David N. Talbott (dtalb...@teleport.com) wrote: : : You might as well settle in for the art-house version, "My Dinner with : Tim," because there's no short way to correct Tim Thompson's misstatements : on the Saturn theory. Tim's eagerness to pronounce verdicts may be : entertaining, but learning something about the historical argument would : save a lot of *his* time and mine.
The same is true here. I feel that I must include much of Talbott's posting lest I be accused of selective quoting. This makes the resulting posting long. I'm sorry for that. The regulars need not read it anyway, they're quite aware of my arguments.
: An evaluation of the Saturn theory must take into consideration three : levels of evidence: 1) the ability of the theory to explain, or "predict" : the total field of historical data (recurring artistic, literary, ritual, : and symbolic themes of the early cultures);
Agreed. The job would be made *significantly* easier if you would supply some (approximate) dates. Are we talking about events around 2000 BC or 20,000 BC or 200,000 BC. It is impossible to examine the historical data without knowing.
: 2) the consistency of the : theory with physical data on Earth and elsewhere in the solar system, : particularly the many anomalies difficult to explain in terms of : traditional models of planetary evolution;
The jury is in on this one, the Saturn idea fails. The so-called "anomalies" either do not exist or have other, far less strained explanations. Yet in fairness all that this does is remove point (2) on the grounds that it is unnecessary.
: and 3) the degree to which : known principles of dynamics might permit, or prohibit, the planetary : behavior implied by the historical argument.
This one is, of course, the killer. It has been very difficult to discuss this because the protagonists of the Saturn theory insist that they do not know much about the relevent physics. Thus they tend to discount the objections made. Yet the objections are *very* serious. It would take more than mythic evidence to get physicists to give up the law of conservation of energy, for example. Talbott does not seem to understand this and often resorts to ad hominem argument when it is pointed out to him.
: With respect to the third level of evidence, Tim is the boldest of the t.o : debunkers. He has openly declared, more times than I could count, that : the hypothesized planetary configuration is impossible, end of statement, : thank you.
He's not alone. Many of us did that, myself included.
: But I'm here to tell you that Tim *couldn't* know the hypothesized : configuration is impossible. It's one thing for a person to say, "I : don't know of any dynamic principles that could support the hypothesis, : and therefore it seems highly implausible to me." In fact, several : explorers *have* said just that, but with a sufficiently open mind that : they actually came back later and offered significant suggestions--in a : couple of cases *extremely* significant suggestions. They did not see : themselves as professional debunkers, and the difference is remarkable.
The laws of physics are often called the Laws of Impotence. They spell out what *cannot* be done. There is no known physics that supports the Saturnist planetary configuration. If we assume that "unknown" principles allow the configuration to exist, then we have to ask why those principles do not manifest themselves elsewhere in the astronomical universe. This is a *VERY* serious objection, though those not aware of the nature of physical science may not see it as such.
: What I find most curious is Tim's failure to learn not only from the : history of science, but from his personal history with respect to the very : issues at hand. I mentioned in a prior post that, for more than a : decade, the "definitive" answer to the hypothesized planetary system was a : simple one-liner: the claimed planetary lineup violates Kepler's Third : Law. As a rule, that was all it took to deflect potential interest in : exploring the idea. Why consider historical evidence for something that : is so obviously impossible?
Indeed, as Talbott must remember, far more major objections were raised, including several detailed astronomical simulations, analytic calculations, and what I can call "thermodynamic" arguments. These were never answered. Talbott may argue that he is not presenting conclusions, but only possibilities. The unanswered objections, however, make them more nearly impossibilities.
: Then out of the blue came Bob Grubaugh's revelation that there are : collinear equilibrium positions at which each of the participating planets : has the same orbital period.
But, as you know, his calculations were SHOWN to be incorrect. Not only was the analysis incorrect, but his implementation in a program also had errors. This too was never met. Indeed, somewhere I have a posting of Talbott's promising to "get back to us" with the needed corrections. This too never happened.
: The entire point with respect to Kepler's : Third Law (i.e., the greater the orbital radius, the longer the orbital : period) was suddenly irrelevant.
Why? Although Kepler's Third Law (which basically relates the orbital period to the length of the semi-major axis of the orbit) applies only approximately, it is still relevent to planetary dynamics under fairly broad situations.
: Nevertheless, the moment Tim saw Bob's : preliminary paper on collinear equilibrium positions he announced that : Kepler's Third Law made the entire proposition absurd, thereby setting the : tone for a total fiasco on t.o.
Nope. A fairly large number of folks, myself included, pointed out that (a) the configuration was dynamically unstable and (b) that one could NOT get from *that* configuration to the
: Since Tim was in this instance incorrect, as pointed out by Richard : Harter, I'd have thought this experience would have left him a little less : impulsive when it comes to such sweeping assertions about what is possible : and what is not--particularly since he has not shown enough familiarity : with the historical argument to even state the hypothesized conditions : accurately. Just what is it that he is declaring to be impossible?
