ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 28th April 2015, 04:03 PM   #361
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,209
Gravity. Something else for RC to add to his list of things that Sol doesn't understand about basic science. If we'd actually let EUers plan this mission, I wonder where it would have ended up? Proxima, in about 40 000 years? It would probably never have got off the ground, given that the shielding would have been too heavy, due to taking account of all the squillions of electrons flowing into/ out of their electric sun. Invisible electrons, that is, with built in Romulan cloaking devices.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 05:26 PM   #362
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Oh must have missed that. Do you have a source?
Yes.
ETA: Since you have such a short memory Sol88:
9th January 2015
9th January 2015
9th January 2015
Stardust

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th April 2015 at 06:08 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 05:33 PM   #363
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well then I must be a neo-Velikovskyian!
The idiocy of comparing images of balls of ice and dust to images of the Earth should be obvious to you, Sol88 - even as a believer in the neo-Velikovsky delusions !.

If you have not read the fantasies of Velikovsky then I suggest that you do not rot your brain by doing so. You have already seen the effects of Velikovsky on David Talbott and Wal Thornhill. Their intellectual facilities have been so badly corrupted that they can entertain the delusions that I listed previously and the delusion that comets are rocks.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 05:52 PM   #364
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
and not so sure about the set in stone (no pun intended) figure of 470 kg/m^3
That is a thing called science, Sol88:
  1. Measure the mass of a comet with one method of several explained in the blog you linked to Determining the mass of comet 67P/C-G !
  2. Measure the volume of a comet
  3. Divide mass by volume to get the density of the comet!
For 67P: Comet vital statistics (as at 22/01/2015) has 0.47 g/cc.

Note that before 67P's strange shape was discovered, the mass was measured from 67P's orbit and its volume from its light curve (modeled as a ellipsoid) and was estimated as 0.1 g/cc.
ETA: Hopefully we will not see the delusion that a change from 0.1 to 0.47 means that a jump to 1.0 or greater is possible! 0.47 is a more accurate result than the previous 0.1. With more observations the mass and volume may change by a few % leading to a few % change in the density. We are not going to see the mass double or the volume halve!

Note that 67P is not the only comet that exists ! The densities of many comets have been measured and average out to ~0.6 g/cc as you have now n for 6 years now and continue to deny.

Dave Higgins question is reasonable and answered
Quote:
Luke says: 22/08/2014 at 10:45
The new estimated density is higher than expected, not lower. Uncompacted snow can be well under 100 kg/m^3, see http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/Conte...nd-ice-density and with no gravity or freeze/tham cycle to compact it, snow + dust at an average density of about 100 kg/m^3 was the guess. What Rosetta has found is either much dirtier (rock at density 3000-5000 vs ice at 1000) or much more compacted than expected.

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th April 2015 at 05:56 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 06:01 PM   #365
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Do you assume the gravity is the same as on Earth???
Luckily you have the there Sol88 !
67P is massively lighter than the Earth so "the gravity" is not the same.
But the same law of gravity applies as to any massive body. That is not an assumption. That is a observationally confirmed fact because we can predict the motions of massive bodies such as spacecraft, planets, moons, asteroids and even comets using the laws of gravity. It was the observations of the orbits of the planets that lead to Kepler's laws and then to Newton's law of gravitation.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 06:21 PM   #366
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,070
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Wow a whole new layer of Conspiracy Theory!

So the Rosetta probe got there with calculations based upon standard celestial mechanics:

Yes or No Sol88 ?


I can't wait for the explanation!
From the Rosetta blog

Quote:
Big Burn 2 complete



Last night's orbit correction manoeuvre ran as expected, with nominal completion at 23:00 CEST (21:00 UTC).
The thruster burn got underway as scheduled at 16:21:58 CEST (14:21:58 UTC) and ran for 6hrs:39mins, about 2 minutes less than planned but well within margins. About 190 kg of fuel was used.
The manoeuvre was triggered automatically by a command stack that had been uploaded on Tuesday. Engineers were able to monitor the event in real time via ESA's 35m deep-space antenna at New Norcia, Australia.
The Rosetta flight control team can't say what the precise results were in terms of actual delta-v delivered until Flight Dynamics here at ESOC do a review and orbit determination, which takes a day or so, but if a burn runs for anywhere close to the planned time, then we know it went more or less OK – as it did (see note below).
So if you have fuel to do orbit correction manoeuvres, then your maths only has to be ballpark

and it (gravity) has a few anomalies, so... again fudge factor = fuel

Quote:
here are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways.
Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted (A) and observed (B). The discrepancy between the curves is attributed to dark matter.

