The Recurring Odd Shape Of Comets

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist


You do not understand academia at all.



If you think they have nothing to lose by kicking the standard model, I'm hard pressed to even know where to begin.

Then why are they conducting experiments that will prove their model wrong? Why visit a comet so they can be shown to be wrong? Your theory has to include them KNOWING they are wrong and covering it up. So why conduct expeiments that will prove them wrong?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Which is why it's impossible to have an honest debate with you. Every time you say something is a fork and it's shown to be a spoon, you claim there is no spoon and move on. Sorry, this isn't the Matrix, the spoon is real.

LOL

I can't tell if you're just trolling me or if you really think those pictures are real, despite the NASA text saying otherwise.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Then why are they conducting experiments that will prove their model wrong? Why visit a comet so they can be shown to be wrong? Your theory has to include them KNOWING they are wrong and covering it up. So why conduct expeiments that will prove them wrong?

The probe was launched in 2004!

The people who launched it probably really believed comets were dirty snowballs!

EU theory didn't really hit the public consciousness until 2007, although pieces of it were out there long before that.

Now NASA is stuck with a lemon they have to fly. They don't have a choice. They were probably peeing their pants after the Tempel1 mission, which basically blew all their previous theories away. They know that comet is a solid chunk of rock. They know the probe is not designed to land on solid rock. They are probably praying the surface dust will be enough to hold that probe in place right now.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Then why are they conducting experiments that will prove their model wrong? Why visit a comet so they can be shown to be wrong? Your theory has to include them KNOWING they are wrong and covering it up. So why conduct expeiments that will prove them wrong?

The probe was launched in 2004!



The people who launched it probably really believed comets were dirty snowballs!



EU theory didn't really hit the public consciousness until 2007, although pieces of it were out there long before that.



Now NASA is stuck with a lemon they have to fly. They don't have a choice. They were probably peeing their pants after the Tempel1 mission, which basically blew all their previous theories away. They know that comet is a solid chunk of rock. They know the probe is not designed to land on solid rock. They are probably praying the surface dust will be enough to hold that probe in place right now.

The lava picture is from 2001, if they are having to lie then they know their theory is wrong. So according to you in 2001 they knew they were wrong, before they launched.

Or it's lava ... sorry, can't have it both ways, even though you want to.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't think they knew they were wrong at the time. They edited those pictures because they believed there was lava there. They couldn't see it visibly, but they just assumed those heat sources must be lava, so they made the pictures to appear that way.

This is normal human nature. We make of the world what we want to see.

Those heat sources could easily be plasma discharges and not lava. Given the abundance of data supporting plasma discharges, I can look at those same images and see plasma, not lava. If I was editing those pictures, I would have colored the red into a blue glow.

Bottom line, the false color images do not prove lava. Those heat sources could be caused by something other than lava.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

So the images where lava flow is visible, as in a series of images showing clear changes to the shape and size of the heat source, you're calling this plasma?

You're trying to tell us that plasma flows like a liquid?

How does that work?

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

I know EU proponents already change or ignore several physics laws to make their theory work, but what you're trying to say is changing the fundamental states of matter!

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

And what would NASA have to gain by spreading a false picture of how the universe works?

You do not understand academia at all.

I have a masters degree in chemistry. I used to work for the Royal Society of Chemistry (the professional body for chemists in industry and academia in the UK). One of my immediate family has a masters in space engineering, a doctorate in satellite design, and currently teaches the damn subject at postgraduate level.

And I don't understand academia?

Good one. Tell me another.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

The pretty orange "lava" isn't lava, it's an infrared heat source - it's a plasma discharge.

Why would a plasma discharge in the infrared? Shouldn't it be "hottest" in the soft X-ray band? Or is your "plasma" a magical substance different than the one physicists study? Do you explain that in the video?

Your posts do not compute.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
They again tweaked the red to make it look like lava, but it's nothing but a heat source. Again, this is a plasma discharge creating infrared heat source, not lava.

Think about it this way. Let's say that really was lava and it really did look like that in real life. Do you think NASA would go through the trouble of ruining that awesome picture by adding in the infrared spectrum?

HELL NO!

They only added in the infrared because they wanted it to appear as lava. They NEED it to be lava, so they create fake pictures to support their beliefs. If they had actual pictures of lava, the last thing on this planet they would do is cover it up with an infrared tweak.

Then we have ....

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

I don't think they knew they were wrong at the time. They edited those pictures because they believed there was lava there. They couldn't see it visibly, but they just assumed those heat sources must be lava, so they made the pictures to appear that way.

If it was not lava and they had to make it look like lava because they knew it did not look like lava then how do they think it's lava? When you need to create fanciful tales that don't make sense you are probably wrong.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

The pretty orange "lava" isn't lava, it's an infrared heat source - it's a plasma discharge.

Why would a plasma discharge in the infrared? Shouldn't it be "hottest" in the soft X-ray band? Or is your "plasma" a magical substance different than the one physicists study? Do you explain that in the video?

Infrared is heat. A discharge concentrated enough to excavate surface material will be blazing hot, like an arc welder. I don't know what the photos look like in the x-ray band because NASA didn't post any photos of that.