I don't think that Richard Harter showed that Tim's objections were incorrect, but that's neither here nor there. What Tim (and I and many others) are declaring to be impossible is that Saturn and a number of other minor planets hung close to (i.e. close enough for the disk of Saturn to cover a tangible amount of the sky) and "motionless" over the North Pole of the earth for a significant (i.e. several hundreds of years) period of time.
It is impossible because such a collinear arrangement of planets (earth, Saturn, Venus, Sun) is known analytically to be unstable. Thus either the laws of physics are wrong, the math is wrong, or Talbott is wrong. There are no other choices.
: A second example. I had stated that a considerable volume of evidence : suggests that in the former planetary arrangement an extremely active : relationship evolved between Mars and Venus at close range, atmosphere and : oceans being pulled from Mars to spiral around the planet Venus. Though I : may have had some intuitive sense concerning the physics of such : interaction, the entire basis for hypothesizing the condition was global, : historical evidence, not physics. : : Tim said that's impossible, because Mars would have been shredded by the : forces involved (if I recall correctly, the statement was that Mars would : have to move inside the Roche limit).
Tim is correct. A solid body will essentially fragment under these conditions. Since Mars has not fragmented, Talbott's idea is wrong.
: Because of my own confidence with respect to historical evidence, I then : asked Tim if he really wanted to state his position with such certainty. : To which he responded that yes, he was perfectly willing to stick his neck : out on this one. (I am reconstructing the conversation from memory, not : quoting from any text at hand.) : : So I had the occasion to ask others about this. And I quickly found it is : not nearly so simple. There is, in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ a picture of a : phenomenon almost precisely analogous to what I've suggested on historical : evidence. In this picture a red giant is losing its atmosphere to the : smaller but much more dense and massive white dwarf, the gases spiraling : around the heavier body, precisely as the historical evidence suggests : occurred with the material spiraling around Venus. Then I was told by : another explorer that the process is easy: the material is first pulled : to the Roche limit, at which point it enters the region of the other : body's gravitational dominance. (I want to emphasize here that I've not : had a chance either to look into the principle, or even to ask others : about it.)
This is a different case entirely. Stars are not solid bodies. The Roche limit has to do with the force of gravity and the ultimate tensile strength of rock. Stars behave quite differently, Thus this objection to Tim's statement is irrelevent.
: Here's the question: do the volumes of historical evidence become : irrelevant just because Tim Thompson declares the hypothesized planetary : congregation to be impossible?
No. The volumes of mythological interpretation (published ONLY by Talbott and Cochrane) become irrelevent because Tim Thompson has raised very cogent objections to the hypothesized planetary configurations.
As counter-argument above, Talbott has raised two points: one is Grubaugh's computations, shown to be wrong by many folks in talk.origins (who, by the way, mounted a major research and computational effort in the process); the other is the Roche limit argument rebuttal, which is also wrong. So Tim's objections stand.
: Or maybe we should just let Leroy : Ellenberger tell us
...
You might as well settle in for the art-house version, "My Dinner with Tim," because there's no short way to correct Tim Thompson's misstatements on the Saturn theory. Tim's eagerness to pronounce verdicts may be entertaining, but learning something about the historical argument would save a lot of *his* time and mine.
An evaluation of the Saturn theory must take into consideration three levels of evidence: 1) the ability of the theory to explain, or "predict" the total field of historical data (recurring artistic, literary, ritual, and symbolic themes of the early cultures); 2) the consistency of the theory with physical data on Earth and elsewhere in the solar system, particularly the many anomalies difficult to explain in terms of traditional models of planetary evolution; and 3) the degree to which known principles of dynamics might permit, or prohibit, the planetary behavior implied by the historical argument.
With respect to the third level of evidence, Tim is the boldest of the t.o debunkers. He has openly declared, more times than I could count, that the hypothesized planetary configuration is impossible, end of statement, thank you.
But I'm here to tell you that Tim *couldn't* know the hypothesized configuration is impossible. It's one thing for a person to say, "I don't know of any dynamic principles that could support the hypothesis, and therefore it seems highly implausible to me." In fact, several explorers *have* said just that, but with a sufficiently open mind that they actually came back later and offered significant suggestions--in a couple of cases *extremely* significant suggestions. They did not see themselves as professional debunkers, and the difference is remarkable.
What I find most curious is Tim's failure to learn not only from the history of science, but from his personal history with respect to the very issues at hand. I mentioned in a prior post that, for more than a decade, the "definitive" answer to the hypothesized planetary system was a simple one-liner: the claimed planetary lineup violates Kepler's Third Law. As a rule, that was all it took to deflect potential interest in exploring the idea. Why consider historical evidence for something that is so obviously impossible?