Extra-fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed.

Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater acceleration than expected during gravity assist maneuvers.

Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all,[28] however this conclusion is disputed.[29]

Anomalous increase of the astronomical unit: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are widening faster than if this were solely through the sun losing mass by radiating energy.

Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[30]

Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.[30]
Hows the maths going for the Pioneer anomaly??

Just let it go thru to the keeper i spose, like anything too hard or will not fit with the very elegant maths.

Gravity!!!!! The weakest force in the universe

In fact so weak that a black hole is a mathematically defined region of spacetime and never observed.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 06:24 PM   #367
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,070
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Yes.
ETA: Since you have such a short memory Sol88:
9th January 2015
9th January 2015
9th January 2015
Stardust
So they came form planetary crusts!!

Cheers Rc
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 06:27 PM   #368
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,070
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Luckily you have the there Sol88 !
67P is massively lighter than the Earth so "the gravity" is not the same.
But the same law of gravity applies as to any massive body. That is not an assumption. That is a observationally confirmed fact because we can predict the motions of massive bodies such as spacecraft, planets, moons, asteroids and even comets using the laws of gravity. It was the observations of the orbits of the planets that lead to Kepler's laws and then to Newton's law of gravitation.
BUT mass and gravity are not interchangeable! you have no idea of the gravity of 67P therefore you have underGUESSED the mass...

you assumed there would be water, you assumed there would be ice, you assumed they would be weaker than a powdered snow bank.....time to not make assumptions, me thinks.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 06:30 PM   #369
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,070
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
That is a thing called science, Sol88:
  1. Measure the mass of a comet with one method of several explained in the blog you linked to Determining the mass of comet 67P/C-G !
  2. Measure the volume of a comet
  3. Divide mass by volume to get the density of the comet!
For 67P: Comet vital statistics (as at 22/01/2015) has 0.47 g/cc.

Note that before 67P's strange shape was discovered, the mass was measured from 67P's orbit and its volume from its light curve (modeled as a ellipsoid) and was estimated as 0.1 g/cc.
ETA: Hopefully we will not see the delusion that a change from 0.1 to 0.47 means that a jump to 1.0 or greater is possible! 0.47 is a more accurate result than the previous 0.1. With more observations the mass and volume may change by a few % leading to a few % change in the density. We are not going to see the mass double or the volume halve!

Note that 67P is not the only comet that exists ! The densities of many comets have been measured and average out to ~0.6 g/cc as you have now n for 6 years now and continue to deny.

Dave Higgins question is reasonable and answered
Why strange?? mainstream did not expect the shape of ANY comet yet visited...SURPRISE! (again)
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 06:40 PM   #370
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So they came form planetary crusts!!
No: That is a continued delusion based on ignorance, Sol88.
Meteoroids and interplanetary ("cosmic") dust contain clays, carbonates and crystalline silicates and are not planetary crusts v!!!!
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 07:08 PM   #371
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
BUT mass and gravity are not interchangeable!
BUT you have the delusion that people think that gravity and mass are interchangeable when anyone with two brain cells knows that they are two different things (e.g. different units of measurement) !

Lying about us not knowing the gravity of 67P is wrong, Sol88. We have measured it over decades by looking at its orbit. The trajectory of the Rosetta spacecraft was designed with the gravity of 67P included. We measured it by looking at how it affected the Rosetta spacecraft. We have had the Rosetta spacecraft orbiting 67P under the influence of the gravity of 67P !
Of course 67P has mass (no mass and it would not orbit the Sun) and so has gravity - this is a fundamental property of mass!

67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko mass determination based on a new method for modeling non-gravitiational forces and accelerations (2012)
Quote:
Moreover, we obtained the nucleus mass of: 3.14⨯1012±0.21⨯1012kg. This mass corresponds to a density equal to 102±9 kg m-3. This determination is consistent with those obtained by other authors ([3],[4]).
The densities of comets were measured. Based on that they have to be made of ices (including water) and dust. The estimated strengths of comet material never was "weaker than a powdered snow bank". They were estimated using science.

