Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

reply to post by daryllyn


With respect, I emphatically disagree with Vind21 on the subject of ISON's size. Let's get that out of the way first. About your comments to me, read on. I hope this helps you. Its a bit long for a post but it is my last one here.

Less then 2 weeks ago NASA Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) took a 10-hour flight during which they gathered data on Comet ISON. The plane-mounted telescope flew in the stratosphere far above the flight paths of the run of the mill passenger carrying 747s. The ISON observations were specifically to obtain measures of the comet’s composition, and the size of the “small and large dust grains in the coma”. This is as much as we are told of the aims of the mission. So far only 3 grainy images have been released to the public. The observations were made using 3 infrared wavelengths not available to telescopes mounted on Earth – in order to overcome the problem presented by water vapor in our atmosphere blocking that range of energy from reaching ground level. NOTE: The method chosen to measure the composition and size of the grains was the reason for the use of SOFIA.

Studying the dust’s thermal emission from SOFIA enables us to derive the grain size, its distribution, and the mass of the amount of dust coming from the comet," she said. "This is a critical complement to studying the gases that are released, and thereby contributes significantly to understanding the origins of comets.

www.nasa.gov...

I want to make a point here. That emphasis in the quote is added by me partly to highlight that NASA used the term 'grains', usually held to mean small on the broad scale of size. I have already chronicled in this thread reasons why we cannot always take NASA at its literal word. I ask you, what if 'grain' was used with great license here. Because some of those fragments captured in the images of ISON after November 30 are NOT a far larger than 'grains'. They are freaking enormous. I just want to make that point right here directly after the quote.

You need to consider here two further factors.

1. The calculation of distance between comet and Earth for January is based on the assumption of a solid object (i.e. a comet!), i.e. comet body to planetary body. Unfortunately now what we have is a spreading debris field consisting in good part of comet core fragments. In fact Earth was always modelled by advocates of DST to intercept ISON debris in January.

Previous to the fragmentation of ISON computer modeling showed the Earth orbit would intercept the debris stream (Isonids) from ISON in the second week of January. The predicted dates of around January 12th may be different now that it appears to be no longer a single solid object.
science.nasa.gov...

NOTE: meteor showers originating from other comets is a reality! You would already be aware of the Orionid meteor shower from Halley’s comet, and the Perseids from comet Swift-Tuttle to name just two. These are annual events enjoyed by millions of people on Earth, harmless and pretty.

Here is the orbit for comet ISON. See the second week of January. The original trajectory is still valid for ISON. See the link here and the first animated graphic.
stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov...

I argue consistently that ISON was of MUCH larger size than that given by NASA and the DST advocating astronomy fraternity (most of them at least), and that in keeping with the EC model the comet is/was not a ball of icy composite but had a metallic core.

Now combine ‘MUCH larger size than that given by NASA’ with…

2. ISON's probable metallic core. I have said above many times in the thread that I believe comet ISON was metallic in nature. This now finds support in NASA’s most recent admission of a couple of days back.

NASA declared they don’t understand why ISON did not emit the expected oxygen isotopes. They made that admission to explain why they were unable to capture any images of it when it went through perihelion. See my link in my last post directly above. This indicates strongly that ISON was NOT the icy body they thought. Yes, I have stated EC allows that comets have ice molecules – on-the-surface! But this comet ISON had insufficient water to allow cameras set up to capture images of oxygen! It means comet ISON was likely to be made of very hard stuff, i.e. metallic in nature.

Now add to 'large size core' + 'metallic core' the fact that ISON has now apparently been fragmented. Take a look at the spread of the fragments visible in this the last video from NASA of ISON (2013 -11- 30) the download link here.
helioviewer.org...

So now this is how I come to this conclusion - That what we have now is a some large metallic comet fragments (and therefore spreading out) in space, with a possibility these will become meteors, but hopefully not meteorites which would be the worst case scenerio.

