verisimilitude wrote:The EU comet model looked to be on stable footing until this happened.
Do I expect a rapid response? Of course not; who am I to make such demands? But as a neutral party leaning toward the EU explanation, I do feel a measured response is terribly important.
Define "measured response". As someone with no significant interest in the outcome, even I can see that the composition, the unusual shape of the object, and the trajectory of the asteroid could play a significant role in whether or not it forms an obvious tail. This is after all a highly unusual asteroid. It hardly seems like it would be practical or prudent to base an entire theory on a single, unique event. Even if it's an exception, does that mean that the rule doesn't apply in most instances?
After all, from the outside looking in, EU is staring at a failed prediction. Saying it's OK because LCDM commonly makes failed predictions is unprofessional.
I don't see anyone here suggesting that it's 'ok' to ignore this observation only because LCMD is littered with gigantic prediction failures of it's own, but I also don't see why EU models/theories should be held to a much higher standard, and judged solely based on one unique event. It seems to me that a 'measured" response work both ways.
EU needs to handle this with humility, and more importantly, with solid scientific reasoning.
As opposed to the mainstream SOP of simply sweeping it's problems under the rug, most recently that massive quasar that doesn't fit with their evolutionary models, two order of magnitude failed solar convection predictions, or billions of dollars worth of failed dark matter "tests"?
I'm really unclear about how one would define a "measured" response from a single unusual event. This is after all the first such observation of it's kind. Are it's critics showing any humility or any signs of "solid scientific reasoning"? Admittedly there's a need to review the theory in light of these observations, but a single failed prediction is almost never used to falsify an entire model in astronomy.
Remember, nucleosynthesis was nonstandard until it was proven. Now it's part if the Standard Model. EU comet theory also has a shot at being absorbed.
Sure, as does every other aspect of EU/PC solar models and cosmology concepts.
And that opens the door to more funding, more projects and more satellite time. So, yeah, you may like the sublimation theory, or just not care; I'd like to think EU is on to something and have an interest in seeing their work rewarded.
I hear you, and I think most of us agree with you too, but it's unclear to me what a "measured' response to a single, highly unusual event might be? It's not like I really care one way or the other mind you, but I'd hate to see the whole idea be thrown out the windows based upon a single 'exception' rather than the rule before we even begin to understand much about this particular object. Does the composition make a difference? Does it's travel through interstellar space make a difference? Does the shape of the object have an influence? Does the trajectory compared to the plane of the elliptic have some influence on the outcome? Does the orbital eccentricity play a role? How would we decide such things *before* any real funding or investigation takes place?