'Welease Wosetta!'

[viscount aero]

I guess my point is if it's so obvious to us, then why isn't it obvious to the mainstream? If contradictory evidence is presented, WHY is it ignored? Surely the mainstream is motivated by fame with the Nobel prize, why wouldn't one of the established scientists take the EU perspective and beat everyone to the punch with their own paper of predictions? I do not agree with the mainstream on almost any astrophysical theory, I am extremely skeptical. But from a scientific POV I have to realize that for some reason the way the argument is being presented isn't being followed by the mainstream.

Yep

Consider these points:

"The establishment is:"

• political
• myopic
• guarded
• threatened
• too invested
• "all in"
• prideful
• authoritative
• controlling
• interdependent on other fallacy theories
• stubborn
• elitist
• incorrigible
• pious
• presumptuous
• in a bubble
• red tape
• institutionalized
• already "in the know"
• groupthink
• fascist


Can you name some more points that lead to willful ignorance?

Yes, unlearning is painful and difficult. Especially if the learning was expensive and difficult. Admitting that an entire Ph.D is wrong seems to be the most painful. If EU is correct, that is the case with cosmology and geology.

michael

That's right.

And yes, geology is yet another interrelated paradigm. If EU is even remotely correct then there is little to no basis for anything currently taught in schools about origins, dates, and processes of the Earth's crust and requisite rock formations and types. This includes cultural periods of civilizations and chronology of history. So it also requires that early human history itself be questioned and declared unknown. They've already found objects that are "too old" and these things are shelved and shoved away in dark basements. Science already doesn't want to deal with them. It is a cascade of conundrums for the established sciences.

Consider, to anyone reading, that what has been taught about our entire species and Earth is nearly 90% false. Yet cosmology, dealing with unfathomable distances and time scales, believes it has pretty much figured it all out down to the Planck time!

Eventually what will evolve is a highly polarized society of ones who are awake and aware versus ones who remain willfully ignorant and serve the power structure whose interests lie in keeping people in servitude to it.

[Metryq]

Consider, to anyone reading, that what has been taught about our entire species and Earth is nearly 90% false.

That would be an ultraviolet catastrophe.

Yet cosmology, dealing with unfathomable distances and time scales, believes it has pretty much figured it all out down to the Planck time!

Time to walk the Planck (and collapse a wave function).

[viscount aero]

Consider, to anyone reading, that what has been taught about our entire species and Earth is nearly 90% false.

That would be an ultraviolet catastrophe.

Yet cosmology, dealing with unfathomable distances and time scales, believes it has pretty much figured it all out down to the Planck time!

Time to walk the Planck (and collapse a wave function).

LOL!!!!! Smart ass du jour!! +1000

[4realScience]

67P has same density as water ice.....???

I have just run numbers for its density and am surprised to see nearly same as Rosetta Wiki. By mine I get 113 kg/ cubic meter where they post 102 kg / cubic meter where ice density is about 100 kg/cubic meter. Anyone want to check this out?



Here's what I did. I looked at the rotating 3d model of 67P until I visualized a makeup. Oh, here is the model:

http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/54412-comet- ... l-28-july/

And here is the scale image showing a 2 km reference:

http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/54436-comet- ... july-2014/


From visualizing I concluded the object can be approximated by 3 solid objects. The head of the 'duck' is about 3/4 of a sphere 2.5 km in diameter. The neck of the duck is a cylinder 2 km diameter and 0.5 km height. The base, body of the duck is about 1/8 of a sphere of diameter of 4 km.

That lead me to a total volume of 88.8 cubic km which is 88.8 x 10 ^9 cubic meters.

Then from the mass they now say is 1 x 10 ^13 kg I divide by the volume and get 113 kg / cubic meter.

This surprises me. How could it be so close to their original estimate when they got the mass wrong by 3x?

Do I have an error that anyone can see here?

[Frantic]

I guess my point is if it's so obvious to us, then why isn't it obvious to the mainstream? If contradictory evidence is presented, WHY is it ignored? Surely the mainstream is motivated by fame with the Nobel prize, why wouldn't one of the established scientists take the EU perspective and beat everyone to the punch with their own paper of predictions? I do not agree with the mainstream on almost any astrophysical theory, I am extremely skeptical. But from a scientific POV I have to realize that for some reason the way the argument is being presented isn't being followed by the mainstream.

