A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Deep Impact" predictions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 15th 05, 11:46 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Van Flandern writes:

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.


Illogical; scientific fact is not dependent on the absence of a
prediction.

  #22  
Old July 16th 05, 11:38 PM
Tom Van Flandern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This replies to Paul Schlyter, Joseph Lazio, and Dave Tholen.


"Paul Schlyter" writes:

[Schlyter]: if someone had accepted your challenge, without extra
conditions added by either party, would you by now have admitted the
failure of your EPH hypothesis, as you said you would?


Certainly. That was the purpose of the challenge in my mind - to
determine the predictive power and implied validity of the EPH model in
a public way. It would have been dishonest to do less. And I always try
to ensure that I do not get emotionally attached to any model that I
think the evidence favors - even one like EPH with a 200-year history.

[Schlyter]: So you considered that possibility [of satellites on the
surface with roll marks] very early after all. Well, why didn't you
add that to your original challenge?


To keep the challenge as simple as possible until specific terms
were negotiated with any takers, and because I mistakenly thought that
Eros had stable orbits near its synchronous orbit, which would probably
have made the special condition moot. As I've already said, that latter
reason was my mistake. Of course, that was not the fault of the
hypothesis.

[tvf]: The other person ... apparently already knew the gravity field
was unstable... So he was apparently only willing to place a
"sucker's bet" with conditions where he could not lose.


[Schlyter]: What do you mean "he could not lose"? If there had been a
swarm of 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 NEAR was able to observe Eros at close distance.


Scheeres showed that the gravity field of Eros was unstable. So it
was not physically possible for decent-sized satellites to have remained
in orbit, even if Eros (as the EPH asserts) originally had lots of them.
The other party apparently knew that, so he knew he could not lose the
challenge.

[Schlyter]: 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 fulfilled.


Yes, as you say, I'm starting to get that picture. You are
probably frustrated by finding so few people willing to admit their
grand idea is wrong when a prediction or challenge fails. And who can
blame them? The mainstream sets a terrible example by continually adding
ad hoc accommodating hypotheses when their favored model's expectations
fail. By contrast, since I've been involved in USENET discussions, I
have three times had to admit error and concede a position (counting
this as one of them) because of new information or evidence brought to
my attention. In this case, my original challenge wording was wrong. I
later corrected it. (Isn't that the appropriate response to being shown
an error?) And as you say, that does not reflect on the hypothesis.

However, at no time was the condition of my challenge met -- that
an acceptor of the challenge agreed to its terms. I was not issuing a
challenge that could only be lost but not won. For that, I would have
simply published a prediction, as I did this time for Tempel 1. And such
publication would have mentioned all caveats, as both my 1991 prediction
of asteroid satellites and this year's predictions for Tempel 1 did. The
purpose of the challenge, as distinct from a simple prediction, was to
get mainstream planetary astronomers to use their favored model to make
predictions - the nominal main purpose of all models.

[tvf]: 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?


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


On the contrary. The dust detectors and other instruments could
have detected impacts from orbiting debris, or the asteroid might have
had a residual dust coma, if its gravity field had been stable.

But you missed my point. Forget the other guy. The scientific
issue was as I stated. The challenge was merely a means to get the issue
onto the scientific table for wider consideration because the prior
history of successful EPH predictions had gone largely ignored.

[Schlyter]: 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.


In 1999, I had no way of knowing that I would have lost the
challenge a year into the future other than by becoming aware that the
gravity field was unstable. If I had not learned that, I might have
stuck with my original wording. Or I might have decided to do the same
as really happened - issue a detailed prediction with all the needed
caveats.

[Schlyter]: 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 enough evidence
for your ideas.


Your familiarity with the GR issue is obviously minimal. I've now
published three papers in leading journals, the most recent jointly with
Vigier to which there has been no further rebuttal. According to the
peer review processes and editors involved, and judging by feedback from
many readers worldwide, my evidence was good enough and the two major
points of this last paper were made:
** 1) The proof that nothing can travel faster than light in forward
time is unconditionally invalidated because Lorentzian relativity (LR),
which allows it, has never been experimentally falsified.
** 2) All six experiments bearing on the speed of gravitational or
electrodynamic force agree that it must be much faster than light, which
falsifies SR in favor of LR.
If you haven't assimilated these published, unchallenged findings yet,
then your gravitational physics is still stuck in the 20th century.

As for my "greatest problem", in 1990 I founded Meta Research to
look into all ideas in astronomy that meet the criteria of scientific
method but are ignored solely because they conflict with a mainstream
paradigm. So it is inevitable that I, our Board, and our Members will
have many digressions from mainstream paradigms because that is our main
work: testing innovative ideas to throw out the mostly bad ones and find
the few golden nuggets that represent the probable breakthroughs for
science in the future. So personally, I consider this "problem" a
strength. I will continue to argue for observations and experiments over
consensus for each issue. But our organization needs to remain
independent of mainstream funding channels as presently constituted for
our work to even be possible. For example, one cannot get mainstream
funding for EPH research in the present climate, regardless of whatever
merits that model may have to offer.

[Schlyter]: the presence of those asteroid occultations was a clear
indicator that existence of asteroid satellites was an interesting
subject to study.


You couldn't tell that from the mainstream reaction. Binzel,
Tedesco and I had a chapter on asteroid satellites in "Asteroids I"
(1979). The subject did not even come up in "Asteroids II" (1989), four
years before the discovery of the first official asteroid satellite in
1993.

