Did NASA predicted correctly the Collsion with Temple1 Comet ?

Many Pro-Electric Universe candidates refer to Deep Impact's Successful bombing of Temple 1 comet as a smoking gun for their Electric Universe Theory.

They basically say that NASA predicted a very tiny explosion that we have to be lucky to see something.

Deep Impact Explosion :



This claim needed further research since I believe that a Cosmic Prediction by Scientists cant go wrong and not being discussed.

Not being able to predict the aftermath of the collision simple shows that NASA know little or nothing really about comets having the standard model faulty and thus cant claim against comet alignments causing earthquakes here on Earth, because simply they still dont have all the data necessary to be 100% correct.

To understand how important cosmic prediction are, just imagine if based on the data gathered from the moon, they wrongly predicted the stuff needed to make the Astronaut Helmet's visor.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c67b9d322cfc.jpg[/atsimg]

At first, indications were that NASA did predicted a smaller insignificant explosion.

WASHINGTON, July 4 - NASA's 83-million-mile shot at a comet was a bull's-eye. Its Deep Impact spacecraft slammed into its target with such force early Monday that the resulting blast of icy debris stunned scientists with its size and brightness. If you could hear sounds in space, it would have been a big bang.

"The impact was spectacular," said Dr. Michael A'Hearn of the University of Maryland, the project's principal scientist. "It was much brighter than I expected."

Nasa - Deep Impact Mission Successfully Hits Comet Tempel 1

But it seems to me, they did predicted correctly, even that it shall be visible to the naked eye.

A NASA spacecraft named Deep Impact is going to shoot an 820-pound projectile into the rocky, icy nucleus of Comet Tempel 1. The 23,000 mph collision will form a big crater, and Deep impact will observe the stages of its development, how deep it gets and how wide it becomes.

Researchers expect a plume of gas and dust to spray out of the crater. Deep Impact will measure its composition and record what the billowing plume does to the comet's atmosphere. In all, Deep Impact should be able to peer into the new crater for almost 15 minutes before the craft speeds away, continuing, like its cometary quarry, to orbit forever around the Sun.

Back on Earth, amateur astronomers will be watching, too. The comet glows like a 10th magnitude star and can be seen through backyard telescopes. It should brighten considerably when Deep Impact strikes. The impact plume will reflect sunlight, boosting the visibility of the comet to 5th or 6th magnitude, making it a faint naked-eye object. The Pacific side of Earth will be facing the comet at the moment of impact (0552 UT on July 4th; 10:52 pm PDT on July 3rd); observers in Hawaii, Mexico and the US southwest are favored

Nasa - Deep Impact

So what are your views about this...does this episode relates to the Electric Universe Theory in any way, Did Nasa predicted the magnitude of the collision ? , Is electricity present in a comet? will future alignments with comets result in Mag 6+ EQ ?

Originally posted by heineken
So what are your views about this...does this episode relates to the Electric Universe Theory in any way, Did Nasa predicted the magnitude of the collision ? , Is electricity present in a comet? will future alignments with comets result in Mag 6+ EQ ?

The light comes from the heat generated by two objects colliding with each other and creating energy. The plume of debris, because the comet is made up primarily of ice, will mostly be water, either as a liquid, a vapour, or crystalline, depending upon it's exposure and response to the energy of the impact, and will therefore have a greater ability to reflect the available light. Volatile gases may also be released, but various chemical and molecular reactions will occur, which too will create energy, heat and therefore light.

I think that there are any number of events on Earth that can be patterned within a much wider, cosmic, context. Comets, and other small objects, seem to fall themselves under various influences, more of an effect themselves than a cause.

hey Heineken,

some people may be unaware of what you are talking about..

Deep Impact is a NASA space probe launched on January 12, 2005. It was designed to study the composition of the comet interior of 9P/Tempel, by releasing an impactor into the comet. At 5:52 UTC on July 4, 2005, the impactor successfully collided with the comet's nucleus. The impact excavated debris from the interior of the nucleus, allowing photographs of the impact crater. The photographs showed the comet to be more dusty and less icy than had been expected. The impact generated a large and bright dust cloud, which unexpectedly obscured the view of the impact crater.

reply to post by Misterlondon


yep...you are correct

let us put a picture too

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d2294583be3e.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by KilgoreTrout



and so you say that.... ?

reply to post by heineken


Say what?

Your post seems slightly incoherent to me. From what I gather, you're setting up a straw man argument (which is false to begin with) and using it to insinuate incompetence on the part of NASA scientists? Am I misunderstanding something here? At any rate, the first post by Kilgore was dead-on. That pretty much derails everything else you stacked upon your flawed observation.

reply to post by SpringHeeledJack


the thread seems quiet simple to understand to me..

its just asking..did or did not Nasa correctly predicted the Collision aftermath


lets start from here will ya ?

