Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

reply to post by Tallone


Just repeating something over and over again does not make it true. Why do you persist in bumping this thread? Do you actually believe that suddenly everything you predicted will turn out to have really happened after all?

Here is the latest thunderbolts ISON information.

It simply enforces what I have been saying all along, that the Electric Universe is not nearly so removed from the standard view of things as people would like to portray.

When I was previously accused of "Supporting DST" it was because I support some of the basic ideas it portrays, herein you can hear Thornhill echoing that sentiment and touching on some of the things I have brought up, 2 tails, coma structure, and a provding a refference that supports the idea of coma's as an electric phenonenom supported by NASA reasearchers.

It seems even they are starting to consider the possibilty that alot of what we see is the reaction of matter in a plasma state and it's going to require an electric current to explain.

reply to post by vind21


And, once again, electrical interactions with the solar wind are part of the standard model. You need to explain how the Electric Comet model differs, and what it explains that the standard model doesn't.

reply to post by poet1b

In my country, we don't have peasants.

In your country, the peasants don't know they're peasants.

The current model of physics, mainly influenced by Einstein, has no explanation what so ever about the nature of Gravity

Fiddlesticks. Yet again you seek to appear wise but end up merely flaunting your ignorance.

EDITED FOR THE LULZ:

(The Institute for Creation Research) was the first link I found on plasma filaments.

Thank you for so brilliantly delineating both the sources and the extent of your physics knowledge.

reply to post by DJW001


So you think Einstein is a moron, or anyone is a moron because occasionally they make half arsed guesses?

Admit it, you don't have a clue as to what is meant by the fabric of space/time.

When you start waking up to these realities, you might have an inkling.

Plasma isn't ether, or space time, it is something that we have just began to explore.

Also, Plasma isn't gravity, but gravity is likely, at least partially an affect of Plasma. There is another major factor that I won't bother to tell you about. You need to work on the two above.

reply to post by Astyanax


Fiddle your own sticks.

My point is a fact.

At least I am wise enough to recognize how little I know.

It is a really, really big world out there, and we know practically nothing about the primary state of matter, and anyone who doesn't recognize this is completely clueless.

reply to post by poet1b

So you think Einstein is a moron, or anyone is a moron because occasionally they make half arsed guesses?

I'm not the one who thinks they're smarter than Einstein.

Admit it, you don't have a clue as to what is meant by the fabric of space/time.

I understand how to treat the concept mathematically. What space-time "is" is a question for philosophers.

When you start waking up to these realities, you might have an inkling.

What realities? Inkling of what?

Plasma isn't ether, or space time, it is something that we have just began to explore.

Who do you mean by "we?" I admit that, unlike relativity, I find the mathematics of MHD intimidating. That is why I, personally, prefer simply to trust the experts, who have been researching it for nearly a century now.

Also, Plasma isn't gravity, but gravity is likely, at least partially an affect of Plasma. There is another major factor that I won't bother to tell you about. You need to work on the two above.

Why do you consider it "likely" that gravity is an effect of plasma? I promise to shake off my intellectual laziness if you can provide me with the equations that suggest this. Rather than the other super-duper top secret factor you are hiding, can you at least explain what the other two factors I need to work on are?

reply to post by poet1b

My point is a fact.

No, it isn't, and your repeating it till Olive Oyl comest home (she won't you know) is not going to change that.

DJW001
reply to post by vind21

 

And, once again, electrical interactions with the solar wind are part of the standard model. You need to explain how the Electric Comet model differs, and what it explains that the standard model doesn't.

Hold on a second there, electrical interactions in solar wind may be part of "The Standard Model" but I do not see them as part of the "Dirty Snowball Theory" beyond "Ionization" you can't just lump in predictions from other models and say "Physics" even if those kinds of interaction are implied, they are ad-hoc when it comes to DST. Ionization does not explain plasma structure.

The current theory on the composition of comets came from Fred Whipple in 1950. It is called the dirty snowball theory. At the center of the comet's head is the nucleus, typically several kilometers in diameter. This nucleus is composed of ices of water, ammonia, carbon dioxide and methane with dust mixed in. The dust particles are smaller than the particles in cigarette smoke.

Surrounding the nucleus is the coma which may be over a million km across. The coma is quite bright, both because of reflected sunlight and because some of the freed gasses become ionized and radiate.
Many comets have two tails, a gas tail and a dust tail and they may extend 150 million km. Both always point away from the Sun. The dust tail is caused by dust particles released from the gasses being vaporized. The dust tail usually curves slightly behind the comet. The gas, or ion tail is composed of ionized gasses excited by the ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. This tail is a wispy bluish color and is blown straight back. The gas tail is brighter than the dust tail.

