Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet

I can fully understand why Scepti posts in the way he does. I asked a reasonable question: why is the comet not visible in the photos? Rama decides to provide a plausible reason for why the comet is not visible by posting a powerpoint slide! When I point out the absurdity of anyone accepting that as proof or even a plausible reason, he starts ranting about "idiotic hoaxes".

Thanks for showing your true position, Rama.

you asked a reasonable question that was also designed to imply a conclusion (called "begging the question") and I provided a few reasonable answers. I have never once attempted to conceal my position, so if you just discovered my "true" position you have not been keeping up.

I am still wondering why you think the comet is missing Legion. What is your position you have not had the courage to profess yet?

Quote from: sokarul on November 14, 2014, 03:36:34 PM

Quote from: legion on November 14, 2014, 03:33:20 PM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on November 14, 2014, 03:30:58 PM

Quote from: legion on November 14, 2014, 03:02:09 PM

I can fully understand why Scepti posts in the way he does. I asked a reasonable question: why is the comet not visible in the photos?

Because the comet isn't within the field of view of the photo. That's why.

Quote

Rama decides to provide a plausible reason for why the comet is not visible by posting a powerpoint slide! When I point out the absurdity of anyone accepting that as proof or even a plausible reason, he starts ranting about "idiotic hoaxes".

He never claimed it was proof. He was trying to show, in a general sense, that the three bodies weren't in a straight line. Why would they be? Orbits are never straight lines, and, yes, these are orbits. Orbital mechanics don't behave the way you seem to be demanding.

Because it's on a PowerPoint slide means it has to be implausible? Why?

Of course. That's why we never have eclipses. Oh, hold on...

Did you just imply that because there are sometimes eclipses, the lander should always be in front of the comet to "eclipse" it"?

"Orbits are never in straight lines". Get it now?

Wow! "legion" does believe eclipses are caused when the earth, moon, and sun are in a straight line!  Bookmarking this!

Oh, yes, If you're going to quote me, at least get it right. What I said was "Orbits are never straight lines", not "... never in straight lines". There's a big difference. Do you know what it is?

So this image from ESA is incorrect? (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/):



The final manoeuvre by Rosetta was conducted at 07:35 GMT / 08:35 CET, which is taking Rosetta to a point about 22.5 km from the comet’s centre for separation.

So this image from ESA is incorrect? (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/):



The final manoeuvre by Rosetta was conducted at 07:35 GMT / 08:35 CET, which is taking Rosetta to a point about 22.5 km from the comet’s centre for separation.

Illustration obviously shows the comet's position at the time of landing, not at the time of lander separation.

Does this comet have what the liars call gravity?

Does this comet have what the liars call gravity?

No. It has what is known to be gravity, not what liars claim to know to give the effect of gravity, ie. universal acceleration, denpressure or some other nonsense.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 02:36:32 AM

Does this comet have what the liars call gravity?

No. It has what is known to be gravity, not what liars claim to know to give the effect of gravity, ie. universal acceleration, denpressure or some other nonsense.

Ok, so it has what's known as gravity. In what proportion is the gravity compared to Earth's?

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 02:44:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 02:36:32 AM

Does this comet have what the liars call gravity?

No. It has what is known to be gravity, not what liars claim to know to give the effect of gravity, ie. universal acceleration, denpressure or some other nonsense.

Ok, so it has what's known as gravity. In what proportion is the gravity compared to Earth's?

proportional to mass.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:01:58 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 02:44:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 02:36:32 AM

Does this comet have what the liars call gravity?

No. It has what is known to be gravity, not what liars claim to know to give the effect of gravity, ie. universal acceleration, denpressure or some other nonsense.

Ok, so it has what's known as gravity. In what proportion is the gravity compared to Earth's?

proportional to mass.

Oh, ok, so basically no gravity worth mentioning then, due to it's supposed size, right?

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 03:23:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:01:58 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 02:44:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 02:36:32 AM

Does this comet have what the liars call gravity?

No. It has what is known to be gravity, not what liars claim to know to give the effect of gravity, ie. universal acceleration, denpressure or some other nonsense.

Ok, so it has what's known as gravity. In what proportion is the gravity compared to Earth's?

proportional to mass.

