It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The very fact you can't accept the data shows how wrong you are.
originally posted by: bjarneorn
300 kg/m3 is the same as 0.3g/cm3
originally posted by: bjarneorn
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The very fact you can't accept the data shows how wrong you are.
It's not a question of accepting the data ... it's a question of not accepting the standard model.
0.3g/cm3 is even less than pumice, which is 0.6g/cm3. And given the fact, that it's ice that is being plummeted away when we see it in the sky, and the ice is 0.9g/cm3. It sounds more than just a little out in error land.
originally posted by: ArMaP
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
EU proponents would have us believe that Rosetta is a big hunk of rock, just like an asteroid, no different.
Isn't Rosetta the probe and the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko?
originally posted by: bjarneorn
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The mass for this comet is EXACTLY as standard model would predict, and not at all what EU model predicts.
Really ... that sounds like a bit naive to me.
You have no idea, what the mass of this object is. It's an estimated "guess", based on size and projectory ... but to be able to calculate the mass, of any object. You need it's weight, and the acceleration. All of which, are estimates from observation ... and very very very far, from being accurate. Although, they're usually accurate enough.
Now, saying this object is 0.3g/cm3 does not sound quite right to me. If it was this light, I have a hard time seeing how it would even "stick together" ... after all, even ice is 0.9g/cm3. This object is lighter than ice.
Sorry bud, this does sound like whatever parameters were used to calculate this stuff ... is way out in error land.
So, I say ... stay tuned for updates.
it is from the way the comet's close proximity bent the satellite's path that scientists could gauge a mass.
"Operationally, this can mean that planned orbits may be modified, as they assumed a different mass and hence gravity field," explains Taylor.
"Later, we will get more accurate information, in particular focusing on the centre of mass location, which will certainly come into play for landing site selection."
originally posted by: ArchPlayer
a reply to: Qumulys
So is Rosetta the infamous Wormwood then?
We have seen many pictures of the comet 67P / Churyumov- Gesasimenko to the Rosetta probe has made it after 10 years of travel. However, one of the best images to understand its actual size is the illustration above, compared with the city of Los Angeles.