Then out of the blue came Bob Grubaugh's revelation that there are collinear equilibrium positions at which each of the participating planets has the same orbital period. The entire point with respect to Kepler's Third Law (i.e., the greater the orbital radius, the longer the orbital period) was suddenly irrelevant. Nevertheless, the moment Tim saw Bob's preliminary paper on collinear equilibrium positions he announced that Kepler's Third Law made the entire proposition absurd, thereby setting the tone for a total fiasco on t.o.
Since Tim was in this instance incorrect, as pointed out by Richard Harter, I'd have thought this experience would have left him a little less impulsive when it comes to such sweeping assertions about what is possible and what is not--particularly since he has not shown enough familiarity with the historical argument to even state the hypothesized conditions accurately. Just what is it that he is declaring to be impossible?
A second example. I had stated that a considerable volume of evidence suggests that in the former planetary arrangement an extremely active relationship evolved between Mars and Venus at close range, atmosphere and oceans being pulled from Mars to spiral around the planet Venus. Though I may have had some intuitive sense concerning the physics of such interaction, the entire basis for hypothesizing the condition was global, historical evidence, not physics.
Tim said that's impossible, because Mars would have been shredded by the forces involved (if I recall correctly, the statement was that Mars would have to move inside the Roche limit).
Because of my own confidence with respect to historical evidence, I then asked Tim if he really wanted to state his position with such certainty. To which he responded that yes, he was perfectly willing to stick his neck out on this one. (I am reconstructing the conversation from memory, not quoting from any text at hand.)
So I had the occasion to ask others about this. And I quickly found it is not nearly so simple. There is, in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ a picture of a phenomenon almost precisely analogous to what I've suggested on historical evidence. In this picture a red giant is losing its atmosphere to the smaller but much more dense and massive white dwarf, the gases spiraling around the heavier body, precisely as the historical evidence suggests occurred with the material spiraling around Venus. Then I was told by another explorer that the process is easy: the material is first pulled to the Roche limit, at which point it enters the region of the other body's gravitational dominance. (I want to emphasize here that I've not had a chance either to look into the principle, or even to ask others about it.)
Here's the question: do the volumes of historical evidence become irrelevant just because Tim Thompson declares the hypothesized planetary congregation to be impossible? Or maybe we should just let Leroy Ellenberger tell us what is impossible. The reason for not taking the debunkers' verdicts as seriously as they would have us take them is simple. Again and again they have been wrong. Now how many examples would you like me to give you?
Once the existence of collinear equilibrium positions was conceded, the howling shifted to issues of stability. Again and again it was claimed that a collinear configuration would be explosively unstable. Then Bob Bass did an analysis of tidal friction (the planets are interacting at very close range). His finding? Tidal friction can *stabilize* a collinear system.
(Here I am skipping some very relevant observations by Grubaugh concerning the limitations of the simulation techniques being used by the debunkers, and the crucial relationship of mass ratios to stability issues.)
Additionally, the physicist Robert Driscoll examined the potential role of electromagnetism, finding that electromagnetic repulsion will not only bring the planets closer together, as required by the historical argument, but add a stabilizing influence. Aspects of Driscoll's approach have been published in AEON
Because Grubaugh was working with collinear equilibrium, he was extremely skeptical of the n-body simulations being used by t.o debunkers. By degrees, he evolved a different protocol designed to work with collinear equilibrium and small perturbations of equilibrium. The approach was *so* different (Bob also slipped a couple of times in his first statements of the approach), that the howling was relentless. "Who is this idiot?" (or something like that) asked Ben Dehner. So I asked Dr. Robert Bass to evaluate Grubaugh's unique protocol.
It was only a few days before Bass was able to derive Grubaugh's approach mathematically (adding a couple of small changes). The approach was, according to Bass, "brilliant," and he urged a review to determine if there was any precedent, offering to write a paper on the subject for publication.
The howlers, on the other hand, were of one voice in insisting that their own simulations of collinear systems were quite sufficient to settle the issue. So I challenged them to replicate, with the simulation they were using, the known tendency of a body at Lagrange point L-3 to oscillate about the equilibrium position when disturbed slightly. If they ever satisfied this simple test, I never heard about it.
Repeatedly the t.o howlers argued that the gravity of the Sun would eliminate the collinear equilibrium. Then I was told (not by a debunker, need I add) about the Gegenschein, the material that has gathered at the L-3 position in relation to the Earth and Moon. It seems that the gravity of the Sun does *not* prevent Earth-Moon dynamics from attracting and holding material at this collinear position. How long do the particles of the Gegenschein librate about the collinear position before wandering off? I have no idea. But could the simulations touted by the howlers replicate the dynamics at all? Absolutely not.
Then of course there was the real bombshell. It was announced by several howlers that Grubaugh's "retrograde" model was particularly absurd because it did not have the Jupiter-Saturn system revolving in inertial space. Thus there were no "centrifugal" forces to keep the bodies apart. (This particular model had Jupiter and Saturn revolving once retrograde--in relation to the radius from the Sun--with each prograde revolution of the binary system around the Sun. Therefore, a line running through J and S would continue pointing to the same background star. The model, one of several Grubaugh has considered, was interesting because in concept, at least, it eliminated the need for precession of Earth's pole to maintain polar alignment.)
