Comets Destroy Einstein's Nonsense

reply to post by Phage


No, I am looking at the same thing.

See that big "B" above comet fragment?
www.birtwhistle.org...

Here's another one of the "B" fragment!
www.birtwhistle.org...

Its all labeled for you!

reply to post by mnemeth1

You said:

I think anyone with half a brain can see that the fragments in this image:
msnbcmedia.msn.com...

Don't look like the fragments in this image taken later:
farm1.static.flickr.com...

You are correct. Because they are not the same fragments. Yes, fragment "B" is seen in the Spitzer images (as I said). The fragments of fragment "B", as seen in the Hubble close up, are not the same fragments seen in the Spitzer image. They are too small to be seen and the glare of fragment "B" is too great. What is seen in the Spitzer images are larger fragments. Fragments from the original breakup in 1995 and more from 2001.

The fragments are orbiting in parallel orbits, not in a "train".






[edit on 5/14/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You said:

I think anyone with half a brain can see that the fragments in this image:
msnbcmedia.msn.com...

Don't look like the fragments in this image taken later:
farm1.static.flickr.com...

You are correct. Because they are not the same fragments. Yes, fragment "B" is seen in the Spitzer images (as I said). The fragments of fragment "B", as seen in the Hubble close up, are not the same fragments seen in the Spitzer image. They are too small to be seen and the glare of fragment "B" is too great. What is seen in the Spitzer images are larger fragments. Fragments from the original breakup in 1995 and more from 2001.

The fragments are orbiting in parallel orbits, not in a "train".

[edit on 5/14/2010 by Phage]

I'm not sure what you mean by "parallel orbits"

They are in a clear line across the sky.

Explosive out-gassing should not create a string of pearls, the objects should be spreading, not travelling in a neat line behind each other.

There is no plausible explanation for this observation of the cometary fragments in the standard model.

reply to post by mnemeth1

They are not "in a line behind each other". They are parallel relative to their motion. Explain that with the electric model.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b7064a41ba88.jpg[/atsimg]

The above figure indicates the relative position of 59 of the known cometary fragments, as identified using the JPL/Horizons database for May 04 from 0800 - 1200 UT. Lines of motion for all fragments are indicated. For clarity only some of the fragments have been labeled.

www.astro.caltech.edu...


[edit on 5/14/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


The comet fragments are in a clear line.

By "lines of motion" they are talking about how we perceive each fragment to be moving across the sky.

Because the sky is 3D while the paper is not, we see relative motion moving in a circular pattern as depicted on a paper chart.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1

Yes, the sky is 3D. We only see two of those dimensions. The stars of Orion's belt appear to form a line. Are they really in a straight line? We sometimes see some planets in a line. Does that really mean that they are in a straight line in three dimensions? No. From our point of view they present that illusion.

Because the fragments are fairly close to each other and in very similar orbits they appear to be in a line from our point of view. But if they were in a line (in the same orbit) they would have the same orbital elements. They do not.
Orbital Elements at Epoch 2453880.5 (2006-May-25.0)
Element Fragment B: Fragment C:
eccentricity 0.693285521 0.69320672
semi-major axis 3.061841225 3.06116892 (AU)
perihelion distance 0.939111037 0.93914604 (AU)
inclination 11.39695195 11.3957537 (deg)
period 1956.917090 1956.27259 (day)

Note that at perihelion fragment "B" is 3,200 miles closer to the Sun than fragment "C". Fragment "M" is 4,600 miles closer. Fragment "R"; 1,300 miles. Fragment "T"; 16,100 miles. Fragment "AA"; 12,900 miles. Fragment "BS"; 18,400 miles. Fragment "N"; 10,100 miles further from the Sun than "C". Then there is fragment "Z", at perigee it is 269,000 miles further from the Sun than "C". We probably won't be seeing that one again.

The differences are not great compared to the size of space but there is no "train". Each fragment has a different set of orbital elements. Each is in its own orbit. They have not moved into line, they gradually are moving away from each other, in different directions, as they follow those orbits.

ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...

[edit on 5/14/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


You're still here trying to convince me that my eye's don't see what they see?

Are you still trying to argue that the comet fragments aren't all in a nice neat line?

