Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
"Wrong! Completely wrong! The data released to date are much more ambiguous that you suggest. Crater depth, temperature, “Wild oscillations” during descent, optical density, and the peculiar images"
|
Quote:
|
The heat shield landed very close to Huygens - within a few meters. I don’t know when it was ejected, although it would seem more probable that it was ejected very near the ground...
|
Therefore, if the heatshield was ejected near the ground, all the data that ESA is claiming to have about winds, descent, optical densities, atmospheric temperature, Doppler measurments, high altitude photos, all of them are completely nonsense. So why are you using them when you claim that the athmospheric density is matching your theory since you don't believe any of these?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Another possibility, is that only the first half that volume of data was transmitted before Cassini lost contact. (If Huygens fell faster, it may have rotated with the planet, out of range of Cassini, much sooner than expected.)
|
Interesting. So why don't you compute the descent time that would give such a result? You have the duration of Huygens transmision, you have the rotational velocity of Titan, you have Cassini's speed, therefore you could obtain an estimation of the descent time based on your theory. But no, you just throw an ideea and when is refuted you claim that the others are blind to the facts.
Quote:
|
If you were watching the live broadcast, as I was, you could see the jaws fall as Cassini broadcast a whole bunch of numbers (possibly zeroes) that had engineers staring in disbelief. Confusion. Why was the data package half the size it should have been? The Doppler wind experiment numbers made no sense whatsoever. Could one of the channels have failed? It seemed likely, so that was what was announced.
|
I've watched some of the broadcast and I didn't see that! Of course some jaws had fallen when the channel A failed, but I don't see nothing unusual in that; is normal to be dissapointed when so many years of hard work and waiting become uselles.
And anyway using facial expressions to prove a space probe's failure is not very scientific. :wink:
Like you said, you have only a guess. Not a single bit of evidence.
Quote:
|
General Relativity has reduced contemporary lectures about the universe to confusing analogies...
|
That's happend when one is using models to explaine something; these models are limited in describing the real phenomena and sometimes only the maths could do it. Yes, I'm confused by some of the concepts involved in modern physics, but I will not trash them until (and if) I'll have a good understanding of them and the math behind. Of course is OK to raise questions, is a very good way to learn and, as you said, the right questions will give some very good answers, but one should also keep an eye to the experimental facts in order to ask the right questions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
Try writing an astrophysical proposal that is non-supportive of the big bang, and see what kind of funding you can stir up.
|
Well, I'd like to receive some funding to prove that a perpetuum mobile is posible.
The problem with this approach is that you can't confirm a theory like that; maybe you should starting by asking funds for studying "gamma ray emissions in our solar system". After some years, maybe, the data collected will prove that this emission is in agreement with your theory.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
...or as stated by a PI explaining why they were having a difficult time interpreting the data, “Nobody could have predicted this.”
|
Hello? That's the very reason we've sent a probe there, because we can not predict what's happening on Titan from here! :-s
We have models, but the way to test it is to send a probe there!
Edited to add:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
..the Earth is emitting gamma rays...
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baloo
Source, please? I'm not aware of this one so I'd like to see some articles about it.
|
Still waiting...Link please?