode. No mechanism (yes, all, that word again) I can process can do that. Natural nuclear reactors? Insufficient. Passing dense gravitational bodies? Would've left a huge amount of evidence. ZPE? Plain not possible.<br /><br />So 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]

I agree: ZPE and natural fission, nowhere near. I don't propose them. The 'top 10 ways to destroy the Earth' site is quite interesting, by the way. A thread just started about it.<br /><br />To reduce gravitational effects, what about a relatively small black hole passing close to one planet? Or a very, very fast direct hit? I can't do the maths myself, but there must be calculable limits to how massive something could be, pass through the inner solar system, and leave it within the parameters we observe today.<br /><br />Any such object would 'aim' towards the sun, and if it approached from directly above or below the ecliptic it would have a greatly-reduced effect on the outer planets, whilst still being able to wreak a little local havoc.<br /><br />And I submit: the planets DO show signs of upheaval. Pristine regular spinning tops they are not, and captured moons abound. Before capture those moons were flying God-knows-where and when you consider the size of Triton, even a 'conventional' collision or near-miss has profound implications. The axis-tilts of Venus and Uranus took some doing, as well. (Yet Venus orbits in an almost perfect circle as well - bizarre.)

 

[yevaud]

No, I was responding to being told that all the NASA side has are "guesstimates." Well, if that's all they have, the same applies to Van Flandern. That's all.<br /><br />And look. Can we end this "prove it" nonsense that keeps happening? That is to say, I will be more than happy to locate referential material to support the NASA side of the argument, but I'm not going to go hunt through 20-odd pages to show that comment has been made in many ways, shapes, and forms.<br /><br />And the point here being, Cs, that according to Van Flandern, EPH occurred, but his mechanisms for it are at *least* equally "guesswork." Unless you'd care to propose some rational mechanism for a purported planet exploding.<br /><br />Please note I said "rational." <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. As to the planet-destroying collision.<br /><br />A planet has what's known as it's "binding energy," which must be exceeded to even crack the thing into rubble, let alone vaporive 99.9999% of it (which is the missing percentage of material, if an Earth-sized body was present).<br /><br />Example: to do this with our moon would require a body of *at least* the same size (or mass at any rate) impacting it. Or a smaller mass, but moving at some godawful percentage of C. And that's just to spilt it open.<br /><br />To vaporize a body so thoroughly would require some extraordinarily catastrophic release of energy. I'm actually leaning more towards the concept Mux proposed. I can buy the body being swept away, if the passing object had sufficient gravitation. <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]

Mux: this is why that's actually more rational than the EPH theory. At least it's a valid idea with some known properties.<br /><br />And you are correct - our solar system *does* contain some anomalies. <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]

"I'm actually leaning more towards the concept Mux proposed."<br /><br />My dear Yev, you have no idea how honoured that makes me feel. As a qualified man of science, which I am not, could you please back me up when the Nobels are being handed out next year.<br /><br />Seriously, I'm well chuffed. I just wish I had the training (or the supercomputer) to try different models of the hypothesis and see which can be ruled out. Or in.<br /><br />Here is one model you should be able to rule out for me: could the culprit be - or have been - in a very eccentric (VERY eccentric) polar orbit around the sun?<br /><br />I say polar, because I imagine any other orbit would mess up the outer planets too much (although I note the long-standing question about whether or not something actually is tugging at Neptune - and Voyager & co).<br /><br />I offer this as a tenous idea for 'why' the object interacted with a planet in the first place. I don't say it's Sol's binary twin (whatever that would be) because that would probably be much closer to the ecliptic.<br /><br />If it were captured by the sun (okay, that means it still had to fluke it's first ever pass, but not nearly as much) then perhaps the body was not particularly massive, but has had a few attempts to cause damage. <br /><br />Could such an orbital period be long enough to mask it's presence? If not, is it possible this scenario played out until the impact/near-miss occurred, then the object - plus a good chunk of our inner solar system - finally left for good?<br /><br />For your consideration. I'm just trying to work with probabilities and improve the odds of the planetary encounter.

 

[yevaud]

<i>Here is one model you should be able to rule out for me: could the culprit be - or have been - in a very eccentric (VERY eccentric) polar orbit around the sun?</i><br /><br />Sure, why not. Btw, the object you refer to next is called "Nemesis." But there's no real evidence of it's existence.<br /><br />Still...<br /><br />I wouldn't think any object such as an expelled neutron core or singularity would even have to be a capture. It could well have merely passed through this solar system in it's travels.<br /><br />I could go either way, as far as it's trajectory...if it passed through the plane of the solar system, the effects would be smaller with respect to other planetary bodies. If it passed through the plane of the ecliptic, then there'd be a great deal of evidence.<br /><br />Hmmm. Such as retrograde motion of planets, skewed orbits, polar orientation not the same as the other planets...<br /><br />Again, Hmmm....<br /><br />I would think, though, that the key to this is that the rubble - which we now would see as asteroids in the belt and long-term free bodies - would show evidence of severe gravitational stress.<br /><br />Going to have to think about this.<br /> <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.<br /><br />Van Flandern's methodology *begins* with EPH. Until that mechanism is proven or disproven, his theories are based on no premise at all. Regardless of how closely the composition of cometary matter conforms or doesn't conform to theory.<br /><br />In short, he's using the same method as the frequently seen scientific cartoon:<br /><br />A scientist is standing in front of a blackboard. Two of his colleagues are watching him. On the board are a mile of equations - one of which says "and a miracle occurs."<br /><br />One of the bystanders says, "uh, Doctor Jones, about that 18th equation..." <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]

