Deep Impact Predictions

dmjspace · Jul 4, 2005

several gloated: The EPH is dead. Wow. I'm glad none of you guys are involved in the actual mission. Almost no data are in yet and you're already making sweeping conclusions. I shudder to think what kind of space agency we'd have if the scientists involved were that quick to judge. If you're throwing out theories already, you might as well focus on the ones that ARE easy to discard, namely, the first three NASA scenarios. *Probe flies through comet and comes out the other side *Probe fractures comet into thousands of pieces that fly off *Probe enters jello-like, compression-controlled rubble pile and makes a small, deep crater Since we have no idea of the size of the crater or the composition of the debris, we cannot yet choose between the remaining scenarios: *Probe impacts on weak, gravity-controlled surface and makes a huge, medium-depth crater *Probe vaporizes on rocky, strength-controlled surface and makes a small, shallow crater TVF's specific prediction was: "[The impactor] will simply produce an impact flash as the probe vaporizes, then will cause the comet’s coma to temporarily brighten as new carbonaceous dust is ejected from the asteroid regolith and the impact crater." So far, nothing observed contradicts this prediction. But the "skeptics" have shown their true colors. Again.

najab · Jul 4, 2005

>So far, nothing observed contradicts this prediction. Well, newer results are due in, what, <strike>10</strike> <strike>70</strike> (was right the first time, damned timezones) 2 minutes. We'll see.Your prediction: "Deep Impact probe will impact solid rock and vaporize, creating a small crater (no more than 30m) and a transient dust cloud."

najab · Jul 4, 2005

>Deep Impact probe will impact solid rock and vaporize, creating a small crater (no more than 30m) and a transient dust cloud.Sorry, they just said in the press conference that there's no way that the comet nucleus is solid rock. The crater size is definitely on the large end of the scale.

yurkin · Jul 4, 2005

Najab EPH is far from dead. Overwhelming evidence to the contrary didn’t dissuade a few cooks from believing this before Deep Impact. So nothing has really changed. And this thread belongs in phenomenon.

a_lost_packet_ · Jul 5, 2005

djmspace - I shudder to think what kind of space agency we'd have if the scientists involved were that quick to judge. But, you offered the requirements for falsification yourself: dmjspace - Prediction is the hallmark of science. The EPH predicts the Deep Impact probe will impact solid rock and vaporize, creating a small crater (no more than 30m) and a transient dust cloud. It will otherwise have no effect on the "comet." According to you, the EPH theory "predicts" something entirely different than what was observed. You offered the parameters to falsify EPH theory. Those parameters seem to have been met by Deep Impact. djmspace - TVF's specific prediction was: "[The impactor] will simply produce an impact flash as the probe vaporizes, then will cause the comet’s coma to temporarily brighten as new carbonaceous dust is ejected from the asteroid regolith and the impact crater." Well, TVF seems to have been wrong too. djmspace - So far, nothing observed contradicts this prediction. Considering that just the raw footage so far shows completely different results than the predictions you or TVF made, I'd say that it was certainly contradictory. djmspace - But the "skeptics" have shown their true colors. Again. Hey, you offered the falsification statement for EPH theory in regards to this impact. Don't blame us, the messenger, if your requirements for falsification seems to have been met. Maybe you/TVF made too much of a specific prediction regarding the results of Deep Impact? How about submitting what the spectrographic results should be according to EPH theory BEFORE any data is released from the Deep Impact mission? Let's see how that stacks up. (PS - As far as I am aware, the volume of ejecta has no <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

geos · Jul 5, 2005

Let me jump in here with this (like it or lump it) It will be useful for independent researchers to contrast the NASA animation of the expected event with the actual event. You will observe in the animation a dark cloud of shrapnel emanating upward from a crater formed by the impact. The shrapnel is illuminated by the Sun. In the real event (see the series of images behind this TPOD) we see an exceedingly bright flare-up (left image) with bright rays. The formation of evenly spaced bright discharge rays or filaments is characteristic of a “plasma gun” type discharge as seen on Jupiter’s moon, Io. But more intriguing are the rays above the presumed main crater, which seem to emanate from a separate bright center. It indicates the sudden, simultaneous flare-up of another jet. Such an electrical effect was predicted in our previous TPOD. * that is not on the Official NASA website !!! Why is NASA always wrong!! Are they using some Ancient Owl cult over there?

alokmohan · Jul 5, 2005

What went wrong is not clear.

telfrow · Jul 5, 2005

It will be useful for independent researchers... Just an observation...that quote is a cut and paste from the Thunderbolts.info website....without attribution. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

serak_the_preparer · Jul 5, 2005

Thanks for giving NewScientist a mention. Nice images with the article. The link: Comet's crater hidden, but plume tells story by David L Chandler.

