"Deep Impact" predictions

Preliminary results for Comet Tempel 1 from cooperating
teams are beginning to appear. See a summary so far at
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20syst...ndings%201.asp.
This compares findings with predictions posted two months ago at
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20syst...DeepImpact.asp. [These links
are to an open, pure-science site with no pop-ups, ads, spam lists,
spyware, adware, involuntary downloads of any kind, or cookies (except
for posts to its own Message Board, which use a cookie only to remember
UserID and Password).]

Dave Tholen writes:

[tvf]: 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.

[Tholen]: 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. 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).

The EPH/SM model agrees that rocky asteroids do not produce
comet comae because comae do not come from the nucleus. They are debris
clouds from the original explosion event, trapped inside the
gravitational sphere of influence of the comet nucleus. 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.

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

[tvf]: 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"

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

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


Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC - see our ad-free, spam-free web site
on replacement astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org

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/

"Paul Schlyter" writes:

[Schlyter]: In your original Eros challenge, . 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.

You took that quote out of context and completely
misrepresented the challenge. It was never a one-way street - "heads you
win, tails I lose". The "challenge" was an effort to get the mainstream
to take a specific position, and to make a concession if that position
failed. Specifically, the next sentence read: "If the NEAR rendezvous
with Eros shows it to be accompanied by a debris field (i.e., multiple
orbiting moons), acceptors of this challenge will publicly concede
before the next DPS meeting that the hypothesis that made that
successful prediction has earned a second look by planetary scientists."
The challenge was issued only on the condition that someone accepted its
terms. No one ever did. The one party who discussed terms withdrew over
exact wording issues when I added the caveat (first stated in print in
1991 and 1993) about the fate of orbiting satellites if the gravity
field was unstable.

So the challenge failed because it did not get any
mainstream astronomer to make a specific prediction about what would or
would not be found at Eros, not because my original wording was faulty.
As always, mainstream theorists refuse to place their models at risk of
falsification by making specific predictions. EPH has no such hesitancy
to make specific predictions that place it at risk of falsification; and
its specific prediction for Eros, as worded in print a year before the
event, turned out to be correct. The same is apparently the case so far
with its specific predictions for Comet Tempel 1, which had no
contingencies attached.

Wouldn't it be lovely if all the people attached to models
that failed to correctly predict the nature of Comet Tempel 1 would
publicly announce that failure? Don't hold your breath.

[tvf]: 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.

[Schlyter]: Were you really unaware of Eros' elongated shape before
1995-1996?

We all learned of Eros's elongated shape from the 1973
stellar occultation results.

[Schlyter]: 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?

No, I didn't realize that the gravity field was unstable,
and yes, my principal field of training and subject of my 1969 Yale
Ph.D. dissertation was celestial mechanics. I relied on intuition that
even an elongated object could have stable orbits around an axis of
symmetry. But I should have calculated, as Scheeres did, instead of
relaying on intuition. That was a mistake. I do make them, and I also
admit them. I also did not know about Scheeres' calculations until the
aborted 1999 encounter showed the shape of Eros to be so irregular and I
started looking into gravity field stability.

[Schlyter]: 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?

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking for. The
article on our web site is self-explanatory in showing that the amended
prediction of the previous year was correct because it shows
photographic evidence from the NEAR spacecraft for the predicted surface
boulders and roll marks. And there is no dispute that Eros found lots of
boulders (tens of thousands) and lots of similar trails. So how can my
conclusion that the amended prediction was correct be in doubt?

Are you asking when and where the amended prediction
appeared in print in some verifiable medium? That would be our "Meta
Research Bulletin", vol. 8#2 (1999 June 15). The ISSN number is
1086-6590, which means that issues go on file under that number at the
U.S. Library of Congress as they are published. That would certainly
allow independent verification of the timing and wording of the
prediction. I've never requested an item from the Library of Congress,
but its there for this kind of purpose, so it can't be too hard to do.
The following is a complete quote of remarks in that issue published
nearly a year before the spacecraft went into orbit at Eros:

