|
Meta Research Bulletin ©2006
Another strong test distinguishing the eph from the standard models comes from comet split-velocity data. The eph leads to what I call the “satellite model” as an explanation of what a comet is and how it behaves. The standard model for comets is the so-called “dirty snowball” model. In the former case, comets are rocky asteroids surrounded by a debris cloud. In the latter case, they are a snow-ice mixture contaminated with dust packed into a lone nucleus that is eruptive when exposed to sunlight. It ought to be easy to distinguish these two extreme possibilities with the help of modern ground-based and spacecraft observations. And indeed, it is. One of the strongest such tests (out of many that reach a similar conclusion) will de detailed here. See chapter 11 of [6] for others.
Some comets are observed to
“split” into two or more comets. That was unexpected behavior in the dirty
snowball model, but is explained after the fact as the breaking apart of the
snowy nucleus under the action of strong jets. A different phenomenon that
appears from a distance like “splitting” is required by the satellite model
because, as the comet approaches the Sun and its gravitational sphere of
influence shrinks, some outer satellites may find themselves outside that
sphere of influence. Such satellites then escape into independent solar orbits,
creating the appearance of a split.
The test of which explanation
is better involves the velocity of the fragment comets relative to the original
comet from which they seemed to split. In the dirty snowball model, the
velocity is the result of jet action. The energy source might be entirely
internal to the comet, in which case the velocity of ejection of split comet
fragments will be independent of the distance from the Sun at which the split
occurs. Alternatively, the energy for the split in the dirty snowball model
might come from solar light, solar heat, solar wind, solar magnetism, or
something else associated with the Sun. In all such cases, the energy ought to
decrease inversely with the square of solar distance, and that will produce
relative velocities that are inversely proportional to solar distance to the
first power. The dirty snowball model, because it does not predict such splits,
is not able to be specific about which mechanism, a solar or a non-solar energy
source, is the correct one.
By contrast, the eph and its
satellite model require gravitational escapes of satellite comets as the sphere
of influence of the primary nucleus shrinks upon approach to the Sun. The laws
of dynamics require that “split” fragment velocities be escape velocities, which
vary inversely with the square root of solar distance. Any other observed
relationship would falsify the model.
In Figure
9, we show a plot of split-comet component relative velocities, V (in
meters/sec), versus solar distance of the comet at the time of splitting, R (in
au), on a log-log scale. The data and its one-sigma spread lie within the
cross-hatched region. For comparison, three theoretical curves are shown,
labeled “C”, “S”, and “E”. These represent a comet-internal energy source, a
solar energy source, and gravitational escape energies as predicted by the eph,
respectively. All curves have been shifted vertically to intersect at 1 au
because only the slopes are relevant.
It is apparent that the theoretical
curve predicted by the eph model falls within the one-sigma data region, and is
therefore fully in accord with the observations without further consideration.
Both of the possibilities for the dirty snowball model fall well outside the
data range by at least four sigma. This means the dirty snowball model is
excluded as an explanation at the statistical confidence level of better than
10,000-to-1.
In
summary, we see that the satellite model for the nature of comets, based on the
eph model for the origin of comets, is consistent with the observational data;
whereas the standard model is strongly excluded by the data.
|