Deep Impact Predictions

dmjspace · Jul 12, 2005

From Space.com's headline story today, Deep Insight: Comet Buster Reveals Dusty Secrets : The preliminary images and data indicate the comet has a cratered surface that is too soft to be made of ice, once thought to be the main component of comets. Despite the rather light brush-off of presently held beliefs ("once thought to be"?), the writing on the wall is clear. There was nowhere near the expected amount of water and icy debris seen with Deep Impact. These are facts that scientists will have to deal with. There's no doubt the snowball model will be patched to accommodate new, unexpected findings. Probably, astronomers will argue that the comet's "hard covering" (which wasn't expected in the original model, though it was always predicted by the EPH) just extends further down than they thought. Pretty soon they'll be claiming the rock extends 99% of the way through the comet, reminding us that a comet is still ice with a rocky crust, merely to avoid having to admit that a comet is just an asteroid with pockets of volatiles. This way, scientists can maintain the illusion of progress...the snowball model will simply transform itself into the EPH model, then claim all the EPH predictions as its own. Oh well, as long as we get the facts right. The article continues: The impactor-induced crater was not visible directly due to the thick cloud of dust, but researchers estimate it to be at least 330 feet (100 meters) wide. Well isn't that con-veeeeeee-nient. So far they've been wrong about the effect of gravity on the debris field, they've been wrong about the regolith depth, they've been wrong about the spectra, and they can't see the crater because there's so much dust in the way still (as predicted by the EPH's strength-dominated model). And, yet, they confidently can predict t

dmjspace · Jul 12, 2005

crazy said: That would be the only possible correct portion of the Exploding Planet Hypothesis, since, as it has already been pointed out, there is no known way that a planet can explode.....a fact that you (predictably) are ignoring. And you, predictably, are ignoring the successful track record of the EPH in predicting subsequent observations, while the snowball model has failed miserably.

robnissen · Jul 12, 2005

I have found this thread to be more interesting than I believed it would be, mainly due to the dearth of water vapor coming from the impact. But putting aside the extreme impropability of an Exploding Planet (if not the impossibility), the data does not seem to support the EPH. In particular, in your first post you stated: "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 seems to me that predition was way off the mark. Putting aside the crater size for now, beyond the immediate surface, the impactor seems to have struck rock the consistency of talcum powder. I don't know anyone who would refer to talcum powder as "solid rock." As far as a "transient dust cloud," as material continues to flow from the crater 10 days later, that does not seem to be "transient." I think the EPH is dead (if it was ever alive), but that does beg the question: WHERE IS THE WATER VAPOR?

mrmorris · Jul 12, 2005

"WHERE IS THE WATER VAPOR? " This is an old comet in an orbit that has it constantly losing water. The powder might well be precipitates that separated out when the water boiled off. Since they were dissolved in water, they'll be tiny (i.e. like talcum powder), since there's very little gravity to the comet, they'll be packed very lightly. Sounds like what got flung off the comet. Just a guess, mind you, but it seems sound enough.

geos · Jul 12, 2005

Who predicted a HUGE flare up from Deep Impact? (Thornhill - linked by ME) Who predicts NOTHING and then brags how "scientific" he is??

a_lost_packet_ · Jul 12, 2005

Geos - Who predicted a HUGE flare up from Deep Impact? (Thornhill - linked by ME) Who predicts NOTHING and then brags how "scientific" he is?? I don't know Geos. Who predicted nothing and then bragged how scientific he was? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

dmjspace · Jul 12, 2005

stevehw33 said: Prediction is a part of it, but it's not the most important part. Perhaps you don't know nearly as much about science as you think you do. Prediction is, in fact, the most important part of the scientific process. A theory that doesn't predict is worthless. Why? Because anyone can construct a "perfect" accounting of observed variables after the fact. A statistician can mathematically "prove" anything if he's allowed unlimited variables to explain every data point. But an equation is no good if it can't tell you what data point is coming next. The snowball model is unable to tell us what's coming next, which is precisely why scientists are already using those dreaded words to describe the incoming data: "puzzling," "unexpected," "shocking," etc. The density figures of Tempel 1 are known. I would've figured one of your numerous science professors might have mentioned that just because a number shows up on a page in a shiny textbook, in a neat little column, it doesn't mean it's accurate. And they probably should've mentioned what that pesky little asterisk means: read the small print. The small print in this case reads: "CAREFUL! THIS IS AN ESTIMATE BASED ON THEORY, NOT ON ACTUAL MEASUREMENT." Or, as this JPL-linked NASA site (one of many saying the same thing) reports: Deep Impact went to Tempel for precisely the reason I keep stating--to measure the comet's density, porosity and other characteristics. In other words, to see if the estimates that you keep quoting as facts are, in fact, accurate. I notice you didn't comment on the fact that 2000 asteroids are known but only a handful have any mass or density data attached to them (and much of that is tentative). Would you care to answer why that is? <</safety_wrapper>