** 1999 June 15 MRB: Status of "The NEAR Challenge" **
We reported in our last issue that "it is apparent that Eros
has an extremely irregular shape. It looks like a bent icicle at some
orientations. That raises the question whether any stable orbits exist
for such an irregular gravity field." That question has been answered in
the negative for the most likely satellite orbits, those with orbital
motion near synchronous with the rotation of the primary asteroid. See,
e.g., D.J. Scheeres, "Analysis of orbital motion around 433 Eros",
J.Astronaut.Sci. 43 #4:427-452 (1995); and D.J. Scheeres, S.J. Ostro,
R.S. Hudson, R.A. Werner, "Orbits close to asteroid 4769 Castalia",
Icarus 121:67-87 (1996). The most common fate of objects in unstable
orbits is to impact gently on the surface, usually at a grazing angle,
followed by rolling until the orbital angular momentum (from orbital
speeds of typically a few meters per second) is dissipated, then coming
to rest on the surface.
The chances of intact objects coming to rest on the surface
are nil except for satellites because the typical relative speeds
between field asteroids are of order 5 km/s. Such speeds would result in
highly destructive, crater-forming impacts. So finding surface
"satellites", especially with tell-tale roll marks, when the NEAR
spacecraft goes into orbit around Eros next year is still a good way to
distinguish between the standard model and the exploded planet
hypothesis.
Stable orbits do exist beyond about 40 km from the primary,
and for some retrograde orbits. So actual satellites in orbit may yet be
found, although tidal forces would evolve such orbits rapidly, so that
only small masses might be expected to survive to the present. [END]

Any fair test of a model considers whether the model itself
correctly predicted reality, as opposed to whether some supporter worded
the original prediction correctly. The exploded planet hypothesis (EPH)
expects that all asteroids and comets start life immediately after the
parent-body explosion with a debris field trapped in local orbits. Among
the possible fates for that debris field, consider these three:
(1) it is still there, as with all comet comas;
(2) only the larger satellites have been tidally evolved to escape or
to decay to the surface because of an unstable local gravity field, as
for Comet Tempel 1;
(3) the gas, dust, and smaller debris have been baked and blown away,
as for all asteroids;
(4) an unstable gravity field has also caused the large debris to
escape or decay onto the surface of the central body, as for Eros.
So far, this central idea of the EPH has appeared golden despite my own
fumbling with wording while trying to get the deaf astronomical
community's attention. My original challenge wording was wrong; but that
reflects badly on me, not on the hypothesis itself. And it isn't even my
hypothesis, having originated in 1801 with Heinrich Olbers and been
supported by many before I came on the scene. The existence of boulders
and even of a thick dust regolith on asteroids and comets was already
strong supporting evidence for EPH. You might recall that, before the
Galileo spacecraft encounter with asteroid Gaspra in 1991, it was widely
believed that asteroid regoliths were impossible because occasional
violent, high-speed collisions with smaller asteroids would eject any
regolith into space. It was never considered that the regoliths might
arise from orbital decay of dust.

What's really important is whether the debris field or its
remnants came from the nucleus through jet or geyser action, or came
from an exploded parent body and has since been in orbit around a
nucleus. Now we are finally starting to get some resolution of that
issue, and with it some major new insights into origins. -|Tom|-


Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC - see our web site on replacement
astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org

In message , Tom Van Flandern
writes
"Paul Schlyter" writes:

[Schlyter]: Were you really unaware of Eros' elongated shape before
1995-1996?

We all learned of Eros's elongated shape from the 1973
stellar occultation results.


An elongated shape has been one solution for Eros' light curve since
the 1950s, when my Larousse Encyclopedia of Astronomy was published, and
in "Music of the Spheres" (revised ed. 1967) Guy Murchie quotes
dimensions of 21 x 10 x 5 miles.

In article ,
Tom Van Flandern wrote:

"Paul Schlyter" writes:

[Schlyter]: In your original Eros challenge, . 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.

You took that quote out of context and completely misrepresented the
challenge. It was never a one-way street - "heads you win, tails I lose".
The "challenge" was an effort to get the mainstream to take a specific
position, and to make a concession if that position failed.

Well, it wasn't a one-way street in the other way either, was it?

Does that mean that if someone had accepted your challenge, then you
would by now have admitted the failure of your EPH hypothesis? After
all, no debris field was found orbiting Eros, as you predicted when
you first made that challenge.

