"Dr. Velikovsky pointed out that the collisions were not independent; in fact, if two bodies orbiting the Sun under the influence of gravity collide once, that encounter enhances the chance of another, a well known fact in celestial mechanics. Professor Sagan's calculations, in effect, ignore the law of gravity. Here, Dr. Velikovsky was the better astronomer." -- Robert Jastrow, astrophysicist, December 1979
15 years after the Shoemaker-Levy catastrophe, another catastrophe. This confirms the scientific teachings of Democritus, Plato, and Immanuel Velikovsky.
This impact event was discovered by an amateur. Professional scientists and mathematicians were clueless. They were totally unprepared and had no idea this was coming.
If it hadn't been pointed out to them by an amateur, it is likely scientists would have never known about this. Some scientists are in denial of catastrophism even after the facts have been pointed out to them: Jupiter Pummeled, Leaving Bruise The Size Of Pacific Ocean.
ScienceDaily (July 21, 2009) — Scientists have found evidence that another object has bombarded Jupiter, exactly 15 years after the first impacts by the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9.
Following up on a tip by an amateur astronomer, Anthony Wesley of Australia, that a new dark "scar" had suddenly appeared on Jupiter, this morning between 3 and 9 a.m. PDT (6 a.m. and noon EDT) scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., using NASA's Infrared Telescope Facility at the summit of Mauna Kea, Hawaii, gathered evidence indicating an impact.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
41 comments:
This impact event was discovered by an amateur. Professional scientists and mathematicians were clueless. They were totally unprepared and had no idea this was coming.
That's the wonder of observational science. Everyone gets to play.
Why do you say that scientists are in denial of impactors? It is a basic tenent of the formation of the earth, of evolution, of planetary dynamics... the one in denial is the blogger himself.
Okay...I'm confused!! I thought Jupiter wasn't actually solid...so what are these "scars" they were referring to....? (Remember my field is Vertebrate Paleontology, not Astronomy, Physics, or Astrophysics, for that matter.)
Jeffery,
"Why do you say that scientists are in denial of impactors?"
Well, I think calling fundamentalist theologians like Richard Dawkins "scientists" might be a bit of a stretch, I am just using mainstream language.
"Catastrophism was an eighteenth -- and nineteenth -- century attempt to reconcile some form of creationism with the uncomfortable facts of the fossil record." -- Richard Dawkins, biologist, 1986
My god... it's full of stars ;)
Raptor,
The scars are dark clouds left behind after an impact.
Oils,
Nice quote, but calling Dawkins a theologian is just full of fail. You do know the man is an atheist, right? Sure, Catastrophism is BS, but the fact that things hit other things is basic science. Please address the fact that impacts are a fact in astronomy and other disciplines.
Jeffery,
"You do know the man is an atheist, right?"
Atheism is a religion and Dawkins is it's Pope. He has given up biology in order to become a theologian. So yes, I know he's an atheist.
"Sure, Catastrophism is BS"
Why do you think meteorites are BS?
You just sorta stopped reading there, didn't you?
"...but the fact that things hit other things is basic science. Please address the fact that impacts are a fact in astronomy and other disciplines."
Read that bit again and try to comment intelligent. Otherwise, you are ignoring evidence...
Are you saying that uniformitarianism is pseudoscientific because meteorite impacts are scientific fact?
Jefferey,
Are you somehow suggesting that an extra-terrestrial (Not referring to aliens)impact 65 million years ago that was one of the factors that led to the extinction of the Dinosauria didn't happen? In that case, take a good look at the K-T Boundary and tell me if Catastrophism doesn't exist.
Another example might be the Permian Extinction, 280 million years ago. I think a post on extinctions is in order.
Jeffery Keown wrote: " Sure, Catastrophism is BS..."
Again, what do you mean EXACTLY when you call Catastrophism BS?
That is a VERY sweeping and broad generalization.
Are you a disciple of Dawkins?
You know, I've read your comments now for quite a while...when you make sweeping generalizations you come off as a little chicken shit that can't back up his assertions when close questioned on them.
Mostly, you run and hide like a...well...little chicken hawk.
You really have no basis making sweeping generalizations.
You do better when you are specific and detailed then I can focus on the evidence and logic you present...instead of the chicken shit attitude...which you wear on your sleeve and often have pasted on your forehead.
It ends up looking like a "kick me" sign pasted up there.
And believe me, I'll kick your little chicken shit ass all over this website.
Anaconda,
Calm the fuck down.
