Deep Impact Predictions

yurkin · Jul 6, 2005

Both those links were complete garbage, top to bottom. Again I ask you how do planets explode, and how do that explosion throw the comets into such different orbits. I suspect you don’t even understand your own theory.

zenonmars · Jul 6, 2005

yurkin, you naughty boy! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> You said, "Both those links were complete garbage, top to bottom. Again I ask you how do planets explode, and how do that explosion throw the comets into such different orbits. I suspect you don’t even understand your own theory." I suspect you havn't read those very fine links. That's what I suspect. Agree with VanFlanderan or not, the papers you question were annotated and explanatory. Not "garbage". We are not talking about the guy calling down the saucers in Nevada. We are talking about an employee of the US Naval Observatory. From his C2C radio "bio" : "During Tom Van Flandern’s career as a professional research astronomer, he has been honored by a prize from the Gravity Research Foundation and served on the Council of American Astronomical Society’s Division on Dynamical Astronomy. He has taught astronomy at the University of South Florida and to Navy Department employees. He has also been a consultant to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab and done several spots for the “Project Universe” series that continues to air occasionally on public TV. In addition, Tom organizes the Eclipse Edge Expeditions to optimal solar eclipse viewing sites." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dmjspace · Jul 6, 2005

yurkin said: Both those links were complete garbage, top to bottom. Well, why don't you take this opportunity to explain to everyone here exactly why you consider these links garbage? After all, that's what a discussion forum is all about, isn't it? I suspect you don’t even understand your own theory. You appear to be very confused. It's not my theory. It's Van Flandern's. If you'd like to share your expertise on why he's wrong, using specific data, please do so now.

bowlofpetunias · Jul 6, 2005

dmjspace You're probably correct that (at present) there's no way of detecting the Oort Cloud around the solar system, though there is some evidence of cold gaseous methanol in the outer disk of the L1551 star forming region, which is strongest at a similar distance to our (inferred) Oort Cloud. As Methanol is abundant on the surface of comets it's not unreasonable to speculate on the existence of an extrasolar Oort Cloud in the making at this location. PDF 210. for details. .If we're in the middle of a forest we can't see it's edge, that doesn't mean it doesn't have one.

geos · Jul 7, 2005

Thank you for writing what I was going to write about the nonsensical Oort Cloud. Just how would things form in such a extreme distance from our Sun? (hint - they didn't and couldn't never ever ever)

najab · Jul 7, 2005

>Agree with VanFlanderan or not, the papers you question were annotated and explanatory.It's a bad sign when a paper has 16 references and 9 of them are to the author's other papers.>Not "garbage".The first two 'methods' simply could not supply even a small fraction of the energy required to overcome the gravitational binding energy. The third is complete nonsense. This statement alone "But such propagating carrier entities [gravitons] also deposit energy, usually in the form of heat, in the target bodies that absorb them." should be enough to clue you in. According to this theory, a heavy weight, placed near a mountain should get warmer, merely be being exposed to more gravitons.

geos · Jul 7, 2005

How do planets explode? How do volcanoes erupt? How do earthquakes happen?

geos · Jul 7, 2005

How, then, will NASA respond? Will they wonder if anyone predicted such a thing? (sound of rubbing it in - thanks in advance)

dmjspace · Jul 8, 2005

najaB said: It's a bad sign when a paper has 16 references and 9 of them are to the author's other papers. And the other seven papers that are NOT TVF's? What about them? The first two 'methods' simply could not supply even a small fraction of the energy required to overcome the gravitational binding energy. Can you illustrate why you believe this is so? Or are you just saying it in hopes that no one will ask you to support your contention? The third is complete nonsense. Again, you might want to read more on the Le Sage model before deciding something it is complete nonsense. The Le Sage model as modified by Slabinski explains all the observations accepted gravitational models explain, and it poses no contradictions with other data. Do you refute this based on evidence, or do you merely reject it because to you the theory "sounds like nonsense?" According to this theory, a heavy weight, placed near a mountain should get warmer, merely be being exposed to more gravitons. I'm not sure where you got this idea. If anything, the weight would be exposed to *fewer* gravitons, since the mountain would absorb them. In any case, if a theory predicts successfully as competing theories, it deserves to be held in the same esteem, regardless of your personal feelings about it.