Specifically, the next sentence read: "If the NEAR rendezvous
with Eros shows it to be accompanied by a debris field (i.e., multiple
orbiting moons), acceptors of this challenge will publicly concede
before the next DPS meeting that the hypothesis that made that
successful prediction has earned a second look by planetary scientists."

That was your requirements on those accepting your challenge. But
are you seriously suggesting that the success or failure of your EPH
hypothesis should be dependent on whether others accepted your
challenge or not?

The challenge was issued only on the condition that someone accepted its
terms. No one ever did. The one party who discussed terms withdrew over
exact wording issues when I added the caveat (first stated in print in
1991 and 1993) about the fate of orbiting satellites if the gravity
field was unstable.

So why did you add this caveat? Why didn't you include it in your
original challenge?

And what if someone challenged you, and you wanted to enter that
challenge - but then that person started adding caveats to his
original challenge. Would you accept that?

So the challenge failed because it did not get any mainstream astronomer
to make a specific prediction about what would or would not be found at
Eros, not because my original wording was faulty.

That's probably because they had a realistic and healthy view about what
their models could and couldn't predict.

As always, mainstream theorists refuse to place their models at risk of
falsification by making specific predictions.

Really? If so, how come eclipses and occultations are routinely
predicted to high precision? Yes, these predictions are done using
mainstream theories - and these predictions are very specific. And
how come NASA even risked human lives by sending men to the Moon, by
making specific predictions on how the spacecraft would move if
subjected to a specific kind of engine burn? Again using mainstream
theories. If those theories used when computing spacecraft
trajectories had failed, the astronauts would probably have died.

Be more careful about using a word like "always" -- things aren't always as
you believe....

EPH has no such hesitancy to make specific predictions that place it at
risk of falsification; and its specific prediction for Eros, as worded
in print a year before the event, turned out to be correct. The same is
apparently the case so far with its specific predictions for Comet
Tempel 1, which had no contingencies attached.

If you take the opporturnity to modify your prediction from time to time,
its chance of success increases drastically. In particular if you increase
the number of situations you require should be regarded as a success.

BTW what was the predictions according to "the mainstream theories"
you refer to? Did all of them firmly predict that what was observed
should not have been observed, or what?

Wouldn't it be lovely if all the people attached to models that failed
to correctly predict the nature of Comet Tempel 1 would publicly announce
that failure? Don't hold your breath.

Wouldn't it be lovely if you, as you originally promised, had announced
the failure of the EPH hypothesis when no debris field orbiting Eros
was found? Don't hold your breath there either....

Theories which failed are usually not publicly declared as failures.
Instead they eventually die away, as they get fewer and fewer supporters.
In some 20-30 years we'll know better than today which theory did succeed.

Also: science is one thing, gambling is another thing. Your
challenge wasn't science, it was gambling. If a poker player wants
to exchange his cards more than the rules allow, nobody wants to play
with him - right? In your challenge, you did something equivalent:
when you found someone willing to meet your challenge, you started
adding caveats to your challenge - caveats which all were in your
favor. Naturally, that guy bowed out. Are you surprised? I'm not.

Btw did you ever consider becoming a lawyer? You seem to have a clear
talent for that....


[tvf]: 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.

[Schlyter]: Were you really unaware of Eros' elongated shape before
1995-1996?

We all learned of Eros's elongated shape from the 1973 stellar
occultation results.

Some knew about it earlier.... its elongated shape was obvious
from its light curve, decades before 1973.

[Schlyter]: 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?

No, I didn't realize that the gravity field was unstable,
and yes, my principal field of training and subject of my 1969 Yale
Ph.D. dissertation was celestial mechanics. I relied on intuition that
even an elongated object could have stable orbits around an axis of
symmetry. But I should have calculated, as Scheeres did, instead of
relaying on intuition. That was a mistake. I do make them, and I also
admit them. I also did not know about Scheeres' calculations until the
aborted 1999 encounter showed the shape of Eros to be so irregular and I
started looking into gravity field stability.

You know that celestial mechanics sometimes work in uninituitive ways,
don't you? Such as when an Earth satellite in LEO is being "slowed
down" by air resistance from the very uppermost parts of our atmosphere,
it actually gains speed at first.


[Schlyter]: 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?

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking for.