On this one, even Tom Van Flandern, who is an explorer, not a debunker, stepped in to deliver a carefully-worded critique stating the implausibility of the retrograde model, observing that "centrifugal" forces are defined in relation to inertial space, hence there were none in the model, i.e., no forces to separate the two bodies. Well this more kindly review from Van Flandern was so "devastating" in the eyes of the howlers that they were even beginning to "feel sorry" for Grubaugh.
Holy star wars, Batman! Was this the end of the Saturn hoax?
Quick break from "My Dinner with Tim." In the 90-minute documentary, "Remembering the End of the World," there are a couple of brief scenes with Grubaugh in which he has brought along his archaic computer, running a little simulation in the off-the-shelf program "Gravity," which the howlers swore was sufficient to test Grubaugh's approach. In those scenes you will see a crude replication of the retrograde motions of J and S as
...
In <4sm4sq$...@news.nyu.edu> g...@scholar.nyu.edu (the Class Clown) responded to my summary of a little history for Tim, with his own version.
So here's the deal. Send your comments to your buddy Leroy, and ask him to include the most forceful arguments in his submission to the Great Debate. Or, if that is not satisfactory, and several of the howlers would prefer that *you* replace Leroy in the Great Debate, I'll drink to that too. While I don't mind flailing away for a few days in the t.o Posturing Wars, my plan (as I've said) is to debate two people only, and to put the text up on our website so that scholars we will be contacting can be directed to that discussion for background.
Or here's another way to approach this. I challenge Tim Thompson, Neil Reid, or others with some knowledge of physics to read through the Class Clown's review and honestly acknowledge the misconceptions contained therein. The question couldn't be simpler. Will talk.origins continue forever with its goon-squad approach to intellectual issues, or will the debunkers somehow find the courage to ask those who make such brazen misstatements of principle to be accountable for what they say?
And just in case any of you missed the post in response to Tim Thompson, IT IS MY PLEASURE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING TEXT OF "MY DINNER WITH TIM"--
You might as well settle in for the art-house version, "My Dinner with Tim," because there's no short way to correct Tim Thompson's misstatements on the Saturn theory. Tim's eagerness to pronounce verdicts may be entertaining, but learning something about the historical argument would save a lot of *his* time and mine.
An evaluation of the Saturn theory must take into consideration three levels of evidence: 1) the ability of the theory to explain, or "predict" the total field of historical data (recurring artistic, literary, ritual, and symbolic themes of the early cultures); 2) the consistency of the theory with physical data on Earth and elsewhere in the solar system, particularly the many anomalies difficult to explain in terms of traditional models of planetary evolution; and 3) the degree to which known principles of dynamics might permit, or prohibit, the planetary behavior implied by the historical argument.
With respect to the third level of evidence, Tim is the boldest of the t.o debunkers. He has openly declared, more times than I could count, that the hypothesized planetary configuration is impossible, end of statement, thank you.
But I'm here to tell you that Tim *couldn't* know the hypothesized configuration is impossible. It's one thing for a person to say, "I don't know of any dynamic principles that could support the hypothesis, and therefore it seems highly implausible to me." In fact, several explorers *have* said just that, but with a sufficiently open mind that they actually came back later and offered significant suggestions--in a couple of cases *extremely* significant suggestions. They did not see themselves as professional debunkers, and the difference is remarkable.
What I find most curious is Tim's failure to learn not only from the history of science, but from his personal history with respect to the very issues at hand. I mentioned in a prior post that, for more than a decade, the "definitive" answer to the hypothesized planetary system was a simple one-liner: the claimed planetary lineup violates Kepler's Third Law. As a rule, that was all it took to deflect potential interest in exploring the idea. Why consider historical evidence for something that is so obviously impossible?
Then out of the blue came Bob Grubaugh's revelation that there are collinear equilibrium positions at which each of the participating planets has the same orbital period. The entire point with respect to Kepler's Third Law (i.e., the greater the orbital radius, the longer the orbital period) was suddenly irrelevant. Nevertheless, the moment Tim saw Bob's preliminary paper on collinear equilibrium positions he announced that Kepler's Third Law made the entire proposition absurd, thereby setting the tone for a total fiasco on t.o.
Since Tim was in this instance incorrect, as pointed out by Richard Harter, I'd have thought this experience would have left him a little less impulsive when it comes to such sweeping assertions about what is possible and what is not--particularly since he has not shown enough familiarity with the historical argument to even state the hypothesized conditions accurately. Just what is it that he is declaring to be impossible?
