Deep Impact Predictions

a_lost_packet_ · Jul 18, 2005

Max, I notice that you conveniently left out the nine seperate threads in which SDC posters confronted your RCH ideas. Maxtheknife - The proof is in the puddin', Steve..... Uh sorry, but the thread you started there makes absolutely no sense. You can refer to just about any of the nine other threads we all participated in if you need to know why. Maxtheknife - How about some statistical analysis? Guess what? There isn't one bit of statistical analysis in that thread. Nada. Zilcho. None. Unless, of course, you consider that comparing the number 33 to something else that equals 33 is considered "statistics." Just because it has numbers in it doesn't mean it's "statistical." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Jul 18, 2005

Any word on any latest mission findings? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

telfrow · Jul 18, 2005

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7688 Batten down the hatches…this should spawn a few hundred conspiracy theories. I can hear it now..."It's not out of focus...they just don't want us to know "the truth"..." <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> (Yevaud, maybe I can win a stuffed animal this time.) <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>

telfrow · Jul 18, 2005

Planning for the second mission... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1698377,00.html <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>

yevaud · Jul 18, 2005

A very large stuffed animal, Telfrow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

geos · Jul 18, 2005

Plait is a real Astronomer? Does that mean he agrees with the "party line" just because he fears losing his funding?

geos · Jul 18, 2005

How can the DATA on his site be "discredited"? Why don't you see that current, accepted theories are NONSENSE? It's political - go along to GET along.

geos · Jul 18, 2005

He's a Hero who doesn't look at DATA - just mouthes Plait-it-udes from textbooks. He was on Coast and he sounded like he really doesn't believe what he is saying. More EVIDENCE - s'il vous PLAIT !

geos · Jul 18, 2005

Keep saying something no one believes - like political pressures NEVER apply to "academicians".

geos · Jul 18, 2005

it's not so much the data... What the hell is it then?

telfrow · Jul 18, 2005

"Deep Impact work begins" http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~22097~2969194,00.html <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>

geos · Jul 18, 2005

You never met data that disproves the Planetary nebular theory. Why not stop space exploration? You guys are always saying "don't bother with the data - it's all well understood".

geos · Jul 18, 2005

What has Plait/Stevo/Telf/Pack predicted? What are you going to do about BEING WRONG - OVER AND OVER ?? quote: For some time now the electrical theorists have noted that the institutionalization of scientific inquiry, in combination with funding requirements, has encouraged a short attention span. The things that do not fit prior theory elicit a momentary expression of surprise, but as the events pass from view they are quickly forgotten. “What we cannot comprehend, we shall forget”. So it is that already the stupendous explosion produced by Deep Impact—the blast of light that shocked every member of the investigative team—is fading from the consciousness of the investigators. And just two weeks after Deep Impact, all discussion of the equally remarkable advanced flash has ceased. Perhaps none of the NASA scientists knew that the electrical theorists had predicted these events in advance. Copyright 2005: thunderbolts.info

yevaud · Jul 19, 2005

Uh oh...another "physics is all wrong, the Electric Universe is right" thread. Oh my aching head... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

zenonmars · Jul 19, 2005

Thanks for the links, tel. I am confused. "TimesOnLine" says, "THE Nasa probe that blasted a chunk out of a comet last month is to be rerouted this week in preparation for a bonus mission to examine a second orbiting comet."(July 18) "NewScientist" says: "NASA's Deep Impact may fail to live up to its billing as the first mission to look inside a comet. Computer processing designed to correct the spacecraft's defocused camera cannot fully correct the images taken just after impact. If the situation cannot be rectified, there will be no way of seeing the newly formed crater - one of the mission's major goals." ......................................uh.................huh? If the "defocused" camera has blown the mission, why are we re-routing it for a second mission? Speaking of conflicting statements, Richard Hoagland pointed out on his blog that " Donald Yeomans, Supervisor of the Solar System Dynamics Group at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in Pasadena, California, and a member of the Deep Impact Science Team, was quoted as definitely affirming that the cameras aboard the Fly-by spacecraft--"... have shown their abilities to provide impressive imaging"...OK, which is it: "Impressive imaging" ... or, "hopelessly defocused pictures?!" And, tel, is this the conspiracy theory you are hatch-battened to deflect? (also from Richard's Blog) "To NOT mention this 'little detail" in this article -- that somewhere on Earth there now exists an exquisite compositional record of exactly what this Comet is made of -- but to leave the reader with the deliberate impression that, because "the images are a bit blurry," Deep Impact cannot tell us what it went all that way to find out ... is grossly incompetent science reporting at best-- Or, part of a deliberate and increasingly despera <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

telfrow · Jul 19, 2005

Yevaud, I'll take the giant panda. <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 19, 2005

