Your observation is sublime. Too often the impression is left that there is disappointment when science is wrong or when certain biases aren't supported. What's that phrase we hear from the other side? Science is self-correcting?
Posted on 09/13/2003 5:17:25 PM PDT by bondserv
Not Enough Comets in the Cupboard 09/03/2003
There’s a shortage of comets. The Hubble Space Telescope peered into the Kuiper Belt cupboard, and found it nearly empty – only 4% of the predicted supply was found.
Astronomers needed a bigger storehouse to explain the number of short-period comets now inhabiting the solar system. The Kuiper Belt, a region of small icy bodies beyond Neptune, has been the favored source of comets with orbital periods 200 years or less, but the new measurements, soon to be published in the Astrophysical Journal, are “wildly inconsistent” with the observed number of comets. Astronomers expected to find 85 trans-Neptunian objects in the cupboard, and found only three.
Science News1 calls this a riddle. For this region to be a viable source, there should be hundred or even thousands of times as many objects as were actually found. Perhaps the objects expected had been dashed into dust by collisions. The measurements indicate that another hoped-for source at the outer edge of the Kuiper Belt “might not be sufficiently massive to spawn the short-period comets.”
As quoted in the report in Science Now, how does one researcher describe the finding? “This is very exciting work.”
1Science News Week of Sept. 6, 2003 (164:10): Ron Cowen, “Hubble Highlights a Riddle: What's the source of quick-return comets?”
A true scientist should be excited that a hypothesis proves false, as much as when it proves true; what is undesirable in science is ambiguity. Unfortunately, no amount of evidence seems to ever cause naturalistic planetary scientists to falsify the idea that the solar system formed out of undirected, purposeless natural forces billions of years ago. “Exciting” becomes their euphemism for baffled, disappointed, and clueless. What would really be exciting would be to see a planetary scientist follow the data where it leads, and question the assumption that the solar system is so old.
This empirical measurement leaves planetary scientists in a quandary. Why do we still have comets after the assumed 4.5 billion years the solar system has existed, when we know they are burning out within just thousands of years? Several recent comet stories reported here are leaving them with diminishing options:There aren’t enough sources, and they are burning out too fast to last 4.5 billion years. This is very exciting work.
- Comets are not pristine objects (Aug. 12).
- Comets fizzle fast (March 27).
- Nanodiamond counts too low (Jul 12, 2002).
- Comet deficit puzzling (June 21, 2002).
- Comets commit suicide (Feb. 26, 2001).
- Oort cloud only 10% of theory (Jan 31, 2001).
Here is a snip from this Link.
As we have stated before, it’s not that materialistic scientists are unable to concoct a story to fit the data (they are a very imaginative lot, after all). It’s that the data require a story to fit a belief. They might retort that a Bible believer does the same thing, because he or she must fit the data to a belief, also. But there are two advantages with a Biblical viewpoint: (1) The observation to assumption ratio is much higher, since they are not obligated to extrapolate observed processes billions of years into the unseen past, and (2) There is credible Eyewitness testimony available, at least for the big picture. A scientist of Christian or Jewish persuasion can also be more open to question the conventional wisdom and provide a sanity check against materialistic dogmatism.
Keep in mind that today’s headline mentions only a few of many problems with materialistic cosmogonies – search back through the chain links on Solar System for many more problems, some much worse (try just the next three, for example). Surely a materialist cannot claim the rational high ground in the face of this many unknowns, anomalies, and puzzles, propped up by ad hoc just-so stories rigged to maintain a belief in 4.6 billion years of undirected natural processes, a lot of matter in motion that just happened to result in our lucky planet.
There is some good information that is well referenced on the website that provides these commentaries. Take a look if you get some time. He is a good one for pointing out false assumptions that are taught to the world by the scientific community.
The Kuiper belt is not the origin of comets. The Oort Cloud, beyond Pluto, is where all these little wandering icy astral bodies originate.
Dem guys don't know much.
Do you mean the scientists that did the research or the person who commented on the research?
Referenced by the green color commentator.;-)
Oort cloud only 10% of theory (Jan 31, 2001).
