Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

***ATTENTION***
Alright, enough is enough. Discuss the TOPIC, not each other. The OP has posted information, please discuss THAT information, and keep things from other threads, in other threads. These posts are off-topic and are not conductive to creating a healthy discussion.

Further violations will result in posting bans. DO NOT reply to this post.

~Tenth
ATS Super Moderator

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

This is the ACTUAL quote, which you would never post.

What is significant is that the extent of this ice on Tempel 1's surface is not sufficient to produce the observed abundance of water and its by-products in the comet's coma. The team thus concludes that there are sources of water from beneath the comet's surface that supply the cometary coma as well.

discoverynewfrontiers.msfc.nasa.gov...
Then we have ....

Sunshine, Schultz and the rest of the team arrived at their findings by analyzing data captured by an infrared spectrometer, an optical instrument that uses light to determine the composition of matter.

Based on this spectral data, it appears that the surface ice used to be inside Tempel 1 but became exposed over time. The team reports that jets – occasional blasts of dust and vapor – may send this surface ice, as well as interior ice, to the coma, or tail, of Tempel 1.

"So we know we're looking at a geologically active body whose surface is changing over time," Schultz said. "Now we can begin to understand how and why these jets erupt."

www.nasa.gov...


End of quote from Occamsrazor.

_____________________________________________________

I didn't have to include the whole quote. I went on to state there were NO vents visible. NASA and no other space agency with equipment can find vents anywhere on any comet they have photographed. None of them. Do you know what this implies?

No vents = no way for water emission to be vented.

Could this be any clearer. Come on, try harder than this.

It would be helpful to show a photo of a vent on a comet and then you could support your position that the claim I repeat in my OP is false.

BTW There is no proof there is an abundance of water below the surface of a comet. That is presumed by DTS when they argue that they will find mucho water in the comet tail. To keep arguing DTS is the only valid theory when the evidence shows it is full of holes and in fact increasingly supports the EC model is plain silly. You have to wonder what is out stake here for scientists and researchers spend so much effort attacking EC when the data that has been coming in these past few years contradicts their position!

But hey, let's look at Elenin, the comet that kindly blew up and provided us with information about the water content of a comet. Or did it?

Tallone
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Your quote ....

American radio astronomers report that did not detect any water coming from any remains of comet Elenin.

Actual quote ....

American radio astronomers report that did not detect any water coming from any remains of comet Elenin.

This data may confirm disintegration proccess in comet’s nucleus which stareted on mid August.

Once again you lie and only post half the quote, the half that says what you want, and ignore the second half that proves your position wrong. No water being detected AT THAT TIME is consistent with current models and understanding. The person you quoted, Leonid Elenin, is not at all surprised.
spaceobs.org...

Per moderator I will move off this line of discussion. You're wrong, I posted links that prove it.

You claim EU is correct. Give me a VERIFIABLE prediction about ISON, based on the EU theory, that does not fit with the DST model.

The evidence is in the observations coming in from astronomers world wide. Bruce Gary's site is excellent. Notice he presents the data even when it contradicts DST. A real scientist interested in facts.

We are discussing comet ISON in the light of two theoretical models. In one corner we have DTS the dirty snowball, and in the other we have EC, the electric comet.

- and yes, I stand by the statements I have made. And right now, I am am off to my regular job earning a living.

Tallone

We are discussing comet ISON in the light of two theoretical models. In one corner we have DTS the dirty snowball, and in the other we have EC, the electric comet.

Which is why I asked you for specific predictions about what we can expect to happen based on the EU model that is impossible under the DST model. You refused to do so.

- and yes, I stand by the statements I have made. And right now, I am am off to my regular job earning a living.

I guess the best way to not be wrong is to simply leave without saying anything verifiable.

Tallone
The evidence is in the observations coming in from astronomers world wide.

But the way you've done it is not really evidence, is it?
The claim about water emission from comet Elenin, being a single sentence quote ripped out of context, about one observation, taken at one time, on one occasion, by one observing team, of one comet, and depriving your audience of further relevent information in the rest of the article... and then using that to prove a more general point about all comets and the universe as a whole.
Its not really "science", is it?

Tallone
We are discussing comet ISON in the light of two theoretical models. In one corner we have DTS the dirty snowball, and in the other we have EC, the electric comet.

So you're back to "they're wrong, so I must be right?"
You dont prove your theory correct by proving another one wrong.
You are supposed to prove your theory is right by proving your theory is right.


Both of the two things I've just commented on that you're doing, (quotes out of context, and the false proof) are the staple foods of creationism. I'm not saying you are, just that you're using the same argument style.