[Schlyter]: with such outstanding achievements lately, you and your
hundreds of supporters of course have a lot of papers published in
professional journals like Astrophysical Journal, Astronomy and
Astrophysics, Icarus, and others. And they are frequently referred to
by other papers. Is that so?


See the citations at the end of "The exploded planet hypothesis -
2000", available on the web at
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp. A coming
publication has an even longer bibliography. The EPH model has a
200-year history dating back to Olbers and Lagrange, its first
advocates; so the literature has many such articles. For highlights of
the history before I came on the scene, see the lengthy reference list
in my first paper: "A former asteroidal planet as the origin of comets",
Icarus 36:51-74 (1978).

[tvf]: 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?


[Schlyter]: 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.


Thanks for the explanation. I could not figure out why you were so
exercised about this, but I now understand. I published the changes in
the same places I published the original challenge - in the Meta
Research Bulletin and on our web site. Both also came up in USENET
discussions. But obviously, those writings did not reach you. I'm sorry
you did not get the word in plenty of time. Fortunately, lots of other
people did.


and "Joseph Lazio" writes:

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


It isn't. Only the success of the challenge (its stakes) are
affected. If no one accepts, the challenge is off.

As for the prediction (as modified for cause well in advance), it
came out just fine. There were numerous boulders with roll marks on the
surface of Eros, which almost certainly originated as satellites in
orbit.

[Lazio]: 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.


The challenge specified what each side committed to. For the
acceptor's side, it said: "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 seemed fair and reasonable to me.


and writes:

[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.


Here is what you should know from reading the published papers on
this model and the Tempel 1 predictions paper on our web site: The EPH
predicts that debris clouds from the explosion will be trapped in orbit
around fragments. Each debris cloud then evolves in mostly predictable
ways, depending on the forces it is subjected to. E.g., tidal forces
move the larger bodies away from the synchronous orbit. Smaller debris
(e.g., the size for a typical meteor) is removed by solar radiation
pressure if the nucleus spends too much time near the Sun. That is why
asteroids don't have much dust and gas left. Comet tails are generated
by radiation pressure on the whole coma, including the nucleus, not by
outgassing from the nucleus alone.

[Tholen]: Non sequitur, given that the EPH is not a viable model.


Pointlessly argumentative and uninformative.

[Tholen]: 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.


Pointlessly argumentative, or shows ignorance of the EPH/SM model
you are addressing. See preceding description.

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


Ad hominem, argumentative, unscientific.

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


[Tholen]: Illogical, given the occurrence of outbursts.


Unexplained, but apparently shows ignorance of the model it
addresses. If a probe can cause an outburst, so can a meteorite.

[Tholen]: But I'll note that you've carefully avoided mentioning
anything about the elongated shape of the comet.


Did you ever read the prediction article? Even its abstract
mentions the elongation. See
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20syst...DeepImpact.asp.

[tvf]: **** 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.
****


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


Have you even read the thread you are posting in? Or are you just
trolling?

[Tholen]: 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?


On the few occasions when very deep images were taken, the coma
remained present even for comets out near the orbit of Uranus - e.g.,
Hale-Bopp & Haley. It "disappears" only for observers with inadequate
telescope power.

[tvf]: The most famous [dual identity asteroid/comet] is asteroid
4015 = Comet 107P/Wilson-Harrington.


[Tholen]: 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.


And your point is? My point was that when asteroids suffer an
impact, they look just like comets until the debris settles or is blown
away by solar radiation again.

[tvf]: The original prediction that asteroids would have satellites
dates to the first "Asteroids" volume in 1979.


[Tholen]: 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".


Pointlessly argumentative. My dictionary says: "commonplace:
something ordinary; something that is encountered or seen often, or that
happens often." At the time, satellites were considered to be
non-existent or at best rare, freakish phenomena. 5% is commonplace by
comparison. And that percentage is a minimum because we can presently
discover only the largest instances of asteroid satellites.

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


Not enough is known about this asteroid's gravity field (to my
knowledge) to determine whether stable satellite orbits exist. Estimates
of a 2-to-1 elongation leave the stability matter ambiguous. I therefore
make the same prediction as for Eros: Several satellites in orbit, or
lying on the surface with roll marks.

BTW, where are your predictions for Tempel 1 and Itokawa, Tholen?

[tvf]: 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.


[Tholen]: 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.


So you think the 5-second secondary occultation of a bright star
91 seconds before its 20-second occultation by Herculina, reported by an
experienced occultation observer in California and confirmed
photoelectrically by two experienced professionals at Lowell
Observatory, was unreliable? I'm sticking by my original assessment - it
was a satellite. Herculina probably has a ring of satellites, which
would certainly frustrate any adaptive optics efforts to resolve them.

Here's another chance for you to take a position. Do you have one
on this issue?

[tvf]: So I amended the prediction accordingly, well before the
results were known.


[Tholen]: 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.


Yes, I was talking about the rendezvous. So what's your point?
Larger satellites tend to evolve tidally at the most rapid rate, so
smaller ones are more likely to survive. The original distant flyby
could detect satellites only down to an estimated 50 meters, with poorer
limits for close-in satellites. Fireballs in Leonid meteor storms are
said to arise from 1-2 meter bodies escaped from the parent comet. That
is still a pretty significant mass, so the distant flyby from the
aborted rendezvous was not sampling potential satellites covering five
orders of magnitude of mass in the range of chief interest.

[tvf]: 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.


[Tholen]: You have a peculiar notion of "correct", Van Flandern.


Argumentative and uninformative.

[tvf]: Neither you nor any other astronomer accepted my prediction
challenge.


