Then I don't accept you as an authority or expert on what constitutes proper scientific practice. Since that personal opinion was the basis of your diatribe against mainstream science, do you have any other line of reasoning to support your conclusion? Or shall we just appropriately reject it as uninformed?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

No where have I read that the experiment did not work. It just wasn't filled with as much gusto as anticipated. They still said they got the information they needed, and it would take some time to sort through it.

__________________
Defining science can be difficult. It’s a method, a way of looking at things. It’s a compendium of facts, knowledge, data. It’s a tool, used to investigate the world and to make sure we don’t let our biases, egos, and wishes get in the way of finding what’s real. Science (and skepticism) boil off the dross and leave the pure nugget of reality. ~Phil Plait

(cough)Variable gravity(cough)

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Jerry has a history of standing up and saying he is right and a basic principle is wrong. He also has a history of failing to apologise for and retract comments the defame highly respected scientists and their instruments.

The two aren't mutualy exclusive. those scientists may have known if there was water almost immediately but that doesn't mean they are going to rush out data just to satisfy you.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

More importantly, those scientists were expecting a big bang from the impact, probably biased on the very observations of comet the Shoemaker-Levy 9 fragments plowing into Jupiter's atmosphere, the wake of which also was a complete surprise to scientists at the time.

And yet I recall Arthur C. Clarke mentioning in one of his sci-fi novels that water, frozen to near cryogenic temperatures, becomes much harder than steel. It takes a LOT of energy to turn frozen water at such cold temps into a vapor, let alone vaporize enough frozen water to create a huge vapor cloud.

I have a hypothesis that LCROSS indeed hit frozen water -- but enough of it such that the frozen water-soil mix was like a really thick steel alloy plate and significantly stronger than Pykrete. In WWII, the US and Great Britain were seriously entertaining the possibility of building super aircraft carriers constructed of Pykrete. Such ships would have been literally unsinkable. 2,000 pound bomb or torpedo explosions would have literally bounced off of the deck or hull with very minor damage.

So think about it. I do think that LCROSS hit water -- just much more water which was mixed with the lunar soil to create a cryogenic mixture similar yet far stronger than Pykrete. So what would the effect of an empty booster stage striking such a surface have? What we saw -- an extremely faint plume since most of the kinetic energy was mostly deflected rather than being absorbed. Especially since LCROSS impacted at a much slower velocity compared Shoemaker-Levy 9 and since LCROSS struck a solid surface compared to an atmosphere.

Well, that is my hypothesis for what its worth.

__________________
Check out my web page of my own processed versions of Apollo mission photos: Apollo ISD Photos

Except for the melting problem.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

And by my definitions, I am ten foot tall...



But you accused scientists that are engaged in primary research.



Please do not use "we". I do not recognize you as a fellow researcher.



Then you must be nuts...



Please do not base your characterization of scientists on press releases.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

...most 'scientists', by degree, training or title; are not engaged in primary research.

I have been and will likely continue to engage in primary research. Primary research, if I infer correctly from your definition, is to discover and validate new models. I do that. You, apparently, do not. Therefore I don't recognize you as a colleague, nor as anyone particularly knowledgeable in the field. You are an uninformed outsider trying to tell others how they should do their jobs.

The most difficult task in science is to eliminate enough errors to confidently state: 'This or that fundamental theory is wrong'.

Yet when I said
you dismissed it as merely a rote appendage to real science. You can't keep your own story straight. When scientists want time to confirm and verify, you accuse them of sitting on important data in order to protect their hegemony. When they hasten to publish untried models, you rightly say they'd be regarded as "nuts." Now that you have conceded the need for scientists to take care in their work, when may we expect you to apologize for your unfounded accusations?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I've been asking for weeks.

There are some unfounded accusations he's been asked for years to retract.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

From Nature, 2005:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture04347.html
My bolds. It is reasonable to conclude from this ESA Nature published article that the two radar units (RAUs) functioned normally. Later the ESA published:

http://www.rssd.esa.int/SYS/PUBDB/in...UBDB&id=493201

According to

http://www.rssd.esa.int/SB/HUYGENS/d...177/fulchi.pdf

And according to an independent review by ALC TEL Space:

"Down to 25 000 Km the DDB altitude was extrapolated from the TAT. Then the two radars were selected as they were locked but providing incorrect altitude. Below 22 000 Km the RAU B provided correct data but was not selected as RAU A was still incorrect. Below 18 000 Km the two radars worked well and the DDB altitude was accurate."


