Deep Impact Predictions

[yevaud]

Ahhh, I see. In short, you're claiming that the actions of an observed and reasonably well-theorized concept is identical to a hypothesis that is mostly unobserved elements, for which it's inventor himself isn't certain exists - and has no proof whatsoever of.<br /><br />Again, huh? <br /><br />Curiously, this is Hicup's temporary sigline. And it's spot-on with respect to EPH:<br /><br /><b>"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.<br /><br />"Bertrand Russell, Sceptical Essays (1928), "On the Value of Scepticism"</b> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[dmjspace]

Yevaud said: <font color="yellow"> I note TVF using the sites to hawk his books. </font><br /><br />Yeah, I guess that means we can safely dismiss the work of Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and practically every other scientist who's ever "hawked" a book before, right?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Yet you have predictably stated that this data has been "hidden" from the public. </font><br /><br />I've never stated that data has been hidden. Either your memory is foggy or you're attempting to paint me as a conspiracy theorist. Probably both.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> This is from TVF himself. Rather than the disingenuous comment you just made about TVF and his "belief" about EPH (as an initial basis for all of this), he apparently now thinks that there were *multiple* EPH's. Rather than simpler, he is growing more tortured and convoluted by the moment. </font><br /><br />He revised the EPH to include multiple breakups over ten years ago, a fact you would have picked up on if you had actually read the links I post repeatedly.<br /><br />It's funny--no, hypocritical--that proponents of the snowball model are constantly telling us it's okay for their model to be revised, but that competitors cannot be altered.<br /><br />Obviously, models need to evolve with observation. The difference between the snowball and the EPH models is that the EPH changed once 10 years ago, and the snowball model changes every time a new observation is made.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Now here's another good one...rather belying your "solid understanding" about the densities of these bodies (again in TVF's own words): <br /><br />No comet density has ever been measured. </font><br /><br />You just haven't been paying any attention, have you? <br /><br />stevehw33 is the one who insists comet densities are known. I've argued <b> repeatedly </b> that they ar

 

[nexium]

Thank you MrMux: Let's put some numbers and details on MBT = masive bullet theory: It is a black hole, but only has one Jupiter mass with very little accreation disk. It enters the solar system at 1/2 c. It collides with a planet, making a tiny entrance hole and a huge exit hole with 10% of the planet mass following the entruder out of the solar system. Another ten percent of the planets mass stays in the solar system, but with very eliptical orbits. The planet would emplode into the missing 20% of it's mass, but this would not be likely to eject significant additional mass. I think it is reasonable to say the planet exploded. Please comment, refute and/or embellish. Neil

 

[maxtheknife]

No. In short I'm saying that the process one uses to arrive at a solution of any problem is the same.<br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

Nope, that's not the point behind that post at all.<br /><br />You see, in every thread of yours I've ever seen you make, you do this, wise, sage, finger-alongside the nose-ish, "<b>we</b> think," and "<b>we</b> say," and "<b>we</b> believe." And then I find that predictably, you're merely obtaining this stuff by osmosis. A higher form of googling your answers, as it were.<br /><br />I wonder then, if every single time someone makes a counter-point to you, that you leave, go to TVF's site (and others, surely), ask questions, and then come back with your flattened affect "we." This certainly matches your style - read, then disappear for hours at a time, reappear, and make some knowing reply.<br /><br />I have also wondered why it is that you seem to believe that you're so good at this, when you have no accreditation. And now the answer is simple: you are merely a meat-puppet for someone else's words. In point of fact, I now even notice similar mannerism's between what you say and TVF's responses to you.<br /><br />Hey, where do you keep the teleprompter?<br /><br />By the way, I don't believe I ever made the precise comment to you, "read it and weep." Possibly I have, but I doubt it - it's not my grammatical style. It's likely that you have, though. And how is that somehow objectionable, and your favorite slur of pseudo-whatever? You focus on a distinction without a difference.<br /><br />Tell me, Dmj, do you understand the difference between studying something in school, crunching on it, spending painful hours scrutinizing it backwards and forwards, until you actually understand it? I truly think that you don't.<br /><br />Tell me why you are any different than someone who tells you the news? They as well have the same mannerisms that you use - and equally have no training in what they report. Why should they? The teleprompter will tell them what to say.<br /><br />Now you keep saying how EPH "successfully meets every this and that." Oh, does it? Even TVF appears to <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