Hmm, I thought I would browse something, a list of all the nobel prize winners back through 1900. The criterion of "the greatest benefit" lead to science taking a specific direction. Great accomplishments leading to the technologies and tools we all enjoy now. Useful technology. So long as it works we use it. But at the same time we became dogmatic, it was our love of technology, almost worship of it. There is no Nobel for geology, weather, electricity, plasma, or slowing progress down in anyway. A different direction is impossible in their mind progress is a snowball rolling downhill picking up speed and size until there is no stopping it, and then it implodes back to a point. ?

We are ok that everything is an approximation. We take the blurry photo as reality. Science in all its glory is scared of reality, especially weather for which no Nobel was ever awarded. Science cannot explain weather mathematically. Mathematical models cannot predict beyond a very limited window of time. There is little chance we can explain anything beyond our planet with mathematics if we cannot do the same with weather here. A new release from NASA and their newest weather system, and it still has the exact same 2 week forecasted model which is the best we can do. We are modeling whole galaxies and solar systems and planets, and for what? We know the math does not work, they massage it until it works in one condition. Science did not used to have the wonderful ability to simulate every particle into just the right place to make a theory work, and then repeat the experiment(hit play button again). The sad thing is the math isn't lying. They fail to define its scope and misinterpret everything. It even tells them they are wrong, they just cannot find anyway to consider a force additional to gravity, the mass must be missing.

[GaryN]

by 4realScience

where ice density is about 100 kg/cubic meter

Do I have an error that anyone can see here?

Yes, 100 kg/m3 is 1/10th the value posted on the Internet, so the thing is really light.

Water ice.
kilogram per cubic meter (kg/m3) 916.7

Looking into possible models, and the composition, I think we need to start with silica, which seems to be the most abundant material around, perhaps a disordered macroporous silica, which may reach the density so far published for 67P. In the flux tube model then, it may be that there is an electrochemical reduction occuring, though I am not a chemist, in which case it might be possible to end up with a silicon aerogel, but maybe it becomes so fragile that it breaks up while still a silica, but approaching an almost aerogel density.
Maybe I should take my musings down to the NIAMI Dept. though and let you guys get on with bashing the old model?

[viscount aero]

Lots of rocks on Earth are of low density. Pumice is one.

Also, the density readings they are getting may be wrong. Even if they are correct, up or down, they will say it virtually proves that the comet is a "water ice" body. They will then imply this in the next press release to justify carrying on with the icy dirtball theory.

[Rossim]

I think it's worth noting that the Rosetta Mission Predictions on the thunderbolts site does not make any claim regarding density, probably because reported densities or masses may be misleading due to electromagnetic influence.

[Aardwolf]

I think it's worth noting that the Rosetta Mission Predictions on the thunderbolts site does not make any claim regarding density, probably because reported densities or masses may be misleading due to electromagnetic influence.

I predict it to have a density of between 2500-3000 kg/m³ athough that is unlikely to be corroborated as their gravity theory is as suspect as their comet theory.

[4realScience]

@ GaryN

Thanks for finding my water density error. I see now that water/ice is about 1,000 kg per cubic meter.

So my model says the 67P is 1/10 the density of ice and it is near the same density ESA calculated before they got the corrected mass.

If this is so then maybe it is porous or maybe there is an electric gravity effect of some kind. Lets hope the lander survives and gets samples.

[Metryq]

so the thing is really light.

Maybe it's alien aerogel sent into the inner Solar system to collect particles. When it comes back with a Terran probe stuck to it, the alien scientists will be overjoyed that they caught a sample. "See? I told you Terrans look nothing like their TV images."

[FS3]

At least that's what some "Eggsperts" might have been thinking when they tested the capabilities of the harpoon that will be used in fixing the lander of the Rosetta probe to the surface:

Scientists Test Harpoon Used in Rosetta Probe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHgJKRnbSyU

As the developers of Philae assumed the consistence 67P being of some "fluffy" material they designed the anchors for lightweight aerated concrete (YTONG) or - you name it - ice. It would be a pity if that fantastic enterprise of engeneering skills would be spoiled by that kind of "scientific" arro-and ignorance that might be overcome by the hard way only.

The hard way of a granite, silica or even metallic surface.

FS3

[viscount aero]

At least that's what some "Eggsperts" might have been thinking when they tested the capabilities of the harpoon that will be used in fixing the lander of the Rosetta probe to the surface:

Scientists Test Harpoon Used in Rosetta Probe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHgJKRnbSyU

As the developers of Philae assumed the consistence 67P being of some "fluffy" material they designed the anchors for lightweight aerated concrete (YTONG) or - you name it - ice. It would be a pity if that fantastic enterprise of engeneering skills would be spoiled by that kind of "scientific" arro-and ignorance that might be overcome by the hard way only.

