Watch how ESA's comet experts begin to imply "dark matter"

[viscount aero]

This will be inevitable once they are baffled at how the density readings cannot be what they are--and it won't matter what the density readings actually are--they won't be "right." And It will lead to a cascading collapse of their icy dirtball idea for comets. They won't be able to justify anything subsurface that they have presumed must be there for the past 30 years. So here comes the dark matter! Anyone want to get a betting pool going they will mention this is a press release?

[MrAmsterdam]

I'm willing to bet a 100 Euro (131.83 $). I also volunteer as a witness that you said it first here...

[viscount aero]

I'm willing to bet a 100 Euro (131.83 $). I also volunteer as a witness that you said it first here...

Ok excellent

They will begin to say in press releases. Watch.

[Metryq]

Welll—they might pull a fast one on you and invoke anthropogenic global warming, also known to cause "extreme weather", racism and dandruff. We haven't heard about the ozone hole in a while; they might revive that one. Are cosmic strings still in vogue? Pink ephelants!

[viscount aero]

Welll—they might pull a fast one on you and invoke anthropogenic global warming, also known to cause "extreme weather", racism and dandruff. We haven't heard about the ozone hole in a while; they might revive that one. Are cosmic strings still in vogue? Pink ephelants!

Dandruff!

But look--we're getting warmer!

Dark Matter as a Trigger for Periodic Comet Impacts
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.0576

[Metryq]

Dark Matter as a Trigger for Periodic Comet Impacts
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.0576

The Oort cloud! How could I forget one of the favorite myths of planetary astronomy? (Conjecture is okay, that's part of science. But here's a paper that takes it as a given, then stacks utter fantasy on top of it.)

Now, are "periodic" comets hydrogen, then helium, followed by impactors of lithium, beryllium and so on? I wouldn't want to be around when the uranium comet hits the ground, especially if it just happens to hit another pile of uranium just sitting there minding its own business.

[viscount aero]

Dark Matter as a Trigger for Periodic Comet Impacts
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.0576

The Oort cloud! How could I forget one of the favorite myths of planetary astronomy? (Conjecture is okay, that's part of science. But here's a paper that takes it as a given, then stacks utter fantasy on top of it.)

Now, are "periodic" comets hydrogen, then helium, followed by impactors of lithium, beryllium and so on? I wouldn't want to be around when the uranium comet hits the ground, especially if it just happens to hit another pile of uranium just sitting there minding its own business.

The article is specious almost from sentence to sentence. My commentary below is in RED:

from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.0576

Although statistical evidence is not overwhelming, possible support for an approximately 35 million year periodicity in the crater record on Earth could indicate a nonrandom underlying enhancement of meteorite impacts at regular intervals.

The problem with this is that it is virtually 100% speculative. But it isn't only that. It's virtually completely based in absolute fantasy--non-reality, non-logic, non-science, nonsense. Sure, it is possible but is it plausible? They're talking about a 35 million year interval? And that is indicative of a "nonrandom" intervalic impact based on Earth's "crater record"? This presumes many things at once:

• "Although statistical evidence is not overwhelming" = highly unlikely [so why was the article written?]
• there is a possible 35 million year interval, nonrandom, impact event on Earth.
• the "crater record" of Earth is an accurate gauge of geologic age.


A proposed explanation in terms of tidal effects on Oort cloud comet perturbations...

That is like saying "a proposed explanation for pink faeries in the cookie jar..."

... as the Solar System passes through the galactic midplane is hampered by lack of an underlying cause for sufficiently enhanced gravitational effects over a sufficiently short time interval and by the time frame between such possible enhancements.

^^^That is pure pseudo-intellectual nonsense and bullsh1t.

We show that a smooth dark disk in the galactic midplane would address both these issues and create a periodic enhancement of the sort that has potentially been observed.

^^^That is no different than saying anything you wish or can imagine is a possible explanation for something in order to make something work--even if what you imagine is purely fictional and preposterous. I can't believe this is accepted as scientific. This is science?


Such a disk is motivated by a novel dark matter component with dissipative cooling that we considered in earlier work. We show how to evaluate the statistical evidence for periodicity by input of appropriate measured priors from the galactic model, justifying or ruling out periodic cratering with more confidence than by evaluating the data without an underlying model. We find that, marginalizing over astrophysical uncertainties, the likelihood ratio for such a model relative to one with a constant cratering rate is 3.0, which moderately favors the dark disk model. Our analysis furthermore yields a posterior distribution that, based on current crater data, singles out a dark matter disk surface density of approximately 10 solar masses per square parsec. The geological record thereby motivates a particular model of dark matter that will be probed in the near future.

^^^Again, I'm astounded at the seriousness of these insanely ridiculous claims. I would have to requote that whole paragraph to cite how outrageously presumptuous it is so just read it again. With statistics and fantasy dark matter models of a "novel dark matter component" you can legitimize anything!

But this line stands out: "The geological record thereby motivates a particular model of dark matter that will be probed in the near future." The geological record now motivates a model for dark matter! LOL!!!!!

Is it just me or is there now a clear and present pattern emerging in cosmology whereby ANYTHING is now game to be explained by a dark matter model? By a substance that has been ENTIRELY INVENTED out of thin air--with no means possible to ever see it, detect it, show in any way that it exists?

Am I paranoid or... ?