dmjspace · Jul 12, 2005

RobNissen said: the data does not seem to support the EPH....It seems to me that predition was way off the mark. Putting aside the crater size for now, beyond the immediate surface, the impactor seems to have struck rock the consistency of talcum powder. I don't know anyone who would refer to talcum powder as "solid rock." The EPH expects a signficiant regolith (dust layer) on both comets and asteroids. This layer is a logical consequence of the hypothesized planetary breakup, which would leave orbiting debris fields around both the objects. Combustion in the explosive fireball would leave extremely dark (think burnt toast) carbon ash on the surfaces. These predictions, which were made almost 15 years ago, were first confirmed with observations of Gaspra, and subsequently with observations of comet Borrelly (the darkest object in the solar system), asteroid Eros and now Tempel 1. The impactor certainly hit ash, but it plowed through it and hit rock, not snow, as expected in the snowball model. As far as a "transient dust cloud," as material continues to flow from the crater 10 days later, that does not seem to be "transient." *I* used the word transient, not Van Flandern. He merely said that the impact would leave no lasting effect on the comet. Checking Merriam-Webster, transient means "short in duration" or "affecting something or producing results beyond itself," which of course is consistent with Van Flandern's prediction. But I don't see why you're so concerned about the semantics of the EPH, when it's much more obvious that the model favored by NASA was completely wrong. JPL expected a gravity-dominated model, which means the ejecta should have quickly (within a day) dropped back to Tempel's surface. Obviously, that didn't happen. As you mentioned, the debris cloud continued to expand. See this

serak_the_preparer · Jul 12, 2005

They will be filling their gas tanks from the comet when they spot our probe. They will then manuever to make contact... As mentioned in a previous post to this thread, researchers at the SETI Institute continue to puzzle over recent and compelling data: Berkeley, CALIFORNIA - First there was SHGb02+14a, the 1420 megahertz signal announced less than a year ago. Still a subject of debate, the mysterious signal was detected on three separate occasions. The large radio telescope at Arecibo, Peurto Rico, discovered the signal between the constellations Pisces and Aries, hundreds of light-years from the nearest star. "Right away, of course, everyone was saying the obvious, while no one wanted to be quoted," says John Thomas, a researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, who became involved in the SETI@home project early in 2003. "You know, that it was a starship or possibly a beacon. Fortunately, wisdom prevailed and we kept our heads. We now believe it may have been caused by someone hacking into the SETI@home software. In any case, the signal has not been reobserved since the third detection." ETs, or hackers? No one's sure, and so once again a mirage of contact with others in the cosmos vanishes under close scrutiny. That was then. This is now. Now is not even a year later, as the Deep Impact space exploration mission prepares to greet comet Tempel 1 with a copper bullet. And snaps some astonishing pictures before impact. "We couldn't believe our eyes!" remarks Will E. Johnson, a scientist on the Deep Impact team at JPL. "The pictures sent back were startling. Something very strange was going on down there on the comet just before impact."

zenonmars · Jul 12, 2005

I love all you guys and gals here on these SDC boards. Even steve <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> But most of all, I have come to idolize you dmjspace, because of your equilibrium and clarity of thought in the midst of the beehive. This is perhaps the most important set of ideas discussed on these boards to date, as they revolve around a real-time, NASA-acknowledged test of hypotheses that are diametrically opposed: the confirmation of "safe" and long-held ideas about our "local" origins, and the cutting edge, challenging, paradigm-shattering and perhaps even very "scarey" ideas that originated "outside the box" of the scientific community et al, and (here is the beauty!) ONLY ONE POINT OF VIEW CAN BE CORRECT!!! Only one part of this experiment can leave this SDC community in limbo: the timely release, accurate and truthful release, and the release of honest and forthright interpretation of the spectra data. Presuming that this final end is accomplished, there can be no "tie", and only one true "checkmate". It will be interesting to see how this unfolds: it will speak volumes to our times and our society. Once agin, dmjspace: BRILLIANT WORK. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

