Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

reply to post by Tallone

DJW001, just a couple of small requests of you. I trust you won't ignore the opportunity to hammer home your own supporting evidence, and demonstrate your expertise. Explain why you want to throw in the Zeeman Effect here. Explain your understanding of the Zeeman effect and exactly why according to you it constitutes "the only observation of ISON that could support the Electric Universe Theory"?

Put in the simplest possible terms, the Zeeman effect is caused by the influence of a magnetic field on the energy levels of electrons. When these electrons change their energy state in an atom, they radiate photons at a given wavelength, but the Zeeman effect causes them to radiate photons at a slightly different wavelength than they would in the absence of that field. As a result, emission spectra from magnetic bodies like the Sun show clumps of three lines for each element, each line due to different spin orientations. Bottom line: the Zeeman is effect is real; it is how we know the Sun is magnetic. If you reject the validity of the phenomenon, you also reject real life applications of it like nuclear resonance imaging used in medicine.

The Electric Universe Theory claims that the molecular gas observed in comets is actually created out of the solar wind by [wave of hands] "electro-chemical processes." These mysterious processes seem to require the presence of a strong magnetic field in order to collect the free protons and electrons in order to assemble them. Any magnetic field strong enough to capture charged particles traveling at 300 km/sec would be strong enough to affect the frequency of the photons emitted by the constantly changing electrical state of the atoms undergoing this alchemical process.

The conventional model predicts that as the hydrogen found in the CHON material in the comet is struck by ultraviolet radiation, its electrons will jump up an "orbit," then fall back own to a lower energy state, releasing photons primarily at the 21cm wavelength. This is observed. Although its advocates are careful not state as much, the Electric Universe theory predicts these radio-waves will have formed under the influence of a strong magnetic field and thus, due to the Zeeman effect will be spread out. No such spreading is observed. Its not a question of when they are observed; it is a question of whether they are observed at all. Conventional theory 1, EU 0.

Edit to add: How does the EU explain the CN anomaly? The conventional theory simply assumes that the CN was contained in a matrix of smaller, darker grains that did not reflect as much light; ie, the dust was there, it just wasn't visible. How does EU explain why a comet would suddenly start producing more CN without a corresponding brightening?

reply to post by Tallone


No. What you said is that it was hit by four X class flares. As you can see three of the four flares you listed are M class. Now, can you explain why, if EU theory is correct, why solar activity has decreased even though ISON is now closer than it was when those flares were ejected?

Tallone
X-ray solar flares.

There were 4 in 5 days, as I said.

So... am I to understand then that you cant tell the difference between any old "X-ray" flare, and an "X class" flare?

As you described, in your own words....

There has been 4 X class flares from the Sun in the direction of ISON in just as many days.

They both have the letter X. Close enough, is it?
I suppose thats good enough for the EU theory. Anything with an "X".

No such thing as a "X-Ray Flare" in that when there is a flare from the sun, it broadcasts across the entire EM spectrum (Radio to Gamma), not just X-Rays.


Flares are classified as A, B, C, M, X, or Z. This is based upon the measurement of x-rays from the flare as measured by GEOS but, does not mean that the flare is made up of only x-rays.

Previously, flares from the sun used to be measured on a brilliance scale, using S, 1, 2, 3 and 4.

reply to post by eriktheawful


I am going to do this reply in quotes and pictures today because it seems like I need a white board over here. X-ray energy release is the standard method of classification used for solar flares. That is all. Don’t freak out.


Astronomy 101...

Solar astronomers classify solar flares according to the amount of X-ray energy released. The most energetic solar flares are the X class solar flares. M class solar flares are the medium level. C class solar flares are minor flares. Each class of solar flare is subdivided into subclasses from 1 to 9.

www.examiner.com...



And now a picture for your 4 avatars to ponder.


www.spaceweather.com...

Now if we can get back to electric comet ISON and how it reduces the dirty snowball theory into a muddy slush. Which is pretty much the topic of this thread. I'd be really happy about that.

reply to post by Tallone


Again: solar flares do NOT release just X-Ray energy.

They release electromagnetic energy across the entire sprectrum.

GEOS measures the peak energy of the x-ray bandwidth of that energy, and based upon the peak mesurement, will determine the class of flare (A,B,C,M,X or Z).

You can call it a "x-ray" flare all you want, but that is a misnomer in that flares from the sun do not release just the x-ray part of the EM spectrum.

reply to post by eriktheawful

Are you okay?

