Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik
Technically, your two cases in your last paragraph say the same thing.
|
No, technically, they are not two "case" but two "
questions" and they don't "say the same thing", they are complementary: the first one questions the validity of current mainstream theory whereas the second invites support for a particular ATM theory (EU theory).
Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik
To answer your question tho: Partly yes, partly no. One thing to remember about both asteroids and comets is that we have gotten a close up look at very few of them. I think it is about a dozen asteroids and three or four comets have been imaged as anything more than a dot, and only one asteroid has gotten a truly close up study.
|
Indeed. But
all the comets which have been imaged look as much like asteroids as actual asteroids do.... (including the most famous of them all, Tempel 1, of "Deep Impact" fame...) None of the alleged "comets" looks like what a comet is supposed to look like. Statistically, this is presumably quite significant: if mainstream theory were correct, we should, statistically, be imaging considerably more comets looking like "dirty snowballs" than comets looking like lumps of rock. This simply isn't the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik
When you add the changes in what we know about solar system development by finding extrasolar planets, it isnt really suprising that we find we dont know as much as we thought.
|
If you mean that most of the extrasolar planets being found also contradict mainstream theory about solar system development (regarding their composition, size and distance from their sun), I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I reach a different conclusion: it's not that we "don't know as much as we thought" but that what we believed up to a few years ago has been shown to be wrong, precisely by the hard facts represented by the images we have obtained of comets and by the particles brought back from the Stardust mission. It's time to face up to those facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik
As a matter of fact, I would imagine that things will be in a state of flux for a while. New Horizions will give us our first good look at a KBO in a few years, and Dawn will give us our first good look at a couple large asteroids in a few years. With the nasty habit of most probes leading to more questions than answers, I think that our understanding of the solar system may change quite a bit.
|
Why a "nasty" habit? Because the results obtained always come as a complete surprise, not to say shock?
Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik
When it comes down to it, I think that the lines between comet and asteroid will become a bit more blurred. Comets may end up being more icy asteroids than a different object. It may turn out that there was alot more mixing of the protosolar nebula than is currently believed. It may turn out that alot of comets were scattered out of the inner solar system by developing planets. I would think when all is said and done, you will have a range of objects from dirtballs (asteroids), to icy dirtballs (short-period comets), to dirty iceballs (long period comets/ KBOs).
|
The Stardust mission has proved that what looks like a a perfectly standard comet is in fact an asteroid. There is no reason to believe that the other comets which are to be explored will turn out to be anything other than asteroids. We simply don't need the other classes of objects you mention, except as a way of still clinging to a falsified theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik
Lastly remember that we still havent gotten a good look at a long term comet. All we have seen right now are short period comets. Being so close to the sun may have effects that havent been taklen into account yet.
|
Comet McNaught was a spectacular recent example and the latest research published
here suggests, there too, that it was much more like a "dirtball" than a "dirty iceball".