A second example. I had stated that a considerable volume of evidence suggests that in the former planetary arrangement an extremely active relationship evolved between Mars and Venus at close range, atmosphere and oceans being pulled from Mars to spiral around the planet Venus. Though I may have had some intuitive sense concerning the physics of such interaction, the entire basis for hypothesizing the condition was global, historical evidence, not physics.
Tim said that's impossible, because Mars would have been shredded by the forces involved (if I recall correctly, the statement was that Mars would have to move inside the Roche limit).
Because of my own confidence with respect to historical evidence, I then asked Tim if he really wanted to state his position with such certainty. To which he responded that yes, he was perfectly willing to stick his neck out on this one. (I am reconstructing the conversation from memory, not quoting from any text at hand.)
So I had the occasion to ask others about this. And I quickly found it is not nearly so simple. There is, in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ a picture of a phenomenon almost precisely analogous to what I've suggested on historical evidence. In this picture a red giant is losing its atmosphere to the smaller but much more dense and massive white dwarf, the gases spiraling around the heavier body, precisely as the historical evidence suggests occurred with the material spiraling around Venus. Then I was told by another explorer that the process is easy: the material is first pulled to the Roche limit, at which point it enters the region of the other body's gravitational dominance. (I want to emphasize here that I've not had a chance either to look into the principle, or even to ask others about it.)
Here's the question: do the volumes of historical evidence become irrelevant just because Tim Thompson declares the hypothesized planetary congregation to be impossible? Or maybe we should just let Leroy Ellenberger tell us what is impossible. The reason for not taking the debunkers' verdicts as seriously as they would have us take them is simple. Again and again they have been wrong. Now how many examples would you like me to give you?
Once the existence of collinear equilibrium positions was conceded, the howling shifted to issues of stability. Again and again it was claimed that a collinear configuration would be explosively unstable. Then Bob Bass did an analysis of tidal friction (the planets are interacting at very close range). His finding? Tidal friction can *stabilize* a collinear system.
(Here I am skipping some very relevant observations by Grubaugh concerning the limitations of the simulation techniques being used by the debunkers, and the crucial relationship of mass ratios to stability issues.)
Additionally, the physicist Robert Driscoll examined the potential role of electromagnetism, finding that electromagnetic repulsion will not only bring the planets closer together, as required by the historical argument, but add a stabilizing influence. Aspects of Driscoll's approach have been published in AEON
Because Grubaugh was working with collinear equilibrium, he was extremely skeptical of the n-body simulations being used by t.o debunkers. By degrees, he evolved a different protocol designed to work with collinear equilibrium and small perturbations of equilibrium. The approach was *so* different (Bob also slipped a couple of times in his first statements of the approach), that the howling was relentless. "Who is this idiot?" (or something like that) asked Ben Dehner. So I asked Dr. Robert Bass to evaluate Grubaugh's unique protocol.
It was only a few days before Bass was able to derive Grubaugh's approach mathematically (adding a couple of small changes). The approach was, according to Bass, "brilliant," and he urged a review to determine if there was any precedent, offering to write a paper on the subject for publication.
The howlers, on the other hand, were of one voice in insisting that their own simulations of collinear systems were quite sufficient to settle the issue. So I challenged them to replicate, with the simulation they were using, the known tendency of a body at Lagrange point L-3 to oscillate about the equilibrium position when disturbed slightly. If they ever satisfied this simple test, I never heard about it.
Repeatedly the t.o howlers argued that the gravity of the Sun would eliminate the collinear equilibrium. Then I was told (not by a debunker, need I add) about the Gegenschein, the material that has gathered at the L-3 position in relation to the Earth and Moon. It seems that the gravity of the Sun does *not* prevent Earth-Moon dynamics from attracting and holding material at this collinear position. How long do the particles of the Gegenschein librate about the collinear position before wandering off? I have no idea. But could the simulations touted by the howlers replicate the dynamics at all? Absolutely not.
Then of course there was the real bombshell. It was announced by several howlers that Grubaugh's "retrograde" model was particularly absurd because it did not have the Jupiter-Saturn system revolving in inertial space. Thus there were no "centrifugal" forces to keep the bodies apart. (This particular model had Jupiter and Saturn revolving once retrograde--in relation to the radius from the
...
>Or here's another way to approach this. I challenge Tim Thompson, Neil >Reid, or others with some knowledge of physics to read through the Class >Clown's review and honestly acknowledge the misconceptions contained >therein. The question couldn't be simpler. Will talk.origins continue >forever with its goon-squad approach to intellectual issues, or will the >debunkers somehow find the courage to ask those who make such brazen >misstatements of principle to be accountable for what they say?
And today, I find that Tim Thompson has already put his stamp of approval on the wisdom of the Class Clown. Moreover, I predict that not one t.o regular will come forward to correct any of the Class Clown's misstatements or identify a single instance in which he failed to comprehend the issue at stake.
When I return from my trip, I'll begin the debate with Leroy, and add to the narrative going onto our website the exchange with the Class Clown, including the corrections to that most recent embarrassing post of his.
