Deep Impact Predictions

[dmjspace]

bonzelite said: <font color="yellow"> the thing is, why, then is only the southern pole seemingly magnetically active, even if it is fossilized? </font><br /><br />Yes, that is the question. The key for any theory is its ability to predict future observation. I do not believe the "standard" model predicted a magnetic field clinging to Mars' southern hemisphere. Correct me if I'm wrong here.<br /><br />There is no doubt that the standard model is able to find a way to explain things after they're observed, but usually only by incorporating new variables and complicating the model.<br /><br />The EPH, on the other hand, predicts that one half of Mars (the southern one--the one which got plastered with debris) will be covered with randomly strewn debris, some of which must be magnetized. It also predicts that Mars' former magnetic field was literally blown away in one catastrophic incident. The EPH explains a lot of other observations relating to Mars' spin, its crustal dichomoty, its vastly divergent hemispheric cratering, etc.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> would it be because of subsurface ice and sand at northern latitudes is thicker and more prevalent, thus less likely to magnetize -- versus more widely abundant subsurface bedrock and surface highland rock at the south? </font><br /><br />I'm not sure. It would be interesting to see if adherents to the standard model thought of this before the observation occurred.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> this unavoidably makes me think of Enceladus and it's own active southern hemisphere and pole. why is that world, too, active on it's southern pole only? is this coincidence or a pattern of something? </font><br /><br />It is interesting. Enceladus is pretty embedded in Saturn's magnetic field, whereas Mars is all by its lonesome. The dynamics might not be comparable. Where have you seen that Enceladus has its own magnetic field concentrated in its southern half?

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">Where have you seen that Enceladus has its own magnetic field concentrated in its southern half?</font><br /><br />i think i mentioned that it was only just "active." however, it would not surprise me, as i believe SOME, not all, but some of the EM model. it would be possible, maybe, that because there is tidal activity between Saturn and Enceladus, there is as well a plasma exchange between the bodies, in a scaled down version of Io and Jupiter. <br /><br />why only the southern hemisphere is being fed is beyond my guess. as well, why only the southern hemisphere of mars is the predominant area of magnetic activity is mysterious. <br /><br />EPH is not really my area, but is it tied to the early bombardment era of our solar system? in this way, it seems highly plausible that our planets were bombarded and battered to death, in some cases by other planets, maybe. i can see some merit to that idea. <br /><br />it would seem rare today, though.

 

[chew_on_this]

As far as steve is concerned, he has no credibility here at space.com and his beliefs are based upon wikipedia and no creativity of his own whatsoever. He serves no purpose here but to flame members which don't hold his narrow views of science.

 

[nexium]

Last I heard, the mainstream hypothsis was Mars and the other planets assembled randomly from planetismals, which varied widely in composition. If planet wide melting of Mars did not occur, a high density planetismal would account for the smaller radius of the Southern portion and the local magnetic fields which seem absent for the the rest of Mars. That is assuming the observations are accurate and the anouncements truthful; both subject to reasonable doubt. Neil

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"> The EPH has been roundly dismissed by reputable planetologists,and discussions of it here, do not serve any purpose but increasing traffic here to meet the needs of the advertizers. </font><br /><br />LOL!! that is funny! i love it. <br /><br />what is more important above any theory, wrong or right, is $$$!! hahahahahahaha!

 

[exoscientist]

Has it been definitively stated there was no water in the secondary plume?<br /> Or no more detected than before the impact?<br /><br /><br /> - Bob <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dmjspace]

nexium said: <font color="yellow"> Last I heard, the mainstream hypothsis was Mars and the other planets assembled randomly from planetismals, which varied widely in composition. </font><br /><br />In other words, the "mainstream hypothesis" allows for infinite variables capable of producing nearly any result?<br /><br />What's the predictive value of this hypothesis compared to others?

 

[dmjspace]

exoscientist said: <font color="yellow"> Has it been definitively stated there was no water in the secondary plume? <br />Or no more detected than before the impact? </font><br /><br />Initial earth-based observations led scientists to conclude the water output actually <i> decreased </i> post-impact, a result wholly inconsistent with expectations.<br /><br />The expected ice geyser never materialized, though of course there was water vapor. Initial reports craftily claimed "no more than a 10-1 ratio of dust to water," as if putting it that way hid the obvious conclusion: comets are a whole lot more rock than ice.

