Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 02:31:15 PM

1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.

Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.

Nice argument.

1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?

A non-sequitur. Big surprise.

A human could use a golf ball and math to put the golfball in a hole just as a human could use a rocket and math to put a rocket on a comet.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 18, 2014, 02:06:47 PM

Can you Kay out the logical argument that proves Rottingroom is in this thread because he believes Philae landed on a comet?  I would love to see if you could actually prove this in principle. Obviously you cannot prove it in reality without an admission on RRs part. Look forward to it!

You cannot logically prove someone guilty of something unless they confess to it? Is that your assertion?

No. Reread what I said. Unless you think logically proving something is equivalent to proving its existence in reality.

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 02:31:15 PM

1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.

Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.

Nice argument.

1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?

Not even close to what I claimed. I said rockets exist and math exists so humans have the ability to get to a commet. I never said rockets can do math. But here.

1. Golf balls exist.
2. Math exists.

So a caddy can calculate what club the golfer should use to make it to the green.

Quote from: legion on November 18, 2014, 02:34:58 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 02:31:15 PM

1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.

Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.

Nice argument.

1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?

Not even close to what I claimed. I said rockets exist and math exists so humans have the ability to get to a commet. I never said rockets can do math. But here.

1. Golf balls exist.
2. Math exists.

So a caddy can calculate what club the golfer should use to make it to the green.

You didn't say the bolded part at all. I thought you were suggesting that rockets can do maths. Can they not? And not everyone believes rockets work in a vacuum, so that is not a given.

Try again.

You seem to accept it as true unless it can be proven to not be true.

Round earthers accept the current scientific status quo in this instance.  Which is that On 12 November 2014, ESA's Rosetta mission soft-landed its Philae probe on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.  It was controlled by ESA's New Norcia 35m dish ground station near Perth in Western Australia.

We have no reason to doubt the massive amounts of independently sourced data recording the landing or any other part of the project.  We also have actual images captured of both Rosetta's first false landing, and then its second successful landing—which incidentally could only be achieved by the natural gravitational force exerted by the comet on the lander.  Why should we be in any doubt?  As the naysayer, the burden of proof lies with you to prove that this mission never occurred.

Warwick Holmes, an Australian avionics engineer who helped build Rosetta, described the mosaic (below) as "one of the most incredible images in space exploration history, after Neil Armstrong stepping onto the moon".





Holmes said it would probably be several months before exact scientific findings are published as the scientists will  be spending many weeks processing and examining the plethora of scientific data from Philae and Rosetta over the landing site.

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 02:38:16 PM

Quote from: legion on November 18, 2014, 02:34:58 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 02:31:15 PM

1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.

Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.

Nice argument.

1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?

Not even close to what I claimed. I said rockets exist and math exists so humans have the ability to get to a commet. I never said rockets can do math. But here.

1. Golf balls exist.
2. Math exists.

So a caddy can calculate what club the golfer should use to make it to the green.

You didn't say the bolded part at all. I thought you were suggesting that rockets can do maths. Can they not? And not everyone believes rockets work in a vacuum, so that is not a given.

Try again.

Jroa? Is that you? You do know why rockets exist right? You do know who discovered maths right? ....Probably humans.

And is that some sort of argumentum ad unpopulum? Here I'll return it. Nobody gives two shits about people who think rockets can't work in a vacuum, so it is a given. Pathetic.

You didn't say the bolded part at all. I thought you were suggesting that rockets can do maths. Can they not? And not everyone believes rockets work in a vacuum, so that is not a given.

Try again.

Yeah I said, "Yup, seems like we could land on a comet. "
Where did I say rockets can do math? (although if they had a computer inside them, then they could. )

F=ma, yup rockets can work in a vacuum.  While my vacuum only pulls 20 inches of Hg at work, I can assure you my vacuum desiccator still has gravity in it. Furthermore I can still see in them. 