najab · Jul 8, 2005

>Can you illustrate why you believe this is so?The Gravitational Binding Energy of the Earth is about 2.24×1032 Joules. To give you an idea of how much energy that is, one meagaton is about 4.184 x 1015 Joules. There is no way that a phase change of the core, or natural nuclear reactor is going to have the power of a 500,000,000,000,000 megaton nuclear bomb.

zenonmars · Jul 8, 2005

Anyone? How fast was Comet Tempel 1 moving when we successfully hit it? I heard about 6 miles per second. Is this close to correct? And I ask because nobody, even TVF, ever seems to address this senario. When a star dies, goes nova, whatever you choose to call it, would it be unreasonable to conclude that occassionally such an event would hurl a smaller inner planet, at such absurd high speeds, through weightless space? And if such a large body directly hit a planet in OUR solar system, would the resultant kinetic energy not produce numbers similar to what NajaB has referenced? I have read descriptions of the surface devestation that would occure here on earth if we were impacted by an asteroid the size of Rhode Island. Now imagine what would happen to our planet if something the size of our moon hit us dead on! Or imagine if the impactor was even larger than this Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

najab · Jul 8, 2005

Well, Earth revolves around the Sun at about 29km/s, so 9km/s is small potatoes.

exoscientist · Jul 8, 2005

dmjspace said: "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." A "back of the envelope" (BOTE) calculation suggests even the 100 meter telescopes planned won't be able to resolve comets at 1 LY, the theorized distance of the Ooort cloud. But current telescopes don't resolve stars either but can detect them as point light sources. Assuming Oort cloud comets had the reflectivity of known comets, could a 100 meter telescope detect Oort cloud comets as point light sources? Bob Clark <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dmjspace · Jul 8, 2005

najaB said: There is no way that a phase change of the core, or natural nuclear reactor is going to have the power of a 500,000,000,000,000 megaton nuclear bomb. Well, some scientists, like Van Flandern, disagree. Their calculations suggest that an Earth or Venus sized planet can indeed overcome this binding energy. Perhaps you'd like to critique their actual calculations rather than just stating it's impossible? As Van Flandern says: If novas and supernovas did not occur before the watchful eyes of astronomers, explosions of such large-mass bodies would almost certainly be declared theoretically impossible, which represents the opinion often expressed currently about planet explosions. Would you have been one of the ones arguing that stars can't explode before we knew they could? My guess is yes. In the end, though, it doesn't matter how unbelievable a theory is, since the only objective measure of a theory is how well it explains all observations and, most importantly, predicts. Preliminary data are in regarding Deep Impact, and it is not inconsistent with the EPH, which says that Tempel and all comets are not snowballs. As Van Flandern points out, even chondritic meteorites are 20% interstitial water by volume. Meteorites are clearly considered to be rock. Comets are likely the same thing: rock with pockets of ice. Even the EPH recognizes that the spectra from Deep Impact will show the presence of water, but it expects relatively little water, whereas the standard model expects literal frozen oceans of the stuff. What's likely is that this mission will confirm what we've learned from studying other comets at closer range--that they are not balls of ice, but rather rocky bodies with *some* ice.