My pleasure, and thanks for taking the time to have a look.
I think it's funny that you think articles like this reveal the ignorance of scientists, when all it does is reveal the intellectual bankruptcy of the general creationist researcher. Instead of providing viable research of their own, instead they choose to lob insults at the scientific community. Again they show their true colors.
Here's a preprint of the paper that they are crowing about. Maybe you should get a leg up on your creationist buddies, and read about what they think the implications of their work is, instead of relying on a press release. The paper actually reads quite well, especially the introduction(1) and the conclusion(4), and the summary (5), which is all that should really interest you.
Remember that the TNO objects that this paper is looking for is objects of about > 40 km in size. Most comets are 5-10 km in size. They are very undetectable even with the finest current optics. There could be a whole population of them, ground down from larger objects rubbing against each other. Considering how hard it was to image Halley's Comet at the orbit of Neptune, it just gets worse the farther away you get.
Finally, let me end with this statement from the conclusion: "The observed data is consistent with the interpretation that significant mass is present in the CKB (Central Kuiper Belt) and that this mass resides entirely in bodies smaller than ~40 km. It is concievable that, within the standard model of accretion of planetesimals in a (gaseous) circumstellar disk, accretion timescales beyond 50 AU were simply too long for bodies larger than 40 km to form before the present day, or some disruptive event. We note that a substantial mass in D > 3km bodies in an outer Kuiper Belt should be detectable by occultation (of a distant object) surveys in the near future.
At any rate, it should keep the theorists busy for a very long time. The Old Universe theory is far, far, from being dead.
If you care to be enlightened, the website referenced in this article has been compiling 3 years worth of revealing, well referenced articles that exhibit the false presuppositions of the current scientific community.
There is a wealth of information for you to peruse if you are truly seeking the truth. It is irritating to the science community that someone within the scientific community is pulling back the curtain on the false assumptions that are continuously printed in the journals.
Knowing that you strive for intellectual honesty, I hope you can set aside your faith in the current models if they are shown to fall on their face.
Your observation is sublime. Too often the impression is left that there is disappointment when science is wrong or when certain biases aren't supported. What's that phrase we hear from the other side? Science is self-correcting?
Whenever someone declares a shortage, you can be sure the price is about to go up.
Atheist (thinking to herself)- @#$%&$# Popper!
You'll get no argument from me. These are exciting times to be a scientist!
That is close to faint praise. The data could not have been much worse. They were expecting 85 bodies and found 3. If they would have not found any, then I suppose the wording would have been changed to "The observed data is somewhat consistent with the interpretation that mass is present in the CKB (Central Kiper Belt) and that this mass resides entirely in bodies presently undetectable by current techniques.". Science is quickly becoming "Ripley's Believe it or Not" class.
"Those who believe the solar system is 4.6 billion years old have a burning problem on their hands explaining why comets are still with us. Like sparklers, they only dazzle for awhile."
I'm well aware of the sea change that is going on in KBO theory. The author of this paper gave a colloqium at my institution about 18 months ago, on the dearth of objects already at that time. I'm also aware that there is a lot to be learned in the outer solar system regarding KBO's. The models have changed dramatically in 200 years (like everything in science). First, there was the Oort cloud in the 60's, then the postulation of the Kuiper Belt, which was later verified, and then, more recently, as more KBO's have been discovered, the division of the Kuiper Belt into zones, which are being narrowed and or discarded. Now there appears to be two populations of KBO's, an excited population, whose orbital dynamics have been changed by some outside force since the formation of the solar system (within the last billion years, I believe), and have not had time to reach a stable resonance orbit since then, and then the classical KBOs, which are in stable resonance orbits.
It's a cutting edge field, and things are going to change, no one should be surprised by that. If they are, it just shows that they are not paying attention.
Unlike the unscientific creationists works that you are used to reading Andrew, scientific papers usually list every possible interpretation of the data, given the author's assumptions. That's why, if at all possible, I read the paper, not rely on some press release or (even worse) some creationist claptrap on the subject. Since the author did the work, it is likely that he knows the subject better than nearly anyone else, and best of all, you might learn something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.