Last edited by Reality Check; 28th April 2015 at 07:18 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 07:08 PM   #372
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Hows the maths going for the Pioneer anomaly??
Your own source says how it's going:

"once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains."

Really, Sol, you should read your own links now and then.

But the real kicker is that it wouldn't even matter if this anomaly was some new physics (it's not). The anomaly is so small that, even applied to the comet density problem, it would be lost in the noise. So it wouldn't make any real difference to the fact that comets and asteroids have radically different densities.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 07:16 PM   #373
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Why strange?? mainstream did not expect the shape of ANY comet yet visited...SURPRISE! (again)
A reply based on your ignorance as expected, Sol88.
Any body forming in space tends to form a sphere which is the shape that scientist expected comets to be 60 years ago - "dirty snowball" .
But add spin and the sphere gets deformed. That is why asteroids and comets are modeled as ellipsoids if we do not know their actual shape.

Then add some more reality
* comets are made of ice and dust and may sublimate in strange ways
* comets can collide
So we know that modeling as ellipsoids is an approximation. 67P looks like a contact binary.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 07:46 PM   #374
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,209
Funnily enough, Sol,the thrusters are not firing continuously. If you look at the Rosetta blog you'll see the strange orbital paths that Rosetta has been following. You need to fire thrusters to change your orbit. Once in that orbit (like a satellite orbiting Earth), you pretty much stay there until the next change. If the mission planners put this thing on a course to take it within 6 km of the nucleus (which, from memory, they have done), and they are relying on their measured gravity based on 470 kg/m^3 to get it to 6 km, then what do you think happens if the measured density is wrong by a factor of 5 or 6? That's right, gravity is increased, all their calculations are wrong, and crash, bang, wallop, no more Rosetta. Can't suddenly fire the thrusters when it takes light and radio waves ~15 minutes to reach it. By the time data reaches them saying it's going to crash, that data is already 15 minutes old. Then it will take another 15 minutes to send a signal back, plus the time to do the new calculations. It's a no go, they need to know the density and gravity to a high degree of accuracy. And they do. And many other space missions have been flown using exactly the same theory. And they keep getting it right, despite ignoring everything ever written by the high priests of EU.

ETA

And of course Philae was landed on the comet using these same estimates. If they were badly off in their estimate we wouldn't be waiting for Philae to wake up. We'd be scouring the surface for the debris.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th April 2015, 10:00 PM   #375
Lukraak_Sisser
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,992
I *have* to comment to Sol88's ballpark remark about the fuel corrections.
Dear Sol88, have you ever even TRIED to do the maths that are needed to get a probe the size of the rosetta to a comet?
We are talking about a several year journey using the gravity of several planets (repeatedly) to reach an end in a volume of space that is utterly mindboggling.
An error margin on that journey of 0.001% (which most of us consider utterly precise) would send that probe off into interstellar space without ever getting close.
All of this calculated and predicted by mainstream astronomy.
And it worked.
If your delusions about gravity being variable were right that probe would never have gotten there.
If your delusions about an electric universe were anywhere near right that probe would also never have gotten there as induced magnetism would have altered its course by whole percentage points.

You can zoom in on pixels all you want and claim that proves something, but the fact that the probe is there at all invalidates all EU fantasy by it's very orbit.
Of course so did the voyagers.
And the pioneers.
And the sputnik.
And the apollo missions.
And everything else we've sent into outer space.
That's the beauty of science right there. No matter whether you believe it or not, the results are there.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 07:07 AM   #376
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,070
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
I *have* to comment to Sol88's ballpark remark about the fuel corrections.
Dear Sol88, have you ever even TRIED to do the maths that are needed to get a probe the size of the rosetta to a comet?
We are talking about a several year journey using the gravity of several planets (repeatedly) to reach an end in a volume of space that is utterly mindboggling.
An error margin on that journey of 0.001% (which most of us consider utterly precise) would send that probe off into interstellar space without ever getting close.
All of this calculated and predicted by mainstream astronomy.
And it worked.
If your delusions about gravity being variable were right that probe would never have gotten there.
If your delusions about an electric universe were anywhere near right that probe would also never have gotten there as induced magnetism would have altered its course by whole percentage points.