...and - no offense here - but I did notice in "users online" that you appeared, read this, and then promptly disappeared. And I have no doubt that you will reappear hours from now with another several thousand word reply. <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"> You see, in every thread of yours I've ever seen you make, you do this, wise, sage, finger-alongside the nose-ish, "we think," and "we say," and "we believe." And then I find that predictably, you're merely obtaining this stuff by osmosis. A higher form of googling your answers, as it were. </font><br /><br />Whereas you, of course, are out doing the astronomical observing, theorizing and experiments yourself, right? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> I wonder then, if every single time someone makes a counter-point to you, that you leave, go to TVF's site (and others, surely), ask questions, and then come back with your flattened affect "we." </font><br /><br />What is this "we" stuff? I've never included myself in any claim of experimentation or investigation of the EPH. Unlike you, who have claimed to be an expert in this arena. (Obviously that isn't the case or you would be discussing your counter arguments in great detail in order to obliterate TVF's hypothesis. Instead you seek to dismiss it on the basis that it is "weird" or "bizarre." Scientific? I think not.)<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> This certainly matches your style - read, then disappear for hours at a time, reappear, and make some knowing reply. </font><br /><br />Or, perhaps, I have a life? You know, the thing you claim to have yet still managed to post at a rate 20 times what I do?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> And now the answer is simple: you are merely a meat-puppet for someone else's words. In point of fact, I now even notice similar mannerism's between what you say and TVF's responses to you. </font><br /><br />Huh? You mean like reasoned dialogue devoid of the usual shrieking irrationality of a pseudoskeptic?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Tell me, Dmj, do you understand the difference between studying something in school, crunching on it, spending painful hours scrutinizing it backwards</font>

 

[dmjspace]

Yevaud said: <font color="yellow"> and - no offense here - but I did notice in "users online" that you appeared, read this, and then promptly disappeared. And I have no doubt that you will reappear hours from now with another several thousand word reply. </font><br /><br />Hey, Mr. Posts-30-Times-As-Much-As-Dmjspace:<br /><br />Do you really think there's anything you can say that I will take offense at by now?<br /><br />And it only took me eight minutes to repond. Either I'm getting better or you're just getting lazy.

 

[yevaud]

Actually, it's an hour plus from the original post, not the side-bar I just posted a while ago.<br /><br />So I've been at SDC for awhile. Your point is...what? I have a wide-range of interests, here as well as in real life, as well as duration here. On the other hand, you are an SDC "one dance pony."<br /><br />So you made a not very good point.<br /><br />This is all about personal agenda's. I only seek the truth, and I'd rather prefer that it make some sense.<br /><br />I know what <b>your</b> agenda is. <br /><br />(no offense, Harry, if you happen to read this) Mind if I call you "Soapbox_Dmj?"<br /><br />You are aware that you have virtually never posted anything, ever, in support of mainstream science? Do you think no one here hasn't noticed? Give me a break. <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]

Here's a good one about education and experience, Dmj. A friend pointed it out to me in a conversation.<br /><br />You always deny the importance of education, as long as you can "pick up" the topic, and can debate it. Oh, really. Unimportant, eh?<br /><br />Well, sir, the supreme example of what happens when a non-scientist or engineer picks up some topical knowledge of a subject, and then deludes themselves into a belief of expertise, is the Challenger disaster. Because that's <b>exactly</b> what occurred there.<br /><br />Engineers told the Management types that they were flirting with disaster if they launched within their launch window, and the management types sagely said, "don't worry...we'll launch on time. We understand this stuff."<br /><br />How many people died when it exploded?<br /><br />Now please refute the unimportance of education and scientific experience. Because those management types are within <b>your</b> professional field, not mine.<br /><br />And look at what their delusions cost us. <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]