Quote from: legion on November 18, 2014, 02:54:38 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 02:38:16 PM

Quote from: legion on November 18, 2014, 02:34:58 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 02:31:15 PM

1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.

Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.

Nice argument.

1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?

Not even close to what I claimed. I said rockets exist and math exists so humans have the ability to get to a commet. I never said rockets can do math. But here.

1. Golf balls exist.
2. Math exists.

So a caddy can calculate what club the golfer should use to make it to the green.

You didn't say the bolded part at all. I thought you were suggesting that rockets can do maths. Can they not? And not everyone believes rockets work in a vacuum, so that is not a given.

Try again.

Jroa? Is that you? You do know why rockets exist right? You do know who discovered maths right? ....Probably humans.

And is that some sort of argumentum ad unpopulum? Here I'll return it. Nobody gives two shits about people who think rockets can't work in a vacuum, so it is a given. Pathetic.

There we go. There stands the believer. Thank you.

Rama, have anything to say?

Quote from: rottingroom on November 18, 2014, 03:01:01 PM

Quote from: legion on November 18, 2014, 02:54:38 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 02:38:16 PM

Quote from: legion on November 18, 2014, 02:34:58 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 02:31:15 PM

1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.

Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.

Nice argument.

1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?

Not even close to what I claimed. I said rockets exist and math exists so humans have the ability to get to a commet. I never said rockets can do math. But here.

1. Golf balls exist.
2. Math exists.

So a caddy can calculate what club the golfer should use to make it to the green.

You didn't say the bolded part at all. I thought you were suggesting that rockets can do maths. Can they not? And not everyone believes rockets work in a vacuum, so that is not a given.

Try again.

Jroa? Is that you? You do know why rockets exist right? You do know who discovered maths right? ....Probably humans.

And is that some sort of argumentum ad unpopulum? Here I'll return it. Nobody gives two shits about people who think rockets can't work in a vacuum, so it is a given. Pathetic.

There we go. There stands the believer. Thank you.

Rama, have anything to say?

I don't know why you had to bring up rockets in a vacuum, but where would a rocket's 2.8 million lbf of thrust go if the rocket couldn't work in a vacuum?

Quote from: rottingroom on November 18, 2014, 03:01:01 PM

Quote from: legion on November 18, 2014, 02:54:38 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 02:38:16 PM

Quote from: legion on November 18, 2014, 02:34:58 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 02:31:15 PM

1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.

Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.

Nice argument.

1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?

Not even close to what I claimed. I said rockets exist and math exists so humans have the ability to get to a commet. I never said rockets can do math. But here.

1. Golf balls exist.
2. Math exists.

So a caddy can calculate what club the golfer should use to make it to the green.

You didn't say the bolded part at all. I thought you were suggesting that rockets can do maths. Can they not? And not everyone believes rockets work in a vacuum, so that is not a given.

Try again.

Jroa? Is that you? You do know why rockets exist right? You do know who discovered maths right? ....Probably humans.

And is that some sort of argumentum ad unpopulum? Here I'll return it. Nobody gives two shits about people who think rockets can't work in a vacuum, so it is a given. Pathetic.

There we go. There stands the believer. Thank you.

Rama, have anything to say?

It was just the inverse of your argument. Glad you also find it ridiculous.

So let's be clear now. People come to this site wondering, how can people possibly think the earth is flat, let's see what they have to say. How unfortunate that they come here and see no substance from FE'rs. Where are the premises that lead one to believe any of this legion? Where is it?

Quote from: rottingroom on November 18, 2014, 03:01:01 PM

Quote from: legion on November 18, 2014, 02:54:38 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 02:38:16 PM

Quote from: legion on November 18, 2014, 02:34:58 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 02:31:15 PM

1. Rockets exist.
2. Math exists.

Yup, seems like we could land on a comet.

Nice argument.

1. Golfballs exist.
2. Maths exists.
3. A golfball can do maths?

Not even close to what I claimed. I said rockets exist and math exists so humans have the ability to get to a commet. I never said rockets can do math. But here.