The DST in no way explains how a comet can produce its coma, it calls it Ionized gas, gas does not behave as we have observed comet comas behave, it can not account for the filament nature of comet tails, or for traveling organized plasma streams, it can not account for larger particulate of the "Star dust" mission. I've laid this out before.

The Electric model does have mechanisms in place for these things and provides explanations for the brightening of comets pre and post perihelion in a far more robust way than DST. DST is in fact dead, If you wish to ad-hoc electrical interactions in the solar wind with comets then you arrive at the electrical model.


Hell, even wiki agrees with that.....

Wiki

Here is NASA's own paper also coming to grips with the Electrical nature of comets:

Temple 1


This is what the "Standard Model" would ask you to attribute to the structures we see in space.(Pulled from my old thread)

Photodissassociation


Again, I think the primary arguments here are the subtle nature of the comets effect on the sun, and whether or not it is acting as a cathode. This looks to be true based on observations alone, but that is not good enough. We need some data so we can apply an actual mathematical model.

The DST in no way explains how a comet can produce its coma, it calls it Ionized gas, gas does not behave as we have observed comet comas behave, it can not account for the filament nature of comet tails, or for traveling organized plasma streams, it can not account for larger particulate of the "Star dust" mission. I've laid this out before.

Since I can no longer edit the original:

Langmuir coining the term 'plasma' for an ionized gas in 1928 and this paragraph should read

The DST in no way explains how a comet can produce its coma, it calls it Ionized gas,[But Ionized] gas does not behave as we have observed comet comas behave [Under gravity alone], it can not account for the filament nature of comet tails, or for traveling organized plasma streams, it can not account for larger particulate of the "Star dust" mission. I've laid this out before.


Ionized Gas is Plasma.

reply to post by vind21


You need to step away from the whole 'dirty snowball' thing. It was just a (now regrettable) turn of phrase that was used to REALLY simplify what a comet was like. What we see now is that many EU supporters have taken it too literally and run with it. When DJW001 was referring to the 'standard model' this also meant DST. You're trying to imply they are two different things. They're not.

reply to post by Flaunt


Incorrect - DST is not the same thing as the "Standard Model of Comets"

DST as stated above:

The current theory on the composition of comets came from Fred Whipple in 1950. It is called the dirty snowball theory. At the center of the comet's head is the nucleus, typically several kilometers in diameter. This nucleus is composed of ices of water, ammonia, carbon dioxide and methane with dust mixed in. The dust particles are smaller than the particles in cigarette smoke.

It made specific predictions.

Stardust killed this theory, and as such, ISON or Electric Comet, has nothing to do with "disproving" DST. This entire thread is redundant in the fact that DST was dead long before we discovered ISON and DST as the currently accepted theory has been a misrepresentation or misunderstanding in this thread all along.

NASA associates declared DST dead. What most people have to say today about comets and their properties comes from the Bessel-Bredichin equations.

(It was unfortunate that they spent 15 years trying to indoctrinate children with discovery channel documentaries that embedded this thought, that's why they think it's unfortunate, it was thier own sponsoring of such shows that made the term stick)

These are the guys who's equations are used to determined comet size and tail lengths and brightness. The easiest place to find those equations online is in the Harvard edu data base.

There are at least 7 different comet theories out there, fountain theory among them, the current theory is hardly a theory at all but a collection of previous theory components that have found to be observably true coupled with some hind sight math to describe where you can expect the tails to emerge. Or in another term ad-hoc.

I am far away from Dirty Snowballs and if you look at my comet thread I authored I was careful not to use that phrase.

I've got ammo for days on this topic, I post links for a reason, at some point, the discussion must enter into the realm of Magneto-hydrodynamics a subject none of us are qualified to talk about, as DJ pointed out, the math is intimidating to say the least.

Still waiting for new shots of ISON

reply to post by DJW001


It is fabric of space and time.

Affect, not effect.

You are the one who called Einstein a moron.

Flaunt
reply to post by vind21

 

You need to step away from the whole 'dirty snowball' thing. It was just a (now regrettable) turn of phrase that was used to REALLY simplify what a comet was like. What we see now is that many EU supporters have taken it too literally and run with it. When DJW001 was referring to the 'standard model' this also meant DST. You're trying to imply they are two different things. They're not.

This, I think, drives me up the wall more than anything.

By using the words "Dirty Snowball Theory", some (not all) EU supporters want to try and limit what the "standard model" of a comet is, specifically in the word "snowball" and trying to take that as meaning water ice, and only water ice.