See what happens when I'm not here to break you two up?<br /><br />Right. Enough sniping at each other's faults. You both make semantic mistakes and you both notice the other's. Less politics and more debate.<br /><br />Credentials, schmedentials. (And by the way, Yev, Googling for answers is something to be encouraged. I do it all the time and so do you...) Concentrate on the topic, guys. <br /><br />You have both shown intelligence and eloquence when NOT focusing on each other. If I may suggest something: Read the thread from start to finish, both of you. <br /><br />I did, that's why I'm on no-one's side, as I've seen both argued pretty damn well. Nobody has been righteously shot down in flames, dismissed for all to see as a charlatan. Quite right too, as none of the theories being discussed here are personal. Dmj isn't Van Flandern. Yevaud isn't Mr Dirty-Snowball.<br /><br />Theories aren't your children. Now read the thread like I told you, or you both go to bed with no supper...

 

[yevaud]

<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Yes sir. <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]

*Sigh*<br /><br />Ok. Thank you, Mr. Mux. I'll be polite, if for no other reason than you asked (by the way, if you think I've been impolite, go sit in a couple of Astronomy Department roundtable discussions. I've literally seen two Ph.D's have to be held apart).<br /><br />Dmj: explain the following to me, please...<br /><br />Why does the lack of evidence for the "dirty iceball" overwhelm the lack of evidence for the "icy dirtball" (for lack of a better term)? This has been my bone of contention. <br /><br />It seems to me that you can't say one and then excuse the other. My own belief is that there's not enough hard data yet to definitively state <i>anything</i> for certain, let alone TVF's conjectures.<br /><br />I understand that you (TVF postulates, that is to say) believe's that the hypothesis explains the observations better than anything else. Ok, fine.<br /><br />Do you understand why someone might have a serious issue with some of TVF's postulated "facts?" It's not a simple hypothesis, it's terribly convoluted, and contains elements based on guesswork, IMO.<br /><br />Multiple exploding planets? Mars as a former moon of said planet? I just don't know... <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]

Well, he did ask politely. I'll give it a try. No harm done, and if I can't make any headway, well, there are other things to interest me than this. <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'll lay out all my 'beliefs' for you right now, Yev. Doesn't bother me in the slightest - although it's hardly on-topic.<br /><br />Yes, I think one or more ET civilisations has interacted with this planet. That's fairly obvious given my views on Drake's equation and probabilities of Type II or III civilisations within range. <br /><br />Yes, I like the weird and wonderful - but it has to be wonderful. I like www.lloydpye.com. I'm impressed by the late Colonel Philip J Corso's book ('The Day After Roswell') because of the author's impeccable credentials. <br /><br />I'm not a fan of RCH and no, I don't believe in anal probes (except steve, of course).<br /><br />Also, I don't believe in God. I wonder... should that stop me talking to all those 'gullible religious people'? <br /><br />Of course not. But I don't talk to pathological liars who claim to be psychiatrists (how I laughed at that one) yet are somehow able to speak for all the sciences.<br /><br />I can clear up one 'conspiracy' anyway. Mux is simply my childhood nickname. Short for Mucker, and shortened because of video arcades, when you only had 3 letters for your high-score monicker. 'Muk' just didn't sound right. The 'Mr' is because I'm female and just can't stop lying...

 

[yevaud]

Mux, I can vouch for Steve's competence in his avowed field. I have a certain amount of prior medical expertise myself (previous career), and I can tell you that he is quite expert in his. <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"> Why does the lack of evidence for the "dirty iceball" overwhelm the lack of evidence for the "icy dirtball" (for lack of a better term)? This has been my bone of contention. </font><br /><br />I'm not sure what you're asking, but it does speak directly to <b> my </b> bone of contention, which is simply this:<br /><br />The "dirty snowball" model started long ago and survived until we started making close-range observations of comets. The more we saw, the more comets looked and acted like rocky bodies, rather than pristine icy remnants of solar system formation.<br /><br />Their albedos are surprisingly dark (clearly reflecting something other than "just" ice), they have an unexpectedly deep regolith, their spectra do not show expected amount of ices, they exhibit unlikely (in the snowball model) multiple nuclei and debris clouds, they show evidence of highly evolved materials and, possibly, surfaces.<br /><br />The point is, the model has changed fundamentally since it was popularized by Whipple decades ago. Now one hears the term "muddy snowball" being thrown around. If the model was solid, like the EPH--which says the damn things are all just rocks with some ice pockets--then it wouldn't need to morph so frequently in its fundamental assumptions.<br /><br />THIS is my argument. Why it's taken some 50 pages to get it across is a mystery to me.<br /><br />So far, in those same 50 pages, I've been able to discern two--yes, that's right, <b> two </b>--attempts by snowball proponents to make a prediction based on their preferred model. <br /><br />Courtesy of stevehw33, who took time out of his busy schedule of psychoanalyzing screen names, here they are:<br /><br /><i> Comets really are composed of mostly water ices, some rocky materials, CO2 and a few other lesser substances. </i><br /><br /><i> It's a comet, and even at this late stage in its life, is still composed mostly of water. </i><br /><br />stevehw33 also posited that the crater wou