zenonmars · Jul 8, 2005

Steve: "It will be interesting to see how long this spewing out from the crater goes on. It's possible Tempel 1 could lose quite a bit of mass...if this continues for any time beyond a week or more." dmjspace: "What's likely is that this mission will confirm what we've learned from studying other comets at closer range--that they are not balls of ice, but rather rocky bodies with *some* ice." What's going on with the spectra data and the much awaited analysis??? After all, it's been like, what, 5 or 6 days? You don't think they're struggling with the data, do you? Perhaps, trying to interpret it in ways that just cannot be accomplished? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

telfrow · Jul 8, 2005

What's going on with the spectra data and the much awaited analysis??? After all, it's been like, what, 5 or 6 days? The encounter took place on the 4th...it was clearly stated that the spectral data was a "bandwidth hog" and would take a full four days or more to download. Today is the 8th... BTW: Funny you bring that up the day after RCH posted the same thing on his blog. <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 9, 2005

More evidence that the mainstream is moving closer to EPH theory: From Space.com's article Deep Impact Poised to Crack Comet Mysteries : Ideas about what comets are made of have changed too, even in the past decade. In the 1950s, comets were portrayed as dirty snowballs. Now scientists suspect they're heavier on the dirt and lighter on the water ice. This makes it sound like the theory had gradually changed over decades, but scientists have really only recently (and grudgingly) changed their view of comets from "dirty snowballs" to "snowy dirtballs." The EPH, of course, has said since its inception over ten years ago that comets are snowy dirtballs (actually, snowy asteroids). As Kuhn points out in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," this is how mainstream theories, when challenged by "radical" competitors that fit the data better, slowly morph into the competing theory until there's no difference between the two.

geos · Jul 9, 2005

Finally, why were there no images returned from the impactor seconds before impact? The lower right image is the last from the impactor camera. Thornhill predicted an electrical flash before impact. Yesterday’s TPOD reported the surprise expressed by NASA’s expert on high-velocity impacts, Peter Schultz, when two flashes were seen. The lack of images in the last few seconds would be explained simply if the impactor was hit by a “cometary lightning bolt” seconds before contact. The “whiteout” seen in the lower right quadrant indicates significant electrical discharging near the impact point. Data from the communications team and the flyby spacecraft cameras should decide the issue.

a_lost_packet_ · Jul 9, 2005

djmspace -Preliminary data are in regarding Deep Impact, and it is not inconsistent with the EPH, which says that Tempel and all comets are not snowballs. Uh, djmspace, if you look closely at the article which was actually referrenced by your EPH-friendly webpage, you would have read the following: Universe Today ..."Some called it fireworks today, but it really was more like 'iceworks,'" said Prof. Keith Mason, Director of Mullard Space Science Laboratory at University College London, who organized the Swift observations. "Much of the comet is ice. It's the other stuff deep inside we're most interested in -- pristine material from the formation of the solar system locked safely below the comet's frozen surface. We don't know exactly what we kicked up yet..." (Emphasis Added) It appears that "Metaresearch" doesn't do much research when referrencing articles it uses as "proofs." Hilariously enough, the links were credited as being provided by none other than Richard Hoagland himself. ROFLMAO. Even he, it seems, doesn't want to read the whole article, just the itsy-bitsy pieces that can be twisted. djsmpace - Even the EPH recognizes that the spectra from Deep Impact will show the presence of water, but it expects relatively little water, whereas the standard model expects literal frozen oceans of the stuff. ...Much of the comet is ice.. Hmmm, the article that your "Metaresearch" site referrenced keeps saying this but for some reason, who ever referrenced it wasn't "listening." Oh, here's another gem from the article your website referrenced.: ...Comets are small astronomical objects usually in highly elliptical orbits around the sun. They are made primarily of frozen water, methane and c <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

telfrow · Jul 9, 2005

Finally, why were there no images... Again, a cut and paste, unattributed, from here: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/00current.htm <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>

maxtheknife · Jul 9, 2005

Wow,,,, You're reading RCH's Blog?! You troll, you <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

telfrow · Jul 9, 2005

I read everything, Max. Keeps me up to speed.... <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 9, 2005

