Nasa admits it was wrong about ‘Nazi dwarf planet’ Ultima Thule.

Well if you don't like discussing with me then effing don't. See if I care!!

 

To be honest, as far as I can see, there is no "discussion" with you, your views are fixed and apparently impermeable to facts.

I do however try to point out where your opinions run counter to the facts as I understand them and to provide those facts as a means for others to assess whether my views are reasonable.

 

Talking of facts, what do you think about NASA's observations of the asteroid that looked like a snowman, but now looks like 'a flatter and more pan-cake' snowman . . .

"Until now, Ultima Thule was thought to be oddly snowman-like – built from two spherical rocks, where one is larger than the other. NASA’s new observations, however, reveal a flatter and more pancake-like space rock."

Do you believe that? Do you believe that a solid mass of rock can be flattened without disintegrating, and if so, what could have flattened it?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...new-horizons-images-asteroid-photos-nasa-news

 

Yes, rock can be flattened without disintegrating - you just need the right combination of temperature, pressure or accumulated collision effects. Any sculpture is in effect piece of rock which has been subjected to thousands of collisions.

There are all kinds of asteroids out there which are non-spherical, which indicates that there are all kinds of processes that yield a non-spherical result.

 

I was trying to draw your attention to the childlike condescension but for some reason you er, you've overlooked that?

'Yes, rock can be flattened without disintegrating'? ffs give me a break - I wasn't born yesterday you know.

 

you just can't help yourself can you, it's laughable. Someone provides an example that disproves your statement and the response is instant denial.

So according to your logic there a no flat rocks

 

If you're referring to the condescension in the Daily Express article, look to the hacks at the Daily Express.

 

What makes you think you know the composition of this asteroid well enough to suggest its shape is impossible?

Do you realizee that the bandwidth to that spacecraft is such that the download of data is still not even complete?

 

Did you miss post #4?

 

FFS - it wasn't flat to begin with was it? Apart from that, do you believe that an asteroid of solid rock can be 'flattened like a pan-cake' (god it's as if they're talking down to children, but I won't go there!! lol), not play-dough, can be compacted without shattering into ten billion pieces? Just answer yes or no, and let's get this ridiculous nonsense over and done with.

 

Your mean exactly like your recent link about the HS2 that had ZERO commentary by you?

The term HYPOCRISY comes to mind!

 

The Express got the information from NASA, so all the hacks did was add a bit of colour which would attract secondary attention to the all the advertising I mentioned. I'm getting a bit fed up with you, because you argue just for the sake of arguing, and it's thoroughly tiresome.

'Yes, rock can be flattened without disintegrating - you just need the right combination of temperature, pressure or accumulated collision effects' - that so nonsensical it's insulting that you expect me to believe it.

 

Jesus effing wept . . . I've never said the shape is impossible, but leaving that aside, note how many times the word 'rock' is mentioned in this article.

'Since NASA first approached the oddly-shaped space rock on New Year’s Day this year'

'Until now, Ultima Thule was thought to be oddly snowman-like – built from two spherical rocks, where one is larger than the other.'

'This allowed NASA to create an updated outline for the rock and create a sharpened and illuminated crescent around its edge'.

'The two rocks are dubbed Ultima and Thule, giving the space rock its conjoined name'

So I trust that answers your question as to how I know what the composition of the asteroid is?
Oh and I noticed while scanning the source link that the 'snowman' now looks like 'a dented walnut'.
Can you honestly tell me that you can't see how condescending all this crap is?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...new-horizons-images-asteroid-photos-nasa-news

 

Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.
Sir Arthur Eddington
English astronomer (1882 - 1944)

A quite literal OBJECT LESSON in what we still have to LEARN.

Our initial images were blurred and therefore gave the impression of two cojoined spheres.

These better images are showing us more detail.

Just like these other images of asteroids have improved.









Asteroids come in all shapes and sizes due to collision impacts.

The odds are that Ultima Thule was originally two separate asteroids of roughly flatted shapes that collided and fused.

 

Your complaint was about the condescending tone of the article - that's all down to the Daily Express.