packet said: Any word on any latest mission findings? There is nothing coming out of NASA, so we are left to search for clues among independent observatories. None of those clues support the snowball hypothesis at this point. The only news that I've heard lately is that the camera may not be able to resolve the crater at all, which is more of a problem for the snowball model than the EPH. Why? Because all estimates of crater size will be conjecture, while the known, utter lack of increased water vapor--an absolute requirement of the snowball model--is a huge strike against the mainstream theory. Undoubtedly (and perhaps this is the way JPL prefers it, given that little else happened as expected in this mission), there will be plenty of people who'll accept future JPL guess-timates as gospel despite having no direct evidence. That's okay, because the proof will be in the spectra, which eventually will be revealed after the scientists involved are done fighting over who gets to write which journal article. In any case, if there's not abundant evidence for vast quantities of ice, the snowball model is doomed.

maxtheknife · Jul 19, 2005

Must be out of stuffed data weasels.

telfrow · Jul 19, 2005

Such a wit... <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>

telfrow · Jul 19, 2005

"NewScientist" continues... The problem lies in the High Resolution Instrument (HRI) on the flyby spacecraft. In March, mission managers discovered it was out of focus. The fuzzy images were blamed on moisture settling in the camera during the spacecraft's final few hours on the launch pad and during its flight through the Earth's atmosphere. Scientists tried to bake-out the moisture. But when that failed to fix the problem, they turned instead to image-processing techniques, which they felt could restore the images. Dust mask Unfortunately, the techniques only work on high-contrast images. And when the impactor struck Tempel 1 at more than 10 km per second, it raised more dust than anyone expected. This masked the surface features, rendering them too faint for computer processing to reliably correct. So, with processing, the high contrast images can be used. That's the reason the mission is continuing. "Hopelessly out of focus?" Doesn't say that, does it? http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7688 <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>

telfrow · Jul 19, 2005

More from the "NewScientist" article: But scientists are still in contact with the spacecraft and are re-calibrating HRI, says Deep Impact's principal investigator, Michael A'Hearn at the University of Maryland in College Park, US. Despite the probe now being far out of reach of the comet, NASA can use the new calibration data to reprocess the impact images. "We still hope to see the crater," A’Hearn told New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7688 <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>

telfrow · Jul 19, 2005

Also, the focus problem - and the solution - was no secret… The mission hit a snag when the craft's high-resolution camera proved to be out of focus, but engineers say they have figured out a way to correct the fuzzy pictures using data-processing tricks. "Was it perfect? No. Will it work? Yes," says Dave Taylor, president and chief executive of Ball Aerospace, a unit of Broomfield, Colo.-based Ball Corp., which built Deep Impact under contract from NASA. http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/06-05/06-26-05/b01pe130.htm June 26, 2005. The optical flaw that blurred the vision of NASA’s comet-smashing Deep Impact probe has been tentatively diagnosed as the result of overlooking a simple law of physics, sources familiar with the investigation have told MSNBC.com. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8247741/ June 16, 2005 <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>

colesakick · Jul 20, 2005

Hi Zen, (cmfawn here [a.k.a colesakick]) There are a couple of keystrokes in the way of that link working for you. Go to http://www.16pi2.com and then click on the chapter section. That model is by far the most simple. When combined with the Thunderbolts material a whole paradigm comes forward that makes your jaw drop in that "That has to be it!" sort of way. In my dreams people will be intellectually honest with what is real and not cheer leaders for what they prefer/hope is real. No one who does not explore challenges to their pet precepts is intellectually honest. The main stream needs to be challenged because they present models that defy the laws of physics (Big Bang) as carelessly as they offend the logical mind. We can do better, but we have to be willing to let go of our less enlightened past. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

maxtheknife · Jul 20, 2005

~~~~with dreamy eyes~~~~ Hi Colesakick <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" />

colesakick · Jul 20, 2005

Max, what a thrill to hear from you here. Did you look over the Thunderbolts archives I linked to above? Comets and Sun as anode and cathodes, charged bodies (think arc welding) not hot versus cold bodies. The hot Sun and dirty ice ball theory failed for a reason. A workable model is that the charge at the outer regions of solar system are different enough that a returning comet causes the sun's electrical current to blast it in an attempt to equalize (think lighting on earth) the local charge gradient. The action creates sparks (the tail). The hot spots (luminescence on the surface of the comet as recently seen from the latest mission) was do to the elerical differance between the comet and the probe that was to peirce it. Excitingly plausible stuff <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050715cometwater.htm http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050719deepinterim.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others </div>

Deep Impact Predictions

a_lost_packet_

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

yevaud

Guest

geos

Guest

geos

Guest

geos

Guest

geos

Guest

geos

Guest

telfrow

Guest

geos

Guest

geos

Guest

yevaud

Guest

zenonmars

Guest

telfrow

Guest

dmjspace

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

telfrow

Guest

colesakick

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

colesakick

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page