If you go to the Planetary Data System (PDS), You can read how the most significant byte in both radar altimeters was corrupted; but my point is simply that the fidelity of the data is not nearly as good as suggested in the peer-reviewed article published in Nature.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

No, we're going clear back to the beginning of the thread to examine the big picture, not just one or two cherry-picked complaints along the way. You are attempting to set standards for scientists' performance. Since you are untrained and inexperienced, why should scientists accept your standard as reasonable? Since you have changed your story multiple times on what motivates those standards, why should we believe that you have carefully considered them?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

If you only care to look at the big picture; you miss the devil, who is in the details.

Scientists hedge on the truth, that is a fact, not a cherry. They shouldn't, but they do:

http://starbrite.jpl.nasa.gov/pds/vi...ntProfile.jsp? INSTRUMENT_ID=HUYGENS_HK&INSTRUMENT_HOST_ID=HP

[Huygens] Radar calibration
=================

Maybe the ground truthing, the 'random word change' of the radar is not an important part of the big picture, and maybe it is; but if you only read the peer reviewed journal, you have no reason to question this part of the equation. It was wrong to provide an inaccurate picture of the fidelity of the mission data in the most anxiously awaited and widely read science article about the probe. The scientific process is always about attention to detail.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

No, that just gives you an excuse to quibble over some arguable minutia while the real issue goes unchallenged: you think you can tell professional scientists that they're doing their jobs wrong. I don't want you to simply give another interpretation of another event.

I want to know why you -- a non-scientist -- have such a gold-plated opinion on that professional scientists are obligated to respect it. It has been shown that you don't do the proper research. It has been shown that you flip-flop your opinions to suit the argument of the day. You have substantiated no appropriate training or experience.

I want to know what you think makes your opinion of how science should be practiced the standard by which it all ought to be measured. Explain, please.

And since you finally agreed with me that scientists should be careful, I will press you for that apology.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Attention to detail means not JUST reading a single peer reviewed journal.

The apology,Jerry, for defaming the Cassini scientists. Where is it.

Then why don't you hold yourself to such a standard? I can't count how many time, just on this forum, where you have been caught out on details. Just two quick ones. I can recall pointing out that a paper you used as support, showed the exact opposite that you claimed. Good detail there, eh? Or, for a more recent example, how are you coming on the details to show support for pulling the Nobel Prize from Ketterle. Being a bit of a hypocrite here, aren't you?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Except that you've never been a scientist so you don't get to tell us all what the scientific process is all about.

And even if you want to argue details, you simply ignore all the details about scientific practice that you don't want discussed, such as funding. The real-world practice of any profession is riddled with detail, much of which cannot be appreciated without having practiced it oneself. You simply want to impose your simplistic self-appointed view of scientific practice, fueled with cherry-picked statements, upon those people who have more expertise and experience than you and who have presented sound reasons for disagreeing with you.

You resisted answering the question of your qualifications until you were directly compelled to do so. This suggests that you know you are unqualified and did not want to reveal that, which further suggests you recognize that appropriate qualifications are material to your argument.

When asked to supply evidence that does not require measurement against your opinion, you simply render another opinion. You don't seem to appreciate the notion that your untrained, inexperienced, unqualified opinion carries absolutely no weight here. It simply doesn't matter what you think ought to have been the case.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

What ever became of the 6 month rule?

It used to be that scientists were entitled to 6 months to withhold their data to be the first to publish. They were accorded this professional courtesy, but then they were supposed to release the data so others can suggest their own interpretations of the results.

In one instance, the early release by NASA of the FERMI data regarding the WMAP haze near the galactic center has allowed others to publish their theories before the FERMI team has had a chance to publish their ideas first. This places a possible additional burden upon the discovery team to make comments regarding the content of what others who had published first. Do they make their own suggestions or surrender discussion time to the neutralino concept? This is a problem of releasing data too quickly inside the 6 month courtesy period.