'and a miracle occurs...' Laughing my head off at that one. I also thought about the old 'Planet X' or 'Nemesis' thing as I wrote about a possible orbit, but didn't want to mention it. <br /><br />I didn't want to appear as though that had been my idea all along, because it honestly wasn't. My thought process arrived there organically, and indeed I don't prefer an orbiting companion. <br /><br />I currently stand by my original idea for now: a one-off interaction. The massive bullet. Maybe time to start another thread?

 

[yevaud]

Sure. In fact, rather than make it a continuation of EPH, how's about we keep to the topic of "could it happen?" / "did this happen?" / "What evidence is there to support / deny the hypothesis?"<br /><br />Mind you, I have to work the overnight shift tonight and tomorrow night. But I can probably squeeze in a quick post or so, during the am, when things slow down. <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]

Hmm. Discounting that this particular concept - while interesting - has never been seen to occur. It was a thought experiment only.<br /><br />Recollect that we haven't even *detected* gravitons yet, or the Higg's boson. Is gravity a wave, a particle, a sparticle, a force? With or without duality? Is it quantifiable?<br /><br />That's what I meant about Van Flandern's hypothesis. It's based on non-proof. I'm not trying to personally diss VF, it's just that beginning a long and involved hypothesis with a non-mechanism (to be fair, I'll say, "so far") is not acceptable.<br /><br />Now if there are aspects of his hypothesis' that *do* match the current evidence, fine and well. But he's going to have to redact and reformulate his starting point. <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]

Easy now, fella. You admit to being enamoured of strange theories in your youth.<br /><br />Less scorn, more refutation. That wins arguments, and even when it doesn't the result is still useful.<br /><br />As one of the resident uber-skeptics, I hope to see you on a new thread I'll be starting shortly.<br /><br />Just be nice. Rise above it, etc.

 

[yevaud]

Well, the two aren't neccessarily the same thing. A hypothesis can begin from an incorrect premise, but still meet many of the small details. That's why I said that if it matches much of the observations, well and good, but TVF really has to go and rethink his beginning premise.<br /><br />Hmm. Trying to think of an example of what I mean...<br /><br />Ah. In the sense of aerodynamics, it was not proven that a Bumblebee could fly for many decades. It's wings are too small, it's body too bulky and barely aerodynamic at all.<br /><br />Yet it obviously *can* fly. The hypothesis' as to why it could do so were all over the place, and many of them met the reality that the Bee flew, but their beginning concepts were really weird.<br /><br />A few years ago, it was discovered that Bees create small vortices underneath their wings, which provide the extra lift to allow them to fly. This was not a part of a single one of the hypothesis' proposed.<br /><br />So. Those former hypothesis' began from incorrect concepts, even if they described the fact that it flew.<br /><br />That's rather what I meant. Aspects of his idea may well model what we see well, but his starting point is, IMPO, way off of the mark. <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]

Where are mine? Up your sanctimonious arse, you egotistical short-sighted pompous git. Who the hell are you, anyway? <br /><br />I have tried civility, to no avail. You are a waste of time, a viscious, mean-spirited oik with the charm and breeding of a cockroach. You are also really rather stupid, as evidenced from your singular ability to lose every debate you participate in.<br /><br />You are the reason 'Ignore' buttons exist. Now &%$#@! off and &%$#@!e over your degrees. The rest of us are capable of pleasant and intelligent conversation and you are patently not. No wonder you have no friends. <br /><br />And you don't, do you?

 

[maxtheknife]

You didn't get it, did you Yevaud. I didn't have the mechanism until I figured out exactly what was going on. I didn't need a mechanism to know that my system wasn't working.<br /><br />The same thing applies to what's going on w/ Deep Impact results. EPH is the better model..... we need to find the mechanism.<br /><br />Are you going to try and tell me that scientific method is fundamentally different for engineering mechanics than it is for celestial mechanics or astrophysics?<br /><br />Come on, you're smarter than that.