silylene old · Jul 5, 2005

the videos in the New Scientist story are quite good. It is very easy to see the "double explosion" as the impact occured. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

zenonmars · Jul 5, 2005

Lost: "How about submitting what the spectrographic results should be according to EPH theory BEFORE any data is released from the Deep Impact mission? Let's see how that stacks up." What a grand idea. Anyone? Anyone? I am hearing that the mission principal investigators are struggling with understanding the spectral data results. Any truth to this? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

najab · Jul 5, 2005

>I am hearing that the mission principal investigators are struggling with understanding the spectral data results. Any truth to this?Well, seeing as how they expect the spectral data to take as long as 4 days to be sent back to Earth, I wouldn't put too much stock into that rumour.

telfrow · Jul 5, 2005

I think he's referring to A'Hearn (?) saying they had found "unidentified spectral features" during the initial spectral analysis during the press conference the other day. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

dmjspace · Jul 5, 2005

packet said: But, you offered the requirements for falsification yourself: Reminder: I am not the one making a snap judgment here. There were several here who saw the images and apparently couldn't contain their enthusiasm for trashing the EPH. So far, we don't know how big the crater is. The flash was big, to be sure, though it is unknown exactly what happened to make it so brilliant. (Remember, it surprised the guys with the other models, too.) The only estimate on the crater I've heard out of JPL--admittedly, I've got about six hours of NASA TV to catch up on still--is that it is "house sized." Guess what--unless you're talking about Bill Gates' house, "house sized" is about 10-30 meters, which is exactly what Van Flandern predicted. Even if it's twice that, the EPH still fares better than NASA's favored model, which suggested the crater will be three to 25 times larger. (By the way, why does NASA get a much larger margin of error?) According to you, the EPH theory "predicts" something entirely different than what was observed. The EPH predicted a 10-30m crater and a dust cloud that would brighten the comet's coma. The latter certainly happened. We don't know about the former. You offered the parameters to falsify EPH theory. Those parameters seem to have been met by Deep Impact. Seem to? Instead of using the word "seems" in every paragraph, as you've done, wouldn't it be prudent to wait for the data before concluding anything? I know that's not realistic for the resident pseudoskeptics, but I'd expect more from you. How about submitting what the spectrographic results should be according to EPH theory BEFORE any data is released from the Deep Impact mission? Let's see how that stacks up. I can only serve

najab · Jul 5, 2005

>The only estimate on the crater I've heard out of JPL--admittedly, I've got about six hours of NASA TV to catch up on still--is that it is "house sized."Actually, they said that it definitely wasn't house sized. They don't know how big it is, but it is bigger than house sized.

a_lost_packet_ · Jul 6, 2005

djmspace - Seem to? Instead of using the word "seems" in every paragraph, as you've done, wouldn't it be prudent to wait for the data before concluding anything? I know that's not realistic for the resident pseudoskeptics, but I'd expect more from you. The reason I used "seems to" is because I wanted to be completely accurate. The impact "seemed" to contradict EPH predictions. I am allowing a bit for error until we have definite answers from those who are directly examining the data. I'm not about to look at a few photographs of the result of Deep Impact minutes after it's collision and make a definitive statement saying that it is the final proof for the demise of your EPH theory. I did not make all encompassing statements regarding what happened. However, it appears that EPH proponents did make very specific remarks about what EPH theory would predict. So far, it seems that the results we have at hand contradict EPH predictions. As I stated earlier, we'll know alot more as the information is made available. So, what would EPH theory predict the ejecta to be primarily composed of? It's going to be awhile yet before that information is available so if EPH could predict the result of the impact, then it should be able to give us an idea of the ejecta. Let's see if that passes muster too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

yurkin · Jul 6, 2005

Dmjspace You have not presented us anything on a silver platter. You have reiterated material from a single website. In most cases just copying it word for word. The fact that you think this website represents silver platter material only speaks to your lack of understanding of the astronomy and of comets in particular. The link you posted about your Idols theories on KBO’s was complete nonsense. He says that there is no way that KBO’s could form that far from the sun. Well Neptune formed that far from the son and we’ve found exoplanets that formed even further away then that. There were other fallacies as well but it wouldn’t be worth my time to go into them all. Planets don’t just explode. Unless you could present some reasonable mechanism that would explain how a planet could explode then this idea is nonsense. It doesn’t matter how closely the data matches your theory. You could say that comets were formed when planets lay eggs. You could make up a spectrograph of and a predication of Deep Impact to support the claim. But no matter how accurate you are the theory is still nonsense.