robnissen · Jul 13, 2005

"The impactor certainly hit ash, but it plowed through it and hit rock, not snow, as expected in the snowball model. " On what possible basis, other than faith, can you say the impactor hit rock? Blind faith, is not science. All we know is that it hit dust the consistency of talcum powder. You predicted SOLID ROCK -- the impactor hit TALCUM POWDER. Strike 1 for your prediction. You predicted a "Transient dust cloud." Now you say by tranient you actually meant "that the impact would leave no lasting effect on the comet." But 1) that is very different than predicting a "transient dust cloud," and 2) that is no prediction, as NASA was constantly saying before hand, the impactor would have less of a lasting effect on the comet than a gnat would have on the windshield of an 18-wheeler semi. So your original prediction of transient dust cloud was WRONG. Using your logic, I can "prove" that the sun revolves around the earth, by correctly predicting tha the sun will rise in the east in the morning. Predicting that the impactor would have no permanent effect on the comet, is equivalent to predicting that the sun rises in the east. Strike 2. You predicged a crater less than 30 meters, the jury is out on that one, but it seems likely given how much ejecta there has been, the crater will be MUCH larger than 30 meters. So you have one prediction, that was absolutely false, one prediction that was the equivalent of predicting the sun rises in the east,, and your third and final prediction seems to be extremely unlikely. But, I guess if you want to keep crowing that one of your predictioins was true, a tiny impactor has no effect on a huge comet, knock yourself out. But don't be surprised that people don't take you seriously. I still do wonder though, WHERE IS THE WATER VAPOR?

geos · Jul 13, 2005

I stuck my neck out and posted THE CORRECT GUESS (not SLIGHTLY brighter - HUGELY brighter) I was correct REGARDLESS of whether "someone else" informed my decision. You did nothing.

geos · Jul 13, 2005

It hit dust like talcum powder that HAD CRATERS

geos · Jul 13, 2005

Deep Impact Predictions: Has anyone bothered to notice that those LOSERS who don't have anything to say are very vocal about NOT CARING that SOMEONE has WON THE DEBATE here. Hooray for the Electric Universe and Thunderbolts.info !!

telfrow · Jul 13, 2005

Gee...shouting (caps) and barely understandable posts...is this Phenomena? <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>

a_lost_packet_ · Jul 13, 2005

Geos - I stuck my neck out and posted THE CORRECT GUESS (not SLIGHTLY brighter - HUGELY brighter) I was correct REGARDLESS of whether "someone else" informed my decision. You did nothing. ?? What the heck are you babbling about? You posted "the correct guess?" What guess? Look carefully and deeply into my eyes and see the boundless "care" I have there in regards to your guess. However, what the heck does that have to do with me? I didn't post any guesses regarding the impact. In fact, I didn't even post in this thread until after the impact. I see nothing so far that is final evidence confirming anyone's guess as to both the final result of the impact/ejecta data and a final solution regarding the asteroids composition using all the data gained from the Deep Impact mission. Get a grip. Try reality. That's the stuff that is going on around you everyday that doesn't come from your overactive Napoleonic imagination. Sheesh. Who are you that you think yapping at me proclaiming some imagined competition is so important? What the heck are you babbling about? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

geos · Jul 14, 2005

Deep Impact Predictions? Maybe "nothing you say can EVER matter." When someone is right you should recognize it. I gambled - I won. Science will move forward without all of you.

dmjspace · Jul 14, 2005

RobNissen said: On what possible basis, other than faith, can you say the impactor hit rock? Blind faith, is not science. All we know is that it hit dust the consistency of talcum powder. I can only conclude you're not paying any attention to the links I keep giving to substantiate my position, such that you can claim my position is baseless. The conclusion that the impactor hit a hard surface is not mine. It's from the Swift team at Penn State, who determined that after observing a sharp ultraviolet spike in their UVOT detector. Again, the link to the Swift team's site is here. You predicted SOLID ROCK -- the impactor hit TALCUM POWDER. Strike 1 for your prediction. The EPH has predicted thick regoliths (powdered rock) on both asteroids and comets since its inception. It's a logical consequence of the fireball which generated asteroids and comets, which are pieces of larger bodies. In other words, Tempel is ROCK covered by POWDERED ROCK. Is that enough rock for you? One thing's for sure...the data don't show gushers of water. It's about time you shifted your focus to the theory that has much bigger problems...the one requiring vast amounts of water vapor. You predicted a "Transient dust cloud." Now you say by tranient you actually meant "that the impact would leave no lasting effect on the comet." Yes, that's the meaning of "transient." Try www.m-w.com for a dictionary. But 1) that is very different than predicting a "transient dust cloud," and 2) that is no prediction, as NASA was constantly saying before hand, the impactor would have less of a lasting effect on the comet than a gnat would have on the windshield of an 18-