>And just in case any of you missed the post in response to Tim Thompson, >IT IS MY PLEASURE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING TEXT OF "MY DINNER WITH TIM"-- >You might as well settle in for the art-house version, "My Dinner with >Tim," because there's no short way to correct Tim Thompson's misstatements >on the Saturn theory. Tim's eagerness to pronounce verdicts may be >entertaining, but learning something about the historical argument would >save a lot of *his* time and mine. >An evaluation of the Saturn theory must take into consideration three >levels of evidence: 1) the ability of the theory to explain, or "predict" >the total field of historical data (recurring artistic, literary, ritual, >and symbolic themes of the early cultures); 2) the consistency of the >theory with physical data on Earth and elsewhere in the solar system, >particularly the many anomalies difficult to explain in terms of >traditional models of planetary evolution; and 3) the degree to which >known principles of dynamics might permit, or prohibit, the planetary >behavior implied by the historical argument. >With respect to the third level of evidence, Tim is the boldest of the t.o >debunkers. He has openly declared, more times than I could count, that >the hypothesized planetary configuration is impossible, end of statement, >thank you. >But I'm here to tell you that Tim *couldn't* know the hypothesized >configuration is impossible. It's one thing for a person to say, "I >don't know of any dynamic principles that could support the hypothesis, >and therefore it seems highly implausible to me." In fact, several >explorers *have* said just that, but with a sufficiently open mind that >they actually came back later and offered significant suggestions--in a >couple of cases *extremely* significant suggestions. They did not see >themselves as professional debunkers, and the difference is remarkable. >What I find most curious is Tim's failure to learn not only from the >history of science, but from his personal history with respect to the very >issues at hand. I mentioned in a prior post that, for more than a >decade, the "definitive" answer to the hypothesized planetary system was a >simple one-liner: the claimed planetary lineup violates Kepler's Third >Law. As a rule, that was all it took to deflect potential interest in >exploring the idea. Why consider historical evidence for something that >is so obviously impossible? >Then out of the blue came Bob Grubaugh's revelation that there are >collinear equilibrium positions at which each of the participating planets >has the same orbital period. The entire point with respect to Kepler's >Third Law (i.e., the greater the orbital radius, the longer the orbital >period) was suddenly irrelevant. Nevertheless, the moment Tim saw Bob's >preliminary paper on collinear equilibrium positions he announced that >Kepler's Third Law made the entire proposition absurd, thereby setting the >tone for a total fiasco on t.o. >Since Tim was in this instance incorrect, as pointed out by Richard >Harter, I'd have thought this experience would have left him a little less >impulsive when it comes to such sweeping assertions about what is possible >and what is not--particularly since he has not shown enough familiarity >with the historical argument to even state the hypothesized conditions >accurately. Just what is it that he is declaring to be impossible? >A second example. I had stated that a considerable volume of evidence >suggests that in the former planetary arrangement an extremely active >relationship evolved between Mars and Venus at close range, atmosphere and >oceans being pulled from Mars to spiral around the planet Venus. Though I >may have had some intuitive sense concerning the physics of such >interaction, the entire basis for hypothesizing the condition was global, >historical evidence, not physics. >Tim said that's impossible, because Mars would have been shredded by the >forces involved (if I recall correctly, the statement was that Mars would >have to move inside the Roche limit). >Because of my own confidence with respect to historical evidence, I then >asked Tim if he really wanted to state his position with such certainty. >To which he responded that yes, he was perfectly willing to stick his neck >out on this one. (I am reconstructing the conversation from memory, not >quoting from any text at hand.) >So I had the occasion to ask others about this. And I quickly found it is >not nearly so simple. There is, in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ a picture of a >phenomenon almost precisely analogous to what I've suggested on historical >evidence. In this picture a red giant is losing its atmosphere to the >smaller but much more dense and massive white dwarf, the gases spiraling >around the heavier body, precisely as the historical evidence suggests >occurred with the material spiraling around Venus. Then I was told by >another explorer that the process is easy: the material is first pulled >to the Roche limit, at which point it enters the region of the other >body's gravitational dominance. (I want to emphasize here that I've not >had a chance either to look into the principle, or even to ask others >about it.) >Here's the question: do the volumes of historical evidence become >irrelevant just because Tim Thompson declares the hypothesized planetary >congregation to be impossible? Or maybe we should just let Leroy >Ellenberger tell us what is impossible. The reason for not taking the >debunkers' verdicts as seriously as they would have us take them is >simple. Again and again they have been wrong. Now how many examples >would you like me to give you? >Once the existence of collinear equilibrium positions was conceded, the >howling shifted to issues of stability. Again and again it was claimed >that a collinear configuration would be explosively unstable. Then Bob >Bass did an analysis