Tom Van Flandern writes:

The Satellite Model for comets, a competitor of the Dirty
Snowball model and a corollary of the exploded planet hypothesis
(EPH), makes a very specific prediction that the comet nucleus is a
solid rocky asteroid.

Solid rocky asteroids do not produce comae and tails, Van
Flandern. That simple visual distinction between comets and asteroids
has been around for decades. You are aware of the June 14 outburst,
are you not? Rocky asteroids don't have those.

As a professional astronomer, you are supposed to be
familiar with the viable, peer-reviewed, published models still on the
scientific table in areas where you claim some expertise.

That's rather ironic, coming from someone who had to change his
NEAR prediction about satellites around Eros, because he was not
familiar with the elongated shape (known for decades) and the
instability of some orbits around such an object (known for years).

The second
link above cites papers covering the history of the Satellite Model (SM)
for comets, a corollary of the exploded planet hypothesis (EPH), all the
way back to the original publication: "Do comets have satellites?",
Icarus 47:480-486 (1981).

Non sequitur, given that the EPH is not a viable model.

The EPH/SM model agrees that rocky asteroids do not produce
comet comae because comae do not come from the nucleus.

Irrelevant; the issue is not where the comae come from. The issue is
the visual distinction between objects called "asteroids" and objects
called "comets". Tempel 1 has a coma, therefore it is called a comet
and not an asteroid. Your prediction that Tempel 1 is a solid rocky
asteroid was therefore wrong before you even made it.

But I expect that you will continue to play your little game of
semantics in a feeble effort to maintain support for the EPH.

They are debris
clouds from the original explosion event, trapped inside the
gravitational sphere of influence of the comet nucleus.

Illogical, given the occurrence of outbursts.

But I'll note that you've carefully avoided mentioning anything about
the elongated shape of the comet. Gee, shouldn't that cause some of
the orbits around it to be unstable? Or to put it in simpler terms
for you, why would Tempel 1 have a debris cloud but not Eros?

That comae are
of this nature is confirmed by the model's past successful predictions:
satellites of asteroids, satellites of comets, salt water in meteorites,
sodium (derived from salt) in the tails of comets, "roll marks" leading
to boulders on asteroids; the time and peak rate of meteor storms and
outbursts; explosion signatures for asteroids; strongly spiked energy
parameter for new comets; distribution of black material on slowly
rotating airless bodies; splitting velocities of comets. See citations
at the second link above. Especially, the meteor storm predictions and
the "split"-comet separation speeds as a function of solar distance
could not have been correctly predicted if the model was wrong because
no adjustable parameters or ad hoc helper hypotheses were used as aids.

Once again, you've ignored the model's unsuccessful predictions, like
satellites of all sizes around Eros.

It is not really relevant here, but you should also know,
contrary to what you claimed, that asteroids have been known to suddenly
flare up and produce comet tails, further blurring the distinction
between asteroids and comets.

It is not really relevant here, but you should also know, contrary to
your usage of the terms, that comets can be inactive when far from the
Sun, thus producing a stellar (or should I say asteroidal) appearance
through the telescope. Gee, where did the debris cloud go?

Two asteroid-comet transition objects are known.

I see that you're behind the times, Van Flandern. Ever hear of
(7968) Elst-Pizarro, otherwise known as comet 133P/1996 N2?

"As a professional astronomer, you are supposed to be
familiar with the viable, peer-reviewed, published models
still on the scientific table in areas where you claim
some expertise."
--Tom Van Flandern

Both ironic and amusing.

[See section 3 at
http://www.ss.astro.umd.edu/IAU/comm...eport97.html.] The most
famous is asteroid 4015 = Comet 107P/Wilson-Harrington.

Whose cometary nature hasn't been seen since its discovery in 1949.
When rediscovered as an asteroid in 1979, I observed it during the
Eight-Color Asteroid Survey and classified it as an CF-type asteroid.

But of course you knew that, given that professional astronomers are
supposed to be familiar with the peer-reviewed literature in areas
where you claim some expertise.

The Dirty Snowball model itself makes no specific prediction
(although individual advocates are betting on various possible
outcomes), but instead has an accommodation ready for whatever is
found. In science, this is known as "shooting an arrow into a target,
then painting a bull's eye around the arrow"

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.

I see that you've left out some adjestive, Van Flandern. The prediction
was not merely that asteroids would have satellites, but rather that
they would be commonplace. The adaptive optics searches for satellites
of main-belt asteroids are succeeding in less than 5 percent of the
cases. Not exactly my idea of "commonplace".

But Hayabusa will be getting to Itokawa in just a few weeks. When can
we expect your prediction for it, Van Flandern?

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.

The number of negative cases outnumbers the number of positive cases
by a factor of several. I see that you avoided mentioning that fact.

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.

Didn't stop you from predicting satellites of all sizes around Eros,
whose elongated shape had been known for decades.

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.

Which says something rather significant about the reliability of
secondary occultation observations, something that you've hung your
hat on (so to speak) for other asteroids, like Herculina.

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.

"As a professional astronomer, you are supposed to be
familiar with the viable, peer-reviewed, published models
still on the scientific table in areas where you claim
some expertise."
--Tom Van Flandern

Both ironic and amusing.

So I amended the prediction accordingly,

After the flyby.

well before the results were known.

On what basis do you make that claim, Van Flandern? By "results", are
you talking about the rendezvous? Let's not forget that the originally
planned rendezvous failed due to an aborted engine burn. The flyby
imaging revealed no satellites, something that was reported at the time.

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.

You have a peculiar notion of "correct", Van Flandern.

Neither you nor any other astronomer accepted my prediction challenge.

Which prediction challenge would that be, Van Flandern? The original one,
or the revised one? You're a moving target. But let's take a look at
your latest prediction. Benny Peiser circulated on CCNet your message to
him, which included:

"The impact will leave a small, shallow crater perhaps
10-20 meters in diameter"
--Tom Van Flandern

Now for JPL News Release 2005-113, circulated by David Morrison in his
NEO News:

"Scientists say the crater was at the large end of original
expectations, which was from 50 to 250 meters (165 to 820 feet)
wide."

The only one who even negotiated terms bowed out when I added the caveat
about decayed moons on the surface.

Why would anybody want to negotiate terms with someone who doesn't
stick to his predictions?

But the prediction was in place and
was correct a year before the February 2000 encounter, when the first
boulder and roll mark were found.

The original prediction about satellites of all sizes was in place
and incorrect at the time of the satellite imaging effort during
the original flyby.

How does that count as "painting the bull's-eye around the arrow"?

See above.

Is there anything about my present prediction that Comet
Tempel 1 would have a solid, rocky nucleus that you find to be ad hoc or
like painting the bull's-eye around the arrow?

We'll have to wait and see how you change your prediction to
accommodate the actual data, the way you did with Eros.

Or do you give no credit
to models you disfavor, regardless of their success at making genuine
predictions that other models can't make?

What success are you referring to, Van Flandern?