dmjspace · Jul 14, 2005

Thanks, Zen. Let's not go overboard, however. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Science will show, eventually, which theory is correct. But the main contention between the EPH and the snowball model obviously revolves around water. The water vapor, as measured by independent observatories, actually decreased after the impact with Tempel! This is a tremendous slap in the face to scientists expecting a virtual gusher of ice to erupt from the supposed "pristine innards" of the comet. Even RobNissen, who's clearly got a lot of animosity towards the EPH, has the sense to keep his focus on the glaring issue of the missing snowball. Anyone who fancies him- or herself a scientist or even a reasonably well informed layperson should be asking the same question: where's the water?

nexium · Jul 14, 2005

Thank you Rob for translating EPH = exploding planet hypothesis. Several other abreviations remain a mistery. I agree EPH is likely bad science, but mechanisms which might cause a planet to explode are known, but none have not been observed, or seem probable in the light of mainstream science. Preliminary data from deep impact indicates less than 1% water close to the surface of Temple 1. In my opinion that does not mean low water content far below the surface. The water was likely lost from near the surface during the 22 plus close (137 million miles) approaches to the sun. Neil

nexium · Jul 14, 2005

If average comet density of 700 kilograms per cubic meter persists under continued analysis, this tells us that the comet has many voids containing near vacuum. These can be sub-microscopic voids and/or voids measured in cubic meters. The density would have to be several times higher to be evidence of low water content. Neil

silylene old · Jul 14, 2005

If average comet density of 700 kilograms per cubic meter persists under continued analysis, this tells us that the comet has many voids containing near vacuum. These can be sub-microscopic voids and/or voids measured in cubic meters. Likely, yes. The density would have to be several times higher to be evidence of low water content. One could imagine a scenario in which density could be relatively high, and yet still have a significant water content. Aggregates of a dense mineral in which the voids filled by water or ice would have high-ish density. Maybe this all revolves around what you mean exactly by a "low water content". The density .... evidence of low water content Best evidence of low or high water is spectroscopic analysis of the plume, the cometary surface, and the cometary tail to determine how the water / dust ratio varies. <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>

centsworth_II · Jul 14, 2005

What does the composition of the Deep Impact plume versus that of the natural comet outbursts tell us? If the natural outbursts are largely water, then there definitly IS water coming from somewhere in the comet. If the Deep Impact plume is largely dust, then the surface (where the impactor hit) is lacking in water. This adds to our knowlege of comets, but I don't think that it tells us near enough for one side or the other to declare victory. Looking at the features and behavior of comets and asteroids, I don't see how anyone could say they are the same. I find it easy to believe that the surface of an otherwise largely water ice comet is dehydated to a depth deeper than that which the impactor reached. The surface features of the comet seem to indicate a lot more going on than impact erosion of a rocky body. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

silylene old · Jul 14, 2005

Centsworth, I think we said the same thing.... I said: Best evidence of low or high water is spectroscopic analysis of the plume, the cometary surface, and the cometary tail to determine how the water / dust ratio varies. The plume is the Deep Impact event, and the tail is the nautral event. I never said comets and asteroids are the same (I don't think that they are, in fact). Pls read what I said. I simply said it is possible the imagine a high-ish density body which had significant water, just as it is possible to imagine a low density body which doesn't have significant water. We need more data. I don't think density arguments necessarily exclude water compositional possibilities in either argument. <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>

centsworth_II · Jul 14, 2005

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree with what you say. I was just posting my thoughts, not meaning to imply that I disagreed with you. I do disagree with others who say there is no apparent difference between asteroids and comets and that a dry surface layer implies a dry interior. My intuative feel that comets contain large amounts of water ice is not changed by deep impact. Observations still show water vapor jets and features that resemble surface collapse following loss of subsurface water. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Deep Impact Predictions

dmjspace

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

robnissen

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

geos

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

robnissen

Guest

geos

Guest

geos

Guest

geos

Guest

telfrow

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

geos

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

nexium

Guest

nexium

Guest

silylene old

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

silylene old

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page