Oh, ok, so basically no gravity worth mentioning then, due to it's supposed size, right?

A small object has low gravity, yes. Still 'worth mentioning' though when it's by far the largest object in the area.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:32:50 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 03:23:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 03:01:58 AM

Quote from: neimoka on November 15, 2014, 02:44:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 02:36:32 AM

Does this comet have what the liars call gravity?

No. It has what is known to be gravity, not what liars claim to know to give the effect of gravity, ie. universal acceleration, denpressure or some other nonsense.

Ok, so it has what's known as gravity. In what proportion is the gravity compared to Earth's?

proportional to mass.

Oh, ok, so basically no gravity worth mentioning then, due to it's supposed size, right?

A small object has low gravity, yes. Still 'worth mentioning' though when it's by far the largest object in the area.

It's a little rock isn't it? what's the largest rock in the area got to do with anything?

How can Rosetta orbit around this little rock ?

As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.

So this image from ESA is incorrect? (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/):



The final manoeuvre by Rosetta was conducted at 07:35 GMT / 08:35 CET, which is taking Rosetta to a point about 22.5 km from the comet’s centre for separation.

What do you think is incorrect about it?

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 12:59:08 AM

So this image from ESA is incorrect? (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/):



The final manoeuvre by Rosetta was conducted at 07:35 GMT / 08:35 CET, which is taking Rosetta to a point about 22.5 km from the comet’s centre for separation.

What do you think is incorrect about it?

Why don't you walk me through it? I'll start you off:

1. Rosetta makes a sharp turn to the left.
2. Philae is detached towards the comet.
3. ?

Where is the comet in relation to Rosetta and Philae?

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 04:51:08 AM

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 12:59:08 AM

So this image from ESA is incorrect? (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/):



The final manoeuvre by Rosetta was conducted at 07:35 GMT / 08:35 CET, which is taking Rosetta to a point about 22.5 km from the comet’s centre for separation.

What do you think is incorrect about it?

Why don't you walk me through it? I'll start you off:

1. Rosetta makes a sharp turn to the left.
2. Philae is detached towards the comet.
3. ?

Where is the comet in relation to Rosetta and Philae?

I feel like I'm walking in to a trap...

Oh wait!  I know what to do!  Legion, why don't you go ahead and tell everyone what's on your mind and then no one has to play your cute little game.

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 05:17:46 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 04:51:08 AM

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 12:59:08 AM

So this image from ESA is incorrect? (http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/12/rosetta-and-philae-go-for-separation/):



The final manoeuvre by Rosetta was conducted at 07:35 GMT / 08:35 CET, which is taking Rosetta to a point about 22.5 km from the comet’s centre for separation.

What do you think is incorrect about it?

Why don't you walk me through it? I'll start you off:

1. Rosetta makes a sharp turn to the left.
2. Philae is detached towards the comet.
3. ?

Where is the comet in relation to Rosetta and Philae?

I feel like I'm walking in to a trap...

Oh wait!  I know what to do!  Legion, why don't you go ahead and tell everyone what's on your mind and then no one has to play your cute little game.

Rama, I'm not playing a game. You lot say there is no reason to expect to see the comet in the descent photo taken by Rosetta. Fine. Where is it then? Off to the left somewhere? The right? By the way, I mean from the perspective of Rosetta, before someone shouts "there is no left or right in space, dummy!"

I am not sure why I have to keep repeating this to you:

There is not enough context to say definitively.

Have you decided to unveil your personal theory on what is happening with your original photo? Where do you think the comet is?

Does this tally up with the photos published?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Does this tally up with the photos published?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Looks like a dramatization so not necessarily. Considering the comet is 4kms wide and they dropped Philae from 22.5kms that video is not to scale. Have something to say about it?

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 05:34:39 AM

Does this tally up with the photos published?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Looks like a dramatization so not necessarily. Considering the comet is 4kms wide and they dropped Philae from 22.5kms that video is not to scale. Have something to say about it?

No, I'm done. If people want to believe this thing happened, that's up to them.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 05:38:25 AM

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 05:34:39 AM

Does this tally up with the photos published?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Looks like a dramatization so not necessarily. Considering the comet is 4kms wide and they dropped Philae from 22.5kms that video is not to scale. Have something to say about it?