I kind of like parts of the EC theory. It just seems like the dirty snowball theory is not right for too many reasons. Like how did the comets keep building these gases up, it seems that if a comet goes close to the sun, it would lose all it's gasses quickly and never return as a comet again.

I think the dirty snowball theory is a joke myself unless there is someone packing it full of new snow and throwing it back in. Look at the tons of gasses and particles being emitted, they have to be recharging these chemicals somehow.

Oh well, I am not an expert at this, I have not been convinced through years of education to believe in this and other theories that don't seem to make sense..

I think its time to call it what it is....

Marcia Griffiths - Electric Boogie (The Electric Slide) (Promo) (HQ)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mOY2eWO2qw
www.youtube.com...

rickymouse
I kind of like parts of the EC theory. It just seems like the dirty snowball theory is not right for too many reasons. Like how did the comets keep building these gases up, it seems that if a comet goes close to the sun, it would lose all it's gasses quickly and never return as a comet again.

I think the dirty snowball theory is a joke myself unless there is someone packing it full of new snow and throwing it back in. Look at the tons of gasses and particles being emitted, they have to be recharging these chemicals somehow.

Oh well, I am not an expert at this, I have not been convinced through years of education to believe in this and other theories that don't seem to make sense..

So what you are saying is you have no clue at all what the DST even says, but you know it's gotta be wrong?

Gotcha. Hard to argue with that.

OccamsRazor04

rickymouse
I kind of like parts of the EC theory. It just seems like the dirty snowball theory is not right for too many reasons. Like how did the comets keep building these gases up, it seems that if a comet goes close to the sun, it would lose all it's gasses quickly and never return as a comet again.

I think the dirty snowball theory is a joke myself unless there is someone packing it full of new snow and throwing it back in. Look at the tons of gasses and particles being emitted, they have to be recharging these chemicals somehow.

Oh well, I am not an expert at this, I have not been convinced through years of education to believe in this and other theories that don't seem to make sense..

So what you are saying is you have no clue at all what the DST even says, but you know it's gotta be wrong?

Gotcha. Hard to argue with that.

Sounded a lot like he said he thought they were silly and disagreed with them not that he didn't know what they were...maybe your blinded by having to be right sooooo much you couldn't even read.

RickyD

OccamsRazor04

rickymouse
I kind of like parts of the EC theory. It just seems like the dirty snowball theory is not right for too many reasons. Like how did the comets keep building these gases up, it seems that if a comet goes close to the sun, it would lose all it's gasses quickly and never return as a comet again.

I think the dirty snowball theory is a joke myself unless there is someone packing it full of new snow and throwing it back in. Look at the tons of gasses and particles being emitted, they have to be recharging these chemicals somehow.

Oh well, I am not an expert at this, I have not been convinced through years of education to believe in this and other theories that don't seem to make sense..

So what you are saying is you have no clue at all what the DST even says, but you know it's gotta be wrong?

Gotcha. Hard to argue with that.

Sounded a lot like he said he thought they were silly and disagreed with them not that he didn't know what they were...maybe your blinded by having to be right sooooo much you couldn't even read.

Maybe you simply don't understand English.

Like how did the comets keep building these gases up, it seems that if a comet goes close to the sun, it would lose all it's gasses quickly and never return as a comet again.

He clearly has no clue at all as to what is going on and is making statements based on his "common sense".

Oh well, I am not an expert at this

Then he flat out says he doesn't know. Sorry, keep trying, your EU theory will still never be correct. I offer you the same challenge I offered the OP. Give me a prediction based on the EU theory of what ISON will do that can never be explained by the DST model.

alfa1

Tallone
The evidence is in the observations coming in from astronomers world wide.

But the way you've done it is not really evidence, is it?
The claim about water emission from comet Elenin, being a single sentence quote ripped out of context, about one observation, taken at one time, on one occasion, by one observing team, of one comet, and depriving your audience of further relevent information in the rest of the article... and then using that to prove a more general point about all comets and the universe as a whole.
Its not really "science", is it?

Tallone
We are discussing comet ISON in the light of two theoretical models. In one corner we have DTS the dirty snowball, and in the other we have EC, the electric comet.

So you're back to "they're wrong, so I must be right?"
You dont prove your theory correct by proving another one wrong.
You are supposed to prove your theory is right by proving your theory is right.


Both of the two things I've just commented on that you're doing, (quotes out of context, and the false proof) are the staple foods of creationism. I'm not saying you are, just that you're using the same argument style.

edit on pmWednesdayfpm1 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

Ahh, so that IS how science is done, by proving a theory that is taken out of nowhere, by seeing it in action somewhere , until some other theory can be proven more correct ??

Sounds like Tallone is just onto a WAY faster and better way of THEORIZING than your 'lol' Science.