You can zoom in on pixels all you want and claim that proves something, but the fact that the probe is there at all invalidates all EU fantasy by it's very orbit.
Of course so did the voyagers.
And the pioneers.
And the sputnik.
And the apollo missions.
And everything else we've sent into outer space.
That's the beauty of science right there. No matter whether you believe it or not, the results are there.
Yeah well done!!


but Rosetta's orbit to 67P was a catch up one and why would they not use the Go-Onto-Target system using off the shelf military system, the Target tracker (67P) Missile tracker (Rosetta Probe) Guidance computer( using the star tracker)

Get the probe to near enough the the target, 67P, then let the tracking computer make adjustments in real time. No radio lag from earth to probe return comms, just one way to let u know how it went, for instance jonesdave116,

Lukraak_Sisser Or are you implying they did (the flight planners) one calculation and sent it on its way??? No OCM's
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 07:47 AM   #377
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
but Rosetta's orbit to 67P was a catch up one and why would they not use the Go-Onto-Target system using off the shelf military system, the Target tracker (67P) Missile tracker (Rosetta Probe) Guidance computer( using the star tracker)

Get the probe to near enough the the target, 67P, then let the tracking computer make adjustments in real time. No radio lag from earth to probe return comms, just one way to let u know how it went, for instance jonesdave116,

Lukraak_Sisser Or are you implying they did (the flight planners) one calculation and sent it on its way??? No OCM's
First, why the hell would they use terrestrial guidance programs for extra-terrestrial navigation? And why would you use algorithms designed to hit a target when your goal is to orbit around a target? That makes no sense.

Second, do you know why orbital correction maneuvers are necessary? It's not because the orbital calculations are insufficiently accurate, it's that the launch into orbit process is inaccurate. Getting just the right thrust, at just the right angle, is not easy to do. At a certain point, it's easier to make the process correct during flight rather than try to improve initial accuracy further. But you still need to be pretty darn accurate to start with, because there's a rather limited supply of fuel available to do such corrections, space is awfully big, and these orbits take a long time.

Third, how do you get "close enough" if your model of gravity is not just a tiny bit off, but radically wrong? Well, you don't. You can't. It's only possible to get this close to the comet because our model of gravity is incredibly accurate.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 07:58 AM   #378
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,200
As for the dust. Interstellar Olivine

Mg-rich olivine has also been discovered falling into infant stars.

The spectral signature of olivine has been seen in the dust disks around young stars. Comet-like (magnesium-rich) olivine has also been detected in the planetesimal belt around the star Beta Pictoris.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivine

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 29th April 2015 at 08:00 AM.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 08:27 AM   #379
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,684
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
From the Rosetta blog



So if you have fuel to do orbit correction manoeuvres, then your maths only has to be ballpark

and it (gravity) has a few anomalies, so... again fudge factor = fuel



Hows the maths going for the Pioneer anomaly??

Just let it go thru to the keeper i spose, like anything too hard or will not fit with the very elegant maths.

Gravity!!!!! The weakest force in the universe

In fact so weak that a black hole is a mathematically defined region of spacetime and never observed.
Uh huh, so when you drive you never adjust your course, I see Sol88, the world you live in must be very special. Your car gets to it's destination without any steering by you.

Burning fuels does not equal anomaly, this really make you seem to be a Conspiracy Theorist and getting to produce stranger arguments every day.

the fact that you even mention the Pioneer Anomaly just shows you cut and paste, or you would have found it is explained.

So instead of spamming us, how about you actually explain this alleged gravitational anomaly?

BTW what is the course error of .0001% over 6.4 billion kilometers?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 08:31 AM   #380
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,684
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
BUT mass and gravity are not interchangeable!
Excuse me, but what is the formula for calculating gravitational force?

Your statement is certainly a Conspiracy Theory level statement. I may have to suggest that is where this thread is headed.