What exactly are you arguing here?

That the images are fake?

Its a LINE

www.birtwhistle.org...

Obviously the orientation of that line as it orbits the Sun will not be perfectly perpendicular to us, but that doesn't change the fact the comet fragments are in a LINE across the sky, they are not scattered like buckshot.


[edit on 14-5-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
If sublimating ice blow the surface is producing jets of H2O as Phage would have us believe, why is the comet not breaking apart light a waterlogged river rock in a bond fire?

Exactly, you don't have to get technical to see the common sense problems or know that the observations have not met with the theory.
The sungrazer comets are a particular problem for dirty snowballs. And although the mainstream have not acknowledged it there seems to be a definate correlation with sungrazers and CME. This shows support for the electric model.
On the other side of the coin some comets such as Hale Bop had jets erupting well before the heat of the sun could have any effect and Wild2 had jets on the unlit side. That just shouldn't happen, many things with the snowball theory should not happen, I haven't heard any answers to these problems. Probably cause there aren't any answers. I have plenty of questions if the snowball theorists care to take me up on them?

And why do comets have a build up of negative charge at the nucleus, they have been called a source of electrons. Check the results of comet Halleys detected electric field. Yes an electric field! One that conforms with the plasma sheets expected. The OH spectra also shows a forbidden line again showing the precense of an electric field I'm told.

The theory has proven itself with severeral accurate predictions, the snowball theory has not predicted anything that I'm aware of.
www.thunderbolts.info...

Ah, Dogma where would we be without you? Some of the counters I've read so far a pure gold!

reply to post by squiz


I blows my mind what people are willing to believe in the face of all contradictory evidence.

*cough* 9/11 *cough*

reply to post by mnemeth1

Its a LINE

Yes. And so are Mars, Sun, Mercury, and Venus (you could even include Jupiter) in a line.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e5699bae4783.png[/atsimg]
You said it yourself, space is 3D. Some of the fragments are closer to us and some are further a way. They are not following each other around the Sun any more than the planets are. Each has its own orbital elements, each is in a separate orbit, each will make its closest approach to the Sun at a different distance. They are not in single file.

Orbital mechanics ensure that the fragments will tend to stay in the plane of the orbit of the original comet. Vector changes will cause variations from that plane (which we can see, it is not a perfectly straight line) but the greatest change in orbit will be in the length of the orbital axes. Fragments with less mass will retain velocity but because they are less massive they will tend to move outward, increasing the diameter of their orbit. Orbital mechanics. This is what we see, variations in the diameter of differing orbits. The fragments are spreading out, not coming into line.

9/11? Did the towers get hit by comets?


[edit on 5/14/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Are you seriously trying to compare the orbits of planets to a picture of a comet and its tail?

Give it up.

SL9 was in a line, and so is this one.

Are you going to tell me SL9 didn't really form into a line either?

Its all a figment of my imagination right?

reply to post by mnemeth1

The purpose of showing the planets is to demonstrate that you cannot tell from the image whether or not the fragments are forming a line in 3D space (anymore than you can tell the composition of a comet by looking at a grayscale image of it). The only thing you can tell is that, like the planets, the fragments are at close to the same orbital inclination, one dimension out of three. The orbital elements of the fragments show this. They also show that the fragments are not in single file.

The fragments of Shoemaker-Levy 9 were in a line. This is because the breakup of the comet was due to the tidal forces it encountered on its close pass to Jupiter (it passed the Roche limit of Jupiter). A tidal breakup occurs in a linear fashion due the the gravitational gradient between one side of the comet and the other. The comet gets "stretched" along the line between it and the planet until the stresses become too great. It breaks up and in the process the fragments form a line. The line was not aligned with the direction of travel (until, at the end, that direction was toward Jupiter), it was a line between the center of mass of the comet and Jupiter.
images.stanzapub.com...

Comet 73P did not pass close enough to any planets to experience tidal influences strong enough to break it up. It fell apart as a result of structural weakness. There was not enough internal adhesion to hold it together against the strain induced by approaching the Sun one more time. The heating and outgassing caused it to fall apart.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by mnemeth1

Yeah, I know how x-rays are produced.

Then why are you insisting that they must be produced in comets by synchrotron radiation alone?

