Science’s doomsday team vs. the asteroids

[Billy T]

So what you're basically saying is that you wrote a crappy program with a number of essentially crippling limitations, and then went on to write a crappy book about the "data."

Well, that seems like an incredibly stupid way to teach people. I don't suppose you can describe any demonstrated advantages to your "teach-by-stupidity" pedagogy?

We've already talked about this to great extent, Billy T. It should have already been clear to you, but I'll say it again; if you ever, ever make another post on this site about black holes or dark visitors or any other such nonsense, I personally guarantee that you will never be permitted to post here again. Consider yourself thoroughly, inexorably debunked.

- Warren

I assume I am allowed to respond to you.

About the "crappy program":
It is a simple spread sheet program, fully explained step by step, as my target reader is not a scientist - quite the contrary, he/she is not even interested in science, but probably does use a spread sheet often for financial analysis, etc. I wanted something that he/she could easily do, and play around with.

As far as it being a "crappy program" it is not - it got the same results for Earth (small perturbation)that Tony873004's very powerful program got, but that program probably took many people years to perfect and would never tempt my target reader to try to install it on his PC.

Before we call it "crappy," let's wait for Tony873004 to tell quantitatively how his sophisticated result compare with my "crappy numbers" (e= 0.0836, apogee = 1.108AU, perigee =0.937AU from an assumed circular start at R = 1AU) if he is so inclined. The 2.2 solar mass object misses Earth by 12AU and passing approximately perpendicularly thru ecliptic from a distant starting point with initial sun closing speed of 0.1AU/day.

Your calling it "crappy" does not make it so. It is very well designed program for its purpose - trying to interest people not currently interested in science to become so. If Tony873004 demonstrates that the results are "crappy" that is different, not just an opinion conflict. I will wait for his results, (or from anyone else with access to a sophisticated model)

 

[chroot]

If your intent was to coax people into developing an interest in science, why are you beginning with such an inane premise, a premise that you admitted to me in PM was "highly improbable?" It isn't science. You don't teach people to play the violin by talking about astrology.

The problem I have with you, Billy T, is not that you're introducing the reader with elementary models, or describing an elementary tool. The problem I have is that you yourself seem to have actually trust the data from that elementary tool, which you know is incredibly simplistic, unreviewed, and apparently quite limited, and drawn crazy conclusions from it. You seem to trust this data well enough to write an entire book on the "results."

If your book was full of admissions that the model was too simple, or that the program was inaccurate -- full of urgings that the reader should not take the results seriously -- then I would probably treat you a little more amicably. As it stands, your book disgusts me.

- Warren

 

[Billy T]

I assume I am allowed to answer your questions, even when they are about the book.

If your intent was to coax people into developing an interest in science, why are you beginning with such an inane premise, a premise that you admitted to me in PM was "highly improbable?" It isn't science. You don't teach people to play the violin by talking about astrology. ...

There is a difference between "inane" and "improbable." I certainly admit the plot is the latter, and have done so several times publicly here at PF. One can not teach the violin to a kid with no interest in it. The target reader has no current interest in science. There are already hundreds of good standard approach science books, on all levels, available but my target reader never opens one. Adding one more to the collection would be "inane."

I was forced to try something not as standard as you would like. I toyed with idea of making trying to make it steamy (sex) but then hit upon the idea of an astronomer explaining things to his historian friend about a coming global disaster and using the history of the discovey of Pluto a part of the basis of the story. Orsen Wells got quite a strong response by scaring people, and I though following the path he charted would be better ( I did not entirely abandon the the first approach - the title of the student newspaper article about why it might be true was "A black hole is coming for you" and the vulgar interpretation would surely occur to many students. See full article at my website and try to appreciated how much valid science I squeezed into that short article, after I got the reader's interest with the headline.

I am sorry if my approach gives you a "problem" and the book "disgusts you." Have you read any of it, prior to this judgement? You can read for free (instructions at www.DarkVisitor.com) - I always mention that in every post that refers to my book and do not want this post to be an exception, even if you remove my posting privilege for telling how to read for free.