I refer to Catastrophism as things like flood geology used by creationists. The idea that the Grand Canyon was formed in about 90 days is absurd. I've said over and over again that Earth is here because of impacts. Beringer Crater, the KT Boundary and half a dozen other impacts prove that rocks and comets have hit the Earth in the past.
And yes... I do disappear from time to time, when Oils pisses me off with his deflections. I asked him to acknowledge that impactors are basic to several sciences, and he responded with another evasive question.
Uniformitarianism, defined as physical constants being, well, constant, that's not pseudoscientific. Even then, in the very early universe (just post-big bang) those constants either "settled" into thier current values, or perhaps even fluctuated. Once they acheived their current values, the universe has run according to them since.
That said, one cannot assume that natural forces (erosion and mountain building rates for example, are constant. That would be naive.)
Uniformitarianism, defined as an eternal unchanging universe is nonsense. Time has an arrow and a beginning.
As for being a disciple of Dawkins, I'm a fan, but I don't wash the man's feet... he's just a very clever guy who happens to have some good ideas I accept as fact.
Firstly, that either there is no god or no personal god, or intelligent designer.
Secondly, the universe is about 13 or so billion years old. Impacts and volcanoes and floods have shaped the Earth into the form we see it today. (remember that this is how I feel... I will not repeat myself again)
Thirdly, that we share a common ancestor with apes, and by extension, all life on Earth.
Again, the Permian extinction is a good example of massive sweeping changes that guide evolution. Dinosaurs rose to dominance as a result of that event.
Scientific Catastrophism and Impactors. Great.
Old guy, two of each animal (or seven) and a boat. Bullshit.
Catastrophism refers to cometary and meteorite impacts which uniformitarians like Richard Dawkins don't believe in.
Now who's painting with too broad a brush.
I've read Ancestor's Tale.
There are many references to the KT Event, the Permian Die-off, etc. You're just being an ass.
The Dawkins quote you provided clearly refers to its use by creationists. But then, you put mainstream scientists in the creationist camp, don't you?
You are insufferable. You haven't any place saying what Dawkins or anyone else believes in, so long as you can quote-mine until your readers give up in frustration.
In your mind, there are fringe theorists and Big Science Types and the Big Science Types are wrong. What are you going to do when the next paper is published on the action of magnetic field dominance in star formation? Decry the Electric Universe?
You champion some causes that are done. Others you are spot on about... the only common thread is that "mainstream science" is religious, funtamentalist, dogmatic, theological and oppressive. Oddly enough, you "prove" this by quoting the Bible and the Vedas!
By the way... you still haven't acknowledged that I "beleive" in meteorites. Let me guess... you'll say I don't even though I've 4 posts in this thread saying I do. You'll say I'm a creationists because I accept the big bang, that I'm a fundamentalist because I accept gravity, and that I'm wearing blinders because I trust in Big Science.
Did I miss anything?
@ Jeffery Keown:
Funny you believe in the so-called "big bang" when you consider it was thought up by a Roman Catholic priest for the express purpose of reconciling religion and science and is "creationsist" on its face: Something out of nothing, or there was nothing that went bang...
Funny how things get turned around, atheists that believe in "creationist" doctrine, and don't even know it or do, but close their eyes to it because some other atheist tells them to...
Just because a theory is thought up by a religionist does not automatically make it wrong.
Einstien didn't like what LeMaitre was putting on paper, even though he showed exactly what was happening, that an Einstien-described static universe was unsustainable. Einstien eventually accepted that model after Hubble confirmed it.
Why must a person's religion forever be connected to the theory in the Oils/Anaconda universe?
Bill Gates is probably an atheist... should god-beleivers stop using computers? Maybe they should switch to Macs? I hear Steve Jobs beleives in god.
Are Leonardo's works crap because he was Catholic?
Quit making such inferences, LeMaitre's work has been confirmed by dozens of scientists since his first publication.
I suddenly know why this is the case. You seek to use it to undermine the theory itself, as if saying such a thing it would weaken my resolve or trust in the theory. You fail. I could care less what religion a person is as long as the science is sound, testable and makes good predictions. It's like an ad hominem attack in reverse. Instead of attacking me, you attack the theory by showing its underpinnings of its originator's faith. You are banking on prejudice and it doesn't work.
Funny how things get turned around, atheists that believe in "creationist" doctrine, and don't even know it or do, but close their eyes to it because some other atheist tells them to...