 

[yevaud]

Dmj, we have made a total of three reasonably close observations of Comets: two flybys and Tempel1. And it's understood that each of them are different. In what way does that fact prove TVF's contention?<br /><br />We just don't have sufficient data yet, simply put. And as to revising and cutting and patching theories, well, of course. Theories are approximations that nevertheless work reasonably well.<br /><br />I just have a real problem with something that one the one hand accurately predicts something, but is based on fallacious assumptions. And I truly don't see any evidence for any exploded planet, let alone several.<br /><br />Now if Van Flandern were to rework his original premise, yet manage to retain the predictability aspect of it, then good on him. <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"> Dmj, we have made a total of three reasonably close observations of Comets: two flybys and Tempel1. And it's understood that each of them are different. In what way does that fact prove TVF's contention? </font><br /><br />It doesn't *prove* TVF's contention. It does, however, go a long way towards falsifying the snowball model in its current incarnation.<br /><br />You're not suggesting hypotheses are "ruled in" rather than "ruled out," are you?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> We just don't have sufficient data yet, simply put. </font><br /><br />The bulk of the supporting data for the EPH comes from asteroids, not comets. It just so happens that at this preliminary stage, the comets we've looked at appear and behave much like asteroids.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> And as to revising and cutting and patching theories, well, of course. Theories are approximations that nevertheless work reasonably well. </font><br /><br />Do you go with the psychic who predicts the lottery numbers *before* they're drawn, or the one who tells you the winning numbers *after* the drawing? The answer to this is a no-brainer, even to the totally non-scientifically inclined. I find it surprising that you, as a scientist, appear to place no value in the power of a priori prediction.<br /><br />But that is the whole point: the snowball model doesn't work reasonably well, which is why it keeps changing.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> I just have a real problem with something that one the one hand accurately predicts something, but is based on fallacious assumptions. </font><br /><br />So what you're saying, essentially, is that in my above example you'd choose the psychic who tells you the lottery numbers *after* the drawing simply because you don't believe in psychics.<br /><br />You'd rather be poor and sure in your beliefs, rather than filthy rich with a new belief in the "impossible"!

 

[maxtheknife]

Yevaud: <font color="yellow">In what way does that fact prove TVF's contention? </font><br /><br />Could you please change 'prove' to maybe,,, 'lends credence to'? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

That is *not* what I said. However, a hypothesis must take into account all data, however inconvenient. Doing the opposite, discarding data to fit one's hypothesis, is incorrect. As is making a metaphoric leap to a full, finalized concept based on such a small sample. Observation thereafter will prove/disprove it, and the amount of hard data is yet lacking. That's what I meant.<br /><br />So, how does a data set of all of three objects - all different from each other - support TVF's hypothesis?<br /><br />You have pointed out that "comets appear and behave like asteroids." How many asteroids have a high albedo as do most comets? And we have very few asteroids either that we've directly imaged. Right back to square one here.<br /><br />I would really appreciate it if you'd cease giving me the "as a scientist, I'm surprised..." That, as we've both seen, is fruitless. Lay off, please.<br /><br />I have no idea what you're getting at with the commentary about psychics. It should be no surprise to you that the hypothesis' by NASA are being adjusted. Rare is the idea that is so correct in the absence of any hard data whatsoever, that it doesn't require any patching. These things are adjusted almost constantly, refined in the light of new observations.<br /><br />And if those hypothesis' were so out of conformation with the evidence, they *would have been discarded* long since. Regardless of what some people may think, most of them do *not* hold onto their ideas to the bitter end, once proven to be false dichotomies.<br /><br />And look. I did go to both the TVF sites and read his ideas about EPH, and he discounts multiple real problems with it. <br />He's now at the stage where he's weaving together oddities wrt comets (three and only three near observations), vastly hypothetical (and unproven) exploding planets (and now more than one!), 12 odd achondrites, crustal deformities on Mars and it's atmospheric composition, and a planet having existed where the Asteroid belt <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]