I'm asking whether you know about anyone else who agrees with
your conclusion. But all you did was to provide further details and
comments about your own hypothesis.

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

In message , Paul Schlyter
writes
In article ,
Tom Van Flandern wrote:

We all learned of Eros's elongated shape from the 1973 stellar
occultation results.

Some knew about it earlier.... its elongated shape was obvious
from its light curve, decades before 1973.


Although there was an alternative explanation that Eros was a double
planet, which is now known to be true for other asteroids but not for
Eros.

"Paul Schlyter" writes:

Does that mean that if someone had accepted your challenge, then you
would by now have admitted the failure of your EPH hypothesis? After
all, no debris field was found orbiting Eros, as you predicted when
you first made that challenge.

Someone did try to accept. We negotiated specific wording
and conditions, as is appropriate when testing scientific hypotheses.
For example, that person first wanted to specify a lower limit to
satellite size so that dust and micrometeorites could not be claimed as
successes. That was a reasonable request, so I agreed to this change of
wording and added a reasonable request of my own: that, if the gravity
field was unstable, the large satellites would be found on the surface
with roll marks rather than in orbit. The other person (who had lost a
previous scientific wager with me) did not agree to that condition and
withdrew. Apparently, he already knew the gravity field was unstable,
which I did not know at that time. So he was apparently only willing to
place a "sucker's bet" with conditions where he could not lose.

That was your requirements on those accepting your challenge. But are
you seriously suggesting that the success or failure of your EPH
hypothesis should be dependent on whether others accepted your
challenge or not?

The EPH requires that a debris cloud with satellites be
around every comet and asteroid when they begin separate existence
following the parent planet explosion. It does not require that
satellites remain there indefinitely, even following collisions or when
the local gravity field is unstable. That would be absurd. So the EPH
was not at fault for the incomplete wording of my initial challenge - I
was.

So why did you add this caveat? Why didn't you include it in your
original challenge?

I was trying to make the challenge as simple and attractive
as possible and at first failed to appreciate that Eros's irregular
shape would make its gravity field unstable. But I did *not* invent the
caveat at that point. The caveat about satellites on the surface with
roll marks was already in print as early as 1991, and would obviously
have been part of the EPH model itself even if I had never thought of
it.

And what if someone challenged you, and you wanted to enter that
challenge - but then that person started adding caveats to his
original challenge. Would you accept that?

I would not accept that without some good reason for the
change. In the case of the Eros challenge, there was a good reason for
both changes - the one the other party requested and the one I
requested - because the scientific issue was whether Eros ever had
abundant satellites, not whether they were still in orbit or now lying
all over the surface. Do you not see that?

[tvf]: As always, mainstream theorists refuse to place their models
at risk of falsification by making specific predictions.

[Schlyter]: If you take the opportunity to modify your prediction from
time to time, its chance of success increases drastically. In
particular if you increase the number of situations you require should
be regarded as a success.

True. But the purpose was not to win or to make a profit,
but to comparatively test hypotheses. That real purpose could not have
been served unless the conditions were fully consistent with the
hypotheses to be tested. The test would have been unfair to the
hypothesis if I had not remembered the unstable gravity field condition
in plenty of time to fix the testing protocol, just as it would not have
been fair to the other side without the minimum satellite size
specification.

BTW what were the predictions according to "the mainstream theories"
you refer to? Did all of them firmly predict that what was observed
should not have been observed, or what?

Mainstream asteroid-origin hypotheses at that time predicted
that satellites of asteroids could only form under extremely improbable
conditions, and that such satellites should be rare or non-existent.
When Binzel and I first put forward the hypothesis that asteroid
satellites were "numerous and commonplace" ["Minor planets: the
discovery of minor satellites", Science 203, 903-905 (1979)], the
response was total disbelief. The occultation data was explained as
"birds, planes, and superman" ["Minor planet satellites", Science 211,
297-298 (technical comment) (1981)].

Wouldn't it be lovely if you, as you originally promised, had
announced the failure of the EPH hypothesis when no debris field
orbiting Eros was found?

There was no such hypothesis failure. The challenge was
never about people or winning. It was about hypotheses and reality. The
only "failure" was in my original injudicious choice of wording,
corrected long before the event. Equating my failure with hypothesis
failure smacks of a certain amount of desperation. Is it not clear and
self-evident to everyone that no sensible hypothesis would predict
satellites still present in orbit in an unstable gravity field?