I do hope you aren't referring to me. Most scientists are atheist or agnostic, and work every day to prove the theories of believers of all kinds. If a Hindu scientist comes up with a new x-ray detection method, nobody rejects it unless experimentation proves it to be inefficient. Some Catholic decodes the human genome, it is celebrated, not tossed aside because of what he does on Sunday morning.
Have you noticed that Oils has not responded to my request to acknowledge my position on Scientific Catastrophism? Now who's being chicken shit?
Leonardo was a crypto protestant. He was able to depict matters in his works that caused Catholic heirarchy to wonder about his faith!
He clearly was advanced enough to think independently for himself!
I suggest to Jeffrey that he reread that part! OIM is toying with you. But you don't seem to learn? Why tarry with OIM if he has nothing of value for you?
I hesitate to suggest that the black ,ark on Jupiters atmosphere is the result of a flash of megalightning, destroying the gas/plasma at that level. It will fill in, hence the urgency of the astronomer to advise NASA as it is only temporary. Remember that the 1990s event had many flashes! These were mega lightning events directly observed, yet scientist believers still do not understand what they saw. Others do. OIM is one and Anaconda is another.
Nice strike Anaconda! Remember that your avatar is meant to be a strangler not a striker!
Impactors may not exist. They may all be destrioyed before they impact the earth, for example. There is plenty of iridium on the K/T boundary but that is due to nuclear fusion creating that rare element. Likewise the lonsdaleite/ hex diamonds in the news. Why else do they form a smear across the land instead of a lump?
Remember that the 1990s event had many flashes!
The Shoemaker-Levy impactors were observed far in advance of the actual impact. Using gravity and math, they knew exactly where and when the event would occur. Are you suggesting that the impact stirs up electrical events? That may very well be.
I've said before that the Electric Universe has some merit, but that scar in the cloudtops looks identical to the previous event and very similar to the mark left behind about a month after Galileo went down.
Oh... and on the matter of Oils. Its pretty pathetic, isn't it? Most folks avoid being trolled. I actually come here to be trolled. He's a professional, isn't he?
Anaconda,
Not only is the Big Bang creationism but the hypothesis of gravitation explicitly requires divine intervention.
"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687
P.S. Whenever I see someone use troll in a sentence it's red flag that they have no logical argument and no scientific evidence to support their theology.
@ Jeffery Keown:
You fail to acknowledge the motivation of Lemaitre.
"To [Hannes] Alfven [1970 Nobel Prize winner], the Big Bang is a myth - a myth devised to explain creation. "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory," he recalls. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo - creation out of nothing." (page 196, pdf file, Dean of the Plasma Dissidents")
I have no reason to think Alfven would misrepresent Lemaitre's motivation.
Also, think about what was known at the time Lemaitre proposed his hypothesis: There was almost nothing to base his hypothesis on because observation & measurement of the Universe was still crude and primitive (Science had just discovered the Milky Way was not the full extent of the Universe). At best it was intuitive, and where does intuition come from?
Generally, our life experiences inform our intuition and Lemaitre's was as a Catholic priest trying to reconcile his faith with his science.
Nothing wrong with that per se, but considering the question to be answered and the scant scientific evidence at the time and it becomes all too clear where Lemaitre's intuition and movtivation was coming from.
Keown wrote: "Why must a person's religion forever be connected to the theory in the Oils/Anaconda universe?"
It doesn't, unless the motivation for the hypothesis is a religious one as opposed to a scientific motivation, and I'm not referring to general motivations to understand God's creation or God's reasoning.
Keown wrote: "...Hubble confirmed it [the "big bang"].
Hubble didn't "confirm" anything, he made observations & measurements that some took as evidence of the "big bang", that hardly counts as "confirmation".
Keown wrote: "...LeMaitre's work has been confirmed by dozens of scientists since his first publication."
It just goes to show that atheists can be as intellectually dishonest as anybody else. Nobody has "confirmed" the so-called "big bang", rather with more detailed and higher resolution observation & measurement more solid scientific evidence and doubt has arisen against the "big bang".
See The Big Bang Never Happened, Two world Systems Revisted.
Jeffery, I point out Lemaitre's motivation not as an attempt to cause bias & prejudice, but rather to show the unscientific basis of the hypothesis.
It certainly wasn't based on empirical observation & measurement, there simply wasn't the evidence for such a hypothesis when Lemaitre first proposed his hypothesis around 1930.
Keown wrote: "I could care less what religion a person is as long as the science is sound, testable and makes good predictions."
