|T O P I C R E V I E W
||Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 21:39:46
"So, what's the damage? Nasa spacecraft sends back stunning images of crater left by Deep Impact probe slamming into comet"
IMHO not quite so stunning as stunned.
|3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
||Posted - 16 Mar 2011 : 15:10:28
The findings fit with the second part of the prediction (based on the assumption that the comet had a surface covered with thik dust). In hind sight, the fact that there was so much dust kicked up by the impact that no useable pictures of the crater could be taken should have prompted us to go with the thick dust and larger crater part of the prediction immediately. A solid surface impact would have kicked up much less debris. (99 percent of the time.)
But such details will be hard know with that kind of certainty until we have observed dozens or even hundreds of impacts on comets and asteroids, and learned all of the ways that nature can fake us out. (That other 1 percent of the time.)
||Posted - 17 Feb 2011 : 15:58:46
As I recall, the only Meta Research prediction on Deep Impact that was not confirmed was the size of the crater.
In the Meta Research Bulletin vol.17, number 4, Tom wrote " . . . we made an unambiguous prediction that the projectile's crater in the hard surface would be small, ~20-30 m. Of course, the explosion may blast a much larger volume of loose dust away. If that dust is truly a kilometer thick, then the crater blasted will be mainly into loose dust rather than a hard surface, and will be several times larger in diameter than our prediction for a crater in a hard surface."
The report in my local paper called the crater a "football field-sized hole" and that "it partially buried itself" when the dust plume fell back down.
How do the latest findings fit with the prediction?
"With Stupidity and Sound Digestion, Man may front much." -- Diogenes Teufelsdrockh
||Posted - 16 Feb 2011 : 22:24:52
Thanks for the update, shando.
I heard a report on the news earlier today. That report mentioned that the space craft had been hit by several "shards" from the comet. I immediately thought of Tom's theory about the origin and nature of comets. In reading the report at your link I see that these hits were mentioned as being from grains of dust.
I wonder how much difference there is between a shard and a grain of dust? Either way, the odds of these impacts happening near the comet and nowhere else are near zero unless the dust grains were in orbit of the comet, along with a lot of other dust grains.
Score another one for Tom's idea.