[Tholen]: Which prediction challenge would that be, Van Flandern? The
original one, or the revised one? You're a moving target.


Irrelevant because you did not accept either, and pointlessly
argumentative.

[Tholen]: 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." ... 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."


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 ... evolved surface with dust not coming
from inside ... no new jet formed ... These already-announced findings
all correspond to the prediction that Tempel 1 is an asteroid with its
coma not yet blown away by solar radiation, and several of these points
were mentioned explicitly in my prediction article referenced on CCNet.

Regarding the crater size, the words used, "still analyzing", mean
they haven't seen the crater yet, but just the ejecta layer from the
crater, which is naturally considerably larger than any crater itself.
The dust blasted into space was more opaque than the team anticipated,
making crater visibility problematic. So far, unless fancy image
processing can bring the crater walls out of the noise, they have seen
only a large black spot from crater ejecta (relatively black because the
probe targeted the brightest spot on the surface). Strength-dominated
comet models are still very much in the running, and I stand by my
small-crater-diameter prediction.

What's your prediction? Do you have an opinion of your own?

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


Argumentative and insulting.

[tvf]: 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?


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


Ad hominem, insulting, argumentative, unscientific, trolling.

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


[Tholen]: What success are you referring to, Van Flandern?


The list in the paragraph above set off with four asterisks: ****
.... ****.

So do you have anything to say that might aid the search for truth
about which model describes nature better? Or is that not an interest of
yours? -|Tom|-


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


  #23  
Old July 17th 05, 04:27 PM
Art Deco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

Tom Van Flandern writes:

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.


Illogical; scientific fact is not dependent on the absence of a
prediction.


K0oKFITE!!!!!!

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler

"It's less a process of "convertion" it's about the reality of matter and
energy (all 8 [!] kinds of matter) ... and yes, that's how "they do it".
We {aliens} call it phase-tuning or simply phase-ing.
And no, you will have to find it out all by yourself. And yes, we
{aliens} will make sure your technical advancement will no longer be
faster than your spiritual one ... we'd rather let you perish on this
planet. That's a promise, you monkey-fu*kers.
HTH.
C."
-- Charles D. "Chuckweasel" Bohne's award-winning alien technology

"That's what you expect from people who think that the
cyberworld isn't "RL"."
-- Dr. David Tholen, Psychic Astrologer
  #24  
Old July 18th 05, 04:43 PM
Paul Schlyter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Tom Van Flandern wrote:

This replies to Paul Schlyter, Joseph Lazio, and Dave Tholen.

"Paul Schlyter" writes:

[Schlyter]: So you considered that possibility [of satellites on the
surface with roll marks] very early after all. Well, why didn't you
add that to your original challenge?


To keep the challenge as simple as possible until specific terms were
negotiated with any takers,


That is not honest! It implies that the challenge you're actually
prepared to take is a bit different than the challence you're making
public.

and because I mistakenly thought that Eros had stable orbits near its
synchronous orbit, which would probably have made the special condition
moot. As I've already said, that latter reason was my mistake. Of course,
that was not the fault of the hypothesis.


Actually, if you want to renegotiate the terms when someone is
prepared to take your challenge, you've implictly admitted having
lost the original challenge.

[tvf]: The other person ... apparently already knew the gravity field
was unstable... So he was apparently only willing to place a
"sucker's bet" with conditions where he could not lose.


[Schlyter]: What do you mean "he could not lose"? If there had been a
swarm of 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 NEAR was able to observe Eros at close distance.


Scheeres showed that the gravity field of Eros was unstable. So it was
not physically possible for decent-sized satellites to have remained
in orbit, even if Eros (as the EPH asserts) originally had lots of them.
The other party apparently knew that, so he knew he could not lose the
challenge.


....if Sheeres was right, that is. He probably was right, but
remember that models are models, not the reality itself. We won't
know for sure until we've observed it.


[Schlyter]: 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 fulfilled.


Yes, as you say, I'm starting to get that picture. You are probably
frustrated by finding so few people willing to admit their grand idea
is wrong when a prediction or challenge fails.


I'm actually more irritated when people try to make some kind of
"circus show" by making those challenges. Science isn't gambling.
Yes I know you disagree about that.

And who can blame them? The mainstream sets a terrible example by
continually adding ad hoc accommodating hypotheses when their favored
model's expectations fail.


Such models are of course immature - but what are you supposed to do
when the best models available fail? Should you discard them and
replace them with something worse?

By contrast, since I've been involved in USENET discussions, I have
three times had to admit error and concede a position (counting
this as one of them) because of new information or evidence brought to
my attention. In this case, my original challenge wording was wrong. I
later corrected it. (Isn't that the appropriate response to being shown
an error?) And as you say, that does not reflect on the hypothesis.


In science that's of course the proper procedure. But in gambling it
isn't - there you're supposed to stick with the initial conditions.
If you play e.g. roulette, and bet a lot of money (or your
reputation, or whatever) on "red", and when the ball slows down you
realize "red" probably won't win - then you cannot change your mind
and bet on "black" instead.... doing so would not be accepted.

Issuing a challenge is similar: you hope to win by getting your opponent
to publicly declare they're lost. But you also risk having to declare
you've lost yourself.

However, at no time was the condition of my challenge met -- that
an acceptor of the challenge agreed to its terms.


If you wanted to play roulette, or poker, on similar terms, no-one
would want to play with you either.....


But you missed my point. Forget the other guy. The scientific issue was
as I stated. The challenge was merely a means to get the issue onto the
scientific table for wider consideration because the prior history of
successful EPH predictions had gone largely ignored.