1. Golf balls exist.
2. Math exists.

So a caddy can calculate what club the golfer should use to make it to the green.

You didn't say the bolded part at all. I thought you were suggesting that rockets can do maths. Can they not? And not everyone believes rockets work in a vacuum, so that is not a given.

Try again.

Jroa? Is that you? You do know why rockets exist right? You do know who discovered maths right? ....Probably humans.

And is that some sort of argumentum ad unpopulum? Here I'll return it. Nobody gives two shits about people who think rockets can't work in a vacuum, so it is a given. Pathetic.

There we go. There stands the believer. Thank you.

Rama, have anything to say?

Yes. I am now officially in your head. Fear me with every argument you attempt to make.

where would a rocket's 2.8 million lbf of thrust go if the rocket couldn't work in a vacuum?


it would fill the vacuum, until sufficient pressure existed for thrust to equate to motion.

where would a rocket's 2.8 million lbf of thrust go if the rocket couldn't work in a vacuum?


it would fill the vacuum, until sufficient pressure existed for thrust to equate to motion.

What evidence do you have that force doesn't equal mass times acceleration?

Quote from: RuSpinningAround? on November 18, 2014, 05:10:11 PM

where would a rocket's 2.8 million lbf of thrust go if the rocket couldn't work in a vacuum?


it would fill the vacuum, until sufficient pressure existed for thrust to equate to motion.

What evidence do you have that force doesn't equal mass times acceleration?

eh?

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 05:23:11 PM

Quote from: RuSpinningAround? on November 18, 2014, 05:10:11 PM

where would a rocket's 2.8 million lbf of thrust go if the rocket couldn't work in a vacuum?


it would fill the vacuum, until sufficient pressure existed for thrust to equate to motion.

What evidence do you have that force doesn't equal mass times acceleration?

eh?

Simple equations confuse you?
F=ma
Force equals mass times acceleration

Quote from: RuSpinningAround? on November 18, 2014, 05:26:10 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 05:23:11 PM

Quote from: RuSpinningAround? on November 18, 2014, 05:10:11 PM

where would a rocket's 2.8 million lbf of thrust go if the rocket couldn't work in a vacuum?


it would fill the vacuum, until sufficient pressure existed for thrust to equate to motion.

What evidence do you have that force doesn't equal mass times acceleration?

eh?

Simple equations confuse you?
F=ma
Force equals mass times acceleration

e+h=mantra rejection.

hare krshna+allah ahuakbah=sing hosana in the highest.

study the bold, from a step back or so, and look.....

hello i am not bright or subtle?

63;9

six three semicolon nine

......do you see how formless, pointless and guileless it is?

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 06:24:33 PM

Quote from: RuSpinningAround? on November 18, 2014, 05:26:10 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 05:23:11 PM

Quote from: RuSpinningAround? on November 18, 2014, 05:10:11 PM

where would a rocket's 2.8 million lbf of thrust go if the rocket couldn't work in a vacuum?


it would fill the vacuum, until sufficient pressure existed for thrust to equate to motion.

What evidence do you have that force doesn't equal mass times acceleration?

eh?

Simple equations confuse you?
F=ma
Force equals mass times acceleration

e+h=mantra rejection.

hare krshna+allah ahuakbah=sing hosana in the highest.

study the bold, from a step back or so, and look.....

hello i am not bright or subtle?

63;9

six three semicolon nine

......do you see how formless, pointless and guileless it is?

Just wow. Please don't breed.

only if mrs rottingroom has a rectalwomb

Step on the dashed yellow line in front of your house. Get hit by a car going 30 mph. Now get hit by a semi truck going 30 mph.

Which had more force?

Step on yellow dashed line again. Get hit by semi truck accelerating up to 30 mph in 5 seconds. Then get hit by semi truck accelerating up to 60 mph in 5 seconds.

Which had more force?

