Deep Impact Predictions

Page 9 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chew_on_this

Guest
Steve only relies on guesses when it suits his needs. For everone else, it's pure speculation.
 
C

chew_on_this

Guest
Like I said, stick your neck out far enough and you're liable to get your head cut off!
 
T

telfrow

Guest
<font color="yellow">Astronomers using the Palomar Observatory's 200-inch Hale Telescope have been amazed by comet Tempel 1's behavior during and after its collision with the Deep Impact space probe. <br /><br />In the minutes just after the impact the comet was seen to increase its near-infrared brightness nearly fivefold. As the event progressed astronomers at Palomar were able to distinguish jets of material venting from the comet's nucleus that have persisted for days.<br /><br />Early results from the data, in images taken just minutes after impact, showed a possible plume of dust and gas extending outward some 320 km (200 miles) from the comet's center, roughly coinciding with the site of the probe's final demise.</font><br /><br />Full story and photos here: <br /><br />http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1656&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
 
D

dmjspace

Guest
RobNissen said: <font color="yellow"> While I generally agree with most of your posts in this thread, I think you overstated the evidence in your last post. The link you posted actually states: <br /><br />"Density: PROBABLY between 100 and 900 kilograms per cubic meter (between 1/10 and 9/10 the density of water on Earth)." (Capitalization added). <br /><br />The fact that the range is almost a full order of magnitude, and that has PROBABLY added in front of it, sound to me like the listed density for Tempel is not much more than a guess. </font><br /><br />Precisely my point.<br /><br />Comet densities are unknown. Anybody who has a rudimentary understanding of statistical methods knows that the errors attached to these estimates render the density figures virtually useless for comparison to typical asteroid densities, which hover around 2 gm/cc.<br /><br />As RobNissen points out, the range given on stevehw33's referenced "fact" page is embarrassingly large. <br /><br />stevehw33's continued insistence that "comet density data is clear" would likely be shown to be even more baseless if his reference page gave a source for Tempel's density calculation, which it doesn't. But I'm sure stevehw33 doesn't want to go there.<br /><br />By the way, RobNissen, I see very little in the way of fact in stevehw33's posts--though there is plenty of armchair psychology-laden character assassination--what exactly do you agree with in his assessments of the Deep Impact data so far?<br /><br />Edit: I just went back and looked at the mass data on stevehw33's reference page. Here's what it says:<br /><br /><i> Mass: between 0.1 and 2.5 x 1014 kilograms (between 10 and 250 billion tons). </i><br /><br />Somewhere between 10 and 250 billion tons. Well, that's a hell of a range. Steve calls it a "fact"...he suggests it means Tempel's mass is "relatively well known." <br /><br />Who do you think you're kidding? In an era where science routinely insists upon 95%-99% accuracy in a figure before tent
 
D

dmjspace

Guest
Those following the Deep Impact mission are aware that no specific data have yet come out of JPL.<br /><br />There is some speculation about why this is the case. But it is clear that the data must not clearly support the "dirty snowball" theory. Otherwise, NASA would be dropping hints assuring us how the science results, while preliminary, gibe with current theory.<br /><br />The fact that we hear nothing does not bode well for the snowball model.<br /><br />I suspect that JPL has a mess of data it doesn't know what to do with because it includes results that are totally inconsistent with Tempel 1 being mostly a ball of ice.<br /><br />What might they be finding that would be so shocking? Here are some suggestions:<br /><br />1) Little or no increase in ice post-impact<br />2) Evidence of differentiation (e.g. layering or diversity of elements, both of which are completely unexpected if a comet is made of pristine, "primordial" stuff)<br />3) Spectral data indicating pyroxene or silicates--both of which are strongly associated with asteroids, not comets<br />4) Evidence of salt water--already found in asteroids, unexpectedly (see Science 285, 1364-1365 & 1377-1379), but which should also be found in comets, according to the EPH
 
M

maxtheknife

Guest
Steve, what are you goin' on about?!<br /><br />Any hard data that refutes old theory and supports alternative theory, you simply say "irrelevant". How is that <i><b>not</b></i> ignoring facts? <br /><br />Dmjspace appears to be rather balanced and fair, imho.
 
Z

zenonmars

Guest
Now, if the Skeptic Wolves want some fresh meat to chomp on, <b><i>here I am, boys!</i></b><br /><br />Cause there <i><b>IS</b></i> a #5 to your list, dmjspace:<br /><br />What if they imaged something <b>undeniably</b> from a former exploded planet? Something <i>non-random</i>? Something <i>manufactured</i>? Something <i>sacred</i> from our former celestial "temple"? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

maxtheknife

Guest
You didn't answer my question, Steve.<br /><br />How is calling factual data irrelevant, <i>not</i> ignoring the facts?
 
