by Open Mind » Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:53 pm
Aardworlf wrote: "Bear in mind that this 3 month old tail isn't even emanating from the moonlet it hit, Dimorphos, but from the main body, Didymos. How does that make any logical sense within mainstream theory?"
Had to look up 'moonlet' . Right, I do recall we hit the much smaller rock that was following the bigger one. Good point. If we can see this tail emanating from the bigger comet, then the only explanation becomes debris particles from the impactor probe traveling like the magic bullet from JFK, right, (not to mention the flaws about that debris supposedly popping holes and releasing gas and water)? And since all potential events 'could' happen, how do you contradict a 'theory' of even a seemingly highly improbable event?
Yes, that's how I get lost. When out of desperation, they invent nonsensical or at least highly improbable explanations to defend themselves. I can accept that, but its when these nonsensical explanations transition into 'accepted science' and are now delivered in a tone of certainty, that I begin to doubt science. Frustrating.
Do we have confirmation of that source point of the tail at least? Even if we don't have 'data' as a follow up, certainly civilian telescopes are capable of that observation for confirmation? Or maybe its too far away.
Aardworlf wrote: "Bear in mind that this 3 month old tail isn't even emanating from the moonlet it hit, Dimorphos, but from the main body, Didymos. How does that make any logical sense within mainstream theory?"
Had to look up 'moonlet' . Right, I do recall we hit the much smaller rock that was following the bigger one. Good point. If we can see this tail emanating from the bigger comet, then the only explanation becomes debris particles from the impactor probe traveling like the magic bullet from JFK, right, (not to mention the flaws about that debris supposedly popping holes and releasing gas and water)? And since all potential events 'could' happen, how do you contradict a 'theory' of even a seemingly highly improbable event?
Yes, that's how I get lost. When out of desperation, they invent nonsensical or at least highly improbable explanations to defend themselves. I can accept that, but its when these nonsensical explanations transition into 'accepted science' and are now delivered in a tone of certainty, that I begin to doubt science. Frustrating.
Do we have confirmation of that source point of the tail at least? Even if we don't have 'data' as a follow up, certainly civilian telescopes are capable of that observation for confirmation? Or maybe its too far away.