But read the above link about the "big bang" and you will see the "big bang" as a predictor is a scientific failure.
Jeffery, you are simply following the herd, which most people do, but that 'ain't science there partner'...it's politics...scientific politics...
Keown wrote: "Most scientists are atheist or agnostic..."
Completely false.
Most scientists have faith, just as most people in the general population do. Your statement is just something atheists tell themselves to make them feel better about being a small minority and make them feel better about science, in other words its self-justification, which I must say, judging from my discussions with atheists, they spend most of their time doing.
(Cont.)
Keown wrote: "Have you noticed that Oils has not responded to my request to acknowledge my position on Scientific Catastrophism?"
Well, your revision of your statement as a result of my prompting (or was it goading) is a substantial difference from "Catastrophism is BS".
And I do appreciate your expanded answer, there is logic and reason to the part discussing catastrophism (I knew you had it in you).
Many atheists place undue weight on the scientific consensus because Science is the only avenue for them to anchor their belief system and atheists don't like to entertain doubt -- oh, they're sure of their atheism, all right -- so they are very reluctant to think the consensus is wrong because that would throw their world-view into doubt, since they have no other anchor besides the consensus thoughts of other men.
The problem is that Scientists are men and time after time history has shown that scientists can be wrong and wrong about the "big questions", too!
Any human institution is subject to error and Science is no different.
"...lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he [God] hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another." -- Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1687
That would count if no work had been done in the years between then and now. Just by virtue of the word "fixed" you lose Newton's opinion and have to rely only on his math.
Newton's math is based upon the assumption that stars are fixed and God intervenes in the affairs of man. Therefore Newton's math can safely be discarded.
"It was only the downfall of Newtonian theory in this century which made scientists realize that their standards of honesty had been utopian." -- Imre Lakatos, philosopher, 1973
A 1998 study bt Larson and Witham showed that 60.7% of scientists express doubt or disbelief in god.
That's mostly.
The NAS reports go as high as 93% for the same category.
Also, it doesn't matter what the origin of an idea is, if it has prediction power, it's science.
Newton's math is based upon the assumption that stars are fixed and God intervenes in the affairs of man. Therefore Newton's math can safely be discarded.
Except that it still works. Do you understand this concept? It. works.
Jeffery,
"Except that it still works. Do you understand this concept? It. works."
The Ptolemaic model works too. Just because something "works" doesn't make it true. But it doesn't work because everything I see in the visible universe defies the formula.
The Ptolemaic model works too. Just because something "works" doesn't make it true. But it doesn't work because everything I see in the visible universe defies the formula.
No, that model is wrong. We've been out there and looked around, it's been falsified for a bit. Newton's original math works for most instances.
Tell ya what... I've had it. I'm never going to get you to give a straight answer to anything I ask.
Call it chicken shit if you want, folks, but there comes a point of diminishing returns. This is it.
@ Fungus FitzJuggler III:
FitzJuggler wrote: "Nice strike Anaconda! Remember that your avatar is meant to be a strangler not a striker!"
Very perceptive of you (you are the first person to comment on my handle). My handle, what you call my avatar, "Anaconda", is exactly as you say, that my reasoning is not a rifle shot or "strike", but, rather, is an unrelenting progression of logic and evidence that eventually crushes by its constricting and enveloping power as the reason and evidence builds. Hopefully, my expanded rejoinder to our good Mr. Keown displayed the unrelenting logic and recourse to evidence that eventually crushes fallacies like the ones Mr. keown displays.
I've found that atheists are quite subject to this because in order to hold their atheistic view, they entertain many notions that when subject to unrelenting scrutiny don't hold up to reason and evidence, but are simply self-justifications of their atheistic view. They strongly deny that any of their opinions are justified by their emotions and irrationality, the same as numerous opinions of most other men. This claim of not allowing emotion and irrational sentiment to effect their opinions often gets them into difficulties.
This adament position that all their opinions are based on reason and evidence often makes them brittle in terms of discussing or modifying their belief system.
Nobody likes to admit their world-view is in error, and, so, because atheists hold Science as so central to their core world-view (what else is there for them?), they are loath to admit consensus science is wrong.
They have a hard time acknowledging they didn't consider all the evidence before coming to their opinion, but that they were just following the herd.
Why so reluctant to admit to following the herd?
Well, no man likes to admit to following the herd, and atheists in particular don't like to admit to this as they consider religion or faith to be just a symptom of following the herd.