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"the "mainstream hypothesis" allows for infinite variables capable of producing nearly any result? What's the predictive value of this hypothesis...?</font><br /><br />That hypothesis could be disproved if a continuum of "nearly any result" were not seen. If there were any broad ranges with no observed examples. I would have to say that with the few examples of asteroids and comets that have been observed, the continuum seems to be filling out nicely. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...comets are a whole lot more rock than ice."</font><br /><br />This conclusion ignores the fact that the plume produced by Deep Impact released material from the surface of the comet. All it proves is that the dessicated top layer was thicker than expected. <br /><br />As far as the deep interior goes, I suppose you could explain low overall density with loose rock rubble. High ice content would also nicely explain it.<br /><br />The Japanese mission recently examined an asteroid which does look to be a "rubble pile", with quite a bit of dust, at least on the surface. <br /><br />"The density [of Itokawa] has been estimated to be 2.3 +/-0.3 gram/cc, which is a little lower than that measured for rocks on the ground or for other S-type asteroids measured to date."<br /><br />Temple 1's density is "...estimated density just 60 percent that of solid ice, and less than one-quarter that of the lowest-density rocks on Earth.<br /><br />If I read this correctly, Temple 1 (a comet) is about one-fifth as dense as Itokawa (an apparent rubble pile asteroid). <br /><br />Do you disagree with the density data?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Philotas]

<font color="yellow">I'm not sure just how deep MARSIS can penetrate</font><br /><br />About 5 km. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikeemmert]

There are a lot of very porus asteroids. 87 Sylvia:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/87_Sylvia#Physical_characteristics<br /><br />Has moons (plural), which makes it possible to measure it's mass and therefore it's density, which is 1.2 - 1.6 g/cc. It may be as much as 60% open space. It's one of the largest asteroids, 384×264×232 km, and it's gravity has not compressed the space out of it.<br /><br />Another example is 22 Kalliope:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22_Kalliope<br /><br /> which is an M type asteroid of fairly pure nickel/iron, which has a density of about 7.8, but the asteroid as a whole has a density of only 2.37 g/cc. Kalliope also has a moon, allowing it's densitiy to be measured.<br /><br />I wonder if meteorites, streaking through the atmosphere, are compressed? There's aerodynamic forces on the leading face and inertia (deceleration) squeezing the object from behind. Maybe they get squeezed into a denser form?<br /><br />

 

[dmjspace]

centsworth_II said: <font color="yellow"> This conclusion ignores the fact that the plume produced by Deep Impact released material from the surface of the comet. All it proves is that the dessicated top layer was thicker than expected. </font><br /><br />Exactly. What was measured was the regolith, NOT the interior of the comet. The EPH explicitly predicts a thick regolith, a clear result of carbonacious ash "fallout" from the explosive fireball in which the comet was created.<br /><br />Mainstream models did NOT predict a significant regolith on any comet or asteroid before observations confirmed this to be the case.<br /><br />You speak as if the regolith issue is just a minor problem for the "dirty snowball" model. Some estimates place the depth of debris at tens of meters. That's a hell of a lot of dust not expected to be there.<br /><br />The regolith's existence only complicates the forced expectation that underneath lies a snowy structure. The probe may not have even penetrated the nucleus in any significant way. More likely, the nucleus is just rock, like the EPH predicts. The measured spectra probably represent the regolith, not the interior of the comet.<br /><br />As the European Space Agency reports, Tempel 1 "went back to sleep" after getting hit, the probe having failed to liberate any subsurface material.<br /><br />So to answer your question...yes, the conclusions made from the density data are highly dubious because we don't actually know what part of the comet was measured.<br /><br />In any case, the claimed density of Tempel 1 (which is loaded with tenuous assumptions) includes, within its allowable errors, the known density of many ordinary asteroids!<br /><br />The EPH simply says that comets and asteroids are mostly rock with icy conglomerates. There is nothing in the Deep Impact data, or any data from prior missions to comets or asteroids, which contradi