Did your challenge succeed, or fail, as a gimmic to get more attention
to your EPH?

BTW what's wrong with the regular procedu publish your theory, make
predictions about observable events not yet observed, and await the
results of future observations. What's wrong with that?


[Schlyter]: 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 enough evidence
for your ideas.


Your familiarity with the GR issue is obviously minimal. I've now
published three papers in leading journals, the most recent jointly with
Vigier to which there has been no further rebuttal. According to the
peer review processes and editors involved, and judging by feedback from
many readers worldwide, my evidence was good enough and the two major
points of this last paper were made:
** 1) The proof that nothing can travel faster than light in forward
time is unconditionally invalidated because Lorentzian relativity (LR),
which allows it, has never been experimentally falsified.


Does relativity really say nothing can travel faster than light?
Then why do people talk about tachyons? I.e. those hypothetical FTL
particles with imaginary rest mass which have never been observed,
but, if I've understood it all correctly, is not completely ruled out
by relativity.

** 2) All six experiments bearing on the speed of gravitational or
electrodynamic force agree that it must be much faster than light, which
falsifies SR in favor of LR.


Does SR say anything about gravity? I thought GR did that.....

Anyway, in GR, the gravitational force is a pseudo-force which really
does not exist - quite similar to the centrifugal force or the coriolis
force. At what speed does the centrifugal force propagate? :-)

If you haven't assimilated these published, unchallenged findings yet,
then your gravitational physics is still stuck in the 20th century.


I've seen nobody but you argue that gravity travels faster than
light. More than a decade ago, you used the aberration of light and
the absence of aberration of gravity in the solar system as a "proof"
that gravity travels much faster than light. Your arguments were
simple and down-to-earth and I believed you for awhile. And from a
Newtonian perspectice you are right of course: in Newtonan physics
gravity is assumed to propagate instantly. Later I saw Steve Carlips
arguments why your aberration argument for gravity travelling FTL is
wrong, and he convinced me. Carlip's position is that since we've
never directly observed the propagation speed of gravity, we don't
know whether it travels FTL or not. But according to GR, gravity
does not propagate FTL. So says Carlip, and since, as you correctly
pointed out, I'm no expert in GR, I cannot argue against that. But I
do trust his expertise in GR more than yours.


As for my "greatest problem", in 1990 I founded Meta Research to look
into all ideas in astronomy that meet the criteria of scientific
method but are ignored solely because they conflict with a mainstream
paradigm.


If your EPH should become an accepted mainstream model, how would Meta
Research deal with it then? Would Meta Research stop promoting it then?
After all, it would then no longer be in conflict with the mainstream
paradigm, and would thus be outside of what Meta Research is supposed
to deal with.

[Schlyter]: the presence of those asteroid occultations was a clear
indicator that existence of asteroid satellites was an interesting
subject to study.


You couldn't tell that from the mainstream reaction. Binzel,
Tedesco and I had a chapter on asteroid satellites in "Asteroids I"
(1979). The subject did not even come up in "Asteroids II" (1989), four
years before the discovery of the first official asteroid satellite in
1993.


OTOH e.g. the Galileo space probe was sent past two asteroids, and
found a satellite orbiting one of them. So some attention was paid
to this problem, or else Galileo would have been targeted for only
Jupiter.

[Schlyter]: with such outstanding achievements lately, you and your
hundreds of supporters of course have a lot of papers published in
professional journals like Astrophysical Journal, Astronomy and
Astrophysics, Icarus, and others. And they are frequently referred to
by other papers. Is that so?


See the citations at the end of "The exploded planet hypothesis -
2000", available on the web at
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/eph/eph2000.asp. A coming
publication has an even longer bibliography. The EPH model has a
200-year history dating back to Olbers and Lagrange, its first
advocates; so the literature has many such articles. For highlights of
the history before I came on the scene, see the lengthy reference list
in my first paper: "A former asteroidal planet as the origin of comets",
Icarus 36:51-74 (1978).


Interestingly, a lot of models in conflict with mainstream models are
revived old hypotheses which once were rejected. I guess the major
weakness with the EPH hypothesis is that we know of no feasible
mechanism by which a planet could spontaneously explode. So your EPH
requires some "magic" as far as we know today - and that's probably
why it is met with such resistance. Yes I know your counterargument
he "...but how can a whole universe explode?" - at least the
primeval universe had physical conditions very different from today.
In particular an extremely high density, where quantum physical
effects became important even on a larger scale. Therefore it is
much easier to accept an exploding primeval universe than to accept
an exploding planet under more normal physical conditions.

So that's probably what's required to get EPH accepted as a mainstream
model: find a feasible physical mechanism by which a planet can
spontaneously explode. After all, ad hoc adjustments and additions
to models not requiring magic is easier to accept than a model which
does require some magic.


and writes:

.............
[Tholen]: Non sequitur, given that the EPH is not a viable model.


Pointlessly argumentative and uninformative.

............
Pointlessly argumentative, or shows ignorance of the EPH/SM model
you are addressing. See preceding description.

............
Ad hominem, argumentative, unscientific.

............
Unexplained, but apparently shows ignorance of the model it
addresses.

............
Pointlessly argumentative.

............
Argumentative and uninformative.

............
Argumentative and insulting.


Uh-oh! Watch out so you don't yourself become a "Tholen-bot" Tom!
Tholen belongs in the kill file - discussing with him on Usenet is
like trying to talk with a robot. Perhaps it's feasible to argument
with him through some science journal - these journals have editors,
and therefore Tholen is then forced to behave, or else his letters
will be rejected.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
  #25  
Old July 18th 05, 09:44 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Paul Schlyter writes:

Uh-oh! Watch out so you don't yourself become a "Tholen-bot" Tom!