No one on this thread including me has ever said that solar flares release only X-rays. Why are you beating the dead straw horse so hard?

Back to the topic of ISON beating down that dirty snowball model.

reply to post by Tallone


You're the one that said that ISON was hit by four X class flares. It wasn't hit by four X class solar flares and solar flares aren't just composed of X-rays. So why did you try to cover up your mistake by referring to solar flares as X-ray solar flares? Also you still haven't answered, despite multiple people asking, why the Sun's activity has decreased now that ISON is closer. Per EU shouldn't we be seeing more activity?

A chance to review what we have as ISON travels at increasing speed toward perihelion on November 28, 2013. In the spirit of science then let’s hear from the advocates of both the dirty snowball and the Electric Comet. How have observations of ISON so far supported either model?

I see the EC model as well supported by what we have seen so far. The rapidity of the increase in brightness has already been noted. Many DST advocates commented that an outburst of brightness as a Comet nears the Sun would be an indication of impending fragmentation, and jumped to that conclusion with the sudden ISON outburst But ISON has not broken up, despite continued statements from a number of DST advocating sources that say it has or is about to break up.

The fact that ISON brightened so much so quickly and yet did not break up supports the EC model.
ISON might well break up yet; it is a distinct possibility. If it does so, the EC model predicts the velocity of fragmentation will be so great it will rule out the postulate that the comet is a giant dirty ball of ice or an icy soft composite of minerals.

EC predicts interaction between the Sun and a comet. We have seen evidence of this in the solar flare pattern of 4 large flares from the sun in just five days with all of them facing the oncoming comet ISON. Of course there are always other reasons for this, and we cannot simply say ISON and the Sun are interacting on that evidence alone.

But wait…

On the 19th we had the first X class flare, just nine days after the last X class flare (which as it happened travelled in the general direction of comet ISON’s approach). The large flare on the 19th shot off in the direction of comet ISON’s approach, and observed on the same day was a marked increase in brightness from the comet that went from total V-mag. 4.78 to 3.68!! This detail would be overlooked by the majority of DST advocates who would not make the connection between large solar flare in ISON’s direction and ISONs brightening on the same day. EC advocates do make that connection, because as is often the case what are unrelated observed phenomena to most DST advocates are extremely related within the EC model – AND within the EC model this co-occurring phenomena is predicted! I say, smoke that one DST.

reply to post by Tallone

I don't see anything electric in ISON, sorry. And I don't see how it's beating down the "dirty snowball" model (even though personally I dislike that term). Anomalies in brightness may be due to the peculiar rotation of this comet (its rotational pole has been pointed at the Sun most of the way), or due to its specific composition.

If ISON had a powerful electric field, I'm sure it would have been measurable in some way with our equipment. But all I've seen so far are the tail, coma, and jets of gas and dust - all in agreement with the standard model.

A little devil in me wants the EU to come up with something pivotal about ISON, to get every astronomer thinking. So come on, what is it about ISON that screams "it's an electrically charged object, interacting with the Sun and other Solar System bodies"? Your original series of posts didn't satisfy me, all I saw was weasel-wording, hand-waving, throwing daggers at mainstream science. Show me legitimate proof that ISON is negatively charged, and that the Sun is positively charged.

I can't resist asking a few theoretical questions: why is the Sun positively charged? Where did all the Sun's electrons go, and why? How do we manage to live on Earth orbiting a positively charged Sun? Wouldn't we suffer one humongous electrocution? And if the Sun is positively charged, what makes the outer Solar System negatively charged? Did someone or something take the Sun's electrons and move them all the way there?

Please don't reply by linking those hour-long Thunderbolts videos.

reply to post by wildespace


Excellent questions. Star for you.

Tallone
The large flare on the 19th shot off in the direction of comet ISON’s approach...

You keep saying this, but is it actually true?

Your source for this claim is the youtube videos of some dude, and specifically his "update 11" video that "predicted" the comet would get hit... and then the "update 12a" video where he claims that he was right.

But lets check.
The 3d heliospheric models are that guy's sole source of information about any direction, and so are some screencaps from his "update 11", showing his claim that ISON would get hit by the flare of the 19th...


Note how in that computer model, from screencaps of "update 11", the flare is predicted to expand outward like a smoke ring. In this computer model, showing the predicted situation for dates of 18:00 on 20th, 12:00 on 22nd, and 12:00 on 23rd, comet ISON (which is located to the upper right) gets hit by part of it.

