asteroid orbit site:metaresearch.org
Google
in particular:
- The NEAR Challenge, Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research, December 1997 -- Although the NEAR-Eros challenge has been repeated on numerous occasions no mainstream supporter has been willing to accept the challenge under any terms, even though the terms were open to discussion. This reflects the unfortunate trend in astronomical theories to avoid setting falsification criteria because, if this were done, many favored theories would likely fall... "If the NEAR rendezvous with Eros [in January, 1999] shows it to be an isolated, single body, or even a simple 'binary asteroid', but without a debris field orbiting it, I will publicly concede before the next Division of Planetary Sciences meeting that the hypothesis leading to that prediction has failed. If the NEAR rendezvous with Eros shows it to be accompanied by a debris field (i.e., multiple orbiting moons), acceptors of this challenge will publicly concede before the next DPS meeting that the hypothesis that made that successful prediction has earned a second look by planetary scientists." ...Under eph premises, Eros is virtually certain to have multiple orbiting moons. In any other model, it would be a fluke if there were even one. To make this specific, let us say three or more distinct satellites now in orbit around Eros will constitute "multiple" ...one must draw the line somewhere, and the mainstream models clearly expect zero moons. I predict that three or more satellites 1-meter in size or larger constitutes a win for eph (thereby conceding a simple binary asteroid with a single, Dactyl-like orbiting moon to the mainstream).
thanks JPB!
to all -- Regarding multiple impacts which occurred basically simultaneously on Earth (various mass extinctions in the paleontological record), we've got this related topic, plus the recent ones about doublet craters and whatnot.