We ought to be aware that we are now in a situation where information should be far more forthcoming to the general public. And this has been an underlying argument in this thread as well as the subject of my early thread ‘Cover-up of Comet ISON continues’. There is only a matter of weeks to go now. Believe me. I am hoping I am wrong. This is nothing to do with fear mongering. This is about being aware of the real issues being fought over on a global scale and how they affect us all when the material world collides with real-politics and ideology ( read those two as madness) and of course it is most importantly about using that soft matter we all have between our ears.

reply to post by Tallone

I ask you, what if 'grain' was used with great license here. Because some of those fragments captured in the images of ISON after November 30 are NOT a far larger than 'grains'. They are freaking enormous. I just want to make that point right here directly after the quote.

It is not used with any licence, unless you consider dust particles a few microns in size to be "freaking enormous."

You need to consider here two further factors. The calculation for the comet trajectory passing at a safe distance from planet Earth is based on the assumption of a solid object (i.e. a comet!). Unfortunately now what we have is a spreading debris field consisting in good part of comet core fragments. A much wider area of comet matter will be passing over Earth.

As has been explained to you many, many times, the so-called "debris" will follow exactly the same orbit as the comet would have had it remained intact. If the comet was not going to crash into the Earth, the debris won't, either.

I argue consistently that ISON was of MUCH larger size than that given by NASA and the DST advocating astronomy fraternity (most of them at least), and that in keeping with the EC model the comet is/was not a ball of icy composite but had a metallic core.

Yes, you keep arguing that, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

BTW the postulate I put forth that comet ISON was metallic in nature now finds support in NASA’s most recent admission of a couple of days back.

No, it does not. See my response to your link above:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, I have stated EC allows that comets have ice molecules – on-the-surface! But this comet ISON had insufficient water to allow cameras set up to capture images of oxygen! It means comet ISON was likely to be made of very hard stuff, i.e. metallic in nature.

Not all metals are hard, nor are all hard things metallic. Using your reasoning, the comet might actually be made out of sugar! (In fact, the standard model suggests that many comets might contain sugars!)

We ought to be aware that we are now in a situation where information should be far more forthcoming to the general public. And this has been an underlying argument in this thread as well as the subject of my early thread ‘Cover-up of Comet ISON continues’. There is only a matter of weeks to go now. Believe me. I am hoping I am wrong. This is nothing to do with fear mongering. This is about being aware of the real issues being fought over on a global scale and how they affect us all when the material world collides with real-politics and ideology ( read those two as madness) and of course it is most importantly about using that soft matter we all have between our ears.

This nonsense is getting tedious. Why don't you just pretend that your predictions were not a massive fail and skip right to the part where you lecture us all about the fall of the False Idol Science and the dawning of the Miraculous New Age of which you are the Enlightened Prophet?

Tallone
In fact Earth was always modelled by advocates of DST to intercept ISON debris in January.

Just to be absolutely clear here (because you're so hard to pin down on any of your predictions), are you talking about:

* The intercept of Earth's orbit (around January 12th) of the position that the comet was in on November 2nd, that has always been known by everyone, as calculated by orbital parameters given by the Minor Planet Center about a year ago...
or
* That the debris from the comet that has now passed perihelion, will now not be passing 10's of millions of miles away above the plane of the ecliptic, as expected, but that this material has changed course during perihelion and is now directed at Earth?

reply to post by Tallone


Why do you think ISON is "much larger" than reported by official sources? Because BPEarthwatch said so? Please explain why you think he is qualified to make that call. Is it because he plays with the contrast of already overexposed images and enhances hot pixels asking if they are spaceships? (He changed his story now from spaceships to fragments... don't believe me? Look into his past videos.)

Why do you keep insisting that ISON is metallic? That conclusion comes from taking NASA's words out of context. It took a decent amount of conjecture to arrive at that conclusion based on what they actually said. I like how you don't trust NASA, but yet you use their data as a source to argue your stance.

The calculation of distance between comet and Earth for January is based on the assumption of a solid object (i.e. a comet!), i.e. comet body to planetary body. Unfortunately now what we have is a spreading debris field consisting in good part of comet core fragments. In fact Earth was always modelled by advocates of DST to intercept ISON debris in January.