Cometary outbursts of x-ray emission can only be explained by synchrotron radiation.

Says who? Mnemmy the Master Mind?

X-ray emission from comets has recently been observed and has had a great impact not only because the intensity of the emission was unexpected but because of the richness of the underlying physics. Even though the spectral resolution in the initial observations was not good enough to clarify the origin of such emission, nowadays it is widely accepted that X-ray emission from comets originates in charge exchange processes between the solar wind ions and the cometary coma gases.

- Source: 'Cometary X-ray emission: theoretical cross sections, etc.' by Otranto, Olson and Biersdorfer. 2008, NRC Research Website. (For PDF click on first result here)

We speculate that the observed reduction in X-ray intensity is evidence for dust fragmentation. These results support the view that cometary X-ray emission arises from the interaction between solar X-rays and cometary dust.

- Evidence for Dust Related X-ray Emission from Comet C/1995 O1 (Hale-Bopp)

Space is full of charged particles. The energy states of particles emanating from comets, too, will alter as they undergo sublimation and are exposed to solar wind and cosmic radiation. Collisions take place between particles. Excited ions then return to ground state, emitting photons, some at x-ray frequencies. So many obvious x-ray sources in the coma and tail, yet you cling to synchrotron radiation because it is the only explanation that fits the dogma of your electric religion.

Your reasoning and behaviour are not those of a scientist or even a scholar, but of a religious fanatic.

So could you say that gravity is electrical in nature ?

If all of space holds a positive charge. And a spinning body like the earth holds a negative charge, then thats where lighting comes from.

If our 3d reality need electrical power to exist where does it come from. We would have to live in a electrical universe. Just think of how much electrical power is required to generate all mater that is in the universe and to keep it going.

Ever particle that has ever existed and does exist needs electrical power to exist in this universe, for with out electrical power there is no creation of matter. If there is no matter there is no 3d reality to live in.

So I think yes the universe is electrical in nature, LHC proves that point every single day, with out electrical power we would not have a LHC or the atoms to smash in it.

Just my 2 pennies.

reply to post by jsettica

So could you say that gravity is electrical in nature?

Are you asking to be struck by lighting? Electrouniversal Soup Fascists don't even believe in gravity.

Thormemneth the Thunder God will avenge your blasphemy with his legendary hammer.

reply to post by Astyanax


How can someone not believe in gravity> I'm not understanding that. Obviously i do not know anything about electruniverse theory, but to resist a concept that clearly keeps us grounded is silly. Can you please explain what you mean by this?

reply to post by Astyanax


The thermal bremsstrahlung mechanism was one of just several main mechanisms used to explain the X-Rays soon after they were discovered.

A significant problem with mechanisms involving solar wind electrons (i.e., bremsstrahlung or K-shell ionization) is that the predicted emission luminosities are too small by factors of 100–1000 compared to observations. The flux of high-energy solar wind electrons near comets is too low (Krasnopolsky, 1997; Cravens, 2000b, 2002a).

Furthermore, X-ray emission has been observed out to great distances from the nucleus, beyond the bow shock (Fig. 2), and the thermal energy of unshocked solar wind electrons at these distances is about 10 eV. No emission has ever been found to be associated with the plasma tail of a comet, which has similar plasma densities and temperatures. Finally, the new, high-resolution spectra demonstrating multiple atomic lines are inconsistent with a continuum-type mechanism or a mechanism producing only a couple of K-shell lines as the primary source of cometary X-rays. Lisse et al. (2001) tried several thermal bremsstrahlung continuum model fits to the C/1999 S4 spectrum, and Krasnopolsky and Mumma (2001) tried the same for the C/1996 B2 (Hyakutake) spectrum, but neither was successful.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

But there's something going on with N3 Lulin, right now… Something very different. There's a twist in the tail! Check this out…

While imaging N3 Lulin for UT Readers, Dr. Joe Brimacombe used a negative luminance frame to take a closer look at what's going on and discovered something quite out of the ordinary. First off, you'll notice an anti-tail – quite rare in itself – but if you take a look about halfway down the ion/dust tail, you'll see a very definite twist in the structure. It it rotating? Exactly what's causing it? Torsional stress? Is it possible that the kink in the tail is an instability resulting from currents flowing along the tail axis?