If the challenge had been a bet about money or winning, I
would have paid up. But when testing scientific hypotheses, the first
step when interested parties get together is to design a testing
protocol that all parties agree represents a fair test. When we did
that, we each saw a need to add one obvious, fair caveat so that the
test protocol would be fair. Gamblers aren't interested in fairness,
only in winning.

Your challenge wasn't science, it was gambling.

That is where we differ. My interest was only science, not
gambling. When I won my earlier challenge that spacecraft would find an
orbiting satellite at one of the first three asteroids visited (made in
1991 at ACM, Flagstaff; fulfilled in 1993 by satellite Dactyl at
asteroid Ida), I did not insist that the losing party "pay up". It was
sufficient that he acknowledged losing, implicitly accepting that one
hypothesis (EPH) had predictive power that another (primordial
asteroids) lacked.

With the NEAR challenge, there never was "another party" -
someone who accepted the challenge and its stakes and agreed on a
specific testing protocol. So I remained free to adjust the specific
prediction of the hypothesis until the encounter occurred. As you know,
mainstream theories (especially in cosmology) are often fond of
adjusting their predictions after the results become known by adding ad
hoc helper hypotheses to the original. In my view, my adding a caveat a
year in advance was fair, but making adjustments after the results are
known is not fair.

I'm asking whether you know about anyone else who agrees with your
conclusion.

Meta Research has hundreds of members and supporters. We've
been receiving congratulatory emails this week on the successful EPH
predictions about the asteroidal nature of Comet Tempel 1, even though
the crater size results are not yet known. Many felt the same way about
the successful part of our 1999 challenge when Eros was found to be
loaded with boulders and trails, as predicted. They were also pleased
with our successful predictions of times, places, and rates for Leonid,
Ursid, and Perseid meteor storms and outbursts; and of our earlier
predictions of salt water in meteorites and orbiting satellites of
asteroids and comets. Lots of people were poised to jump all over these
results if the predictions had failed. But that did not happen.

Why are you so resistant to a fair condition added in a
timely way for an obvious reason a year before the event to a challenge
that still had no takers? And why does the fact that the added condition
was right on the mark seem to rankle you even more? -|Tom|-


Tom Van Flandern - Washington, DC - see our web site on replacement
astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org

In article , says...
"Paul Schlyter" writes:

Does that mean that if someone had accepted your challenge, then you=20
would by now have admitted the failure of your EPH hypothesis? After=20
all, no debris field was found orbiting Eros, as you predicted when=20
you first made that challenge.

Someone did try to accept. We negotiated specific wording and conditions,
as is appropriate when testing scientific hypotheses. For example, that
person first wanted to specify a lower limit to satellite size so that
dust and micrometeorites could not be claimed as successes. That was a
reasonable request, so I agreed to this change of wording and added a
reasonable request of my own:

That's not an answer to my question. Perhaps I need to clarify the questio=
n
somewhat mo if someone had accepted your challenge, without extra=20
conditions added by either party, would you by now have admitted the failur=
e
of your EPH hypothesis, as you said you would?

that, if the gravity field was unstable, the large satellites would be fo=
und
on the surface with roll marks rather than in orbit.

So you considered that possibility very early after all. Well, why didn't=
=20
you add that to your original challenge?

The other person (who had lost a previous scientific wager with me) did n=
ot
agree to that condition and withdrew. Apparently, he already knew the gra=
vity
field was unstable, which I did not know at that time. So he was apparent=
ly
only willing to place a "sucker's bet" with conditions where he could not=
lose.

What do you mean "he could not lose"? If there had been a swarm of=20
satellites around Eros, then he would have lost, wouldn't he? He didn't
believe there was such a swarm of course -- but nobody knew for sure before=
=20
NEAR was able to observe Eros at close distance.


That was your requirements on those accepting your challenge. But are=20
you seriously suggesting that the success or failure of your EPH=20
hypothesis should be dependent on whether others accepted your=20
challenge or not?