BUT

On the very next day, youtube guy proudly proclaims in "update 12a" that he's so wonderful and right and tells us all how comet ISON got hit by that flare and he is proven correct.

HOWEVER

He then goes on to tell us that there has been more solar activity and shows the 3D heliospheric model for the latest computer prediction of the forecast.
And here it is, for the *exact same dates* of 18:00 on 20th, 12:00 on 22nd, and 12:00 on 23rd.
Screencaps of video "update12a":


Yes, there is material heading off to the upper left, but where is the ejection shown on the previous day?
It simply doesnt exist.

I propose a simple answer.
The computer models were updated in the previous 24 hours, and now shows the updated situation after having gathered more data, and the flare that was going to hit comet ISON now simply does not exist, or at least is so weak it is now background noise.

It is after all, the same people generating the computer forecasts. Forecasts change with new data.

The claim of comet ISON being hit by that X class flare, as shouted to the world many times, is simply not true.
Didnt happen.
Anyone still claiming it is using obsolete out of date data.

Tallone
We have seen evidence of this in the solar flare pattern of 4 large flares from the sun in just five days with all of them facing the oncoming comet ISON.

You keep saying this, but is it true?

The source for this claim comes from that same youtube guy.

Here, I examine his claim in "update12a", that comet ISON is going to get hit again.
He shows the 3D heliospheric model, screencaps in the previous post, and claims multiple times that while the comet wont get a direct hit, it will get a "glancing blow".
"Glancing blow", a phrase he uses multiple times.

Is it true?

He uses this image here.... to show the sitation...


But that's no good becase that is how the sky is seen from earth. And despite all his mouse pointing and waving saying its in the direction of Mercury, an earth centered point of view is not appropriate. Here is how the situation ACTUALLY was on that date:



Is that comparison of the NASA orbit viewer and a screencap of update12, is show the position of comet ISON with a dark blue square.
As you can see, it is nowhere near the direction of that flare, which is heading in the up left direction.

The claim that the comet is being hit by that flare is simply not true, and the claim only comes from using an incorrect viewpoint.

Tallone
EC predicts interaction between the Sun and a comet.

So you keep saying, but we're simply not seeing this "interaction".

Joint USAF/NOAA Solar Geophysical Activity Report and Forecast SDF Number 328 Issued at 2200Z on 24 Nov 2013
...Solar activity has been at low levels for the past 24 hours.
... Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is likely to be low ... and likely to be low
...The geomagnetic field has been at quiet levels for the past 24 hours. ...

Its a bit lame, isnt it?

reply to post by alfa1

Nope. This is what I said.

I have had to think twice before embedding these two videos on this thread. There is some speculative stuff here. But meh – yeah, what the heck.

HERE

I have authoritative sources linked all over the thread. I also post the EC video and include that as authoritative also. The others are there to spark your interest which it obviously did. They are not authoritative and I never claim they are. They are of the 'make up your own mind' bunch. I think they did a pretty good job in the main too, I certainly don't put them up there to make fun of. But you need to use your common sense. I don't present them in any other way but this way.

Why are you showing screen grabs from the video? Why not go to the source and take screen grabs from that?

You can't get those from NASA. Right?

The data is not there anymore. Try it and you will see what I mean.
iswa.gsfc.nasa.gov...

If you do get the data you claim then make screen grabs of that. Not the November 20, 21, 22, 23.What you want are these three days only. Then we can start talking about whether you are correct or not.

There were 4 in 5 days, as I said.

Check it. November 16 X-ray flare M class in active region 1900. To of em.
Check it. November 17 X-ray flare M class in active region 1900. Only the one.
Check it. November 19 X-ray flare X class in active region 1893. Only the one.

Asteroid is now officially named a comet

Remember the six-tailed asteroid discovered by Hubble back in late August this year? Whatever happened to asteroid P2013/P5?

It confused the heck out of astronomers both professional and amateur alike. The asteroid appeared to have taken on a comet characteristic. It had developed a tail. It had developed not one but six tails. Some astronomers advocating the DST model attempted to explain the anomaly as the result of ‘dust ejection events’. That it was caused by an increase of rotation, so fast that the spin throws off dust. The trouble with the DST approach as is often the case is the ad hoc nature in which it attempts to account for the new facts being observed. How for example could DST account for the increase in rotation? Why was it ‘throwing off’ dust now and not earlier?