Check out the picture. www.universetoday.com...

I just wanted to add a link for anyone that wants to seriously look at the science involved in the model beyond the many layman articles intended for the public. There is much more than what is linked here but it's a great start. Lots of links, peer reviewed.

www.plasma-universe.com...


[edit on 15-5-2010 by squiz]

reply to post by squiz

There are more kinds of current than electrical. There are currents in the ocean. There are wind currents. Anything that flows is displaying currents. The plasma and dust flowing from the comet displays currents.

The kink is evidence of a disconnection event.

The DE indicates that the comet has recently passed through a disturbance in the magnetic field carried by the solar wind, that destroyed the original plasma tail, creating a new one. The separation of the two ion tails indentified by the DE, is visible in our image as a kind of elongated and diffuse "knot" along the plasma tail.

remanzacco.blogspot.com...

Another image shows the "broken" tail. Did someone turn the electric switch off?


Hmm. Power outage? Comet 17P/Holmes.



[edit on 5/16/2010 by Phage]

I'm not sure what you are trying state, that is very vague? you are talking about the interaction of magnetic fields and plasma? Then great. That sounds reasonable.
Or
are you saying a current of plasma is electrically inert? Just trying to see your point. I honestly don't see anything at odds with what you posted. Hardly seems like support for the dirty snowball model.
And given the fact that I made no comments regarding the article.

a power outage? Certainly doesn't look like it. You mean before or after it discharged while moving away from the sun? Holmes is a very very poor example of a dirty snowball. Did the heat from the sun switch off?

Here's another link on disconnection. See what the mainstream says.
www.nasa.gov...

Comets typically have two tails, one made of dust and a fainter one made of electrically conducting gas, called plasma.

They talk about magnetic reconnection, well that's another subject better described as exploding double layers as stated by the founder of the reconnection theory.

See also induced magnetic fields in comet tails for more on the subject.
Electric currents and magnetic fields go hand in hand. It's all about plasma and magnetic fields, I mean really, your preachin to the choir on that one. I find your info gives support to the plasma interactions that concern the Electric model. Funny how that is.

I'd have to say yes the magnetic field fluctuations would vary the negativily charged field at the comet nucleus and possibly the discharge energy. And no doubt affect the plasma tail.
Seems obvious. In fact there is good evidence for electric currents in the tail. A simple search reveals some interesting research. From your tone I think this is more of a personal thing than a scientific debate. C'mon you know it.

We know there are electrical processes at work. We know the nucleus has an intense negative charge that's quite extensive. We know plasma conducts electricity and only a small amount of ionization is required for currents to flow. We know electric currents create magnetic fields. We know there is an induced magnetic field. And we know about the CME coincidences. Wink. We know not enough water has been found on the surface to account for the jets. We know they look like rocks. Those are facts.

Some even know that the suface features match that of electric discharge machining. And that the features were perfectly predicted by Ralph Juergans six years before the first nucleus was seen. He also predicted the scientists surprise. The amount of evidence is extensive and spans well over a hundred years.

A few related questions to what you have raised if you don't mind.
How does a hundred million mile long tail maintain it's structure.(I think I already answered that one) In the magnectic field and solar wind?
How did holmes maintain a coma larger than the sun?
And what were those stringy things (fillaments) emanating from holmes?

Every little problem is simply brushed over. Only nitpicking remains.

I mean really, all the knowlege gained in the last few decades has hardly been anything that was expected of the dirty snowball model. regardles of the counter theories can anyone honestly say that the findings support the snowball theory? really? OK then. I won't argue with you guys.

As a great teacher once said "Your cup is already full".

Actually you missed the boat a long time ago, it failed upon the very first examination.

"We discovered that a comet is not really a 'dirty snowball' since dirt is dominant, not ice," said Horst Uwe Keller of the Max Planck Institut für Aeronomie, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany. "Instead of being spherical like a warm snowball, a comet nucleus is elongated. The physical structure of a comet's interior is defined by its dust content rather than its ice content."

Hmmm... they descibed it as being blackened as well. How unusual.

clusterlaunch.esa.int...

[edit on 16-5-2010 by squiz]