Not being able to predict the aftermath of the collision simple shows that NASA know little or nothing really about comets having the standard model faulty and thus cant claim against comet alignments causing earthquakes here on Earth, because simply they still dont have all the data necessary to be 100% correct.

Not understanding the composition of the comet (hence the mission to understand it) is different from knowing the gravitational interaction between objects.

reply to post by Planet teleX


This is exactly right. The two things are unrelated. One is saying that NASA didn't know what this was composed of (which I find hard to believe) and the other is implying a scientific theory. NASA may not have known the effects due to the fact that finding the chemical composition of an object in space is actually very simple, and it's volume is not much more difficult. However, I'm not sure they could accurately measure mass on this object and therefore could not calculate it's density. By not knowing the density, there is no way to know what the impact would look like.

I don't know, I'm tired. This thread looks interesting though and I'll give it the attention it deserves after I'm well rested. I'm sure I'm missing lots here...

Originally posted by SpringHeeledJack
reply to post by Planet teleX

 

This is exactly right. The two things are unrelated. One is saying that NASA didn't know what this was composed of (which I find hard to believe) and the other is implying a scientific theory. NASA may not have known the effects due to the fact that finding the chemical composition of an object in space is actually very simple, and it's volume is not much more difficult. However, I'm not sure they could accurately measure mass on this object and therefore could not calculate it's density. By not knowing the density, there is no way to know what the impact would look like.

They were, according to initial reports, surprised by the 'plume' of debris, and had not anticipated that the pictures of the impact would be obscured. They were, I think, under the impression that the comet would be more densely packed, what they found was that it was 'souffle-like'. So yes their calculations were perhaps 'wrong' but as long as they hit it, they got samples, they just didn't get all the data that they were hoping for. Mission accomplished, and our understanding of the composition of comets has suitably expanded. We only had much diminished burnt offerings to study previously. And they certainly did better than the European Space Agency who got their probe all the way up to a comet only for it to fail to respond. No data at all. That must be very disappointing.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


true...i see this mission as the hubble's ...instead of getting pictures not affected by the atmosphere, having the material which forms the comet..raw...as found in space.

so you are saying they were not astonished ny the huge display of the impact?

Originally posted by heineken
so you are saying they were not astonished ny the huge display of the impact?

Not at all, I should imagine everyone involved in the planning and execution of the mission was totally blown away by the extent of the plume. Whether any of those people expected it to be like that, I don't know. From what I gathered from the interviews and reports I have read, as I have already said, they expected the composition of the comet to be denser, they perhaps expected 'chunks' or fragmentation. They knew from observations of comets and objects that had experienced unwitnessed impacts, that those objects had shown a subsequent loss of mass, and that there had in some cases been 'brightening' which had been observed by terrestrial telescopes. They expected a loss of mass and they presumed some brightening. Both those expectations were met, but does that make it any less astonishing? I think that they would have been 'astonished' by whatever had happened, as long as something happened.

The EU guys predicted a small explosion followed by a larger very energetic explosion (due to electrical interactions), NASA predicted a single explosion that is not as energetic. That was the main difference in terms of the actual impact, and the EU guys got that right.

There was also predictions around composition (solid rock from EU, 'dirty snowball' from NASA) and the evidence there also leans towards the EU prediction of a solid comet.

Basically the standard model description of a comet being a relatively loose ball of dirt and ice looks shaky following the probes that have been sent to comets and other cometary observations. The 'dirty snowball' theory was used to explain a comet's coma; the EU theory claims that the coma is an electrical discharge phenomena.

Originally posted by zvezdar
The EU guys predicted a small explosion followed by a larger very energetic explosion (due to electrical interactions), NASA predicted a single explosion that is not as energetic. That was the main difference in terms of the actual impact, and the EU guys got that right.

There was also predictions around composition (solid rock from EU, 'dirty snowball' from NASA) and the evidence there also leans towards the EU prediction of a solid comet.

Basically the standard model description of a comet being a relatively loose ball of dirt and ice looks shaky following the probes that have been sent to comets and other cometary observations. The 'dirty snowball' theory was used to explain a comet's coma; the EU theory claims that the coma is an electrical discharge phenomena.

now were talking..

I totally agree with you here, I believe that NASA was caught off guard with the resulting display from the collision.

I dont think though many are aware of the implications that comes with this accident. We might be closer to a real proof for the Electric Universe Theory than ever.

But it seems nobody really care