The EC advocates had always stated that there is very little difference between a comet and an asteroid since they are BOTH, along with meteors “electrically machined from planet surfaces”. They are sourced from ‘planet chunks’. They are recent rather than primordial. The discovery of Asteroid P2013/P5 was exciting because it was further support for the EC / EU model, but it was not a surprise to advocates of EC.

Asteroids often show some characteristics of comets, some have displayed slight tails and / or comas. With Asteroid P2013/P5 is from the outer system, and the tail has so very rapidly changed. More details into the how and why in the video.

Below is a good video of the asteroid that became a comet here – from the Thunderbolt Project.



Interesting mention of electric current filaments connecting an asteroid and the planet Venus on a close pass. Explained also is how this phenomena is also associated with comets! The same electric current filaments have been observed by scientists between Venus and Earth. DST scientists prefer to call these phenomena 'stringy things'.

[

I will update this thread as often as possible until ISON has done its thing and travelled on out of our piece of space.

Just take a look at that V-mag! This thing is not dimming as the DST model predicted it would coming only two days before perihelion. Still time of course. Though sh*** but ain't this baby getting bright!



This is a good go to site for up to date stats.

www.cometison2013.co.uk...

reply to post by Tallone


Scientific knowledge is always hampered by its retrogressive attributes. By that I mean science can only hold a piece of knowledge that is quantifiable through its own systems , which is themselves do not command the totality of all there is to know.

Science looks backwards it relies on what has already been established and frowns on any new additions to that knowledge until it has raked the new information through the system, that proceeded the new knowledge, which is limited by what it knows to be true at a specific point in time.

This limits scientific knowledge with the burden of valid information always having to fall in those limited parameters.

Science rolls on like an old steam roller adding new information at a slow and tedious rate, working with the structure that it can see within itself is out dated on the road to new discoveries. Its components claim supremacy only to find out at a latter date the what it screamed to the world as the truth and only the truth was in fact wrong , incorrect and out of date.
What forces Science to change ? It changes because some one persisted in thinking outside the Scientific closed circuit and found new revelations and these revelations begin to make current Scientific theory look stupid. So they have to reluctantly amend their position. Not because they value the truth but rather on a more egotistical premise and that is appearing to be irrelevant to progressive thought.


Don't get me wrong Science is wonderful , for what it is . Ideally it would form the base or launching pad from which the cosmos may be understood. But it continues to clutch too tightly to worn out idea's.

So... you're now rertreating from the claims made in the videos??!!?
For the last couple of days you've been saying almost nothing else except how right they were, and now you're saying they were only meant to be "speculative", "not authoritative", and of the 'make up your own mind' bunch.

Good lord. It was only yesterday I was thinking how you were being difficult on anything specific, and like "nailing jelly to a wall" or "herding cats". That was because of your refusal to say anything predictive at all about solar activity as comet ISON approaches perihelion.
But now, it seems that even after you do say anything specific, in hindsight, when you think you were right.... you'll completely disown it when shown to be wrong.
Much like the Mercury plasma interaction fiasco of last week.

Tallone
Why are you showing screen grabs from the video? Why not go to the source and take screen grabs from that?

I used those screen grabs because I was adressing the claims as made, as stated at the time, using the information put forward by the person making the claim, as used to back up the claim they were making.

Tallone
Just take a look at that V-mag! This thing is not dimming as the DST model predicted it would coming only two days before perihelion. Still time of course. Though sh*** but ain't this baby getting bright!

Now you've mentioned the magnitude thing before, but honestly I thought at the time that you'd just made an honest error so I didnt mention it.

But you keep repreating it, so... I can only assume that you must think it is true.

The DST model, as you refer to it, does NOT predict "dimming" as the comet approaches perihelion, and frankly I have no idea where you would get that kind of bizarre idea. The standard conventional comet model assumes it will indeed get brighter as it approaches perihelion. Remember all those sensationalist media screaming headlines of a year ago about "brighter than the full moon"? That was the thought by some, at perihelion.

On a personal note, I'll show a page that I printed out about 6 months ago. Perhaps June, perhaps July. Its a copy of the ephemerides from the Minor Planet Center, in which I'd scrawled some notes in the right hand column of opinions from several different sources around the net, on how bright comet ISON was expected to be during the month of November.

So this is predictions from back then.



As you can see, it was the opinion of those who follow the "DST model", as you call it, that the comet would continue to brighten right up until perihelion.

And where you got the idea that is doesnt... frankly I dont know what weirdo web pages you might have got that idea from. Or indeed, why you believed them. Seriously, is this your first time watching a comet?