F = ma

But no, satellites aren't real.
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/11/18/wolf-sot-myers-russia-satellite.cnn.html

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 06:24:33 PM

Quote from: RuSpinningAround? on November 18, 2014, 05:26:10 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 18, 2014, 05:23:11 PM

Quote from: RuSpinningAround? on November 18, 2014, 05:10:11 PM

where would a rocket's 2.8 million lbf of thrust go if the rocket couldn't work in a vacuum?


it would fill the vacuum, until sufficient pressure existed for thrust to equate to motion.

What evidence do you have that force doesn't equal mass times acceleration?

eh?

Simple equations confuse you?
F=ma
Force equals mass times acceleration

e+h=mantra rejection.

hare krshna+allah ahuakbah=sing hosana in the highest.

study the bold, from a step back or so, and look.....

hello i am not bright or subtle?

63;9

six three semicolon nine

......do you see how formless, pointless and guileless it is?

So yes, you are confused by simple equations.

Step on the dashed yellow line in front of your house. Get hit by a car going 30 mph. Now get hit by a semi truck going 30 mph.

Which had more force?

Step on yellow dashed line again. Get hit by semi truck accelerating up to 30 mph in 5 seconds. Then get hit by semi truck accelerating up to 60 mph in 5 seconds.

Which had more force?

F = ma

wow, orthodoxy hurts.

So let's be clear now. People come to this site wondering, how can people possibly think the earth is flat, let's see what they have to say. How unfortunate that they come here and see no substance from FE'rs. Where are the premises that lead one to believe any of this legion? Where is it?

Try to stay on topic. We are not discussing the shape of the earth.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 18, 2014, 03:15:51 PM

So let's be clear now. People come to this site wondering, how can people possibly think the earth is flat, let's see what they have to say. How unfortunate that they come here and see no substance from FE'rs. Where are the premises that lead one to believe any of this legion? Where is it?

Try to stay on topic. We are not discussing the shape of the earth.

We discussed how it is your burden to prove that we didn't land on the comet and that RE'rs neither have the burden or motivation to do so. You made the thread after all. You refused so I thought I'd ask you to basically prove or even give a logical reason why you believe anything that you do. I've yet to hear anything like that from you, ever.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 18, 2014, 06:58:41 PM

Step on the dashed yellow line in front of your house. Get hit by a car going 30 mph. Now get hit by a semi truck going 30 mph.

Which had more force?

Step on yellow dashed line again. Get hit by semi truck accelerating up to 30 mph in 5 seconds. Then get hit by semi truck accelerating up to 60 mph in 5 seconds.

Which had more force?

F = ma

wow, orthodoxy hurts.

Feel free to try and disprove the equation. Pointless posts will not work.

Quote from: legion on November 19, 2014, 09:23:19 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on November 18, 2014, 03:15:51 PM

So let's be clear now. People come to this site wondering, how can people possibly think the earth is flat, let's see what they have to say. How unfortunate that they come here and see no substance from FE'rs. Where are the premises that lead one to believe any of this legion? Where is it?

Try to stay on topic. We are not discussing the shape of the earth.

We discussed how it is your burden to prove that we didn't land on the comet and that RE'rs neither have the burden or motivation to do so. You made the thread after all. You refused so I thought I'd ask you to basically prove or even give a logical reason why you believe anything that you do. I've yet to hear anything like that from you, ever.

Of course you have no motivation to prove the rosetta/philae sham. Doing so is impossible, and you know it. Why you expect me to be able to disprove it is unclear. And why you think I have a burden of proof is also unclear. As I've said many times, I don't care what you think. That's not meant offensively, just a statement of fact.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 19, 2014, 09:33:05 AM

Quote from: legion on November 19, 2014, 09:23:19 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on November 18, 2014, 03:15:51 PM

So let's be clear now. People come to this site wondering, how can people possibly think the earth is flat, let's see what they have to say. How unfortunate that they come here and see no substance from FE'rs. Where are the premises that lead one to believe any of this legion? Where is it?