You have zero concept of orbital mechanics or you would now the mass of an object can be derived from its orbital interactions. The interaction of Rosetta (known mass) and its interaction with the comet gives a very precise measure of the mass of the comet.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 08:54 AM   #381
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,209
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Yeah well done!!


but Rosetta's orbit to 67P was a catch up one and why would they not use the Go-Onto-Target system using off the shelf military system, the Target tracker (67P) Missile tracker (Rosetta Probe) Guidance computer( using the star tracker)

Get the probe to near enough the the target, 67P, then let the tracking computer make adjustments in real time. No radio lag from earth to probe return comms, just one way to let u know how it went, for instance jonesdave116,

Lukraak_Sisser Or are you implying they did (the flight planners) one calculation and sent it on its way??? No OCM's
You're completely missing the point. Deliberately or otherwise. They put the probe into a stable (hopefully) orbit, based on the gravity expected from their measurements. If that data were wrong, the orbit would decay. "Hey, we're supposed to be 20km from this thing, but we keep getting closer, and the jets keep having to fire to keep us at 20km. Why is this?"
Think they might have noticed this, whether the jets are firing automatically, or due to commands sent from Earth. There are always going to be minor adjustments needed, possibly due to drag as the comet becomes more active, and the fact that this is a non-spherical body, but those are probably allowed for in the calculations, and would be minor. They would have noticed a change in gravity of 400-600%. It's a non-argument.
See the article here: rosetta.jpl.nasa.gov/news/determining-mass-comet-67p/c-g
Now, as per that article, if the craft had been perturbed by a greater gravity, and therefore mass, that would have been noticed and the calculations of the aforesaid would have reflected it. They've thrown an apple at the comet and seen by how much the apple is attracted to the comet. Just as you can measure gravity on Earth. Said apple did not use thrusters to falsify the data to fit a pet theory.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 09:52 AM   #382
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
You're completely missing the point. Deliberately or otherwise. They put the probe into a stable (hopefully) orbit, based on the gravity expected from their measurements. If that data were wrong, the orbit would decay. "Hey, we're supposed to be 20km from this thing, but we keep getting closer, and the jets keep having to fire to keep us at 20km. Why is this?"
Nitpick: if the mass is wrong, the orbit won't decay, it will just be elliptical (you need drag for the orbit to actually decay). But if you try to maintain a constant distance at the wrong velocity for a circular orbit (because you got the mass wrong), then you will indeed need to continually fire thrusters.

Otherwise, quite correct: estimate the mass, attempt to establish an orbit, if your mass is wrong, you'll end up in a different orbit than what you expected. The bigger the mass difference, the bigger the orbit difference. The magnitude error in mass that Sol requires would be impossible to miss.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 10:04 AM   #383
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,209
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Nitpick: if the mass is wrong, the orbit won't decay, it will just be elliptical (you need drag for the orbit to actually decay). But if you try to maintain a constant distance at the wrong velocity for a circular orbit (because you got the mass wrong), then you will indeed need to continually fire thrusters.

Otherwise, quite correct: estimate the mass, attempt to establish an orbit, if your mass is wrong, you'll end up in a different orbit than what you expected. The bigger the mass difference, the bigger the orbit difference. The magnitude error in mass that Sol requires would be impossible to miss.
Agreed. Had two tabs open looking at drag and mass calcs. Thanks for the peer review
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 10:22 AM   #384
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,684
I suggest that unless the proponents of the Electric Comet theory begin more reasonable discussion that the thread be moved to CT.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 02:00 PM   #385
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
First, why the hell would they use terrestrial guidance programs for extra-terrestrial navigation?
And why does Sol88 rely on a old (January 18, 2014) magazine article that starts off so badly!
Quote:
The European Space Agency’s Rosetta orbiter has been exploring Mars and several comets for the better part of 10 years.
Rosetta flew by Mars and a couple of asteroids.
However there is a nice graphic in the article which illustrates how bad Sol88's fantasy about gravity is. Not only did Rosetta get to 67P, it did several things on the way that Sol88 should think is impossible:
  • March 4, 2005: Earth slingshot
  • Feb. 25, 2007: Mars slingshot
  • Nov. 13 2007: Earth slingshot
  • Sept. 5, 2008: asteroid 2867 Šteins flyby
  • Nov. 13 2009: Earth slingshot
  • July 10, 2010: asteroid 21 Lutetia flyby
How is it possible that the Rosetta spacecraft got back to Earth three times or got close to Mars and 2 asteroids without people noticing the electric universe effects !
How it is possible that the Rosetta spacecraft did not turn into a comet during this travelling through the Suns electric field !