The EPH requires that a debris cloud with satellites be around every
comet and asteroid when they begin separate existence following the
parent planet explosion. It does not require that satellites remain
there indefinitely, even following collisions or when the local gravity
field is unstable. That would be absurd. So the EPH was not at fault
for the incomplete wording of my initial challenge - I was.

OTOH the EPH becomes no more or less valid if you declare it invalid,
right? As you perhaps start to realize, I'm not discussing the validity
of the EPH here -- I'm discussing your earlier public promise to declare
it invalid if some conditions would be fullfilled. The natural
conditions for that was fullfilled - no depris was found near Eros.


So why did you add this caveat? Why didn't you include it in your=20
original challenge?

I was trying to make the challenge as simple and attractive as
possible and at first failed to appreciate that Eros's irregular=20
shape would make its gravity field unstable.

Yet you realized it early enough to want to add it in as soon as someone
actually was prepared to enter that challenge with you. Perhaps you were
too hasty in issuing your challenge at first? Again, science isn't
gambling. In gambling you must act fast to avoid missing an opportunity.
In science, ideas must mature - thus it's there more important to think
thoroughly even if it then becomes more slowly.

And what if someone challenged you, and you wanted to enter that=20
challenge - but then that person started adding caveats to his=20
original challenge. Would you accept that?

I would not accept that without some good reason for the change. In the
case of the Eros challenge, there was a good reason for both changes -
the one the other party requested and the one I requested - because the
scientific issue was whether Eros ever had abundant satellites, not
whether they were still in orbit or now lying all over the surface. Do
you not see that?

No I don't.... the other guy's change was unnecessary: in order to identif=
y
a debris field of small satellites in orbit around Eros, the satellites=20
would need to be individually identifiable so at least some of them could b=
e=20
tracked. And that rules out dust and small meteoroids as being positive=20
indicators for such a satellite debris field.

But I do see a very clear motive for you to want to make your additions:
without them you would have lost your own challenge.


[tvf]: As always, mainstream theorists refuse to place their models=20
at risk of falsification by making specific predictions.

[Schlyter]: If you take the opportunity to modify your prediction from=
=20
time to time, its chance of success increases drastically. In=20
particular if you increase the number of situations you require should=
=20
be regarded as a success.

True. But the purpose was not to win or to make a profit,

Monetary profit was not involved, true, but you were after the "honor".
I.e. you hoped for "the mainstream" to publicly admit a defeat. Right?

but to comparatively test hypotheses.

No challenges are needed for that. Hypotheses are tested anyway all
the time, and in the end the best hypothesis will win. But perhaps that
process is a bit too slow for your patience?

Perhaps your greatest problem is that you're trying to challenge too much
at a time? Besides your EPH hypothesis you claim that the force of
gravity travels faster than light, and you make some quite non-standard
interpretations of GR, without good enugh evidence for your ideas.

BTW what were the predictions according to "the mainstream theories"=20
you refer to? Did all of them firmly predict that what was observed=20
should not have been observed, or what?

Mainstream asteroid-origin hypotheses at that time predicted that
satellites of asteroids could only form under extremely improbable=20
conditions, and that such satellites should be rare or non-existent.=20
When Binzel and I first put forward the hypothesis that asteroid=20
satellites were "numerous and commonplace" ["Minor planets: the=20
discovery of minor satellites", Science 203, 903-905 (1979)], the=20
response was total disbelief. The occultation data was explained as=20
"birds, planes, and superman" ["Minor planet satellites", Science 211,=20
297-298 (technical comment) (1981)].

Those occultation data relied mostly on visual observations, sometimes
made near the limit of what was visible. And there's plenty of history
about insecurities in visual observing techniques. So that caution was
sensible. OTOH the presence of those asteroid occultation was a clear
indicator that existence of asteroid satellites was an interesting subject
to study.


Your challenge wasn't science, it was gambling.

That is where we differ. My interest was only science, not gambling.

If so, science is better done in other forms than publishing challenges...

When I won my earlier challenge that spacecraft would find an=20
orbiting satellite at one of the first three asteroids visited (made in=
=20
1991 at ACM, Flagstaff; fulfilled in 1993 by satellite Dactyl at=20
asteroid Ida), I did not insist that the losing party "pay up". It was=20
sufficient that he acknowledged losing,

Acknowledge losing was the "pay up" in this case....

implicitly accepting that one hypothesis (EPH) had predictive power that
another (primordial asteroids) lacked.