In fact when Galileo flew by Io, it's cameras were calibrated to take pictures of lava. However, when it got there, the heat was so intense that it overloaded the sensors and produced white-out images instead. The "lava" was far hotter than any lava predicted.


photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

The spectrometer observation covers the eastern part of the active caldera and shows a hot, active region (in red). The blue color represents cool terrain surrounding the caldera. The spectrometer instrument can detect heat from active volcanic regions by imaging them in near-infrared light (0.7 to 5.2 micron wavelengths). Determining temperatures of the hot region has been difficult because the lava is so hot that it exceeded the upper limit that the instrument could measure.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

If it was not lava and they had to make it look like lava because they knew it did not look like lava then how do they think it's lava? When you need to create fanciful tales that don't make sense you are probably wrong.

I think if NASA has to create false color images that look like lava because they can't take a true color image of lava, their theories are probably wrong.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

If it was not lava and they had to make it look like lava because they knew it did not look like lava then how do they think it's lava? When you need to create fanciful tales that don't make sense you are probably wrong.

I think if NASA has to create false color images that look like lava because they can't take a true color image of lava, their theories are probably wrong.

And how would you propose that they show a genuine true-colour (as seen by human eyes) image of Io, given that none of the probes that have flown-by had the capability of taking such an image? Such images have to be created from the data that we have.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

If it was not lava and they had to make it look like lava because they knew it did not look like lava then how do they think it's lava? When you need to create fanciful tales that don't make sense you are probably wrong.

I think if NASA has to create false color images that look like lava because they can't take a true color image of lava, their theories are probably wrong.

And how would you propose that they show a genuine true-colour (as seen by human eyes) image of Io, given that none of the probes that have flown-by had the capability of taking such an image? Such images have to be created from the data that we have.

I think that's irrelevant.

And perhaps you misunderstand my criticism.

I have no problem with NASA adding in the thermal band to give the images some added color.

My problem is with their assumptions about the nature of the heat sources they have imaged.

They assume the heat source is lava, but it very well may not be.

Bottom line, the images don't prove anything either way.

Let's look at the oddities with this picture, excluding the false color lava.



full size

1. Notice the inside wall of the crater. It looks like someone came through with a melon scooper and cut round notches out of the crater wall all the way down the crater. Scalloped crater walls are the hallmark of electrical discharge machining.

2. Notice those same scooped out walls appear on the far right. The outer crater wall is also scalloped where there is no supposed volcano along the outside edge of the plateau. Anyone think impacts made those scalloping marks all the way around the plateau?

3. In the right hand image, just above where the "lava" is, notice the two white dots. Those white dots appear at the ends of apparent burn marks, and they are located on the crater walls. They are not volcanic vents, they are discharges cutting the crater walls out. They appear on the wall as fine points of heat, precisely where we would expect a discharge to be located.

4. Notice how smooth the crater floor is. Notice how flat the crater floor is. Notice how the width of the crater stays relatively constant over a distance of a 100 km. No volcano on Earth has those features. Again, they are hallmarks of electrical discharge machining.

5. Notice the "lava" on the left is no longer present on the right, just 3 months later. I don't know if that's because of the colorization NASA chose to apply or if the "lava" just disappeared, but it's not consistent. The surrounding areas where NASA has colored in "lava" look to be burned, like soot. This is expected with a plasma discharge.

6. Notice there is no visible "lava plume." This is an image of an erupting volcano, so where's the volcanic plume?

7. Notice the sharply defined ridges and mesas that stretch for hundreds of kilometers. Those are not caused by volcanoes, impacts or running water. Some process had to machine those plateaus.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

It's hard to take you seriously when you keep calling Rosetta a NASA mission. It's an ESA mission.

originally posted by: nataylor
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

It's hard to take you seriously when you keep calling Rosetta a NASA mission. It's an ESA mission.

It's hard to take you seriously when you pick on trivialities and ignore pink elephants.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: nataylor
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

It's hard to take you seriously when you keep calling Rosetta a NASA mission. It's an ESA mission.

It's hard to take you seriously when you pick on trivialities and ignore pink elephants.

I's hard to take you seriously when you take the newsbreaking topic of the Rosetta's mission to the comet and turn it into an EU propaganda springboard.

Let's talk about this comet, shall we? What data is there to support the idea that it's a solid rocky/metallic body that is discharging electrically?

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: nataylor
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

It's hard to take you seriously when you keep calling Rosetta a NASA mission. It's an ESA mission.

It's hard to take you seriously when you pick on trivialities and ignore pink elephants.

I's hard to take you seriously when you take the newsbreaking topic of the Rosetta's mission to the comet and turn it into an EU propaganda springboard.

Let's talk about this comet, shall we? What data is there to support the idea that it's a solid rocky/metallic body that is discharging electrically?

Oh I don't know, perhaps the hour and half long video explaining the case for the electric comet might fill you in on that.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Because a lobed object is necessary to prove the EU theory, how ever the EU theory is not necessary to explain a lobed object.

There are a number of reasons these objects could become shaped this way. If the EU theory was correct, all the objects would be shaped this way and this is simply not true.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: nataylor
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

It's hard to take you seriously when you keep calling Rosetta a NASA mission. It's an ESA mission.

It's hard to take you seriously when you pick on trivialities and ignore pink elephants.

Ah, but if you can not get that one piece of simple information right, then why should anyone pay attention to the more complex stuff you are trying to present?

May have be a slip of the mind, still, you could have said that instead of coming back with a insulting, snarky answer.