No, I'm done. If people want to believe this thing happened, that's up to them.

Well congratulations on your little intellectual masturbation

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 05:45:37 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 05:38:25 AM

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 05:34:39 AM

Does this tally up with the photos published?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Looks like a dramatization so not necessarily. Considering the comet is 4kms wide and they dropped Philae from 22.5kms that video is not to scale. Have something to say about it?

No, I'm done. If people want to believe this thing happened, that's up to them.

Well congratulations on your little intellectual masturbation

You should try it sometime. Thinking for yourself is quite enjoyable.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 05:47:40 AM

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 05:45:37 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 05:38:25 AM

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 05:34:39 AM

Does this tally up with the photos published?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Looks like a dramatization so not necessarily. Considering the comet is 4kms wide and they dropped Philae from 22.5kms that video is not to scale. Have something to say about it?

No, I'm done. If people want to believe this thing happened, that's up to them.

Well congratulations on your little intellectual masturbation

You should try it sometime. Thinking for yourself is quite enjoyable.

There was no evidence in this thread that you thought at all.

I on the other hand discerned all by myself that you had no point to make and cannot put together an argument. It was fun. Thanks!

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 05:50:46 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 05:47:40 AM

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 05:45:37 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 05:38:25 AM

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 05:34:39 AM

Does this tally up with the photos published?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Looks like a dramatization so not necessarily. Considering the comet is 4kms wide and they dropped Philae from 22.5kms that video is not to scale. Have something to say about it?

No, I'm done. If people want to believe this thing happened, that's up to them.

Well congratulations on your little intellectual masturbation

You should try it sometime. Thinking for yourself is quite enjoyable.

There was no evidence in this thread that you thought at all.

I on the other hand discerned all by myself that you had no point to make and cannot put together an argument. It was fun. Thanks!

Where did you get that powerpoint slide?

As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.

Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 05:52:04 AM

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 05:50:46 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 05:47:40 AM

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 05:45:37 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 05:38:25 AM

Quote from: legion on November 15, 2014, 05:34:39 AM

Does this tally up with the photos published?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Looks like a dramatization so not necessarily. Considering the comet is 4kms wide and they dropped Philae from 22.5kms that video is not to scale. Have something to say about it?

No, I'm done. If people want to believe this thing happened, that's up to them.

Well congratulations on your little intellectual masturbation

You should try it sometime. Thinking for yourself is quite enjoyable.

There was no evidence in this thread that you thought at all.

I on the other hand discerned all by myself that you had no point to make and cannot put together an argument. It was fun. Thanks!

Where did you get that powerpoint slide?

Don't recall. Do a google image search.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 04:48:57 AM

As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.

Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?

I wouldn't bother mate. One of the believers might spring another powerpoint slide out. You can't argue with that level of stupidity! Something like this:

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 04:48:57 AM

As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.

Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?

No because they had the same relative velocity and no, it should not have carried off in to space. The gravity was strong enough that after 2kms of ascent its acceleration had been completely nullified and then it began to accelerate towards the comet again.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 06:00:15 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 04:48:57 AM

As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.

Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?

No because they had the same relative velocity and no, it should not have carried off in to space. The gravity was strong enough that after 2kms of ascent its acceleration had been completely nullified and then it began to accelerate towards the comet again.

Perhaps you would like to provide a citation for confirmation. Or are you an asteroid specialist?

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 06:03:40 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 15, 2014, 06:00:15 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on November 15, 2014, 04:48:57 AM

As the only notable source of gravity in the area it can attract objects to it, very weakly. When Philae landed it bounced and went 2kms in the air before coming down.

Wouldn't the comet have pissed off when this probe bounced 2 km in space, by the time is landed, plus if the gravity is so weak, shouldn't it have just carried on into space?

No because they had the same relative velocity and no, it should not have carried off in to space. The gravity was strong enough that after 2kms of ascent its acceleration had been completely nullified and then it began to accelerate towards the comet again.

Perhaps you would like to provide a citation for confirmation. Or are you an asteroid specialist?

It's newtonian mechanics. Wait until you get to high school.