First, I am not "ridiculing" Van Flandern - this exists only in your mind. I am opposing his evidence, or rather, lack thereof.<br /><br />Secondly, as to the commentary, "It could be argued that AAPG was not an appropriate body to render a decision on Wegener's ideas..."<br /><br />And a Computer Scientist and a Business major <b>are</b>? (no, not stating that to get into the education / experience thing, just as a broad point. After all, <b>you</b> just raised the issue, not me)<br /><br />Finally, as to, "Petroleum geologists were land-based continental geologists; they had no experience, interest, or appreciation for marine geology of the ocean basins. Furthermore, petroleum geology was (and still is) an applied aspect of the profession. The goal is to find oil and gas, not to understand basic principles of earth history and tectonics. AAPG had no economic incentive to consider the possible implications of continental drift."<br /><br />Which is an entirely different animal than this debate. I *do* have experience in the field of Planetary Science (and Saiph, who is now a Graduate Student in Astrophysics also stated a few posts back that the mechanisms proposed weren't really possible). <br /><br />Nor am I arbitrarily discounting TVF. In fact, I have said that if his theory fits the evidence, all fine and well, but his initial premise is extraordinarily poor - there's zero evidence for it, or any feasible mechanism for it. That makes everything that follows a non-hypothesis. What part of that are you incapable of wrapping your mind around?<br /><br />And I have further said that if he can refine or redact his original premise, and his hypothesis still accurately predicts the evidence we see, great. Not to mention that I read his CV and said he appears to be quite legitimate.<br /><br />Tsk tsk. Putting words into my mouth. Or, as Ron Reagan used to say, "there you go again..."<br /><br />You have a weird concept of the meaning of "ridicule." <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>

 

[JonClarke]

The internet is a dangerous thing. So is cut and paste when it substitutes for actual scholarship.<br /><br />The AMERICAN geoscience community was generally hostile to continental drift. However America is not the world. Contimental drift was championed by some leading geoscientists elsewhere - Holmes in the UK, King and du Toit in South Africa, Carey and Edgeworth David in Australia. The US geoscientific community changed its stance quite rapidly (in about three years) as the evidence for marine research - Benihoff zones, linear magnetic anomalies, mid ocean rifts - and apparent magnetic polar wander paths became understood.<br /><br />This is quite different to TVF. He is one researcher who has been pushing his barrow by him,self for decades. He has not convinced any of his peers and his ideas are utterly inconsistent with what is known about asteroid chemistry. The more we learn about the smaller bodies of the solar system the less his hypothesis holds water.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>...the less his hypothesis holds water. </i><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Funny! You could have said, "do you get my drift?!"<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>

 

[mrmux]

I look forward to his devastating psychoanalysis of comets, then. Still no excuse for paranoia (Mucks!), a superiority complex and a lack of basic social skills.<br /><br />"Clearly, he's a typical american, who thinks because he has the right to have an opinion, means that opinion Is right." (Yup, he said that to someone on this forum. Sorry, wrote it...)<br /><br />There's an old psychological test that applies here. Everyone sits in a circle and one person stands. All the others have to say briefly what they think of them. The person sits down.<br /><br />Once everyone has done this, you have some understanding of a person is like, but not from what everyone has said about them.<br /><br />The key is what that person said about everyone else. <br /><br />Read his last 50 posts. The last 100. Pick any of the 5000 at random. That man is psychotic.