yurkin · Jul 6, 2005

Even if a planet did explode there is no way it could possible launch comets into such a range of possible orbits. For instance there are the Meyer group comets discovered by SOHO. They pass to within 4.5 million km from the sun but some have orbital periods thousands of years long. It’s called a comet group because the comets all follow the same orbit. Indicating that they were once part of a single large comet that has been obliterated or is yet to be observed. Successive orbits have spread the comets out across the orbit. Sometimes they come in doublets or triplets indicating that they broke apart near aphelion. I would post a link to this but it comes from a recent Sky & Telescope article, “The Booming Science of Sungrazeing Comets”, that isn’t online. There’s also the Kreutz group that include the comets of 1882 and 1843. The Great Comet of 1843 passed to within 0.5 solar radii from the sun in its roughly 800 year period. In addition to these sun grazers there are comets that have truly come from the depths of space, some of them on hyperbolic orbits never to pass by our way again. There are the short period comets such as Wild and Tempel. They have orbits that are not different from asteroids and others like Haley’s that have very elliptical orbits. And I haven’t even mentioned the great mass of Kuiper belts objects, which themselves come in several varieties. And its not just orbits, there are big differences between the different comets. Some comets brighten before perihelion and some after. Indicating a different composition or at the least a different distribution. We’ve only observed 3 comet nuclei up close and all three have been very different. And with a wave of the hand all these different types of comets are explained by an exploding planet.

geos · Jul 6, 2005

"Apparently a little bit of cometary material goes a long, long way." That's a cheap excuse - it's a ALWAYS a suprise from NASA and it's NOBODYS FAULT because "we are all professionals". The Dirty Snowball theory is long DEAD - buy a clue and throw out the ridiculous model.

geos · Jul 6, 2005

"And with a wave of the hand all these different types of comets are explained by an exploding planet." What is wrong with that? Planets are NOT the SAME all the way through.

zenonmars · Jul 6, 2005

"I think he's referring to A'Hearn (?) saying they had found "unidentified spectral features" during the initial spectral analysis during the press conference the other day." Yes. Thanks, tel. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dmjspace · Jul 6, 2005

yurkin said: It doesn’t matter how closely the data matches your theory. You could say that comets were formed when planets lay eggs. You could make up a spectrograph of and a predication of Deep Impact to support the claim. But no matter how accurate you are the theory is still nonsense. Welcome to the group of people here at SDC I like to refer to as "pseudoskeptics." These non-scientists think as you do...that science is theory-driven, instead of observation driven. You'll fit right in. najaB said: Actually, they said that it definitely wasn't house sized. They don't know how big it is, but it is bigger than house sized. Who said this and when? If they don't know how big it is, how do they know how big it *must* be? The quote from JPL that I read on the Planetary Society site was that the crater was "house-sized...maybe bigger." In any case, why are they guessing when they can just look at the crater? And if the dust hasn't cleared yet, why not wait for it to clear before guessing? packet said: So, what would EPH theory predict the ejecta to be primarily composed of? I just posted TVF's specific predictions. Did you read them? The ejecta is rock, not ice. There will likely be salts. JPL expects lots of water and ice, not rock or salt. After all, the standard model says comets are snow with a little dirt thrown in, though recent discoveries have led astronomers to lean a little heavier on the "dirt" aspect. Comet Borrelly, for example, turned out to be a huge surprise for the standard model...it was the darkest object in the solar system, having a reflectivity of less than half that of our moon (which, despite its prominence in our sky, has the reflectivity of asphalt). TVF's prediction is probably too restrictive. NASA's crater size estimate allows for

najab · Jul 6, 2005

If memory serves correctly, it was the project scientist in response to a question from a lady from a Pasadena paper. She asked where on the scale the crater lies - house sized to stadium. The response was that they don't know how far up the scale it is, but from the amount of ejecta it definitely is larger than house sized.

yurkin · Jul 6, 2005

So how do planets explode? And how does an explosion throw so many comets into so many different orbits?

dmjspace · Jul 6, 2005

yurkin said: So how do planets explode? And how does an explosion throw so many comets into so many different orbits? See Planetary Explosion Mechanisms. For more on the hypothesis, see The EPH. In a way, you are certainly right about the source of comet and asteroid "debris": if one's going to claim the source is an exploded planet, one might argue "it magically appeared out of a giant chicken's butt"--simply because we haven't observed a planet exploding yet. In fact, the mainstream has its own version of the giant chicken butt...the Oort cloud. The Oort cloud was invented (yes, invented) to explain the varied comet orbits. It is an especially convenient invention, because it includes an endless supply of comets, and an endless number of ways in which these comets can be perturbed, ostensibly by passing stars, into our solar system. One might say the Oort cloud is the ultimate giant magic chicken butt: it answers everything, yet it cannot be detected, so its existence cannot be denied, and it can't be falsified because the variables are so flexible, no indirect observation can invalidate the possibilities it presents. The EPH is on more solid ground. There are specific mechanisms proposed for the explosion energy. We see planets all around us. Celestial bodies explode often (why not planets?). And if one planet can blow up, just like stars, it's likely that many planets blow up. But the most compelling evidence is that there is a debris field called the asteroid belt exactly where a planet should be in our solar system. One thing's for sure. If comets are actually asteroids, then the accepted models of solar system formation is in big trouble.

Deep Impact Predictions

dmjspace

Guest

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

yurkin

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

geos

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

telfrow

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

silylene old

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

najab

Guest

telfrow

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

najab

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

yurkin

Guest

yurkin

Guest

geos

Guest

geos

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

najab

Guest

yurkin

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page