Tom Van Flandern writes:
Unfortunately, you are right about this.
"Ad hominem, insulting, argumentative, unscientific, trolling."
--Tom Van Flandern
How ironic.
If he were truly right about that, Van Flandern, then one might expect
a person interested in being correct to take the recommended action,
yet you have not. Why is that?
Tholen has been an embarrassment to his employer, his colleagues,
and even to some of his friends.
"Ad hominem, insulting, argumentative, unscientific, trolling."
--Tom Van Flandern
How ironic. But I've come to expect such statements from you without
any supporting evidence, Van Flandern.
Deeply buried in his robotic messages are a few nuggets
actually worth discussing.
You're erroneously presupposing that any "robotic messages" have been
made, Van Flandern.
I tried to dig those out and ignore the trash.
Obviously not, given that you haven't ignored the EPH, Van Flandern.
But it was no use - he wouldn't allow limiting the discussion and
staying on topic.
As if the comments you've made here are on the topic of Deep Impact,
eh Van Flandern? More classic hypocrisy.
Tholen seems unable to concede anything
What seems to you is irrelevant, Van Flandern; the facts are relevant.
and hence unable to learn and evolve his knowledge and behavior,
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
the way the rest of us try to do.
I know you've tried to evolve the predictions made by the EPH,
Van Flandern, which happens to be one of the many problems with it.
As if anticipating my remarks, I see that Tholen has now
posted two single-issue messages.
You have a problem with "limiting the discussion and staying on topic",
Van Flandern? If so, then you're being inconsistent again.
Both are reasonable points of potentially broader interest.
Unlike your ad hominems above, Van Flandern.
If he stuck to that mode of posting,
people might actually start reading his posts again and appreciating his
shared expertise.
How ironic, coming from someone who hasn't stuck to that mode of posting.
So I'll answer these two and any occasional future
post made in that same constructive style.
And ignore anything that you do not wish to address, such as the matter
of outbursts.
Yes, I already know I'm going to regret giving him another
chance. No need to say "I told you so!" :-)
"Ad hominem, insulting, argumentative, unscientific, trolling."
--Tom Van Flandern
How ironic.
The quick rise in ultraviolet light
indicates the probe hit a hard surface ... possible crystalline
silicates ... large surface craters ... possible layering ... overall
appearance indistinguishable from an asteroid ... no increase in water
emission or other volatiles ... evolved surface with dust not coming
from inside ... no new jet formed
] Newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
] Subject: Palomar Observatory's 200-inch Hale Telescope Observes Comet Impact
] Date: 21 Jul 2005 15:57:18 -0700
] Message-ID: .com
]
] Caltech News Release
] For Immediate Release
] July 21, 2005
]
] Deep Impact: During and After Impact
]
] PALOMAR MOUNTAIN, Calif. - 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.
]
] 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.
Hmm. Van Flandern says no new jet formed. Yet Palomar observed
something that persisted for days, something they're calling jets.
Who is correct? Or are they talking about two different things
but using the same name for them?
It is nice you recognize the latter possibility. In a
clearer statement of what was observed, we have the following:
ESO Press Release 19/05, 14 July 2005,
That is not a clearer statement, but rather a different statement from
a different set of observers working at a different telescope, Van
Flandern. "Clearer" implies a reworded statement about the same
observations from the same people, but that's not the case here.
http://www.hq.eso.org/outreach/press...pr-19-05.html: "From
the current analysis, it appears most likely that the impactor did not
create a large new zone of activity and may have failed to liberate a
large quantity of pristine material from beneath the surface. The
appearance of a new plume-like structure diffused away in the days
following impact, with the comet taking again the appearance it had
before the impact. The same jets were visible before and after impact,
demonstrating that the comet activity survived widely unaffected by the
spacecraft crash."
That the same jets were active both before and after isn't very
revealing, Van Flandern. I don't know of anybody who predicted that
the impact would cause activity to stop. But it does raise the issue
as to what is causing jets to occur in the first place. Debris clouds
orbiting a solid nucleus can't produce jets that rotate with the
nucleus. But there's more from the Caltech press release:
] This apparent dust plume has persisted for several nights, allowing
] astronomers to watch the comet's slow rotation. The night after
] impact the plume was on the far side of the comet, but was visible
] again the next evening as the comet's rotation brought it back into
] view. Two days after impact, the plume was seen again, this time
] extending about 200 km (124 miles) from the comet's center.
] According to Bidushi Bhattacharya of the California Institute of
] Technology's (Caltech) Spitzer Science Center, "This could be
] indicative of an outburst of gas and dust still taking place near the
] region of the impact."
Is that the best you can do? The quick rise in ultraviolet light
indicates the probe hit a hard surface ... possible crystalline
silicates ... large surface craters ... possible layering ... overall
appearance indistinguishable from an asteroid ... no increase in water
emission or other volatiles
From IAU Circular 8571, dated 2005 July 22:
] Spectral features due to water ice,
] water vapor, and carbonaceous materials (carbonates and
] hydrogenated aromatic hydrocarbons) were detected in the 5.8-7.2-
] micron region.
] The ejecta spectral signatures were
] detected from the time of impact through at least 41 hr afterwards,
] but by 121 hr after impact all spectral signatures above the pre-
] impact levels were absent.
In a clearer statement of what was observed, we have the
following:
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Press Release No. 05-23,
July 8, 2005, http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/press/pr0523.html. "Scientists
report seeing only weak emission from water vapor and a host of other
gases that were expected to erupt from the impact site. Short-period
comets like Tempel 1 have been baked repeatedly by the sun during their
passages through the inner solar system. The effects of that heat are
estimated to extend more than three feet beneath the surface of the
nucleus. But the Deep Impact indicates that these effects could be much
deeper. And theories about the volatile layers below the surface of
short-period comets will have to be revised. Post-impact measurements
showed the comet was releasing only about 550 pounds of water per
second - an emission rate very similar to pre-impact values, and less
than seen during natural outbursts in the weeks before the impact.
Related gas production rates (such as hydrogen cyanide) remained so low
that only an upper limit on the total could be measured. Scientists
remained hopeful that major outgassing from the impact site might still
occur in the coming weeks."
I'm sure the Deep Impact team will have more to say on these
issues soon.
Is that your first reaction to a report of water vapor emission,
Van Flandern? How does a "solid rocky asteroid" produce water
vapor emission?
Kuhn says that scientific paradigms change by evolution
rather than revolution.
And Lipton says:
] In science, this is known as "shooting an arrow into a target, then
] painting a bull's eye around the arrow"
something you quoted recently, Van Flandern. What is the essential
difference? Oh, one is positive spin, the other is negative spin.
So I expect we will now start to see the Dirty
Snowball model evolve in the direction of minimizing the differences
between it and EPH's Satellite Model for comets.
Why would you expect the Dirty Snowball model to minimize the differences
between it and a failed EPH model, Van Flandern?
That's okay with me.
Our goal here is progress,
Then explain how a "solid rocky asteroid" can have water vapor emission,
how jets can be produced and rotate with the comet, and what causes
outbursts, all based on the EPH, Van Flandern.
not vindication.
Then what motivated your ad hominems quoted at the beginning of this
response, Van Flandern?
And I'd like to think we can agree on that.
I would hope that we could agree on wanting the truth. But perhaps a
Jack Nicholson quotation from "A Few Good Men" would be appropriate
here.