D

dmjspace

Guest
stevehw33 said: <font color="yellow"> The 95-99% confidence interval is for publications. It's not used with respect to facts. </font><br /><br />I see. Somebody should tell all those scientists out there publishing the results of their scientific investigations that they are not in the business of producing facts. Apparently, they should just be asking stevehw33 for The Truth instead.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> The densities of asteroids is known, as are the densities of meteorites. You ignore this fact </font><br /><br />Huh? As anyone can see, I was the one who first brought up the fact that the majority of asteroids are in the 2gm/cc range. I also brought up the fact that there is a large allowable error in both asteroid and comet figures. <br /><br />You unwittingly confirmed it by sharing your source saying Tempel's density is something between "nothing and an asteroid" and that it weighs 10 to 250 billion tons.<br /><br />If you're happy with that kind of uncertainty, fine by me. Apparently, however, it doesn't sit well with actual scientists, who just spent $333 million to get more accurate numbers.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Secondly, the range of data do not by any means invalidate the facts that the density of comets, wherever measured, is below that of water. </font><br /><br />Oh really? Where are the specific measurements showing that comet density is below that of water? How about some sources explaining how this "fact" was derived?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> The NASA article about comets being full of water is completely consistent with known data, and the facts of porosity, which will reduce density. </font><br /><br />The NASA article may be consistent with those beliefs. Too bad the actual data aren't.
 
Z

zenonmars

Guest
Crazyeddie: <font color="yellow">"How would you prove that the imaged item was from an "exploded" planet, and not just the result of a planetary collision? Planets have never been observed to explode, nor is there any physical mechanism known that is energetic enough to cause a planet to explode, as anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of physics can tell you. Or are you thinking of something like the Death Star from Star Wars? Let's stick to real science, lest this thread get moved to the Phenomena forum."</font><br /><br />Eddie, I think you are missing the point. I am sure it is not important <i>where</i> such a "manufactured" artifact actually came from. <b>If</b> the Deep Impact guys imaged something "artificial" (and I will publicly admit that that is an unlikely possibility), they would be absolutely <i>besides</i> themselves. The admitted existence of <b>any</b> off-earth artifacts would upset the proverbial apple cart, and would cascade a 'heavenly <i>host</i>' of trouble in the forms of confusion, <b>questions</b>, theories, and yes, even "<i>wild</i> speculations". <br /><br />And what main theory being bounced around here would just <i><b>have to</b></i> be addressed?<br /><br />True, planets have never been observed to explode. And, honestly, we've never watched a sun go nova, either. <font color="yellow">"nor is there any physical mechanism known that is energetic enough"</font> <b>KNOWN</b> is the key word there, partner. If you have been paying attention, the ideas of <i>'Hyperdimensional Physics'</i> include an unimaginable amount of "aether energy" contained in even the smallest part of the "active" vacuum.<br /><br />Death Star? Well the idea of ancient warfare of advanced intelligent species <i>has</i> been floated as the cause of the destruction of a planet V. But let's do stick to real science. The Phenomenon forum? The only "phenomenon" with the Deep Impact mission is the disparaging, diametrically opposed stat <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
<font color="yellow">True, planets have never been observed to explode. And, honestly, we've never watched a sun go nova, either. "nor is there any physical mechanism known that is energetic enough". KNOWN is the key word there, partner. If you have been paying attention, the ideas of 'Hyperdimensional Physics' include an unimaginable amount of "aether energy" contained in even the smallest part of the "active" vacuum.</font><br /><br />Oh hardly. It's not an unimaginable amount of energy. It's a hell of a stretch to go from ZPE to something that can bootstrap an entire planet into exploding.<br /><br />And - no offense - I always find the explanations of the EPH theory to be extraordinarily weak. For example, only 1/1000 of the mass of an Earth remains, and the entire remainder "vaporized?" Ahhhh, no, I don't think so.<br /><br />And a great deal of the EPH is based on a rudimentary scan of Bode's law - which is not a physical law. It's a relationship, which is not the same thing.<br /><br />And there are good physical reasons why no planet formed where the Belt is. There is a harmonic relationship between Jupiter and the region of the Belt, which frequently perturbs anything there out of true - making it quite unlikely a large body the size of the Earth could even form there, let alone remain stable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
That's succintly it, Eddie.<br /><br />I wonder how it is that all of the problems we know about planet formation in the Belt, the lack of any credible mechanism to cause a planet to explode, and all of the missing mass are glossed over so swiftly.<br /><br />E.g., the EPH argument usually goes from point "A" to point "X," without covering B, C, D. etc... <br /><br />Edit: that didn't neccessarily mean you, Zen. You *are* discussing it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
M

maxtheknife

Guest
Crazyeddie <font color="yellow">No doubt. But there's no evidence that ther is anything remotely "artificial" in the Deep Impact images, so your speculation is irrelevant to the discussion.</font><br /><br />Well isn't that the point? We don't have any data to look at which gives us <b>any</b> <i>new</i> evidence to consider! <br /><br />edit: new
 