lost_packet said: Uh, djmspace, if you look closely at the article which was actually referrenced by your EPH-friendly webpage, you would have read the following: Universe Today ..."Some called it fireworks today, but it really was more like 'iceworks,'" said Prof. Keith Mason, Director of Mullard Space Science Laboratory at University College London, who organized the Swift observations. "Much of the comet is ice. It's the other stuff deep inside we're most interested in -- pristine material from the formation of the solar system locked safely below the comet's frozen surface. We don't know exactly what we kicked up yet..." (Emphasis Added) Yes. That's the standard belief about comets. Nothing new there. And this scientist is stating his belief. It is not based on actual Deep Impact data, otherwise he would have referred to the data. Once again, this is testimony to the fact that if you repeat something enough times, even if it's untrue, people will eventually come to take is as fact, as you've done. So, the question is here: How much credibility would you put in a website that used an article as a referrence but, apparently, really didn't care what the article had to say? The only thing I'm putting my credibility in is data. Not the opinions of scientists rehashing the party line. TVF referenced the new data from Deep Impact. You're cherry picking the things you want to hear: the rehashing of long held beliefs. Now on to the actual analysis coming in. Fresh from Netscape news: LOS ANGELES (AP) - The plume of debris that spilled from a comet after it collided with a space probe is as fine as talcum powder, suggesting the comet formed gradually, scientists said Friday. "Formed gradually." Big strike against the standard model. This is supposed to be *pristine* material. No processing. No differ

a_lost_packet_ · Jul 9, 2005

dmjspace, Interesting stuff! I saw some mention of the lack of water-ice signatures in your yahoo article Yahoo News but I couldn't find anything from JPL about that particularly important portion JPL Why did Yahoo (and other sites I looked at) mention the mysterious lack of a predominantly large water-ice signature while I see no mention of this on Nasa/JPL? Very interesting stuff. I wouldn't say it validates EPH just yet. There's alot more work to do. However, I will say that this is certainly turning out to be an interesting mission. dmjspace - If it shows evidence for more rock than ice, or if it shows salts, or if the crater is smaller than expected, the EPH model must clearly be favored. What if the crater is larger than expected? Would that invalidate the EPH model? Why not? After all, it appears (only from this very early interpretation) that we're looking at an extremely loosely bound collection of material. Didn't EPH predict it would be a snowy-rock comet with more of a solid construction and a small impact crater? I wouldn't say that EPH has to be favored just yet. However, I will concede that the interpretations thus far are unexpected. Keep the info coming. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

dmjspace · Jul 9, 2005

packet said: Interesting stuff! I saw some mention of the lack of water-ice signatures in your yahoo article Yahoo News but I couldn't find anything from JPL about that particularly important portion JPL Yes, unfortunately, after all the hype up to July 4 there is almost nothing coming out of JPL or NASA. Hopefully we'll see some actual scientific data from which we can make some rational judgments. I wouldn't say it validates EPH just yet. There's alot more work to do. I wouldn't say it validates the EPH yet, either. However, I would say it so far has followed the precendent set by our other comet observations. Hale-Bopp and LINEAR confirmed that satellites of comet nuclei are likely to be common, rather than extremely rare (as the snowball theory requires). Borrelly turned out to be the darkest object in the solar system, a fact quite unexpected in the snowball model, but expected in the satellite model implied by the EPH. Close-up views of comet Tempel prove that comets can (and may always) look almost exactly like asteroids. If they look like asteroids and have similar (or darker) albedos, and they don't gush water...then what's the difference between them and asteroids? Not much, apparently. However, I will say that this is certainly turning out to be an interesting mission. To you and I it is interesting. To those who've built careers on the solar nebula model, it might be downright shocking. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> What if the crater is larger than expected? Would that invalidate the EPH model? Why not? I guess it depends. If the crater is 35 meters and Van Flandern predicted 10-30 meters, then certain people will surely use the technicality to claim the EPH can be safely disregarded. Of course, that will

Deep Impact Predictions

yurkin

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

bowlofpetunias

Guest

geos

Guest

najab

Guest

geos

Guest

geos

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

najab

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

najab

Guest

exoscientist

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

telfrow

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

geos

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

telfrow

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page