 

[yevaud]

Yes. What I'm telling you is that troubleshooting a device is a far different process than determining a complicated physical process.<br /><br />By the way, my past experience is decades in troubleshooting very complicated Electronic and electromechanical devices. I rather think - no offense, bud - but I have just a tad more experience in troubleshooting than you do.<br /><br />Ahhh..."EPH is the better model.... we need to find the mechanism."<br /><br />You have, I trust, read my former points about EPH? <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">What I'm telling you is that troubleshooting a device is a far different process than determining a complicated physical process. </font><br /><br />No Yevaud... it's not. The same open minded, unbiased approach, aka <i>scientific methodology</i>, is needed to solve both problems.

 

[yevaud]

You are discussing a machine, in which it's parts and operations are well known. In fact, designed by people. With flowcharts, schematics, known parameters of operation. And you control virtually all physical factors related to it's operation and performance.<br /><br />Versus an extraordinarily complicated physical mechanism for which there's no proof, you control none of the mechanisms, and in fact, based on some bizarre guesswork.<br /><br />Uh huh. The same thing. Okey dokey... <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"> That's what I meant about Van Flandern's hypothesis. It's based on non-proof. I'm not trying to personally diss VF, it's just that beginning a long and involved hypothesis with a non-mechanism (to be fair, I'll say, "so far") is not acceptable. </font><br /><br />Van Flandern did not BEGIN with the premise of a planet exploding. Here is your red herring. <br /><br />He looked solely at the observational evidence, a practice which has become more and more rare these days, to come to a conclusion.<br /><br />This is no more complicated than troubleshooting equipment or using forensics to piece together a murder scene. The effects lead to guesses about the cause. The cause that best explains the sum of the evidence is a massive explosion.<br /><br />Approaching this problem any other way raises the possibility of committing an egregious error that has, unfortunately, doomed prior revolutionary scientific discoveries to years or decades of neglect.<br /><br />One need only look at the history of flight. The Wright brothers were flying in plain sight for half a decade before the larger press and mainstream scientific community acknowledged heavier-than-air flight was possible.<br /><br />And they used the same argument Yevaud is using: scientists could not think of a way for flight to be possible, therefore it didn't matter how successful the Wrights were. According to the experts, their theories said airplanes were <b> impossible. </b><br /><br />Likewise, experts are saying exploding planets are impossible. Meanwhile, the EPH is quietly racking up one successful prediction after another.<br /><br />And, STILL, dirty snowball proponents here are not willing to go out on a limb with their own predictions. What is wrong with this picture?

 

[yevaud]

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp<br /><br />http://www.planetarymysteries.com/mars/marsmeteorites.html<br /><br />It mentions all of these things...on two of VanFlandern's websites.<br /><br />Curious thing, too...<br /><br />I note TVF using the sites to hawk his books.<br /><br />And I find that members of his site's message board include:<br /><br />GRR8<br />DavidJinks (why, that's *you* Dmj)<br /><br />Interesting. Curious, some of the things TVF says. For example:<br /><br /><i>We aren't about to spend months learning about instrument calibrations and data processing algorithms just so we can replicate the science team's results.</i><br /><br />Elizabeth Warner at JPL states:<br /><br /><i>NASA has never released "data" immediately. It has released pretty pics derived from data. After the proprietary time period the data is released.</i><br /><br />Yet you have predictably stated that this data has been "hidden" from the public.<br /><br />And also predictably, one of your buddies, GRR8 states:<br /><br /><i>it is obvious that JPL AGAIN is trying to put a fast one over on the public whom funded this mission.</i><br /><br />Well. We can see where you and yours are coming from. Another conspiracy theory.<br /><br /><i>I think the notation "Body C" first appeared in chapter 24 near Table I in Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, 2nd edition (1999). You can also find this chapter at http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/new-evidence.asp<br /><br />Body C is the parent body of comets, and was originally associated with C-type (carbonaceous) asteroids. But more recently, I have begun to suspect that comets might instead be associated with S-type asteroids. In any case</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>

 

[maxtheknife]

The same process to solving any problem applies. The principle for understanding is the same.<br /><br />Okey dokey?

 

[maxtheknife]

Yevaud: <font color="yellow">Versus an extraordinarily complicated physical mechanism for which there's no proof, you control none of the mechanisms, and in fact, based on some bizarre guesswork. </font><br /><br />Huh? Where's the 'proof' for nebular theory? I don't understand your line of reasoning.<br />

 

[yevaud]

In a gross sense, yes. However, you're talking the difference of a simplistic system, with virtually all known elements, and a hypothesis based on multiple unknowns.<br /><br />Do you see what I mean here?<br /><br />This has been my ssue with EPH all along. I am simultaneously informed that EPH "meets all of the evidence," and yet TVF himself states he does not have most of the data.<br /><br />Huh?<br /><br />And, I know how metals act under certain conditions. This has been tested and refined and parsed for literally centuries by now. But EPH is based on guesswork, e.g. no known mechanisms. Guesswork. <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>