DarkStar wrote:(You're hardly in a position to claim stupidity on my part, given that you've posted the most idiotic ideas and sources on here. To your credit, you express your idiotic ideas forcefully, but that goes against you just as easily.
Where did your scans originate, and why have you refused to answer this question? You claim that your scans are at a lower resolution than what it seen on the page, and then promptly claim that the page is forced into a lower resolution. Well, I don't know about you, but my .gifs don't magically start losing resolution like that (entire characters (and pieces thereof) going missing) when I reduce the size.
I was hoping I wouldn't have to hold your hand through this like an infant, but here we go: The original document size is ~1600X3200 (determined by actually
downloading the image rather than moronically assuming, as you did, that the quality of the image on the web was limited by the file quality rather than the website design); on the website it is posted at, it is forced by the page code to ~800X1500. The portions I posted above were cropped from the full size image, and then scaled down from 900 pixels wide to 600 so as to cause no problems with the post width.
Do you even have the first clue about what logic entails? You have chosen to use as a source your unidentified recreation of a lone data point contrary to all other knowledge on a poor scan-job which comes from a page written by a wacko. To claim that the entire concept is based on dismissing it due to an ad hominem is the worst form of dishonesty on your part, not to mention hypocrisy.
Your argument fails on every point:
1) there is no contrary knowledge. You have been challenged to find a contradictory source on the density of loreley 165 and have failed to do so.
2) the mental well-being of the website's author is irrelevant and attempting to refute the density of Loreley with a personal attack on him is textbook ad hominem fallacy
3) the scan is not poor - the originatiing scan is 200dpi, and all of your specific objections (regarding data for both Miranda and Loreley) have been conclusively shown to be unfounded.
ROFLMAO!!
Your data is out of date... what a surprise.
The European observations date Oct 99, the South American Nov 99. Do youo understand the difference between publication dates and observation dates?
The entire paper on the more recent observations is here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... siteid=sci
Some interesting quotes:
"M-class asteroids have yet to be targeted for study by spacecraft, and detailed information about their physical properties is lacking. However, two decades of telescopic observations of the large M-class asteroid 216 Kleopatra have marked it as
highly unusual. "
So much for your contention that Kleopatra is a good example of typical M-class asteroids.
"Taking into account uncertainties in our model's size and shape, we find that, for a uniform internal density d = 3.5 g cm3, the distribution of Vesc has a minimum of at least 40 m s1 and a maximum of at least 138 m s1, averaging at least 76 m s1; corresponding values for
d = 7.5 g cm3 are 73, 202, and 113 m s1, respectively."
What is this? The authors clearly believe that 7.5g/cc is a credible density for Kleopatra (enough so to include escape velocity calculations based on this density in their publication), despite the very high porosity of its surface and probable loose internal structure!
You misspelled "offerred", O Ye of Total Idiocy About the Basic Facts of What We Are Discussing.
You must finally be coming around to the weakness of your argument, if you have nothing better than typos to criticize.
<snip>
Concession accepted
If explaining to you how the Hoth asteroid could not possibly be porous (or loosely consolidated) represents a concession, then the only logical conclusion is that you now accept this fact. Very well.
You were never a little boy, were you? You've never taken a wad of dirt, a snowball, or a "dirt clod" and thrown it against a tree or wall, have you?
As a matter of fact I did, and I can't say I ever saw the dirt explode violently in all directions in a flash and disappear.
Provided they are unfamiliar with dirt and snow, maybe.
See above. No fiery snowball annihilations in my neighbourhood.
What the hell are you smoking? At no point does anything in the center have to act first according to me. You are the one who claims that the asteroid exploded of its own accord.
How, exactly, is the asteroid supposed to explode in the absence of internal pressure? Concession accepted on the points you evaded regarding fracture mechanics and the effect of compressive stresses on the stability of solids under pressure.
I so enjoy your claims... they give me such a source of laughter.
Diagnosis: advanced syphillis.
No shit, Sherlock.
If you understand, why do you not understand why the Hoth collision could not possibly have involved a porous or loosely agglomerated object?
You're the one claiming it exploded and vaporized, shitlick. Seems you can't help but argue with your own stupid ideas every time you change them. Why don't you pick one and go with it?
Why don't you watch the clip? Did you see the shape and surface texture of the rock? Did you see the explosion? Did you notice that no visible portion remains of the asteroid?
Do you have an explanation for how this is in any way, shape, or form consistent with anything but a fully solid object? Of course not. You nitpick typos and semantics. You evade on points of fact, and appeal to fallacies when your bullshit is countered with proof (i.e. your pathetically ignorant complaints about the scan quality of the asteroid properties list).
In other words, you've got nothing, and even a simpleton could recognize it.