From what I understand, the part of ISON's orbit that we pass through in January, is the part on her way to perihelion, not the part on her way out of the inner solar system (which is where your "enormous fragments" would be). That part will be way above us, to the tune of 40 million miles at its closest point. If I am mistaken, I welcome correction, but the following seems to be in agreement with that assessment.

When Earth passes through the debris stream, we will encounter two populations of comet dust. One swarm of dust will be following the Comet ISON into the sun. Another swarm will be moving in the opposite direction, pushed away from the sun by solar radiation pressure. The streams will pepper opposite sides of Earth simultaneously.

From your source

Please watch the following clip that simulates Earth's encounter with the debris stream. Notice how the stream we pass through is moving inward, towards the middle of the solar system. We will not be passing through your 'debris field with tons of enormous chunks of metallic ISON core'.

Short Clip

The above is also from your source.

You are cherry picking data and using only the parts that fit into EU/EC theory and the things you have heard from Youtube "experts" like BPEarthwatch and his ilk.

Data needs to be interpreted within the context of rest of the data. You can't pick out the bits you like, that fit your theory, and ignore the rest of it like it doesn't exist.

Hopefully after nothing happens, you will realize that these Youtube "experts" don't have a clue what they are talking about and you will realize that they sensationalize and make their videos as doom-y as possible to get more views, so that they can make more money with their Google Ad-sense accounts.

reply to post by daryllyn


I would agree with most of what you had to say. There are other sources that are not related to NASA that would agree with you.

In reply to what I said about ISON not melting due to heat at supposed millions of degrees there was a recent space news video on this topic: Magnetic Waves heat Corona?

NASA is slowly moving there talking points to include magnetism as a standard mechanism and catch all explanation for things they can not explain.

I would also like to point out that many of the people on youtube that regularly regurgitate EU principles in no way understand the material or represent the actual people involved in research. Earlier in this thread I posted vehemently, to dispell some misconceptions about how the EU views charge relations in space. Specifically the idea that the sun is a positively charged object and anything beyond say 'jupiters orbit' is suddenly negatively charged. This is a misunderstanding of how "Charge equalization" was used in a few sentences and a common misunderstanding when you look at the electric model of the sun due to simplification of diagrams related to the concept.

None of the actual electric universe or specifically Thunderbolts people are even working on ISON. They are far more interested in C2013/P5 : Asteriod becomes a comet

They are more focused on recent papers on birkeland currents here: Birklend Currents 2013

The only regular youtube blogger type individual I have ever found to be really qualified to speak about EU theory is Ben from suspicious0bservers.org he releases a daily weather and space weather report as his primary focus something I watch just about everyday.

The issue with wikipedia removing anything to do with the EU stems from the early days of the EU when their ideas were picked up and spread around as some new age crap. You can also find a big controversy where TED removed an EU related video from their 2012 page, they later apologized, but never reinstated it.

The original premise of the EU was simple, that electricity, not gravity(gravity does exist and is a fundamental force) is the primary force involved in building the structures we observe in space.

reply to post by vind21


Great post and sums the situation up nicely.

As has been mentioned in another thread, comet ISON has been seen by the STEREO-A spacecraft in recent days.

Where is STEREO-A?
Its a spacecraft in the same orbit as the Earth, but 120 degrees ahead of us.
As seen in this picture here:


As it happens, its position in relation to other things can also be visualised at this site, which produces images like this:


Now if that image is clear enough, you can see that Mercury and Earth are somewhat lined up together, with comet ISON to the upper right of the planets (from the point of view of STEREO-A)

On December 1st, to pick a random date in the recent few days, the STEREO-A spacecraft took this image:

Going to the stereo website and producing a movie (instructions in the thread linked earlier) lets you see the comet more clearly as it moves that a still frame does, but the smudge in the top right is comet ISON, the brighter of the dots in the middle is Earth, and the fainter one just above it is Mercury.

Now, going back to the orbit viewer, it should then be possible to overlay the orbital point of view of the spacecraft with the image it took.
As seen with my efforts here: The theoretical solar system on Dec.1 as seen from STEREO-A's point of view, overlayed with the photo it actually took.


