|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 05:47 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 |