You're erroneously presupposing the existence of a "Tholen-bot",
Schlyter.

Tholen belongs in the kill file


Kill files do not prevent people like you from making antagonizing
remarks, Schlyter, as the above demonstrates rather clearly.

- discussing with him on Usenet is
like trying to talk with a robot.


Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Rather ironic, coming
from someone who relies on such comments in his discussions on USENET.

Perhaps it's feasible to argument
with him through some science journal - these journals have editors,
and therefore Tholen is then forced to behave, or else his letters
will be rejected.


How ironic, coming from someone not behaving.

  #26  
Old July 18th 05, 11:58 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Van Flandern writes:

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.


You've removed context, Van Flandern. Let's reinstate it:

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).


Here is what you should know from reading the published papers on
this model and the Tempel 1 predictions paper on our web site: The EPH
predicts that debris clouds from the explosion will be trapped in orbit
around fragments.


That's what led you to predict a debris cloud around Eros, Van Flandern,
at least until after the flyby images didn't show any debris cloud, at
which point you changed your prediction, and explained that the elongated
shape of the asteroid made some orbits unstable. But Tempel 1 is also
elongated, so why should it have a debris cloud, Van Flandern? Aren't
those orbits also unstable?

Of course, the more distant orbits are still stable, so why didn't the
presence of distant satellites remain in the Eros prediction? Oh, that's
right; the flyby images didn't show any of those either.

Each debris cloud then evolves in mostly predictable
ways, depending on the forces it is subjected to. E.g., tidal forces
move the larger bodies away from the synchronous orbit. Smaller debris
(e.g., the size for a typical meteor) is removed by solar radiation
pressure if the nucleus spends too much time near the Sun. That is why
asteroids don't have much dust and gas left. Comet tails are generated
by radiation pressure on the whole coma, including the nucleus, not by
outgassing from the nucleus alone.


If radiation pressure removes the smaller particles, then why are there
any smaller particles left around a comet nucleus, Van Flandern? Doesn't
it need a source to resupply the smaller particles, Van Flandern?

You've removed more context, Van Flandern. Let's reinstate it:

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.


Pointlessly argumentative and uninformative.


That you are unable to see the point is your problem, Van Flandern, not
mine.

You've removed more context, Van Flandern. Let's reinstate it:

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.


Pointlessly argumentative, or shows ignorance of the EPH/SM model
you are addressing. See preceding description.


That you are unable to see the point is your problem, Van Flandern, not
mine.

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


Ad hominem, argumentative, unscientific.


I'm well aware that your little game of semantics is unscientific,
Van Flandern. No need to tell me.

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.


Unexplained,


So, you admit that the EPH does not explain how outbursts can occur.
Progress. The icy dirtball model has no such problem.

but apparently shows ignorance of the model it addresses.


To which model are you referring, Van Flandern?

If a probe can cause an outburst, so can a meteorite.


Just how many 370 kg meteorites do you think hit a target smaller than
10 km in diameter over the span of a few weeks, Van Flandern?

But I'll note that you've carefully avoided mentioning
anything about the elongated shape of the comet.


Did you ever read the prediction article? Even its abstract
mentions the elongation.


It doesn't mention why the "debris cloud" exists for Tempel 1 despite
the elongated shape, Van Flandern. It doesn't mention why a similar
"debris cloud" didn't appear around Eros, Van Flandern. All it says
is that the local gravity field is unstable for large satellites, having
been removed by tidal forces. Does that mean the local gravity field is
stable for small satellites, Van Flandern? Why didn't we see any small
satellites around Eros? After all, you did predict satellites of all
sizes. If only the large ones able to raise tidal forces were deorbited,
then you have no reason for the smaller ones to be absent. Yet they were
absent.

See http://metaresearch.org/solar%20syst...DeepImpact.asp.


Does it differ from what you sent Benny Peiser, Van Flandern?

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.


Have you even read the thread you are posting in?


Of course, Van Flandern. I could ask the same question of you, considering
how much material you omitted from your follow-up.

Or are you just trolling?


That's rather ironic, coming from the person who started the thread.
I'm merely responding to you, Van Flandern. If you can't take the
heat, get out of the sunlight.

You've removed more context, Van Flandern. Let's reinstate it:

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?


On the few occasions when very deep images were taken, the coma
remained present even for comets out near the orbit of Uranus - e.g.,
Hale-Bopp & Haley.


Are you claiming that a distant comet was never seen to be completely
stellar (or should I say asteroidal) in appearance, Van Flandern, even
with very deep images?

By the way, I'm not familiar with any comet "Haley", unless you're
referring to some musician on Earth. I am aware of an outburst on
comet Halley at something like 14 AU. Is that what you're referring
to as "remaining present" near the orbit of Uranus?

It "disappears" only for observers with inadequate telescope power.


How convenient. Anytime someone fails to see the "debris cloud" around
a comet, you blame it on inadequate telescope power. Well, shouldn't
it be possible to compute the brightness and extent of the "debris
cloud" and predict its detectability at all heliocentric distances?
Perhaps you'd like to explain why some comets brighten and then fade
with a larger exponent than the simple inverse square law would predict.
Or perhaps you wouldn't.

You've removed more context, Van Flandern. Let's reinstate it:

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.


Note: no response.

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


[Tholen]: 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.


You've removed more context, Van Flandern. Let's reinstate it:

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.