of tidal friction (the planets are interacting at >very close range). His finding? Tidal friction can *stabilize* a >collinear system. >(Here I am skipping some very relevant observations by Grubaugh concerning >the limitations of the simulation techniques being used by the debunkers, >and the crucial relationship of mass ratios to stability issues.) >Additionally, the physicist Robert Driscoll examined the potential role of >electromagnetism, finding that electromagnetic repulsion will not only >bring the planets closer together, as required by the historical argument, >but add a stabilizing influence. Aspects of Driscoll's approach have been >published in AEON >Because Grubaugh was working with collinear equilibrium, he was extremely >skeptical of the n-body simulations being used by t.o debunkers. By >degrees, he evolved a different protocol designed to work with collinear >equilibrium and small perturbations of equilibrium. The approach was *so* >different (Bob also slipped a couple of times in his first statements of >the approach), that the howling was relentless. "Who is this idiot?" (or >something like that) asked Ben Dehner. So I asked Dr. Robert Bass to >evaluate Grubaugh's unique protocol. >It was only a few days before Bass was able to derive Grubaugh's approach >mathematically (adding a couple of small changes). The approach was, >according to Bass, "brilliant," and he urged a review to determine if >there was any precedent, offering to write a paper on the subject for >publication. >The howlers, on the other hand, were of one voice in insisting that their >own simulations of collinear systems were quite sufficient to settle the >issue. So I challenged them to replicate, with the simulation they were >using, the known tendency of a body at Lagrange point L-3 to oscillate >about the equilibrium position when disturbed slightly. If they ever >satisfied this simple test, I never heard about it. >Repeatedly the t.o howlers argued that the gravity of the Sun would >eliminate the collinear equilibrium. Then I was told (not by a debunker, >need I add) about the Gegenschein, the material that has gathered at the >L-3 position in relation to the Earth and Moon. It seems that the gravity >of the Sun does *not* prevent Earth-Moon dynamics from attracting and >holding material at this collinear position. How long do the particles >of the Gegenschein librate about the collinear position before wandering >off? I have no idea. But could the simulations touted by the howlers >replicate the dynamics at all? Absolutely not. >Then of course there was the real bombshell. It was announced by several >howlers that Grubaugh's "retrograde" model was particularly absurd because >it did not have the Jupiter-Saturn system revolving in inertial space. >Thus there were no "centrifugal" forces to keep the bodies apart. (This >particular model had Jupiter and Saturn revolving once retrograde--in >relation to
: dtalb...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) : I predict that not one t.o regular will come forward to correct any of : the Class Clown's misstatements or identify a single instance in which : he failed to comprehend the issue at stake.
I haven't looked in detail at Gans' most recent postings, but I've posted corrections to Gans' misinterpretations in the past. I've also posted corrections to Talbott's.
IMO, Gans response to correction was ... let's say "less disconcerting".
Note that Talbott *still* clings to many mistaken beliefs. Eg:
: (Here I am skipping some very relevant observations by Grubaugh : concerning the limitations of the simulation techniques being used by : the debunkers, and the crucial relationship of mass ratios to : stability issues.)
But Grubaugh's attempts to demonstrate these "limitations" were fallacious, every single time. He claimed Gravity could not simulate an equlibrium orbit (and indeed, Talbott challenged anybody do demonstrate a "rectilinear" simulation of a single orbit L3-type equilibrim (and never paid off the promised $100.00 when it was trivially done by multiple respondents essentially instantly))). He was wrong. He claimed that the equations were those of linear motion only. He was wrong. He claimed that mathematical instabilities could account for the exponential blowups of L3 simulations. This was checked, and they cannot. He claimed that altered mass ratios could yield stable L3-like situations. They cannot.
Now I hear that Bass says tides can stabilize a multi-planet "stack" in equilibrium. Of course, this seems to ignore the fact that Grubaugh's full scenario (with sun plus planetary stack) is not in equilibrium. It also ignores the fact that Grubaugh's scenario is fundamentally limited in the distance ratios the planets can have, and these cannot yield the "polar configuration" images Talbott and Cochrane need.
: (As Grubaugh has shown, the Gravity system is imprecise, and his own : simulation maintains the alignment in inertial space more accurately.)
If by "accurately" is meant "realistically", Grubaugh has never shown any such thing.
: I was told (not by a debunker, need I add) about the Gegenschein, the : material that has gathered at the L-3 position in relation to the : Earth and Moon. It seems that the gravity of the Sun does *not* : prevent Earth-Moon dynamics from attracting and holding material at : this collinear position.
It does not seem that way at all; this is merely a Talbott misinterpretation. The existance of a density peak at equilibria IN NO WAY implies that material is "held" there.
: But could the simulations touted by the howlers replicate the dynamics : at all? Absolutely not.
I see no basis for such a claim.
: I challenged them to replicate, with the simulation they were using, : the known tendency of a body at Lagrange point L-3 to oscillate about : the equilibrium position when disturbed slightly. If they ever : satisfied this simple test, I never heard about it.