Of course its not perfect, and the original perspectives were not exactly the same, but I think to a first approximation it proves a point:
Comet ISON (or whats left of it) is still on the same orbit as before, and is, as before, NOT heading offcourse to crash into Earth.

And I should also add to my post above, that if anyone doesnt take my word for it, they could try for themselves.

I suggest a different method also.
A copy of Stellarium, with orbital elements of STEREO-A, should do the trick nicely.

reply to post by alfa1


Nice work alpha as ussual.

Now if we can keep BPE from taking your image and claiming that each pixel represents a piece of debris 1/3 the size of earth you may have made some real progress for humanity


I am not trying to belittle anyone here, just BPE, ever since I saw that guys video where he took some parallax images and portrayed them as a spaceship....or anything but what they actually were, no wonder why NASA doesn't release unedited material.

reply to post by vind21


My main problem with this thread is not whether comets/the universe have an electrical component or not. I'll have a look at the info you posted regarding it... later on when it's quiet.

My problem is the insistence that pieces of the comet will hit us or otherwise cause some form of doom for us here on earth. I have a strong feeling that most of what OP is claiming doom-wise, is coming straight from BPEarthwatch (or a similar user), which is why I keep asking for non-youtube sources to back up the claims.

reply to post by daryllyn


You wont get one, no one with an actual eye to the sky would say that.

After looking at S0's news today that is the first thing he talks about (meteor shower hoaxing and the SDO eclipse season, be ready for the Nibiru thread resurgence) enjoy:



Normally would not plug someone's work with an embed but it just coincidentally went over everything we are talking about, sources can be found in his about section.

reply to post by daryllyn

 

Why do you think ISON is "much larger" than reported by official sources? Because BPEarthwatch said so? Please explain why you think he is qualified to make that call.

I do not use BP video man as a supporting source. You insinuated I did in your previous two posts. Look again at my summary of the facts drawn from NASA! These are the reasons I am citing for my comments on the state of ISON and the possible implications. Not from any Youtube video.

Why the attempt to throw a strawman argument in here? You don't need to do that.

reply to post by alfa1

Comet ISON (or whats left of it) is still on the same orbit as before, and is, as before, NOT heading offcourse to crash into Earth.

I do not say comet ISON will "crash into Earth". This again is a strawman argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.

I do not make the statement nor do I imply it. I acknowledge comet ISON is most likely nothing but fragments. I say it is the debris we are dealing with now.

I say the debris will most likely do as is indicated by the intercept model formulated by Paul Wiegert of the University of Western Ontario and used by NASA on their site to which I linked.

reply to post by vind21


Hello Ben.

Again, I do not use a poster from Youtube to make my claims for me. My two summaries above (the last two I will post here) are cite NASA and DST advocate sources. They do NOT draw from youtube. Anyone making these claims is not dealing with my statements at all. ISON is fragmented now. Those fragments are what I am concerned about. I am saying we should be concerned about the data that is not being released our way. And the validity of what we are being told from sources we should trust. That is it.

The only reason I have used posters from Youtube in this thread is because they succinctly make a point in a digestible form. They are interesting. They do not turn away a large portion of people who might not be familiar with heavy duty astronomy/ science. It is a method to encourage people to enter the EC versus DST debate at ground level. I always cite far more substantial links. Anyone claiming that are not dealing with the content of my posts.

BTW I do not see Ben / Mr Suspicious as "qualified" as you claim. How is Mr Susicious Observer qualified in any way to be an authority on comets, the EC model, the Sun, or anything EU? Let alone on ISON?


EDIT

I want to add a final note for any person who has stumbled onto this thread and is wondering what the heck is going on here. Well it seems a debate on anything EU will stir up a hornets nest. But more interesting comet ISON was evidently very significant in ways we may never fully be allowed to know. Again, I will say if there is some good data on this thread. Particularly go to the links and make your own minds up. Take a look at what the sailor man (Poet) has to say in particular.

reply to post by Tallone


I'm disappointed that out of everything I said, that you chose to respond to that, while not bothering to address my argument regarding which part of ISON's debris field that we will pass through.