And your point is?


My point should have been obvious, Van Flandern. I guess you were too
busy removing the text that you didn't want to address, like your
unfamiliarity with the Elst-Pizarro case.

My point was that when asteroids suffer an
impact, they look just like comets until the debris settles or is blown
away by solar radiation again.


Gee, why don't comets look like asteroids after the debris settles or
is blown away by solar radiation again, Van Flandern? Or do you intend
to argue that comets keep suffering impacts, whereas asteroids do not?

You've removed more context, Van Flandern. Let's reinstate it:

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 adjective, 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".


Pointlessly argumentative.


Is that the best rebuttal that you can come up with, Van Flandern?
That you are unable to see the point is your problem, Van Flandern,
not mine.

My dictionary says: "commonplace: something ordinary; something that is
encountered or seen often, or that happens often."


Satellites of asteroids certainly aren't being encountered very often,
Van Flandern.

At the time, satellites were considered to be
non-existent or at best rare, freakish phenomena.


By whom, Van Flandern? If they were considered non-existent, then why
were astronomers looking for them? I participated in numerous asteroid
occultation experiments. We were always looking for secondary events.
Why would we do that if we considered satellites to be nonexistent?

You can't make a scientific argument by telling others what they
considered to be the case when in fact that wasn't what they considered
to be the case, Van Flandern.

5% is commonplace by comparison.


According to whom, Van Flandern? You?

And that percentage is a minimum because we can presently
discover only the largest instances of asteroid satellites.


No, it's not a minimum, Van Flandern; the minimum would be the actual
discovery rate, which is less than 5 percent for the main belt. It's
closer to half that.

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


Not enough is known about this asteroid's gravity field (to my
knowledge) to determine whether stable satellite orbits exist.


"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.

Not only have extensive lightcurve observations been obtained of the
target asteroid, radar has been bounced off it as well. The rotation
period is roughly 12 hours. The axis of rotation is nearly orthogonal
to the ecliptic plane. The dimensions are roughly 600 by 300 meters.
Is that enough for you to make a prediction, Van Flandern?

Estimates of a 2-to-1 elongation leave the stability matter ambiguous.


Why?

I therefore
make the same prediction as for Eros: Several satellites in orbit, or
lying on the surface with roll marks.


Covering all bases, eh Van Flandern? What you want is a prediction
that distinguishes your EPH from what you like to call "mainstream"
models, Van Flandern. Anything else isn't going to help your cause.

BTW, where are your predictions for Tempel 1 and Itokawa, Tholen?


Scientific fact does not depend on the presence or absence of
predictions, Van Flandern. Let it suffice to say that I have
participated in the planning for a satellite search around Itokawa.
Unfortunately, the experiment is necessarily severely limited by
the bandwidth of the downlink. Full resolution images are needed.
If you want to cover the entire Hill sphere, the observations will
necessarily be distant, thus making the smallest objects hard to
see. Being closer in would enable the observations of smaller
objects, but then multiple images would be needed to cover the entire
Hill sphere, but the bandwidth is inadequate to transmit that many
images without compromising other science.

You've removed more context, Van Flandern. Let's reinstate it:

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.


Note: no response.

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.


Note: no response.

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.


So you think the 5-second secondary occultation of a bright star
91 seconds before its 20-second occultation by Herculina, reported by an
experienced occultation observer in California and confirmed
photoelectrically by two experienced professionals at Lowell
Observatory, was unreliable?


The zenith distance at Lowell was something like 88 degress, as I
recall. Weren't the Lowell professionals also skeptical, Van Flandern?

I'm sticking by my original assessment - it was a satellite.


Where's the satellite of Eros that produced the secondary occultations,
Van Flandern?

Herculina probably has a ring of satellites, which
would certainly frustrate any adaptive optics efforts to resolve them.


Why would a ring of satellites frustrate adaptive optics, Van Flandern?

Here's another chance for you to take a position. Do you have one
on this issue?


To which issue are you referring, Van Flandern? I wouldn't expect
a ring of satellites to frustrate adaptive optics. That's my position
on that issue.

You've removed more context, Van Flandern. Let's reinstate it:

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.


Note: no response.

So I amended the prediction accordingly, 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.


Yes, I was talking about the rendezvous. So what's your point?


That you are unable to comprehend my point is your problem, Van Flandern,
not mine. But let me spell it out for you: your amendment was made after
the results were known, not well before, contrary to your claim.

Larger satellites tend to evolve tidally at the most rapid rate, so
smaller ones are more likely to survive. The original distant flyby
could detect satellites only down to an estimated 50 meters, with poorer
limits for close-in satellites.


And nothing was seen. After that, you amended your prediction.

Fireballs in Leonid meteor storms are
said to arise from 1-2 meter bodies escaped from the parent comet. That
is still a pretty significant mass, so the distant flyby from the
aborted rendezvous was not sampling potential satellites covering five
orders of magnitude of mass in the range of chief interest.


Yet the results were good enough to force you to reconsider your
prediction, Van Flandern.

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.


Argumentative and uninformative.


That you are unable to comprehend the information is your problem,
Van Flandern, not mine.

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.


Irrelevant because you did not accept either, and pointlessly
argumentative.


That you are unable to comprehend the point is your problem,
Van Flandern, not mine.

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."


Is that the best you can do?


Is that the best rebuttal you can come up with, Van Flandern? The JPL
news release says that the crater is much larger than you predicted,
Van Flandern.

The quick rise in ultraviolet light
indicates the probe hit a hard surface


Non sequitur. I was talking about your prediction of crater size,
Van Flandern, not the strength of the surface.