The hard way of a granite, silica or even metallic surface.

FS3

Yes this is the big payoff I'm waiting for The "Ice harpoon" tether. It is as if Comet Temple 1 and its appearance and data didn't exist. As I have said beforehand, they have actually learned nothing! (unless they designed this probe before Tempel 1).

[FS3]

Or even worse - they constantly refuse to accept the proven facts!

Yes this is the big payoff I'm waiting for The "Ice harpoon" tether. It is as if Comet Temple 1 and its appearance and data didn't exist. As I have said beforehand, they have actually learned nothing! (unless they designed this probe before Tempel 1).

I have had some ongoing hard arguments with those "scientists" in Austria who were in part responsible for the development of some technology for the lander: http://derstandard.at/plink/1378248643952/33369398

As you can read "ex exitus"(Most probably he works for the Grazer Instituts für Weltraumforschung) constantly refused to even take into account the possibility that the real world of comets/asteroids might be completely different to his imagination. With their working hand in hand with the GWUP-Trolls (the local version of BAUT) I had to experience the typical witch-hunt and got even banned from posting, finally. The administrators of ashes don't seem to like it if someone presents reasoning and scientific facts against their imaginative universe!

ESA started the mission design way before 2003:

COMETARY SURFACE PROCESSES: EXPERIMENTS AND THEORY

Using the anchoring device of a comet lander to determine surface mechanical properties (1997)

Impact penetrometry on a comet nucleus - interpretation of laboratory data using penetration models (2001)

Accelerometry measurements using the Rosetta Lander's anchoring harpoon: experimental set-up, data reduction and signal analysis (2001)

The ROSETTA Lander anchoring system (2003)

Again, it would be a pity if such a remarkable project of over one Billion budget goes awry because of the arrogance of those who are only longing to receive some additional funding and don't dare to raise any voices to object their superiors because of their gutlessness.

FS3

[viscount aero]

Or even worse - they constantly refuse to accept the proven facts!

Yes this is the big payoff I'm waiting for The "Ice harpoon" tether. It is as if Comet Temple 1 and its appearance and data didn't exist. As I have said beforehand, they have actually learned nothing! (unless they designed this probe before Tempel 1).

I have had some ongoing hard arguments with those "scientists" in Austria who were in part responsible for the development of some technology for the lander: http://derstandard.at/plink/1378248643952/33369398

As you can read "ex exitus"(Most probably he works for the Grazer Instituts für Weltraumforschung) constantly refused to even take into account the possibility that the real world of comets/asteroids might be completely different to his imagination. With their working hand in hand with the GWUP-Trolls (the local version of BAUT) I had to experience the typical witch-hunt and got even banned from posting, finally. The administrators of ashes don't seem to like it if someone presents reasoning and scientific facts against their imaginative universe!

ESA started the mission design way before 2003:

COMETARY SURFACE PROCESSES: EXPERIMENTS AND THEORY

Using the anchoring device of a comet lander to determine surface mechanical properties (1997)

Impact penetrometry on a comet nucleus - interpretation of laboratory data using penetration models (2001)

Accelerometry measurements using the Rosetta Lander's anchoring harpoon: experimental set-up, data reduction and signal analysis (2001)

The ROSETTA Lander anchoring system (2003)

Again, it would be a pity if such a remarkable project of over one Billion budget goes awry because of the arrogance of those who are only longing to receive some additional funding and don't dare to raise any voices to object their superiors because of their gutlessness.

FS3

It is not even gutlessness--it is worse. It is overt blindness. Gutlessness would mean there are those in the community who hold dissenting opinions. But you may be right, too, which is only more deeply saddening. Imagine the ones who silently stood by and watched knowing it was not designed with more things taken into account.

To add, I've been banned from science forums, too, for the same reasons as you have. Back in the day space.com had forums. They banned me. Another forum, I think "bad astronomy" banned me. They didn't like hearing that the big bang and black holes didn't exist as I offered logic as to why.

btw, that "ex exitus" and GWUP link are entirely in German.

Insofar as this:
"As the mechanical properties of the material are not known, it is difficult to predict the final depth of the anchor with any great certainty, but it may well be greater than that reached by any other of the lander's instruments. The instrumented anchor will be part of the MUPUS experiment, selected to form part of the Rosetta Lander payload. We report on results of laboratory simulations of anchor penetration performed at the Institut für Weltraumforschung, Graz, and compare these with models of projectile penetration. The value of the results expected from the penetrometry experiment in the context of an improved understanding of cometary processes is discussed."

What were the results discussed?