Atheists seemingly have little flexibility as they grip so tightly onto their opinions, like a man clinging to a life raft in a high sea, because somewhere in their psyche the fear of the unknown grips them as it does all men, and so to acknowledge doubt especially scientific doubt is to expose the weakness and limitation of their world view.
Men of faith, always wrestle with doubt, so scientific doubt is nothing new and the least of their worries.
Jeffery,
"No, that model is wrong."
It still works so I don't see what your point is. Gravitation is wrong too but you don't have a problem with it.
"We've been out there and looked around, it's been falsified for a bit."
Exactly the same as gravitation. We've had just a little bit of experience since the 17th century.
"Newton's original math works for most instances."
So does Ptolemy's.
"I'm never going to get you to give a straight answer to anything I ask."
But I thought Newton and Darwin already answered every question you have.
Repeat the question please and I'll answer it.
Jefferey,
The only problem with your answers is that there's anger behind them. You're NEVER going to look or sound credible as long as there are insults and profanity in your work. If you provide good sources and do in-depth and profound research, then, maybe they'll listen to you. Besides, I happen to agree with some of your beliefs.
Anaconda,
I understand you and everybody's frustration, but what your saying to Jefferey isn't helping things. I'm a Moderator for a popular Paleontology forum so I should know what is going on here. If you lay off the insults and help him out a little, then maybe things on this blog iwll calm down. Alright?
@ Raptor Lewis:
You're a good young man, and your advise is wise counsel.
Yes, I'll lay off the more biting comments and concentrate of the evidence and reasoning.
(Besides the storm has blown itself out.)
Thanks for reminding me there is a better and more pleasant way to persuade my fellow Man.
Anaconda is a good avatar then!
Raptor all of this was good debate, by the standards of many internet sites. Those who lapse, display their knowledge or the lack thereof. But the relentless search as Anaconda addressed, is the part that sets out some one who reasons. They test their own and others' thinking. Too often, the media and average education reveal themselves. But what is the effect on Jeffrey? I note he apperas to misspell his first name. It should be Geoffrey..... and the er/re business. He may well be other than he seems! He may reflect on the logic being employed and test some of the assumptions treated as settled science. There are no laws of science! But there is domination by words! Using words helps to define what we have in common and how we differ and we rejoice in our differences as they may be communicated and we learn! We yearn to learn. Others learn to earn. What they have learned means nothing to them and is a means to a living.
The amateur who found the Jupiter event is a countryman of mine. To falsify something means to make it a fraud. To find it false is to disprove it. But I suppose the lack of precision of language is one way to unite or divide a country and USA seems to be riven.
Raptor, are you happy that there are no catastrophes in your philosophy? Do you consider the bible to be false or to be written record imperfectly translated, of oral (not verbal) history repeated by father to son over many generations? And try to be aware that Indian records, Hindu!, are much older? And that many peoples around the world recount similar tales?
By the way, do we know or care about Eric Laithwaite? A humble jolly man, he is credited with inventing the linear motor, but was stripped of all honours for using gyroscopes in a demonstration?
Fungus,
I very much thank you for your commentary.
And thank you for teaching me the name of Eric Laithwaite.
I like this Retardipedia quote, "In 1974, Laithwaite was invited by the Royal Institution to give a talk on a subject of his own choosing. He decided to lecture about gyroscopes, a subject in which he had only recently become interested. His interest had been aroused by an amateur inventor named Alex Jones, who contacted Laithwaite about a reactionless propulsion drive he (Jones) had invented. After seeing a demonstration of Jones's small prototype (a small wagon with a swinging pendulum which advanced intermittently along a table top), Laithwaite became convinced that 'he had seen something impossible'. In his lecture before the Royal Institution he claimed that gyroscopes weigh less when spinning, and to demonstrate this he showed that he could lift a spinning gyroscope mounted on the end of a rod easily with one hand, but could not do so when the gyroscope was not spinning. At this time, Laithwaite suggested that Newton's laws of motion could not account for the behavior of gyroscopes, and that they could be used as a means of reactionless propulsion. The members of the Royal Institution rejected his ideas, and his lecture was not published. (This was the first and only time an invited lecture to the Royal Institution has not been published.)"
Yes, that is he. He was popular on UK TV in the 60's. Then he was a non person. Interesting treatment by a very prestigious scientific institution. His linear motor was rubbished until the patents ran out .... sounds familiar?
Glad to be of service!
Post a Comment