Definition of a "comet" by the International Astronomic Union is as follows:

A comet is a body made of rock and ice, typically a few kilometres in diameter, which orbits the Sun. Comets may pass by the Sun only once or go through the Solar System periodically. A comet’s tail is formed when the Sun’s heat warms the coma or nucleus, which releases vapours into space.

Most people see the word "ice" and quickly associate it with "water ice". Planetary Astronomers, on the other hand have a MUCH broader definition of "ice":

In planetary science, volatiles are the group of chemical elements and chemical compounds with low boiling points that are associated with a planet's or moon's crust and/or atmosphere. Examples include nitrogen, water, carbon dioxide, ammonia, hydrogen, methane and sulfur dioxide. In astrogeology, these compounds, in their solid state, often comprise large proportions of the crusts of moons and dwarf planets.

Planetary scientists often classifly volatiles with exceptionally low melting points, such as hydrogen and helium, as gases (as in gas giant), while those volatiles with melting points above about 100 K are referred to as ices. The terms "gas" and "ice" in this context can apply to compounds that may be solids, liquids or gases.

Volatiles

Even the Wikipedia describes what may be contained in in a comet as much more than just rock and water ice:

The solid, core structure of a comet is known as the nucleus. Cometary nuclei are composed of an amalgamation of rock, dust, water ice, and frozen gases such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and ammonia.

Source

Is it possible for a comet to have no water ice? Absolutely.

Is it still a comet then? Yes. As defined by the IAU, if it's a body made out of rock, ice (volatiles, meaning all sorts of things that you and I would find in either liquid or gas form at high temps), orbits the sun (at least once) and develops a coma and a tail.........then it's a comet.

Fred Whipple originally wrote his papers on comets, the term he actually used was "icy conglomerate". The term "dirty snowball" was coined from the terms he used.

I really wish that he had called it "volatile conglomerate" instead, so people would stop trying to make comes being nothing but dirt and water. :rolling my eyes here".

reply to post by eriktheawful


Star for you!

reply to post by Astyanax


Well Lord Astyanax, you should start a thread that tells all us peasants about the nature of gravity, and how it works.

If it is as you claim.

reply to post by poet1b


Poet1B, whenever you feel ready you can join the rest of us posting on this thread.

reply to post by vind21

Incorrect - DST is not the same thing as the "Standard Model of Comets"
...

Stardust killed this theory, and as such, ISON or Electric Comet, has nothing to do with "disproving" DST. This entire thread is redundant in the fact that DST was dead long before we discovered ISON and DST as the currently accepted theory has been a misrepresentation or misunderstanding in this thread all along.

NASA associates declared DST dead. What most people have to say today about comets and their properties comes from the Bessel-Bredichin equations.

This thread is NOT about "disproving DST". I posted this thread to discuss the clear (and not so clear) evidence comet ISON provides us with that supports the EC model of comets. Adopting the EC /EU model by default necessarily means we need move on from DST. The dirty snowball theory is a model that does not reflect the facts as we have seen from the most recent data since the development of space vehicles to capture images and probe comets. Here is what the opening of my OP states - just for the record, and to ground your conversation with the thread you are on.

EC theory is not a hoax. The research has been published in peer review journals. Comet ISON is proving the validity of the EC model. To verify this for yourself you only need to have your eyes and mind open, a basic requirement of any decent scientist or researcher. The EC model remains though the target of consistent obfuscation and disingenuous attempts to render it impotent.
SOURCE

NASA has NOT declared the dirty snowball model dead! You have either made that up or somehow crossed over from a parallel universe. There are countless references from NASA and promotional and information publication affiliates to the effect comet ISON is another example of a dirty snowball.

Here is one of the latest videos from NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory aimed at educators of grades 9-12.


NASA titles the video 'Create a Comet With Dry Ice'


From what I can see on this page. There is a hilarious effort to blur the lines between the fundamentals of DST and EC in what I must say is a pretty clumsy effort to undermine EC by attempting to show whatever legitimate differences exist from DST are not differences at all. Rubbish. The two models are incompatible. Period.

OK, Folks .... Let's keep it friendly .


Please Address the Topic and Not Each Other.

reply to post by poet1b

There is plenty of scientific publications on plasma, plasma filaments, and plasma filaments in vacuum conditions. One of the first rules of disinformation is to purposefully attempt to steer the discussion off topic or to confuse the adversaries. Beware those engaged in obfuscation. You have made raised some very good points that largely have not been addressed as yet by posters that have been challenging you.

The thread is on comet ISON - which is with us still.

EDIT
Yes, I would like very much for this thread to continue until we have comet ISON somewhere past Jupiter once more. Lets keep it friendly. So far so good. Mostly.