OTOH basin g a theory on jus tone data point is unreliable. It could be
"predictive power" in the EPH, but it could also be just luck on your
part. If some other asteroid than Ida had passed hear the Galileo
spacecraft, you could have lost this challenge.


I'm asking whether you know about anyone else who agrees with your=20
conclusion.

Meta Research has hundreds of members and supporters.

So does e.g. astrology -- the numbers of supporters alone does not count.

We've been receiving congratulatory emails this week on the successful
EPH predictions about the asteroidal nature of Comet Tempel 1, even
though the crater size results are not yet known. Many felt the same
way about the successful part of our 1999 challenge when Eros was found
to be loaded with boulders and trails, as predicted. They were also
pleased with our successful predictions of times, places, and rates for
Leonid, Ursid, and Perseid meteor storms and outbursts; and of our
earlier predictions of salt water in meteorites and orbiting satellites
of asteroids and comets. Lots of people were poised to jump all over
these results if the predictions had failed. But that did not happen.

Well, with such outstanding acheivements lately, you and your hundreds of=
=20
supporters of course have a lot of papers published in professional journal=
s
like Astrophysical Journal, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Icarus, and others.
And they are frequently referred to by other papers. Is that so?

That's what counts -- not whether you've managed to find a few hundreds of=
=20
supporters in the public. You could start a movement about virtually=20
*anything* - no matter how weird it would be, as long as it "opposes the=20
establishment" in one way or another, it is virtually guaranteed to gather =
a=20
following of hundreds, or thousands, or more. There are plenty of examples=
=20
about that in our society.


Why are you so resistant to a fair condition added in a timely way
for an obvious reason a year before the event to a challenge=20
that still had no takers?

Perhaps because that addition wasn't at all as widely publicized as your
original statement.

I saw your challenge on the Usenet. After NEAR's Eros encounters I
concluded that your challenge had failed and awaited your promised public
declaration - and only then did I learn about those extra condition you
had added.

So at least you have one lesson to learn he if you make a public=20
challenge, make all conditions clear at the beginning. State explicitly
that e.g. if nobody meets your challenge, then you won't publicly declare
your pet theory invalid even if your part of che challenge itself wou=F6d
fail. And if you want to add extra conditions afterwards, make them
public as widely as your original challenge.

And if you go that public with a challenge about your pet theory, it's
no longer just a science issue. Then you've also made it a PR issue,
and with a clear purpose: of course you hope to win the challenge and
to see your opponent publicly defeated - only a basic insight into the
trivial parts human psychology is needed to realize that. But you shouldn'=
t
just reap the benefits of making it a PR issue, you should also fullfil
your obligations. And to, after having issued the challenge, demand to
change the conditions of the challenge is very bad from a PR point of view,
no matter how scientifically justified such a change might be.


And why does the fact that the added condition was right on the mark
seem to rankle you even more?

That is in the eyes of the beholder (i.e. you) only --- I wasn't rankled
a bit by that.

=20

--=20
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

"TVF" == Tom Van Flandern writes:

TVF "Paul Schlyter" writes:
In your original Eros challenge, . 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.

TVF You took that quote out of context and completely misrepresented
TVF the challenge. It was never a one-way street - "heads you win,
TVF tails I lose". The "challenge" was an effort to get the
TVF mainstream to take a specific position, and to make a concession
TVF if that position failed.

I don't understand why the success of a prediction is based on the
number of people who agree to challenge it.

TVF Specifically, the next sentence read: "If the NEAR rendezvous
TVF with Eros shows it to be accompanied by a debris field (i.e.,
TVF multiple orbiting moons), acceptors of this challenge will
TVF publicly concede before the next DPS meeting that the hypothesis
TVF that made that successful prediction has earned a second look by
TVF planetary scientists." The challenge was issued only on the
TVF condition that someone accepted its terms. No one ever did. The
TVF one party who discussed terms withdrew over exact wording issues
TVF when I added the caveat (...) about the fate of orbiting
TVF satellites if the gravity field was unstable.

One person does not a "mainstream" make. Even if this one person had
agreed to the challenge, s/he could not somehow order all textbooks to
be re-written on the basis of this challenge.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

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?