... possible crystalline silicates


Non sequitur. I was talking about your prediction of crater size,
Van Flandern, not the composition of the surface, which is consistent
with the icy dirtball model.

... large surface craters


Non sequitur. I was talking about your prediction of crater size
made by the impactor, Van Flandern, not the sizes of other features.

... possible layering


Non sequitur. I was talking about your prediction of crater size,
Van Flandern, not the stratigraphy of the comet.

... overall appearance indistinguishable from an asteroid


Non sequitur. I was talking about your prediction of crater size,
Van Flandern, not the appearance of the comet.

... no increase in water emission or other volatiles


Non sequitur. I was talking about your prediction of crater size,
Van Flandern, not the lever of water emissions.

... evolved surface with dust not coming from inside


Non sequitur. I was talking about your prediction of crater size,
Van Flandern, not the evolutionary state of the surface.

... no new jet formed


Non sequitur. I was talking about your prediction of crater size,
Van Flandern, not the formation of new jets.

... These already-announced findings
all correspond to the prediction that Tempel 1 is an asteroid with its
coma not yet blown away by solar radiation,


Interesting that you didn't provide any reference to these "already-
announced findings", Van Flandern. But even if you had, it wouldn't
change the fact that they're all non sequitur to the issue of crater
size.

and several of these points
were mentioned explicitly in my prediction article referenced on CCNet.


Non sequitur. I was talking about your prediction of crater size,
Van Flandern, not your other points.

Regarding the crater size, the words used, "still analyzing", mean
they haven't seen the crater yet, but just the ejecta layer from the
crater, which is naturally considerably larger than any crater itself.


Conservation of mass, Van Flandern. The material ejected into space
had to come from somewhere.

The dust blasted into space was more opaque than the team anticipated,
making crater visibility problematic.


I pointed that out to colleagues shortly after they showed the movie
of the plume casting a shadow, Van Flandern.

So far, unless fancy image
processing can bring the crater walls out of the noise, they have seen
only a large black spot from crater ejecta (relatively black because the
probe targeted the brightest spot on the surface). Strength-dominated
comet models are still very much in the running, and I stand by my
small-crater-diameter prediction.


Does that mean that if the final analysis confirms a crater size at the
large end of original expectations, you'll declare the EPH as a failed
model, Van Flandern?

What's your prediction?


Scientific fact does not depend on the presence or absence of
predictions, Van Flandern.

Do you have an opinion of your own?


Opinions are irrelevant, given that what we're after is scientific
fact, Van Flandern.

You've removed more context, Van Flandern. Let's reinstate it:

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?


Argumentative and insulting.


You're the one who changed his prediction about Eros, Van Flandern.
If you find it insulting for someone to note that you changed your
prediction, then perhaps you should consider not changing your
predictions, Van Flandern.

You've removed more context, Van Flandern. Let's reinstate it:

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.


Note: no response.

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


See above.


Note: no response.

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.


Ad hominem, insulting, argumentative,


You're the one who changed his prediction about Eros, Van Flandern.
If you find it insulting for someone to note that you changed your
prediction, then perhaps you should consider not changing your
predictions, Van Flandern.

unscientific,


I agree that the changing of predictions in response to actual data
being received is unscientific, Van Flandern. No need to tell me
about it.

trolling.


That's rather ironic, coming from the person who started the thread.
I'm merely responding to you, Van Flandern.

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?


The list in the paragraph above set off with four asterisks: ****
.... ****.


No more successful than the "mainstream" models you disfavor, Van
Flandern, and a failure at predicting satellites of all sizes around
Eros.

So do you have anything to say that might aid the search for truth
about which model describes nature better?


You're erroneously presupposing that I haven't already said something
to aid in the search for truth, Van Flandern.

Or is that not an interest of yours? -|Tom|-


"Ad hominem, insulting, argumentative, unscientific, trolling."
--Tom Van Flandern

How ironic.

  #27  
Old July 22nd 05, 12:20 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Van Flandern writes:

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?

  #28  
Old July 22nd 05, 11:22 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Van Flandern writes:

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.

  #29  
Old July 24th 05, 05:26 PM
Tom Van Flandern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This message replies to Paul Schlyter (mostly about gravity/relativity
issues) and Dave Tholen.


"Paul Schlyter" writes:

[tvf]: The proof that nothing can travel faster than light in forward
time is unconditionally invalidated because Lorentzian relativity
(LR), which allows it, has never been experimentally falsified.


[Schlyter]: Does relativity really say nothing can travel faster than
light? Then why do people talk about tachyons? I.e. those
hypothetical FTL particles with imaginary rest mass which have never
been observed, but, if I've understood it all correctly, is not
completely ruled out by relativity.


"Relativity" consists of the general theory (GR) and the
special theory (SR). Only SR says that nothing can travel faster than
light *in forward time*. (Note this key phrase in my statement above.)
Hypothetical tachyons propagate backwards in time.

GR often claims to be based on SR. But as used in practice,
GR is based more on LR than on SR because GR never uses the frame
reciprocity feature that differentiates the SR from LR.

[tvf]: All six experiments bearing on the speed of gravitational or
electrodynamic force agree that it must be much faster than light,
which falsifies SR in favor of LR.


[Schlyter]: Does SR say anything about gravity? I thought GR did
that.....


Right. SR and LR are strictly about the relativity of
motion. SR says nothing can propagate FTL in forward time; so if the
propagation of gravitational force/acceleration does that, then gravity
falsifies SR in favor of LR. And experiments show that target bodies
respond to the near-instantaneous position of accelerating source
masses, not their retarded positions.