The Earth is covered in non-spherical rocks, the solar system is teeming with non-spherical asteroids. There's clearly a process which flattens rocks without disintegrating them.

 

Yes, I know that, and I offered an explanation yesterday as to why they do it - to which you didn't agree nor disagree, I couldn't help but notice?

Oh is there? Well I never - I wonder what it could be. Have you ever crushed a rock which didn't disintegrate? If you answer that, please don't insult me with more bullshit??

 

Then why blame NASA when it's all down to the rags that you read ?

If you want to be less offended, read better sources.

Yes, but then again in materials science we had access to some pretty unusual rocks (which were malleable and/or ductile) and some pretty extreme conditions. How do you think metamorphic rocks form ?

More mundanely rocks have lumps knocked off them when they collide. Unless you have some unique and bizarre definition of disintegration, this is how we end up with non-spherical rocks.

 

The Daily Express hacks will have added all those "space rock" references which you find so objectionable. The term "space rock" isn't one that any self respecting astrophysicist or astronomer would use. Even if they were talking to a child, they's still refer to it as an asteroid.

 

That was how our ancestors formed the original hand tools from rock by knocking lumps off them to create the first axes, knives, spear points and arrow heads.

 

J|esus christg how many more times . . . because it's based on what NASA and the other space agencies publicise? You don't think the rags kjake it all up do you? As I keep saying ad effing nauseam, they merely exaggerate and sensationalise it to attract advertising.

If you want to be less offended, read better sources.



Yes, but then again in materials science we had access to some pretty unusual rocks (which were malleable and/or ductile) and some pretty extreme conditions. How do you think metamorphic rocks form ?

More mundanely rocks have lumps knocked off them when they collide. Unless you have some unique and bizarre definition of disintegration, this is how we end up with non-spherical rocks.[/QUOTE]

Look spare me yet more bullshit and answer the simple question which I just asked - have you ever crushed a rock which didn't disintegrate into rubble and dust (that's my definition of 'disintegration' by the way)? Or conversely, have you ever crushed a rock and 'flattened it like a pan-cake'? Yes or ****ing no??

 

Look spare me yet more bullshit and answer the simple question which I just asked - have you ever crushed a rock which didn't disintegrate into rubble and dust (that's my definition of 'disintegration' by the way)? Or conversely, have you ever crushed a rock and 'flattened it like a pan-cake'? Yes or ****ing no??[/QUOTE]

Have you NEVER encountered anyone pouring a concrete foundation in your entire life?

Limestone is crushed, heated and then combined with sand, water and aggregate to form a different shape to the original form that it had.

Have you never seen a volcanic lava flow solidify into rock?

Rocks are just minerals that will react with with the forces acting upon them. Apply enough pressure and rocks will melt and deform.

This isn't rocket science, this is geological science.

 

Now I know you're trolling with all this utter drivel. 'rock 'is the operative word, not bloody 'space'. Rock is rock whether it's in orbit on lying here on the ground.

To be perfectly frank I'm sick of seeing your name constantly appearing on my Alerts, and although I daresay you'll small-mindedly accuse me of 'running away' , if I see it once more** then I'll add you to my ignore list.

** after you've answered my question about crushing a rock? lol

 

Have you NEVER encountered anyone pouring a concrete foundation in your entire life?

Limestone is crushed, heated and then combined with sand, water and aggregate to form a different shape to the original form that it had.

Have you never seen a volcanic lava flow solidify into rock?

Rocks are just minerals that will react with with the forces acting upon them. Apply enough pressure and rocks will melt and deform.

This isn't rocket science, this is geological science.[/QUOTE]

What, are you saying asteroids are made of limestone then? In that case they'd disintegrate more readily than rock. I could crush a bit of limestone between my fingers.

 

What, are you saying asteroids are made of limestone then? In that case they'd disintegrate more readily than rock. I could crush a bit of limestone between my fingers.[/QUOTE]

Fallacious strawman based upon a glaringly obvious deficiency of subject matter knowledge.

 

Fallacious strawman based upon a glaringly obvious deficiency of subject matter knowledge.[/QUOTE]

Yeah that's right - just yell 'strawman' and run away.