Well, Talbott's failure to acknowledge succesfully meeting his previous challenge might have taken all the fun out of trying it.
Actually, I have no doubt that several of the simulations could do it. Certainly, a circular wobble upon slight displacement is a feature of the blowup scenarios simulated at the time (blowups in agreement with the textbook treatments of the situation I might add, while Grubaugh's simulations DISagreed with textbook theoretical predictions).
Note, "oscillate about the equilibrium position when disturbed slightly" is at best a misleading description of the effect refered to here; there are a family of dynamically unstable orbits around the colinear lagrange points. But putting an object onto one of those orbits isn't a matter of "disturbing" a particle at the equilibrium. Instead, it takes a specific velocity and specific offset as initial position. I recall asking Talbott to supply these so everybody would be using the same ones; he never did.
If anybody would supply me with initial conditions for this renewed Talbott challenge, I'll be glad to crank it through a simple simulation, and report what happens. I wouldn't hold my breath for Talbott to acknowledge that the challenge was successfully met, however. He *still* has yet to fully acknowledge that his first specific challenge was met, nor that Grubaugh's accounts of the errors of "rectilinear simulation" were tested and found false. -- Wayne Throop thro...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw thro...@cisco.com
: : dtalb...@teleport.com (David N. Talbott) : : I predict that not one t.o regular will come forward to correct any of : : the Class Clown's misstatements or identify a single instance in which : : he failed to comprehend the issue at stake. : : I haven't looked in detail at Gans' most recent postings, but I've : posted corrections to Gans' misinterpretations in the past. I've also : posted corrections to Talbott's. : : IMO, Gans response to correction was ... let's say "less disconcerting".
[cogent description of water-muddying by Dave Talbott deleted].
LESS DISCONCERTING!!!!!
I'm sure as h**l disconcerted when I make a mistake! Why I remember one night, tickets in hand, I showed up at Lincoln Center here in NY to find that the concert was for the previous night. THAT is being disconcerted.
More seriously (if one can actually detect a change in tone in a posting) I feel that it is incombent on anyone who sounds off in a newsgroup (this certainly includes me) to admit error when it is discovered. I try to do it here. It is a disconcerting experience, but good for the soul.
:: thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) :: IMO, Gans response to correction was ... let's say "less disconcerting".
: g...@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) : I'm sure as h**l disconcerted when I make a mistake!
Well, note, I did say "less disconcerting" (by implicaiton, to me), not that Gans himself was not disconcerted.
Specifically in the grubaugh case, when two specific challenges were made by Talbott, (one, circular equilibrium case simulated "for as much as one orbit") by a "rectilinear simulation", and two, match between theoretical predictions and simulations for both in-line equilibria and L[4,5] points), both were passed by "rectilinear simulations" used by t.o. correspondents of the time, and the second was failed by Grubaugh's simuations. (The in-line equilibria instability when offset was failed by Grubaugh's simulation; I think Grubaugh never tried to reproduce the theoretically-implied instability of L[4,5] at mass ratios near 1. )
The fact that Talbott posted by and by that Grubaugh was "correct on every friggin issue", when he was demonstrably wrong on so many, and had failed so many of these little "challenges", was indeed disconcerting. (Again, "disconcer*ING* to me", though Talbott showed no particular signs of being disconcert*ED*.)
Does anybody out there (you want to try this Paul?) have time to work out the initial conditions of Talbott's latest challenge (the unstable orbits around the in-line equilibria, mentioned in Roy's "Orbital Motion" among other sources)? I don't expect Talbott to acknowledge it any more than he has the other successful challenge responses, but what the hey, you never know.
(Well, to be fair, he once posted that he'd "look into" awarding his $100.00 challenge money, but never did, and since has taken to implying that t.o. correspondents never met challenges.) -- Wayne Throop thro...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw thro...@cisco.com
: The fact that Talbott posted by and by that Grubaugh was "correct on : every friggin issue", when he was demonstrably wrong on so many, and had : failed so many of these little "challenges", was indeed disconcerting. : (Again, "disconcer*ING* to me", though Talbott showed no particular : signs of being disconcert*ED*.) : : Does anybody out there (you want to try this Paul?) : have time to work out the initial conditions of Talbott's latest : challenge (the unstable orbits around the in-line equilibria, mentioned : in Roy's "Orbital Motion" among other sources)? I don't expect Talbott to : acknowledge it any more than he has the other successful challenge : responses, but what the hey, you never know.
I'd be glad to. I have no idea what Roy wrote in "Orbital Motion", is that a book or a paper--if the latter is there any reference to it. I also have no idea as to what Talbott's "challenge" is, since he never supplied any details.
Given those two things and a clearly stated objective so that I could tell if it had been obtained or not, I'd be happy to drag out the ol' integrator and integrate away.
It goes without saying that if I did so, source code and results would be posted here.
|