D

dmjspace

Guest
crazyeddie said: <font color="yellow"> The only way the EPH could be valid would be if some imaginary mechanism is conjured to explain the physical process that would supply the necessary energy to cause a planet to explode. </font><br /><br />The only way to explain the existence of comets otherwise is to invent an imaginary process and endless reservoir that gets magically replenished---OOPS, wait a minute...that's already been imagined. It's called the Oort cloud.<br /><br />Never detected. No way to falsify it. And this is the "science" you seek to substitute in place of an exploded planet.<br /><br />Who cares how the planet explodes? If the theory makes accurate predictions, then it is a better working model than the inferior Oort cloud explanation.<br /><br />If a model utilizing purple fairies explained and predicted better than the Oort cloud, it would still be a more useful theory. This is a fundamental fact of science that you don't seem to be able to grasp.
 
D

dmjspace

Guest
stevehw33 said: <font color="yellow"> is a complete falsehood and you know it. The scientific references to Tempel's density place it at about 0.2-0.9 gm/cc., which is below that of water and implies porosity. </font><br /><br />What are the "scientific references" you're referring to? The ones that say "probably" and give ranges involving one or more orders of magnitude? This is hardly science. It's mere guesswork.<br /><br />Prove me wrong. Go find out exactly how that lighter-than-water density was determined and how it can be extrapolated to all comets. I'll wait.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> This is consistent with the standard model of comets as 'snowballs'. Those of asteroids and meteors range from 1.5 upwards of 8.5(nickel/iron). </font><br /><br />Sources I've seen cite a range for asteroids of 1-7 gm/cc, with the majority being 2gm/cc, with uncertainties in measurement of 30-40% or more. That places the average asteroid well within the potential range of comet densities, when their measurement errors are included.<br /><br />That our respective sources vary significantly is testimony to the fact that there is a tremendous amount of variability in comet and asteroid density measurements.<br /><br />Once again...the reason Deep Impact went to Tempel 1 in the first place.<br /><br />Go ahead and ignore the uncertainty if it helps maintain your belief in the dirty snowball model. Ignore the data from Tempel which already confirm that particular comet had no significant subsurface ice and has the regolith and reflectivity of an asteroid. Frankly, I don't care what you believe.<br /><br />But for the rest of those reading with an interest in understanding the differences, if any, between comets and asteroids, the writing is on the wall: the dirty snowball probably doesn't exist.
 
T

telfrow

Guest
Details concerning the ongoing interpretation of Deep Impact data….quite a bit of information… <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Deep Impact Begins to Reveal Comet Secrets<br /><br />Planetary Radio Show for July 18, 2005<br /><br />Airdate: July 18, 2005<br />Play time: 28:50<br /><br />Deep Impact Co-Investigator Lucy McFadden joined millions watching the spacecraft's spectacular collision with comet Tempel 1. Now she has to figure out what it all means. </font><br /><br />http://www.planetary.org/audio/pr20050718.html<br /><br />Starts: 3:16<br />Ends: 20:15<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
 
D

dmjspace

Guest
Yevaud said: <font color="yellow"> And - no offense - I always find the explanations of the EPH theory to be extraordinarily weak. For example, only 1/1000 of the mass of an Earth remains, and the entire remainder "vaporized?" Ahhhh, no, I don't think so. </font><br /><br />You may not *think* so, but what are you basing this thought on? According to Van Flandern:<br /><br /><i> Consider what would happen if the Earth exploded today. Surface and crustal rocks would shatter and fragment, but remain rocks. However, rocks from depths greater than about 40 km are under so much pressure at high temperature that, if suddenly released into a vacuum, such rocks would vaporize. As a consequence, over 99% of the Earth’s total mass would vaporize in an explosion, with only its low-pressure crustal and upper mantle layers surviving. </i><br /><br /><font color="yellow"> And a great deal of the EPH is based on a rudimentary scan of Bode's law - which is not a physical law. It's a relationship, which is not the same thing. </font><br /><br />The EPH is based upon many lines of observational evidence, including the fact that:<br /><br />*Asteroids occupy the entire volume of phase space (the full range of positions and velocities) between Mars and Jupiter that is stable against planetary perturbations over millions of years. And their mean relative velocities, averaging 5 km/s, are too high to result from collisions, fragmentation, or planetary perturbations. <br /><br />*The distribution of asteroid orbital elements contains “explosion signatures” similar to those first catalogued for fragments of artificial Earth satellites that blew up in orbit. <br /><br />*The cosmic ray exposure ages of stony meteorites are generally only some millions of years, not billions – distinctly shorter than the mean time between collisions. <br /><br />*Comets, which are spectrally, photometrically, and chemically similar to asteroids, have all their major properties explained better by an e
 