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"What was measured was the regolith..."</font><br />I don't know if it's by (devious) design, but your use of the word regolith might imply in some minds a mostly rocky surface. When in reality the comet surface is more likely to be fine dust and chunks of dessicated fluff. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dmjspace]

centsworth said: <font color="yellow"> I don't know if it's by (devious) design, but your use of the word regolith might imply in some minds a mostly rocky surface. When in reality the comet surface is more likely to be fine dust and chunks of dessicated fluff. </font><br /><br />Only paranoid minds would suggest that. The definition of regolith, according to Merriam-Webster, is<br /><br /><i> unconsolidated residual or transported material that overlies the solid rock on the earth, moon, or a planet </i><br /><br />The EPH proposes that most of a comet or asteroid's regolith will consist of carbonaceous ash from the fallout created during the explosive event which created said body.<br /><br />Nothing in the standard model (until it was modified by observation contrary to its original assumptions) expected significant regolith (however you define it).

 

[centsworth_II]

You make much of a theory's predictive value. You said, near the beginning of this thread, "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." I don't think the dust cloud that was created was transient. Wasn't its longevity a surprise to the "standard model" scentists? It should have been a much bigger surprise to you!<br /><br />As far as craters go. When I see images of asteroids, I see typical craters dug into a rocky surface. When I see images of comets, I see highly altered features: craters with steep,low walls and wide, flat floors, looking more like results of subsidence. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dmjspace]

centworth said: <font color="yellow"> You make much of a theory's predictive value. </font><br /><br />Is there *anything* in science more important than a theory's ability to predict?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> You said, near the beginning of this thread, "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." I don't think the dust cloud that was created was transient. </font><br /><br />We already had the what's-the-definition-of-transient discussion. Transient means "short-lived" and "leaving no lasting effects." It was essentially a dust cloud that reflected a lot of light for a few days. As far as anyone can tell, nothing else of any significance happened to Tempel 1. We don't even know IF there's a crater, let alone how big it is.<br /><br />(Yes, scientists are *suggesting* crater estimates based on the amount of dust seen, but the crucial factor is how much of this dust was surface powder--"regolith"--as opposed to excavated debris.)<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Wasn't its longevity a surprise to the "standard model" scentists? It should have been a much bigger surprise to you! </font><br /><br />It's only a surprise to the EPH IF this debris cloud was excavated, creating a huge crater. It's not a surprise at all if it's merely a dust cloud made of surface material only. <br /><br />Send a probe at several thousand MPH into a rock covered with ash and you're bound to have a big, spectacular, glittery "poof" which, in the end, is little more than a stirring up of loose debris.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> As far as craters go. When I see images of asteroids, I see typical craters dug into a rocky surface. When I see images of comets, I see highly altered features: craters with steep,low walls and wide, flat floors, looking more like results of subsidence. </font><br /><br />Which pictures are you looking at? Comet nuclei are vi

 

[rlb2]

Post deleted by rlb2 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

Why are you posting a Stardust image in a Deep Impact thread? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aorton27]

Could the very center of a comet be a small, near microscopic piece of a neutron star or similar material?<br /><br />The small little galactic magnet could attract all dust, dirt, ice,ect that comes anywhere near it. Because the gravity source(the neutrino) is so small it would only attract things that are only maybe a few kilometres away from the core of the comet.<br /><br />It could react the same way as a magnet on the bottom of a transmission tray as it collects the tiny metal flakes that float in the oil.

 

[centsworth_II]

This theory would be best addressed in the Phenomena Forum.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nexium]

That is a very broad definition of regolith. Is a one cubic mile bolder consolidated? If so, how about a one nanogram speck of quartz = silicon dioxide?<br />Do we need to decend until hair line cracks are rare before it is "solid rock on the earth, moon or a planet"?<br />Is the Brooklyn Bridge regloth? Dictionary boo hiss. Neil

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">Why are you posting a Stardust image in a Deep Impact thread? <font color="white"><br /><br />I looked for the Stardust thread? - couldn't find it? I didn't want to post this as a different post because I knew there were discussions already on this so I posted it at the first place I found. Why even try...<br /><br />I'm not here to offend anyone so I erased it for you. Next time I will let you edit my work and tell me where to post and where not to post.......</font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

I think you attribute a tone to my question that did not exist. I'm sorry if you took it as a rebuke. Anyway, below is a link to the Stardust thread in the Missions forum. But it looks like telfrow already posted the image, if I remember your image correctly. Peace, out.<br /> http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=417218&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=9 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rlb2]

Thanks everything is cool - if I would have found it I could have saved myself some time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>