At the other extreme, NASA has not released data regarding their worldwide and well publicized experiment on the August 1998 total eclipse where they monitored for changes to gravimeters and pendulums. Since it was funded by NASA, even though Noever left NASA before publishing, one would think NASA would have a right to release the observational results after 11 plus years of no publication. Even though the observations might make no sense over the data set, such as nothing monitored by sensitive gravimeters in the US but video of pendulums in Eastern Europe showing the expected deviation, the data should still be released so others can have a crack at it. It was publicly funded and more than 6 months has passed on a topic that NASA seemed to make a big deal out of. NASA’s interest was driven by the mystery of the flyby anomalies.

All the missions I see Jerry *****ing about have actually stuck to this rule.

Here in Europe, they've not even heard of it.

I'm not sure this is on topic, but there have been strong indications for water on the moon for a very long time.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00127.000.html

__________________
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard...

There is no way to happiness,
happiness is the way.

No, they don't publish the full facts of thier research until thier research is done.

It is a standard scientific priciple that any discovery or reasearch that leds to a discovery or better understanding, is first and foremost allowed to go unannounced by the initiating team, to give them the time that teams need to work with the data, First.

Occasianly they will let dribbles out about what they may have found, but they are by no means required to relase all thier data immediatly. Do so so would be unfair to those researchers, and thier backers.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

I think I demonstrated that the Huygens science team was misleading (in their original Nature publication) about the fidelity of some of the Huygens data streams.

Cassini scientists waited more than ten years, well after the completion of the primary mission, to report on the evidence of lunar water, as per the theme of this thread. I'm glad they reported it, and I am thrilled with the INMS article about the nature of the helopause, but I still get to ask the question: If, in the intervening years between Cassini's fly-by and the more recent lunar missions, Cassini had crashed, or the mission had not been extended, or the JPL laboratory had burned down; would we have ever known that Cassini had detected water on the moon? It is my opinion that iffy, low fidelity data from one-shot space observations should be reported in a timely manner. In doing so, follow-up missions have a better chance of carrying with them the right instrumentation for further research.

Long delays between observations and reporting may result in later missions not carrying the right tools. As a specific example; The New Horizons mission to Pluto could have been an ideal probe of the Pioneer Probe acceleration anomalies; but so little was known about these anomalies at the time the New Horizons probe was been proposed and funded; there was likely no consideration given to add the capabilites needed to investigate these fundamental questions.

That said; the the Cassini Mission is and continues to be a fabulous success - hat's off to everyone involved...including me

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Perhaps.

I keep asking anyone to come up with an explanation for why the data from Cornell's very first 'successful' condensation is so pristine and every other paper I have read has less definitive data; including Ketterle's. Ketterle was Cornell's mentor and an expert in the field. If he isn't the least bit suspect that a pencil has been sharpened; he should be.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

That is my point: It was never clearly stated that the both radars failed to provide information about a large percentage of the descent that they should have reported correctly; and that the published reports were a hodge podge collection of models, Earth based doppler and 'corrected' radar data. Very low fidelity data with no ground truthing.

Also, the rotational and linear accelerameter data were nothing but noise for most of the 'two hour' descent; so the rotational moment was calculated using the AGC current of the transmission system - this is data that was totally uncalibrated and based upon bazarre assumptions - you cannot use low frequency data collection of current modulations to extract information from a higher frequency system - the low frequency data is badly aliased, and can only tell you what it was designed to tell you: what the current is. Signal processing 101.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Since when were you "involved" in the Cassini mission???

...or was that suppose to be a joke?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

This is a reasonable approach, but only if you understand why your data is incomplete. Suppose you have data that do not make sense, but the reason they do not make sense is the theory is wrong. You may not have enough evidence to seriously challenge the theory, but your data might make sense to someone else monitoring another data stream that is equally incomprehensible.

Data from these probes, the data I am concerned about, is one-shot data; there will not be more data for years or decades. Looking again at lunar data indicating that there might be water where it is not expected - if this data had been released by the Cassini scientists ten years ago, THEN those scientists who were planning the LCROSS mission might have said, 'gee, there might be water places other than in deep polar craters; maybe it makes more sense to send a robotic lander than it does to plow a small bus into the moon and see what we can shake up.'

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Lame. Don't change the subject and hope people forgot after a week or two.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Cassini's primary mission finished less than 2 years ago. Unless my calendar is drastically wrong, I don't THINK it's 2017.

No. You just offered your opinion that what they had done did not meet your personal standards. Since you aren't a scientist, no one really cares what you think. You don't get to ignorantly tell others they're doing it wrong.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base