You have raised my warning level to 14 and repeated told me I am full of crap etc. Could you give one specific example of a false statement I have made here? I have corrected a couple of your posts and you were kind enough to thank me once for doing so. I have had several people thank me for helping them (One even sent me *penny drop* with his thanks and that was first time I have seen this.)

I have also offended some others with my insistence that transformers do not make the secondary current by "magnetic field lines cutting thru the secondary coils" (I mention this because I hope you will think twice before citing this as an example of a statement of mine in conflict with physical facts.)

I have offend others by noting that the two common explanations of Hawking Radiation contradict each other and thus are only "feel good words" (The "hot radiator because of all the swallowed entropy" explanation adds new energy to the universe outside the event horizon as escaping gamma rays and the "half a virtual particle pair escaping" explanation adds the same energy to outside universe as a particle. - this clear mutual contradiction precludes at least one of them from being correct. Is it not OK to point things like this out?)

I would really like you give at least one specific example of my posting "crap."

 

[matt.o]

can this be done over pm please? I am sick of every thread being ruined by some pointless argument over "Dark Visitor" and Hawking radiation.

 

[tony873004]

Billy, without running numerous simulations I can't rule out your figure of 0.0836, but nothing I've tried yet has even come close. Earth seem to be virtually unaffected regardless of the starting conditions. A closer passage distance could certainly give you 0.0836.

The program I use wasn't written by many people over years. It was written by me. I'm just a hobbiest making his best effort. The program uses first order equations of motion to propogate initial starting conditions for solar system objects supplied by JPL NASA's Horizons system.
(ie it puts the formulas acc=GM/d^2, vel = vel + acc, and pos = pos + vel, in a big endless loop with pretty good results.)

Hope this helps.

 

[russ_watters]

They are that small! If they are so tiny why do they make the bright streeks you see in the sky? Wouldn't they burn up in the atmosphere so quickly you wouldn't see them?

Well, it takes about 2 seconds for them to burn up - just long enough for you to see them.

There are occasionally larger meteors that are visible for much longer - sometimes for minutes. Check out this pic: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/leonids_commentary_011116.html (click the top one on the right for a large version)

Also has some good info on meteors and fireballs.

 

[Nereid]

If a massive object were responsible for the 1920s observed positions of Neptune (and more?), where would it be now? To what extent would the 'signature' of such a visitor be detectable in the orbits of EKB and scattered disk objects (collected over the last ~50 years)? What sort of wake would a ~solar-mass object (esp a BH) leave in the local ISM? What regions of parameter space can be 'ruled out' by the accurate orbits of the Pioneers, Voyagers, (others)?

IIRC, back when Nemesis was touted as a possible ultimate cause of the (then thought likely) ~20 million year periodicity signal in the 'mass extinction record', a lot of work was done to find where any massive object could be lurking - out to a few hundred au. None were found.

 

[turbo]

If a massive object were responsible for the 1920s observed positions of Neptune (and more?), where would it be now? To what extent would the 'signature' of such a visitor be detectable in the orbits of EKB and scattered disk objects (collected over the last ~50 years)? What sort of wake would a ~solar-mass object (esp a BH) leave in the local ISM? What regions of parameter space can be 'ruled out' by the accurate orbits of the Pioneers, Voyagers, (others)?

IIRC, back when Nemesis was touted as a possible ultimate cause of the (then thought likely) ~20 million year periodicity signal in the 'mass extinction record', a lot of work was done to find where any massive object could be lurking - out to a few hundred au. None were found.

Hi, Nereid!
I don't want to be characterized as a supporter of Billy T's views, but if there was a massive black hole slinging around out there, how do you think we would have been able to detect it apart from some transient lensing effects?

 

[Phobos]

can this be done over pm please?

An excellent idea. I'm closing up this highjacked topic.