Copied from my my previous post for your convenience:

What you said:

The calculation of distance between comet and Earth for January is based on the assumption of a solid object (i.e. a comet!), i.e. comet body to planetary body. Unfortunately now what we have is a spreading debris field consisting in good part of comet core fragments. In fact Earth was always modelled by advocates of DST to intercept ISON debris in January.

What I said:

From what I understand, the part of ISON's orbit that we pass through in January, is the part on her way to perihelion, not the part on her way out of the inner solar system (which is where your "enormous fragments" would be). That part will be way above us, to the tune of 40 million miles at its closest point. If I am mistaken, I welcome correction, but the following seems to be in agreement with that assessment.

When Earth passes through the debris stream, we will encounter two populations of comet dust. One swarm of dust will be following the Comet ISON into the sun. Another swarm will be moving in the opposite direction, pushed away from the sun by solar radiation pressure. The streams will pepper opposite sides of Earth simultaneously.

From your source

Please watch the following clip that simulates Earth's encounter with the debris stream. Notice how the stream we pass through is moving inward, towards the middle of the solar system. We will not be passing through your 'debris field with tons of enormous chunks of metallic ISON core'.

Short clip, also from your source

reply to post by Tallone


Please do not infer my negative comments and rantings on BPE as directed at you, it came up in the thread so I wanted to address it as I find that guy particularly offensive and destructive, so I apologize for essentially leaping to conclusions as most of us are aware(curse you youtube suggestions) of his recent ISON doom video.

As far as S0 goes I have watched alot of his videos and he regularly and accurately relates EU concepts as far as I am concerned, I make no claim that he is specifically qualified for any of the specific subjects you brought up, but I would defend the fact that he makes a serious effort to relate the proper conepts and leave the complicated stuff out for those who already know. You can not do what he does and provide the information about space weather and translate the meaning of the references he uses without a solid understanding of the concepts involved. I have never known him to inaccurately relate topics of the EU in his videos or express views that are unsupported by thunderbolts in general. I have not watched all 1000 of his videos but in general I would say he is qualified to speak on the topic.

My background is in geophysics but here I am talking about space, and comets etc. While I would never advise anyone to use me as a professional source I certainly make an effort to accurately relay information, my opinions, and strive to dispel misconceptions or update information, and I respect the opinions of others who do the same, which was the entire reason I replied into this thread in the first place; I felt that the scientific content was under attack by relating false concepts commonly misunderstood about EU.

I have had dealings with several thunderbolts members and do make an attempt to dispel the common misconceptions about their work when I can.


Everything that I know about comets, physics, and past experiences leads me to disagree with the idea that ISON has ever or will ever pose a serious threat to earth. The sources of information that I have found to be accurate through my personal experiences echo this same sentiment, I feel that if ISON did pose a real danger to us that I know enough people with enough equipment that I would be hearing about it.

I do not simply discredit information because it is on youtube. I spent my thanksgiving in AZ wandering around some Indian ruins with the local college kids and checking out the Orion nebula at night with a retired astronomy professor among visiting with family, I may use alot of youtube videos here on ATS but they are not the foundation of my knowledge or opinions when it comes to these matters.

As a complete dumb-ass layman, the question of how water appears on the surface of the comet, when it was once inside is a simple case of thermal dynamics.

As the comet approaches a super hot celestial body like our sun, the comet and every compound within it also super heats. The heavier substances like iron, are reduced to a malleable erupting magma, and force their way to the centre of the corona, while pushing out the gaseous elements like hydrogen and oxygen.

FRACTALS.

The earth has a super heated iron core, while substances like water are displaced to the outer surface. But it's not to say that certain amounts of water are not trapped beneath the surface, but add enough heat, thus turning the entire earth into bubbling iron and gas stew, and the gases will migrate to the surface, while the heavier substance will fight to get to the core.

As the comet rounds the sun, it too becomes a bubbling stew of it's own juices, thermal dynamics push the lighter gases away from the core, but convection currents pull them back, but not all the way, because at the extreme core the densest metals will always dominate.

As the comet rounds the sun and then hides behind another celestial body like The Earth, it cools very quickly in the shadow of the Earth, and the violent eruptions now subside, leaving a brittle crust on the surface.