[Schlyter]: Anyway, in GR, the gravitational force is a pseudo-force
which really does not exist - quite similar to the centrifugal force
or the coreolis force. At what speed does the centrifugal force
propagate? :-)


This is a commonly misunderstood and mis-taught aspect of
GR. GR has two physical interpretations: field GR and geometric GR. In
the former (as favored by Einstein, Dirac, and Feynman, among others),
gravitation is a classical force, period. In the latter (the version
more commonly taught these days), gravity is just 4-space geometry. It
is commonly said that objects just follow the curvature of spacetime, so
their motion requires no force. However, IMO, saying that does nothing
but confuse the hell out of students. In fact, Vigier and I explained
why the geometric interpretation of GR may now be considered falsified:
1) Geometric GR has no cause to initiate the motion of bodies at
rest in a gravitational field. (Curvature alone cannot initiate motion
unless a force acts. There is no "downhill" in space.)
2) Geometric GR requires creation -ex nihilo- for the new 3-space
momentum of target bodies in a gravitational field.
3) In classical physics, force is defined as the time rate of change
of momentum in 3-space. Target bodies change their 3-space momentum,
which means they experience a force by definition.
4) Even geometric GR must derive 3-space equations of motion to
compare its predictions against observations. In doing so, GR uses
*instantaneous* (not retarded) potential gradients, which is the
mathematical equivalent of adopting infinite force propagation speed. If
it did not do that, GR would not agree with observations or with
Newtonian gravity (which necessarily has infinite force propagation
speed) in the low-velocity, weak-field limit, and would therefore be a
wrong theory.

[Schlyter]: according to GR, gravity does not propagate FTL. So says
Carlip, and since, as you correctly pointed out, I'm no expert in GR,
I cannot argue against that. But I do trust his expertise in GR more
than yours.


My senior co-author and I critiqued Carlip's arguments in
our "Foundations of Physics" paper, and there has been no further
response in three years. But I understand your position. For each
problem in life, we each must choose whether to learn enough to make our
own judgment, or whether to trust some expert's judgment. And we each
learn by trial and error how to improve our choices of experts. Why don't
we revisit this in five years and see if you are still happy with your
choice of expert for this "speed of gravity" issue?

[tvf]: in 1990 I founded Meta Research to look into all ideas in
astronomy that meet the criteria of scientific method but are ignored
solely because they conflict with a mainstream paradigm.


[Schlyter]: If your EPH should become an accepted mainstream model,
how would Meta Research deal with it then? Would Meta Research stop
promoting it then? After all, it would then no longer be in conflict
with the mainstream paradigm, and would thus be outside of what Meta
Research is supposed to deal with.


If mainstream astronomy were not stuck on several dead-end
theories, there would be no need for Meta Research to exist.

[Schlyter]: I guess the major weakness with the EPH hypothesis is that
we know of no feasible mechanism by which a planet could spontaneously
explode.


Incorrect. See
http://metaresearch.org/solar%20syst...Explosions.asp.

[Schlyter]: So that's probably what's required to get EPH accepted as
a mainstream model: find a feasible physical mechanism by which a
planet can spontaneously explode. After all, ad hoc adjustments and
additions to models not requiring magic is easier to accept than a
model which does require some magic.


Suggestion noted and requirement already met. I assure you,
no model ever supported by Meta Research will require "magic". We are
advocates of "deep reality physics". See "Physics has its principles" at
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/Ph...Principles.asp. No magic
or miracles allowed, in contrast with several mainstream theories (e.g.,
the Big Bang origin, and initiating motion in GR without a force
acting).

[Schlyter]: Tholen belongs in the kill file - discussing with him on
Usenet is like trying to talk with a robot.


Unfortunately, you are right about this. Tholen has been an
embarrassment to his employer, his colleagues, and even to some of his
friends. Deeply buried in his robotic messages are a few nuggets
actually worth discussing. I tried to dig those out and ignore the
trash. But it was no use - he wouldn't allow limiting the discussion and
staying on topic. Tholen seems unable to concede anything and hence
unable to learn and evolve his knowledge and behavior, the way the rest
of us try to do.

As if anticipating my remarks, I see that Tholen has now
posted two single-issue messages. Both are reasonable points of
potentially broader interest. If he stuck to that mode of posting,
people might actually start reading his posts again and appreciating his
shared expertise. So I'll answer these two and any occasional future
post made in that same constructive style.

Yes, I already know I'm going to regret giving him another
chance. No need to say "I told you so!" :-)


and writes:

[tvf]: no new jet formed


[Tholen]: [Palomar]: "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,
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."

[tvf]: no increase in water emission or other volatiles


[Tholen]: [IAU Circular 8571]: "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. Kuhn says that scientific paradigms change by evolution
rather than revolution. 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. That's okay with me.
Our goal here is progress, not vindication. And I'd like to think we can
agree on that. -|Tom|-


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


  #30  
Old July 24th 05, 09:05 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prepare for Deep Impact [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 June 29th 05 06:46 PM
UA Scientist on Deep Impact Mission Ready for Spacecraft's Launch [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 January 3rd 05 06:47 PM
Deep News - Newsletter for the Deep Impact Mission - Issue 2 Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 0 August 21st 03 11:04 PM
Deep News - Newsletter for the Deep Impact Mission - Issue 2 Ron Baalke Misc 0 August 21st 03 11:04 PM
Deep News - Newsletter for the Deep Impact Mission Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 0 July 15th 03 07:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.