Evidence For 200-Year-Old Comet Impact On Neptune 83
astroengine writes "Astronomers using ESA's Herschel space observatory have spotted evidence of a cometary impact in Neptune's upper atmosphere (publication, PDF). Whereas impact craters on rocky planetary bodies can remain for billions of years, an impact in the dynamic atmospheres of gas giants aren't obvious, especially if long periods of time have elapsed. This ultimate 'cold case' tracked the unusual distribution of carbon monoxide in Neptune's stratosphere, a sure sign it was deposited there by an external source. Once they realized they were looking at a comet impact, researchers were able to deduce when the impact occurred: 200 years ago."
Re:Tea Party and Fox "News" Racists (Score:1, Insightful)
Barack Obama has shown the same type of birth certificate that I showed to get my drivers license and passport.
How come all the white Presidents didn't have their American birth citizenship questioned by racist idiots?
As soon as a black guy shows up, you immediately assume he was born in Kenya despite overwhelming proof and documentation including a valid birth certificate??
Racism.
Re:Impact probability (Score:2, Insightful)
All science should be therefore taken with a grain of salt, it's kind of the point. There is now a theory for a spot on Neptune, you aren't obligated to take it as some sort of absolute truth.
And then to apply the 'logic' of "well we suck at this aspect of science so how could we be right about this other completely separate aspect", come on. You don't have to accept this at face value, but at least use a better argument than this.
Just roll with the theories or feel free to put forward a new and better one - it's how science works.
Re:Impact probability (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe its just me, but it seems like an aweful lot of 'science' recently has been based on pure speculation.
It is, indeed, just you.
"Pure" speculation would be speculation without reference to facts or well established abstract principles.
In the present case, there is a distinct feature in the upper atmosphere of Neptune. That is a fact. We also have a whole bunch of facts about the details of the feature. Furthermore, we have a bunch of facts about the properties of comets and the odds of a comet of a given size hitting Neptune in the past few hundred years. And finally, we have a bunch of facts about how the atmosphere of a gas giant reacts to being hit by a comet of a given size, as we have observed such impacts. And really finally, we have an enormous wealth of fact regarding the properties and behaviours of fluid systems. It's called 'fluid mechanics' and is one of the most well-established areas of physics, although it is not without it's ongoing challenges due to non-linearity.
None of that is speculation. Zero. All facts, all the time. To be "pure speculation" something would have to not use any of those facts.
Now, given those facts, we can extrapolate from what we know and ask, "Given the facts that we have about comets and gas giants and fluid mechanics and this specific feature on Neptune, can we interpret this specific feature on Neptune about which we have many facts as the result of a relatively recent cometary impact?" The answer is "yes".
That is not speculation, pure or otherwise. That is science: rational inference from well-established facts and abstract principles.
If you don't approve of science done in this way you should stop using your computer, cell phone, etc, and never drive a car or fly in a plane, as all of those technologies depend on scientific discoveries that are equally "speculative".
Have you ever SEEN, for example, with your own eyes, the lift that a plane's wing provides? I don't think so. You just notice that planes have wings and that they don't fall down, and engage in some pure speculation" that wings provide lift. I call bullshit.