T

telfrow

Guest
Session List 37th DPS Meeting and 31st HAD Meeting, 4-9 September 2005<br />Cambridge, UK<br /><br />http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v37n3/dps2005/S350.htm<br /><br />http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v37n3/dps2005/S380.htm<br /><br />http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v37n3/dps2005/S420.htm<br /><br />http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v37n3/dps2005/S430.htm<br /><br />http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v37n3/dps2005/S440.htm<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
 
M

maxtheknife

Guest
<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />How many times are you going to post those links?<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br /><i>just joshin' ya, Telf <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></i>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Ok.<br /><br /><font color="orange">Yevaud said: And - no offense - I always find the explanations of the EPH theory to be extraordinarily weak. For example, only 1/1000 of the mass of an Earth remains, and the entire remainder "vaporized?" Ahhhh, no, I don't think so.</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">You may not *think* so, but what are you basing this thought on? According to Van Flandern: <br /><br />Consider what would happen if the Earth exploded today. Surface and crustal rocks would shatter and fragment, but remain rocks. However, rocks from depths greater than about 40 km are under so much pressure at high temperature that, if suddenly released into a vacuum, such rocks would vaporize. As a consequence, over 99% of the Earth’s total mass would vaporize in an <br />explosion, with only its low-pressure crustal and upper mantle layers surviving.</font><br /><br />Odd dichotomy. <br /><br />Now this is interesting: <br /><br />I am asked, "am I basing my conclusion on nothing but thought?" Yet Van Flandern is used for his expertise on this subject...and his conclusions are based on nothing but thought.<br /><br />For example, it's stated what would occur if the Earth shattered - which has never been seen in nature, never observed. Now I certainly understand modelling this possibility using various laws of geology, planetary science, etc. But it's only a model, and there are many other's that suggest other conclusions. <br /><br />The only way you could hypothesize the chain of events and results occurring is if you postulate some hypothetical and never seen vast source of explosive energy. <br /><br />And that source has so far been mentioned to be ZPE, which I can assure you is likely not remotely as powerful a mechanism as one might believe.<br /><br />If this is a action that can crack a planet and pulverize it into nothing, then this action must also be seen elsewhere in nature. And it never has.<br /><br />Further: It literally violates the law <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
T

telfrow

Guest
I got permission to double post before I did it Max...ask the mods. It applies to both threads. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
 
M

mtviewguy88

Guest
I think one of the big issues with trying to interpret the results from <i>Deep Impact</i> is the fact <i>nobody really knows the true composition of the material of a comet</i>. As such, until ESA's <i>Rosetta</i> mission does a soft landing on a comet about ten years from now we're all going to be stuck with a lot of <i>educated wild guesses</i> on the real composition of a comet.<br /><br />I wouldn't be surprised that one of the future space probes fuelled by nuclear rockets will go to a comet and put a large lander on one, complete with extensive sampling tools. That's the only way we can finally solve the mystery of the composition of comets. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
D

dmjspace

Guest
Yevaud said: <font color="yellow"> Ok. I am asked, "am I basing my conclusion on nothing but thought?" Yet Van Flandern is used for his expertise on this subject...and his conclusions are based on nothing but thought. </font><br /><br />How do you know?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> But it's only a model, and there are many other's that suggest other conclusions. </font><br /><br />Such as?<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> And that source has so far been mentioned to be ZPE, which I can assure you is likely not remotely as powerful a mechanism as one might believe. </font><br /><br />I don't know what you're referring to. Van Flandern doesn't postulate ZPE as a source.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> If this is a action that can crack a planet and pulverize it into nothing, then this action must also be seen elsewhere in nature. And it never has. </font><br /><br />The Oort cloud has never been seen either. Yet it suffices for most astronomers who subscribe to the dirty snowball model. Why is it okay for them to rely on an unseen, unknown and undetectable source for comets?<br /><br />In any case, the EPH predicts better than the Oort model, which is all science requires when weeding out the good from the bad theories.<br /><br />As far as all the other objections you've brought up...these are not my arguments. They are Van Flandern's. He details them at length in his book and Meta Research journal, as well as in several published articles.<br /><br />You'd have to take it up with him if you argue his contentions. I'm certainly not about to assemble and recount the sources for these claims when you could easily refer to them yourself.<br /><br />If you have a few specific objections you want to delve into, we could discuss those (the cosmic ray issue, for example).<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Never heard that before. Again, no idea where this idea popped out from. With ages that range back to the formation of the Solar System, they've trac</font>
 
M

maxtheknife

Guest
Telf, don't forget to wait 15 minutes after eating before you go in the pool.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts