Real Science Friday: Comets

[Jefferson]

You're the one that claimed there were predictions. How about YOU enlighten us?

Creationists knew the Stardust space probe that was sent up to the Wild 2 comet would not bring back evidence of the big bang. We were right. There's your prediction.

 

[GuySmiley]

I thought that the periodicity of comets was already well established. There's a reason why Halley's Comet is called Halley's Comet, you know.

Guess I should listen to the show to figure out why predicting the reappearance of a comet is suddenly a big deal.

The prediction is that it will reappear earlier than previously predicted because he believes there is more mass in our solar system than others think. I don't remember any more specifically than that, and I dont think I'll relisten to the show.

 

[GuySmiley]

A specific comet on a specific time and date?

Yes, of course. I don't think it was a specific day or time, because I don't think he's figured that accurately the "extra" mass he believes is in the solar system, so he can't make that accurate of a prediction.* But its still an early reappearance. I suppose if we see the early reappearance, we could then accurately calculate the amount of mass he talking about.

What doesn't make sense to me is that if this mass were existing, we should see the trajectory of the comet being different in tracking data. We can determine an orbit based on tracking data. I dont know when we last saw this comet, maybe it was hundred of years ago and we dont trust they had accurate measurements.

* this is my inference from the show, not stated in the show, but it seems logical.

 

[Chalmer Wren]

Creationists knew the Stardust space probe that was sent up to the Wild 2 comet would not bring back evidence of the big bang. We were right. There's your prediction.

I don't think that was the expected result. The composition of the comet tells about the history of our solar system, not the history of the origin of the universe.

 

[Granite]

I don't think that was the expected result. The composition of the comet tells about the history of our solar system, not the history of the origin of the universe.

Don't go confusing people with facts.

 

[Stripe]

I thought that the periodicity of comets was already well established. There's a reason why Halley's Comet is called Halley's Comet, you know.

Guess I should listen to the show to figure out why predicting the reappearance of a comet is suddenly a big deal.

:rotfl:

Yes, if you want to ridicule what people say it pays to actually know what they are saying. :up:

 

[Tyrathca]

Creationists knew the Stardust space probe that was sent up to the Wild 2 comet would not bring back evidence of the big bang. We were right. There's your prediction.

Thats a pretty dumb prediction seeing as no one thought it would do that, in fact if it did bring back such evidence it would be not only extremely surprising but require a rewriting of quite a lot of physics. If you don't understand why then you obviously don't understand anything about cosmology, let alone the big bang and the formation of solar systems. Here is a hint, the comets formed billions of year AFTER the big bang so its not likely to be carrying evidence of it is it?

 

[Granite]

I love when creationists try to play scientist. It's so gosh...cute.

 

[Jefferson]

From http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4801

They characterized the first results as no less than shocking. The astronomers expected to find mostly interstellar grains — tiny, crystalline and noncrystalline specks that stuck together to form the cometary material. They found interstellar grains, but found much larger particles that are made of complex minerals, many of which had been shocked and melted in the distant past, and stuck together like brecciated rocks.

Comets are mostly icy dirtballs, and they are presumed to have formed out in the very coldest part of the solar system. If this is so, how could they contain rock that was obviously superheated? This major puzzle now looms over planetary scientists.

The intelligent design deniers admitted they were "shocked" at the results we knew the probe would yield before it was even launched.

 

[Tyrathca]

From http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4801

The intelligent design deniers admitted they were "shocked" at the results we knew the probe would yield before it was even launched.

If they we so certain of the results why would they bother sending a probe to test them in the first place? The answer is that there are many things we still don't know and in science things are found to be wrong and corrected all the time, this is the way science is meant to work. So they got something unexpected, but that does not mean it invalidates all of modern cosmology and it most certainly does not indicate that creationism must then be right!

 

[Flipper]

:rotfl:

Yes, if you want to ridicule what people say it pays to actually know what they are saying. :up:

It was more of a comment on how this prediction was portrayed in this thread. I listened to the show, but they didn't do much to establish why they made this prediction, saying instead that they would be doing another RSF on the subject soon.

So we'll have to wait to find out the specifics of why this is so groundbreaking. I note that they were only able to narrow down the predicted time of its return to a year's precision, about the same as Edward Halley managed in the 18th Century when he predicted the year his comet would return.

Three hundred years later, and you'd think Walt Brown could manage a slightly higher degree of accuracy.

 

[Jefferson]

If they we so certain of the results why would they bother sending a probe to test them in the first place

The intelligent design deniers were not certain of the results. That's why they sent the probe.

We however, knew what the results were going to be before the probe was even launched. How could we know this in advance? Because we have the Bible.

 

[Stripe]

It was more of a comment on how this prediction was portrayed in this thread. I listened to the show, but they didn't do much to establish why they made this prediction, saying instead that they would be doing another RSF on the subject soon.

So we'll have to wait to find out the specifics of why this is so groundbreaking. I note that they were only able to narrow down the predicted time of its return to a year's precision, about the same as Edward Halley managed in the 18th Century when he predicted the year his comet would return.

Three hundred years later, and you'd think Walt Brown could manage a slightly higher degree of accuracy.

I think you need to listen more carefully and think through your responses a bit better. There is a big difference between what is going on here and what Halley had to work with. And all the information you might need has been presented. No need to wait for another show.

 

[Flipper]

That's funny, I have many questions based on what I heard, but I also distinctly heard Bob say that the topic was too big for a single show and that they would be doing another one soon. So I imagine at least some of my questions will be answered then.

 

[Tyrathca]

The intelligent design deniers were not certain of the results. That's why they sent the probe.

Uh... yeah, thats what I said.

We however, knew what the results were going to be before the probe was even launched. How could we know this in advance? Because we have the Bible.

Thats funny, where would be the predictions made before the probe came back? Please cite the source since "the bible" is insufficient as it make no clear mention of comet compositions for me to use. Obviously you are extrapolating from the bible but unless you have a source explaining it dated from before the data came back then it is not really a prediction is it?

 

[Granite]

From http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4801

The intelligent design deniers admitted they were "shocked" at the results we knew the probe would yield before it was even launched.

Unlike Christians, scientists are actually willing to admit they can make mistakes and that they don't know everything. Imagine that.

 

[Jefferson]

Unlike Christians, scientists are actually willing to admit they can make mistakes and that they don't know everything. Imagine that.

Um...Bob puts a link to his errata page right on the front page of his website. Try again Grainite.

 

[Jefferson]

Thats funny, where would be the predictions made before the probe came back?

The predictions are made in THIS show and in the book found in the link below:

From a show bullet point:

NASA has discovered the earth-like composition of comets, fulfilling Walt Brown's published prediction that they would find a most common mineral from Earth, olivine.

 

[Granite]

Um...Bob puts a link to his errata page right on the front page of his website. Try again Grainite.

A whopping three...with nothing more recent than the Nineties. That's yet another unintentional hoot.

 

[Flipper]

I see nothing in that errata has anything to do with science.