The Rosetta: Deep space manoeuvres part of the Wikipedia article also has details of the trajectory.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 03:18 PM   #386
BazBear
Possible Suspect
 
BazBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Slightly Over The Hill, Not Too Far Around The Bend
Posts: 2,568
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
How is it possible that the Rosetta spacecraft got back to Earth three times or got close to Mars and 2 asteroids without people noticing the electric universe effects !
How it is possible that the Rosetta spacecraft did not turn into a comet during this travelling through the Suns electric field !
And notwithstanding Rosetta, as well the dozens of space missions that have flown through or in the inner solar system, I have a hard time believing that the 24 men who travelled out of Earth's magnetosphere, and to the moon, wouldn't have noticed their Apollo spacecraft had grown a tail.
__________________
I don't see how an article of clothing can be indecent. A person, yes. - Robert A. Heinlein
If Christ died for our sins, dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? - Jules Feiffer
If you are going through hell, keep going - Winston Churchill
BazBear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 04:07 PM   #387
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,070
The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy.[3] In SI units, the 2010 CODATA-recommended value of the gravitational constant (with standard uncertainty in parentheses) is:[4]
with relative standard uncertainty 1.2×10−4.[4]















__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 04:08 PM   #388
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,070
So it's little bit variable the CONSTANT!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 04:31 PM   #389
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,209
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So it's little bit variable the CONSTANT!
Yep, that's 1.2/10000. Or 0.00012. Going to need a bit more than that, I'm afraid. Earth's gravity variations comfortably outstrip that level.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 04:46 PM   #390
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 5,735
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So it's little bit variable the CONSTANT!
The fact that the value for g is not perfectly known does not imply that it's variable.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 04:47 PM   #391
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy. In SI units, the 2010 CODATA-recommended value of the gravitational constant (with standard uncertainty in parentheses) is:
with relative standard uncertainty 1.2×10−4
I've been lurking on this thread, constantly fascinated and entertained by the absurd lengths the EU proponents will go to in order to support their nonsense, but this takes the biscuit and I can't resist posting.

In order to demonstrate that the mainstream is fundamentally uncertain about gravity so that he can attempt to refute the devastating point that the mainstream navigates spacecraft with exquisite precision while completely ignoring the claims of the EU fantasists, Sol copies and pastes from Wikipedia. And what does Wikipedia state in the very quote that he uses to make his point? It says that the standard uncertainty in the measurement of the gravitational constant (=6.67384Nm^2/kg^2) is 0.0008Nm^2/kg^2 or a little over one part in 10,000.

It's seems inconceivable that Sol actually understands what he has copied and pasted.
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 05:38 PM   #392
jonesdave116
Graduate Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,209
Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
I've been lurking on this thread, constantly fascinated and entertained by the absurd lengths the EU proponents will go to in order to support their nonsense, but this takes the biscuit and I can't resist posting.

In order to demonstrate that the mainstream is fundamentally uncertain about gravity so that he can attempt to refute the devastating point that the mainstream navigates spacecraft with exquisite precision while completely ignoring the claims of the EU fantasists, Sol copies and pastes from Wikipedia. And what does Wikipedia state in the very quote that he uses to make his point? It says that the standard uncertainty in the measurement of the gravitational constant (=6.67384Nm^2/kg^2) is 0.0008Nm^2/kg^2 or a little over one part in 10,000.

It's seems inconceivable that Sol actually understands what he has copied and pasted.
Equations. Maths. Not a strong point of EU. Looks like rock = rock, is about as complicated as they get.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 05:50 PM   #393
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy. ...
So what, Sol88?
The fact is that the gravitational constant is known accurately enough to send spacecraft all over the Solar System, do precise calculations of orbits, etc.

Except that it is a lie that "So it's little bit variable the CONSTANT", Sol88. As you stated G is "difficult to measure with high accuracy", not variable.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 09:09 PM   #394
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,070
Well how constant is the universal constant of the big G

Strength of gravity shifts – and this time it's serious
Quote:
Measurements of G are notoriously unreliable, so the constant is in permanent flux and the official value is an average. However, the recent deviation is particularly puzzling, as it is at once starkly different to the official value and yet very similar to a measurement made back in 2001, not what you would expect if the discrepancy was due to random experimental errors.
snip

Quote:
According to Isaac Newton, the gravitational attraction between two objects is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of distance between them. G puts an absolute value on the attraction.
snip

Quote:
But the latest result could also be evidence that gravity itself may be changing.

