In article ,
Tom Van Flandern wrote:

[Tholen]: Sort of like the EPH predicting satellites of all sizes
around Eros, finding none, and then painting the EPH around the
boulders found on the surface. Ostensibly due to the unstable nature
of some of the orbits around an oddly shaped body. Except that the odd
shape had been known for decades, and the instability of some of the
orbits almost as long.

The original prediction that asteroids would have satellites dates to
the first "Asteroids" volume in 1979. It became specific in 1991 when
I predicted that spacecraft would find at least one satellite at one
of the first three asteroids visited. That was repeated in my 1993
book, "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets". The prediction
was fulfilled by the discovery of Dactyl orbiting Ida in 1993. Many
more cases have been found since then. But even those 1991 and 1993
predictions contained the caveat that, for unstable gravity fields or
asteroids involved in collisions, satellites would be found as
boulders on the surface, accompanied by roll marks to indicate their
grazing decay from satellite orbits.

Reports of possible secondary occultations during the 1973
Eros-star occultation event led me to be optimistic that Eros had a
stable gravity field and satellites still in orbit.

In your original Eros challenge, as qouted by yourself he

http://tinyurl.com/ae5vg

you said:

# If the NEAR rendezvous with Eros shows it to be an isolated, single
# body, or even a simple "binary asteroid", but without a debris field
# orbiting it, I will publicly concede before the next Division of
# Planetary Sciences meeting that the hypothesis leading to that
# prediction has failed.

The NEAR rendezvous with Eros showed it to be an isolated body.
No debris field was orbiting it - it wasn't even a binary asteroid.
So your challenge obviously failed - but you have so far not publicly
admitted the failure of your hypothesis, as you said you would.


But I learned of 1995 and 1996 Scheeres papers showing that the
satellite orbits around Eros were unstable because of its elongated
shape only a year before the encounter, in 1999.

Were you really unaware of Eros' elongated shape before 1995-1996? I
first read about it in Patrick Moore's book "The Planets", published
in 1962. Moore gives Eros' dimensions as 6 by 24 kilometers - the
modern value is 13 by 33 km. Thus before the encounter, Eros was
believed to be even more elongated than it actually is.

Or didn't you realize that the gravitational field around such an
elongated body could cause orbits nearby to be unstable? If so,
aren't you an expert in celestial mechanics?


# So I amended the prediction accordingly, well before the results
# were known. The 2000 encounter results were then reported at
# http://metaresearch.org/solar%20syst...ngeResults.asp,
# showing that the prediction amended the previous year was correct.

It's not surprising that your own web site claims your adjusted
prediction was correct - people rarely disagree with themselves. But
is there any other source (publication, paper, web site, whatever),
outside of your control, which agrees with your conclusion here?


Neither you nor any other astronomer accepted my prediction challenge.
The only one who even negotiated terms bowed out when I added the caveat
about decayed moons on the surface.

Of course he bowed out! Would you want to accept a challenge with
someone who wanted to change the conditions of the challenge
afterwards? After all, then he might want to change it again at a
later date, if he realizes another thing he's overlooked....



--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/