Try to stay on topic. We are not discussing the shape of the earth.

We discussed how it is your burden to prove that we didn't land on the comet and that RE'rs neither have the burden or motivation to do so. You made the thread after all. You refused so I thought I'd ask you to basically prove or even give a logical reason why you believe anything that you do. I've yet to hear anything like that from you, ever.

Of course you have no motivation to prove the rosetta/philae sham. Doing so is impossible, and you know it. Why you expect me to be able to disprove it is unclear. And why you think I have a burden of proof is also unclear. As I've said many times, I don't care what you think. That's not meant offensively, just a statement of fact.

Well there are pictures. This is very good proof but you just deny it. You made the thread and you've made it clear that you have a problem with it. So why should anyone have the burden but you? Imagine if someone made a moon denier video without attempting to provide evidence and just stated that its bullshit, or the opposite, if someone made a response to that and didn't provide evidence and just stated it. That's sort of how you sound right now.

Of course you have no motivation to prove the rosetta/philae sham. Doing so is impossible, and you know it. Why you expect me to be able to disprove it is unclear. And why you think I have a burden of proof is also unclear. As I've said many times, I don't care what you think. That's not meant offensively, just a statement of fact.

Gee... this is a difficult one to respond to.  Thousands of astrophysicists and astronomers, and engineers and technicians developed and viewed the Rosetta landing, but one guy called legion reckons it's all bogus.

Hmmm..... who to believe?     

Quote from: legion on November 19, 2014, 10:33:14 AM

Of course you have no motivation to prove the rosetta/philae sham. Doing so is impossible, and you know it. Why you expect me to be able to disprove it is unclear. And why you think I have a burden of proof is also unclear. As I've said many times, I don't care what you think. That's not meant offensively, just a statement of fact.

Gee... this is a difficult one to respond to.  Thousands of astrophysicists and astronomers, and engineers and technicians developed and viewed the Rosetta landing, but one guy called legion reckons it's all bogus.

Hmmm..... who to believe?     

Care to back that up, geoffrey? You don't want everyone to think you are making stuff up again, surely? I'm actually surprised you haven't gone with your usual claim of "millions".

Quote from: legion on November 19, 2014, 10:33:14 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on November 19, 2014, 09:33:05 AM

Quote from: legion on November 19, 2014, 09:23:19 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on November 18, 2014, 03:15:51 PM

So let's be clear now. People come to this site wondering, how can people possibly think the earth is flat, let's see what they have to say. How unfortunate that they come here and see no substance from FE'rs. Where are the premises that lead one to believe any of this legion? Where is it?

Try to stay on topic. We are not discussing the shape of the earth.

We discussed how it is your burden to prove that we didn't land on the comet and that RE'rs neither have the burden or motivation to do so. You made the thread after all. You refused so I thought I'd ask you to basically prove or even give a logical reason why you believe anything that you do. I've yet to hear anything like that from you, ever.

Of course you have no motivation to prove the rosetta/philae sham. Doing so is impossible, and you know it. Why you expect me to be able to disprove it is unclear. And why you think I have a burden of proof is also unclear. As I've said many times, I don't care what you think. That's not meant offensively, just a statement of fact.

Well there are pictures. This is very good proof but you just deny it. You made the thread and you've made it clear that you have a problem with it. So why should anyone have the burden but you? Imagine if someone made a moon denier video without attempting to provide evidence and just stated that its bullshit, or the opposite, if someone made a response to that and didn't provide evidence and just stated it. That's sort of how you sound right now.

Yes, the photos are compelling. Animated gifs and shots of the "rubber duck" comet. It's almost like the photos they release are designed to appeal to small children and/or the mentally deficient.

You have proven that you believe in The Pictures. We can leave it at that, I think.

"Pictures are good proof" != "Rottingroom believes the pictures". You make a tremendous amount of assumptions for someone who sees that as a deficiency. Cmon kiddo, you are better than that.