> carolb Wrote:
> > Starbinder Wrote:
> > -----
> > > Here you go Carol and anyone else interested.
> > JP
> > > Bibring states (in June 2015) that there is
> > > surface ice anywhere to be found on the
> > > even in the cracks where they've looked deep
> > (I'm
> > > assuming that's with the OSIRIS images that
> > they
> > > aren't showing us). He also says that the
> > > models that have been written about for
> > decades,
> > > which he says he had done many times, are
> > > and that the model of the comet being 80% ice
> > is
> > > wrong. He goes on to say that ice is not the
> > > binding force it is likely the grains they
> > on
> > > the surface.
> > >
> > > 1:06:00 to 1:09:00
> > >
> > >
> > Please see Jonny's post here, from last June,
> > regarding that very issue:
> Jonny's post
> > Carol
> The Rosetta teams seem to have had big surprises
> in September 2014 and again in August 2015.
> Surprises so big that they've admitted now that
> they were "in denial" with respect to September
> for the time being. The August data has yet to be
> reported or even commented on.
> The following quote is from the ESA Rosetta Blog
> concerning abundant oxygen (September 2014 data)
> and jet outbursts (July/August 2015 data).
> "Quite apart from the devastation effect which
> this finding of abundant molecular oxygen above
> the surface of the 67P nucleus is having on the
> current paradigm not only of how comets, but also
> the solar system itself formed, I consider the
> most revealing aspect of this finding to be its
> implications for how mainstream science is
> conducted. As Kathrin Altwegg admitted, the team
> was “in denial” for many long months, so
> utterly impossible did the finding appear and so
> totally inconsistent was it with everything that
> the “consensus” opinion believed about the
> composition of comet nuclei. As André Bieler
> admitted, “As soon as we got close enough to the
> comet, we actually found it right away” . That
> was way back in September 2014, some fourteen
> months before the finding was finally disclosed."
> "Now as I (and others) have already pointed out on
> several occasions in other threads, there has so
> far also been a curious absence of data disclosed
> on the temperature and plasma characteristics of
> the “jets” (in particular the spectacular
> outbursts observed during the July 29, August 12
> and August 22 events). The only comment made in
> the blog-post on the “extraordinarily bright”
> August 22 event was that that the team was “busy
> analyzing the data to understand the nature of
> these events”, meaning that the collected data
> was (and probably still is) literally
> incomprehensible for them. When the extremely high
> temperature and the extremely active plasma data
> are at last published (probably several more
> months in the future), it will be seen that in
> that respect too, the team was “in denial”. It
> may take a very long time, but we will ultimately
> be told the truth about the real nature of 67P."
Can you provide a link, please, to the specific blogs with those quotations?
Edit: I found a link elsewhere:
To be honest, I think you're over-exaggerating, and taking out of context the extent of the 'denial' you mention. It didn't last 'for many long months'. They were surprised at the data they were finding. Hardly surprising, given the 'first' that was Rosetta.
“It is the most surprising discovery we have made so far in 67P,” said Rosetta scientist Kathrin Altwegg, with the Physics Institute and Center for Space and Habitability at the University of Bern in Germany.
“The first time we really saw it I think we all went a little bit into denial because ... oxygen was not among the molecules suspected in a cometary coma,” Altwegg said. “All models show that molecular oxygen will react with the hydrogen and will no longer be present.”
Why do you think scientists are supposed to get everything right first time? How do you think science progresses, if not from learning from new data and results? If everything remained static, astronomers would still be using the same model of the solar system that they did before the space age. Knowledge and information have increased by leaps and bounds since the 1950's, and will continue to do so, as old models are challenged with the availability of new data. Why is that so hard to admit?
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 06-Nov-15 18:13 by carolb.