Comet landing: Organic molecules detected by Philae

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So now it's painfully obvious you don't understand the information and you're so defensive because your think your intelligence is being called into question.

What is the key word in that statement? LAYER. This LAYER. So yes. The surface seems to match sandstone, while the overall density of the comet is much lower. You've exposed your uneducated arm chair scientist nature.

I'm not using certain parts of quotes to perpetuate some lie, I'm using the parts that show there is no conclusive data.

And I've already explained my original post for you twice. You seem to lack reading comprehension, which seems to be your problem with the scientific data in the first place.

Again, what would be the point of lying in a thread like this?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What is the key word in that statement? LAYER. This LAYER. So yes. The surface seems to match sandstone, while the overall density of the comet is much lower. You've exposed your uneducated arm chair scientist nature.

I already quoted the actual scientists involved saying the "global story" points to ice, again, go tell him he has no clue and lacks comprehension. The surface does not seem to match sandstone, it seems to match ice, with a hardness of sandstone. The quote does not say the data matches sandstone, ONE PIECE of data matches sandstone, as I already showed you, they have more than one piece of data.

Looking at the results of the thermal mapper and the probe together, the team have made the preliminary assessment that the upper layers of the comet’s surface consist of dust of 10–20 cm thickness, overlaying mechanically strong ice or ice and dust mixtures.

I am just a stupid arm chair scientist, so I am probably way off, but what I take away from that is that multiple data sets are best reconciled as this being ice. I am sure you will be along shortly to correct me and post a mutilated quote about rocks.

I'm not using certain parts of quotes to perpetuate some lie, I'm using the parts that show there is no conclusive data.

Funny how I used the full quotes to show the same thing, I just have no agenda and so I did not cut the quote off to make sure no mention of ice was in the quote. I used the full quotes.

And I've already explained my original post for you twice. You seem to lack reading comprehension, which seems to be your problem with the scientific data in the first place.

Sorry, you have not. What you did was change your story, I am asking you to source your original story, which is that there is NO data.

Here is your nice little switch.

When the article says it is xx amount of dust over an icy surface, that is actually based off of comet model theory, not any tests the lander has completed yet.

To ...

The data is being interpreted based on models.

So tell me, how is there data if no tests were completed?

Answer, you backtracked, because what you said was 100% false, and rather than admit it you decided to keep arguing an indefensible position. Tests were completed, they yielded data, the data is consistent with models.

You have used multiple logical fallacies.

We have your straw man argument against there being definitive evidence, which I of course never stated and have said from the start this is only preliminary data.

We have your moving the goalposts, changing your position from there being no data to no definitive data.

And now we have your ad-hominem, attacking my intelligence even though I quoted you and proved every assertion I have made.

Again, what would be the point of lying in a thread like this?

Why is it my job to decide why you would do something?

Rather than derail this further I am done. You made a mistake, and clearly you will just press forward rather than simply say "You are right that was poor wording, there were tests completed that yielded data."

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Where did I say no tests? Again, your reading comprehension is failing you. The only time I said no tests was when I said no tests have been done other than hitting it with a hammer. Obviously I was dumbing down the process as most here are not scientists. I don't need to come off as smart so I didn't overly explain anything.

I definitely think it's a good idea for you to tuck tail.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Where did I say no tests?

And you say my reading comprehension is bad, how many times do I need to post your quote?

When the article says it is xx amount of dust over an icy surface, that is actually based off of comet model theory, not any tests the lander has completed yet.

Or should I interpret "not any tests" in some other way?

I definitely think it's a good idea for you to tuck tail.

You should have taken your own advice. Unfortunately after making ridiculously stupid comments you did the opposite, you doubled down on stupid. I may be mistaking you, but in other threads you have always appeared to be intelligent, perhaps your ego would not let you admit you misspoke, and instead you opted to look a fool. Next time, you should simply say you were wrong, tests were done, and the preliminary conclusions were indeed based on data, not just theory.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Again, the preliminary conclusions are not based on data. They are based on comet model theory and lining the data received up with that model. No direct tests of the surface have as of yet been completed other than hitting it with a hammer. Right now we could very well be in bias confirmation territory which is science by press release. That isn't how science is completed.

Wait for to recharge. Until then join us on the ESA forums if you want. I'm confident the comet model will be vindicated, but we can't say that yet. We need the surface tests.

Could I have been clearer in my first post? Most probably, but I wasn't expecting someone to completely take offense and make themselves look like a jerk. Again, nothing I've posted has been wrong.

.....

funbox

a reply to: raymundoko

I also think there is some confusion on your part about which tests the lander completed. Here is a breakdown from the blog.

blogs.esa.int...

a reply to: raymundoko

No, the confusion is all yours. The source you just posted is the source I have been using.

“If we compare the data with laboratory measurements, we think that the probe encountered a hard surface with strength comparable to that of solid ice,” says Tilman Spohn, principal investigator for MUPUS.

Maybe you need to tell him there is no data and and his conclusions are based solely on models. They claim in YOUR source (which I have been using all along) that their conclusions are based on DATA from the probe and thermal mapper.

Looking at the results of the thermal mapper and the probe together, the team have made the preliminary assessment that the upper layers of the comet’s surface consist of dust of 10–20 cm thickness, overlaying mechanically strong ice or ice and dust mixtures.

Again, you should tell them their assessment is not based on data from the probe and thermal mapper, it's all based on theory and models. THEY say you are wrong, please set them straight.

Does the theory and what is already known provide them a framework to work in? Yes.
Did it lead them to look at the data and compare it to what is theorized first? Yes.
Did their conclusions come only from theory and not the data? No.
Is your claim accurate that their assessment is based SOLELY on theory and not tests concluded? No.

Go argue with them about it, my statements mirror theirs.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Again, you're wrong. You're confusing their opinionated (albeit well opinionated) statements with data.

All they have so far is thermal data and the fact the probe could not deploy because the surface was harder than expected. No other tests of the surface have been completed. Again, no data has shown that outcome. What little data they did receive lines up with comet model theory, but none if the tests completed confirm that yet.

This is why science isn't completed via press release. It confuses the layman.

All other tests were completed by the orbiter. Again, no tests have been completed on the surface other than attempting to hammer in the probe, which failed. No direct observations of the surface have been completed.

Looking to the future, Tilman Spohn says, “MUPUS could be used again if we get enough power. Then we could perform direct observations of the layer that the probe is standing in and see how it evolves as we get closer to the Sun.”

a reply to: raymundoko

Does it matter if it was the orbiter that did the test? The fact is it's based on data.

Quote what I am wrong about. You keep saying wrong, but never back it up.

You keep using that wonderful straw man, I never claimed anything was confirmed, I said the preliminary data is best explained by ice.

Quote what I said that was wrong.

I believe this is the explanation:

Eating meat led to smaller stomachs, bigger brains

One mystery solved, another generated. Why didnt it work for bears, wolfs, and so on? I also read somewhere that cooking our food was part of brain development. But in the end, what benefits does a big brain have if a species already gets that much calories that it doesnt know how to waste it otherwise?

What we believe to be our current knowledge of the cosmos is but only a tip of the iceberg.

The universe is most mysterious indeed - oh and don't get me started on the "Universe"!