What astronomers can now see is a quiet sleeping comet with an icy outer surface, but as soon as it reappears out of the shadow of the earth and back into the blazing radioactive heat of the sun it explodes back to life, expelling it's icy crust in an instant, and then returns back to it's former bubbling brewing mass it was only a day or two before.

However, as it leaves our neighborhood and continues its fiery path towards the outer edges of our solar system, and no more celestial bodies to hide behind, it cools at a much much slower rate, therefore allowing the water to seep back to the core, as the molten metal cools slower. An Astronomers view of the comet at this stage would be one of an iron mass, with little water visible.

Whoa ! Gee I can write some B/S when I set my mind to it.

daryllyn
One swarm of dust will be following the Comet ISON into the sun. Another swarm will be moving in the opposite direction, pushed away from the sun by solar radiation pressure.

Thanks for quoting that.
I finally understand the (mistaken) point that Tallone is trying to say.

And I think for all the lurker readers, a summary of the discussion is warranted here.

------------

Event 1. Pre Perihelion.
On November 2nd, as comet ISON was on its way to the sun, it passed through a point in space, leaving being some very very fine dust.

The Earth will pass NEAR, but not exactly through this place in mid January, and some very fine, probably unnoticable, meteor shower is expected by some.
This is the event that Tallone is referencing (and here I quote him) by way by Paul Wiegert of the University of Western Ontario and used by NASA on their site to which I linked.

------------

Event 2. Post Perihelion.
As comet ISON leaves the solar system, on its way out it will at some point be the same distance from the sun, as the Earth. This can be seen on a "top down" view of the solar system like this...

At first glance, it looks like Earth is in danger of being hit by the comet, but this is not so, if you see the side view...

...the comet passes well clear of Earth. Many tens of millions of miles away, and is not in any danger.
This is the event Tallone is referring to when he speaks of (and here I quote him) what we have is a spreading debris field consisting in good part of comet core fragments.


These two events are completely independent of each other.
------------

Now a little earlier, a few posts above, I asked Tallone to be specific about which event he was referring to, as he discussed debris hitting Earth.
He didn't actually specify which in his answer, and I now understand why:

* he's mixing the two together*

He's using bits of one event, and bits of the other.
Talking about POST perihelion debris while quoting Weigert about PRE perihelion dust. He asks people to look at an animation of the POST perihelion positions while talking about the PRE perihelion intercept date. He asks people to consider POST perihelion debris sizes while referring to a NASA site talking about the PRE perihelion event. Talking about the POST perihelion "fact that ISON has now apparently been fragmented" while citing the PRE perihelion event date when he says there's "only weeks to go".

Lying, or just confused?
I dont know.

reply to post by alfa1


Thank you for laying it all out with the pictures. It makes what I was trying to say much clearer.

I'm thinking that OP was confused about it, and maybe some that have been worried about potential impacts from ISON debris, will see the post, and understand how unlikely that scenario really is.

NASA Hosts Nov. 26 Teleconference and Nov. 28 Hangout to Discuss Comet Nearing Sun

since then,,,


NASA Breaking News:

NASA Selects Contractors for Facility Construction at Ames
NASA Commercial Crew Partner Blue Origin Test-Fires New Rocket Engine
NASA iPad Application Shows Earth Changing Before Your Eyes
Hubble Traces Subtle Signals of Water on Hazy Worlds
NASA Holds Google+ Hangout on Cassini's Findings at Saturn
NASA Invites Media to View Orion Heat Shield Send Off and Delivery
NASA Enhances 'Space Station Live' and Launches New Weekly Web Series
NASA Taps Student Teams to Simulate Human Exploration of Other Worlds
Deadline Approaching for Undergraduates to Fly Research in Microgravity


So i understand that too be,, in Nasa's opinion,, ISON is dead?

a non-event,, a no longer "thing" worthy of,, thier interest?/study for scientific analysys.?

Just Curious.

i must say that is quite the, hair of sack cloth,, magnetic, weave,,



but it does look healthy er.
;0