Comments: Accepted by Physical Review Letters. 4 figures, no dinosaurs
Subjects: Astrophysics of Galaxies (astro-ph.GA); Earth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP)
Cite as: arXiv:1403.0576 [astro-ph.GA]
(or arXiv:1403.0576v1 [astro-ph.GA] for this version)
Submission history
From: Matthew Reece [view email]
[v1] Mon, 3 Mar 2014 21:00:30 GMT (343kb,D)

"Accepted by Physical Review Letters"

[neilwilkes]

So sad.
I've also noticed the daily photo release has all but disappeared now with nothing new since August 23rd so I do wonder why we are not getting to see all the photographs that must have been returned by now.

The next interesting part will be the explanation of why the lander fails as it is equipped for an Icy terrain, not hard, dense rock.

[viscount aero]

So sad.
I've also noticed the daily photo release has all but disappeared now with nothing new since August 23rd so I do wonder why we are not getting to see all the photographs that must have been returned by now.

The next interesting part will be the explanation of why the lander fails as it is equipped for an Icy terrain, not hard, dense rock.

The terrain may either be too hard or actually too soft, powdery/dirt. But we cannot actually know until the lander attempts to tether. But I'm not really confident it will screw itself directly into ice like on Mount Everest. That seems far-fetched at this point.

[Metryq]

Or it might not be there at all, and the lander will pass right through. The calculated low density of the comet reminds me of a scene from Robert Heinlein's ROCKET SHIP GALILEO:

"Doc," Ross answered, "is trying to prove there isn't any other side to the moon."

"No, no, no," Cargraves hastily denied. "And repeat `no.' I was trying to get you to prove your assertion that there was one. I was saying that there was a phenomenon even on earth which hasn't any back side, to nail down Ross's argument from experience with other matters -- even allowing that earth experience necessarily applies to the moon, which I don't."

"Whoops! Slow up! Take the last one first. Don't natural laws apply anywhere in the universe?"

"Pure assumption, unproved."

"But astronomers make predictions, eclipses and such, based on that assumption -- and they work out."

"You've got it backwards. The Chinese were predicting eclipses long before the theory of the invariability of natural law was popular. Anyhow, at the best, we notice certain limited similarities between events in the sky and events on earth. Which has nothing to do with the question of a back side of the moon which we've never seen and may not be there."

"But we've seen a lot of it," Morrie pointed out.

"I get you," Cargraves agreed. "Between librations and such -- the eccentricity of the moon's orbit and its tilt, we get to peek a little way around the edges from time to time and see about 6o per cent of its surface -- if the surface is globular. But I'm talking about that missing 40 per cent that we've never seen."

"Oh," said Ross, "you mean the side we can't see might just be sliced off, like an apple with a piece out of it. Well, you may be right, but I'll bet you six chocolate malts, payable when we get back, that you're all wet."

"Nope," Cargrave answered, "this is a scientific discussion and betting is inappropriate. Besides, I might lose. But I did not mean anything of the slice-out-of-an-apple sort. I meant just what I said: no back side at all. The possibility that when we swing around the moon to look at the other side, we won't find anything at all, nothing, just empty space -- that when we try to look at the moon from behind it, there won't be any moon to be seen -- not from that position. I'm not asserting that that is what we will find; I'm asking you to prove that we will find anything."

"Wait a minute," Morrie put in, as Art glanced wildly at the moon as if to assure himself that it was still there -- it was! "You mentioned something of that sort on earth -- a thing with no back. What was it? I'm from Missouri."

"A rainbow. You can see it from just one side, the side that faces the sun. The other side does not exist."

"But you can't get behind it."

"Then try it with a garden spray some sunny day. Walk around it. When you get behind it, it ain't there."

[Rossim]

So sad.
I've also noticed the daily photo release has all but disappeared now with nothing new since August 23rd so I do wonder why we are not getting to see all the photographs that must have been returned by now.

The next interesting part will be the explanation of why the lander fails as it is equipped for an Icy terrain, not hard, dense rock.

The terrain may either be too hard or actually too soft, powdery/dirt. But we cannot actually know until the lander attempts to tether. But I'm not really confident it will screw itself directly into ice like on Mount Everest. That seems far-fetched at this point.

Philae is equipped with a small propulsion device which forces the lander towards the comet. As the lander touches down, with aid of the propulsion, it is pushed downward into the comet and the upward force is utilized in the legs to screw the lander into the surface. So even if the screws can't penetrate the surface the lander has a chance to gather some data on the comet nucleus.

[viscount aero]

So sad.
I've also noticed the daily photo release has all but disappeared now with nothing new since August 23rd so I do wonder why we are not getting to see all the photographs that must have been returned by now.

The next interesting part will be the explanation of why the lander fails as it is equipped for an Icy terrain, not hard, dense rock.

The terrain may either be too hard or actually too soft, powdery/dirt. But we cannot actually know until the lander attempts to tether. But I'm not really confident it will screw itself directly into ice like on Mount Everest. That seems far-fetched at this point.

Philae is equipped with a small propulsion device which forces the lander towards the comet. As the lander touches down, with aid of the propulsion, it is pushed downward into the comet and the upward force is utilized in the legs to screw the lander into the surface. So even if the screws can't penetrate the surface the lander has a chance to gather some data on the comet nucleus.

I actually mentioned in another thread that ESA should have done that. And you say they actually have. So very good on them; they get a cookie.

[Metryq]

Philae is equipped with a small propulsion device which forces the lander towards the comet. As the lander touches down, with aid of the propulsion, it is pushed downward into the comet

Not that I expect this to happen, but imagine if this "contact thrust" turned out to be enough to alter the orbit of the comet, or alter its spin (if the thrust is off center). The quantum comet: change it by trying to measure it.