"Logically, either some of the experiments are wrong, or G is not constant," says Mark Kasevich of Stanford University.

An oscillating G could be evidence for a particular theory that relates dark energy to a fifth, hypothetical fundamental force, in addition to the four we know – gravity, electromagnetism, and the two nuclear forces. This force might also cause the strength of gravity to oscillate, says Padilla. "This result is indeed very intriguing."
snip

Quote:
"If the value of G is slightly bigger, then we have to go back and redo all the calculations," she says. "Stars would burn up quicker than we previously thought because it takes more energy to push against a stronger gravitational force."

redo all the calculations??? including mass/density calculation???

so yeah I DON'T UNDERSTAND GRAVITY!

But it seems it may be quite variable, surprisingly!

and if the density is correct and the minerals observed coming(and sampled) are more or less rock and the comets hard (bouncing lander, MUPUS drilling) even PUMICE doesn't cut the mustard!
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]

Last edited by Sol88; 29th April 2015 at 09:11 PM.
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 09:14 PM   #395
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,070
So if comet 67P is, as it looks, a dusty rock....the big G must be called into question.

Chances of that happening and insulting the grand Poo-bah of modern physics are buckly's and puck all.

So, ad hoc away....again
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 09:45 PM   #396
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
So if comet 67P is, as it looks, a dusty rock....the big G must be called into question. ...
So a couple of delusions spun from 6 years of continued ignorance, Sol88?
The first delusion is your usual one about comet images looking like rock = comets are rock - next you are going to claim that clouds are made of candy floss !
Electric comets still do not exist !

The new delusion is that G is called into doubt because you have the delusion that comets are rock!
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 09:47 PM   #397
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,070
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
So what, Sol88?
The fact is that the gravitational constant is known accurately enough to send spacecraft all over the Solar System, do precise calculations of orbits, etc.

Except that it is a lie that "So it's little bit variable the CONSTANT", Sol88. As you stated G is "difficult to measure with high accuracy", not variable.
Sure 'ol mate

Orbital Correction Burns play no part at all?

Gravity is only of a minor concern...

see HERE for all the maths you'll need to send a probe to point any where in space including Mars

Quote:
First, Earth's gravity will bend the trajectory of any spaceship launched from here. To remove that factor assume the rocket has already been placed in a distant orbit around Earth, where Earth's gravity is weak and orbital motion is slow, allowing both to be neglected. In actual orbit planning they must always be taken into account as a correction.
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 09:48 PM   #398
Sol88
Master Poster
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,070
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
So a couple of delusions spun from 6 years of continued ignorance, Sol88?
The first delusion is your usual one about comet images looking like rock = comets are rock - next you are going to claim that clouds are made of candy floss !
Electric comets still do not exist !

The new delusion is that G is called into doubt because you have the delusion that comets are rock!
Sorry RC for being so dense

but why again is 67P not a rock?
__________________
"Goes without saying that nothing electrical happened." [Jonesdavid116]

"No, never electric discharges" [Tusenfem]

Give up. Your idiocy knows no bounds. The electric comet woo is dead. R.I.P. [Jonesdave116]
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 09:55 PM   #399
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Well how constant is the universal constant of the big G...
Followed by ignorance about basic science, Sol88.
G is a constant because G appears as a proportionality constant in Newton's law of gravitation.
That does not mean that its value is measured as the same in every experiment.
Strength of gravity shifts – and this time it's serious is scientists speculating on the value of G changing with time or that it s official value is incorrect. Note the total absence of the word comet

Snipped the delusion that comets are stars, Sol88. !

You end with a new delusion that "minerals" have been sampled and a lie about "more or less rock", Sol88 .
No "more or less rock" has been found on any comet. Ices and dust have been found on comets.
The minerals that have been found in comet dust are consistent with interplanetary dust.

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th April 2015 at 10:01 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th April 2015, 10:06 PM   #400
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Sorry RC for being so dense...
Do not be sorry about falling for the Thunderbolts delusions - the inability to even read and understand basic science for the last 6 years means that you can fall for any gibberish that is out there, Sol88.
Electric comets still do not exist !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:06 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.