It is entirely possible, that there are attributes of both comet "models" being discussed here, present in what is the true nature of these objects. Some are mutually exclusive and some are extremes that probably do not exist, if not in the rarest of cases.

The DST concept, or "Dirty Snowball", is a very nebulous and often mis-interpreted model. It makes us think of someone with a snowball with bits of rock and gas mixed in it. This is probably the least likely physical model, and it suffers from it's very name. This common though of model is probably an extreme, and is not the normal configuration.

We know that asteroids come in such a wide variety of material types based on the meteorites that we hold as samples of them. They range from solid iron, through solid rock (chondrites) to light, iron poor achondrites, to friable and brittle materials like carbonaceous chondrites. Yet they all come from an asteroids of that type.

It holds that comets themselves have such major varieties as well. Some may be big chunks of ice, others more like chunks of rock with veins of frozen water running like channels through them. Others like frothy, loosely packed objects with more of the consistency of a wet charcoal briquette with methane, hydrogen, oxygen, water itself homogeneously mixed within them.

This latter material, the carbonaceous chondrite, has many sub types within it. Some, like Allende are carbon rich, but strong, with amino acids and small amounts of locked up water. Others, like Murchison , is much weaker carbon rich material with a lot of locked up methane and water. (You can put a piece of Muchison in a jar, for a week or two, and then take the lid off and get a whiff of 6 billion year old methane!) . The most friable, like Tagish Lake, which fell on an ice covered river, was so loosly packed and brittle, that if you picked up a piece of it with too much force, it would crumble in your hand. This mostly carbon meteorite had amino acids, methane, hydrogen and methane and liquid water mixed within it in such quantities, it was amazing that it ever made it to the surface of the earth. The reason it did, is because the original incoming mass was huge.

These CC meteorites are most likely representatives of the normal cores of most comets. They have such a diversity in hardness with various water, methane and hydrogen content, that the displays that they put on as they orbit around the Sun are as unpredictable as what we know comets are. They are homogeneously mixed with water and gasses, so they constantly ablate their material as they get closer to the Sun. They also contain large amounts of fluorescent gasses, like diatomic carbon and cyanogen that react to ultraviolet light.

An YES, there is an electrical element at play here. These gasses get ionized, and do create an electric field of sorts, just not as pronounced as some of the wilder speculation here. There is a plasma content that is in the nature of these wonderful objects, and we do see their effects in the coma and tail(s).

So the point of all this is, that we should agree to disagree with many of the normally held beliefs about what comets really are, because they really are as diverse as asteroids, and in fact, some asteroids are most likely comets as well.

ParasuvOAhh, so that IS how science is done, by proving a theory that is taken out of nowhere, by seeing it in action somewhere , until some other theory can be proven more correct ??

Sounds like Tallone is just onto a WAY faster and better way of THEORIZING than your 'lol' Science.

No. How is your reading comprehension so poor that is what you took away from his post? Creating theories out of nowhere, with no evidence, no proof, and labeling it as fact until you prove to them something else is right is what EU, and other fringe proponents, do. Rather than offer proof that they are right, they seek to find ways another theory is wrong. Then they say AHA, this part of your theory doesn't make sense, so until you can explain this 1% of your theory, I declare 100% of your theory wrong, and 100% of my theory is right by default without my having to prove any of it.

That is not how science works. Theories should be based on observations, be testable, and should be predictive. EU theory is none of that. They make stuff up that is proven false (such as Solar Winds having a positive charge when they are in fact PROVEN neutral). They make predictions that never come to pass. Then when all else fails they lash out at other theories to deflect attention.

"Mainstream" theories usually evolve with information. Unless you think people are 100% knowledgable and have nothing left to learn this should not be surprising. The fact the theory is only 99% right does not 100% invalidate it. NOTHING predicted by EU theory that would invalidate current theories has ever panned out to be true, it's been false, every time.

I have read the whole thread and I have a question to Alfa1 or Occamsrazor04, since both of You seem to be most knowledgeable and most invested in defending the accepted snowball theory. I see that everybody has avoided the question (or I have missed the answer, in which case please point me to the right post) by the OP about how the comet could have lit up so bright in the region where the official theory and scientists say it is impossible for it to light up ... I am personally on the fence when it comes to EU theory (it seems to have a few good points and it seems to fail in some areas ), therefore I would like an scientific answer about the above question that supports the official snowball theory please..

reply to post by Thill


Let me read what he said and I will edit this with an answer if I have time. It's about to get busy at work.

ETA: I think this is what you mean...

As we have seen with ISON the coma flared much earlier than the DST driven astronomers expected, when it was much furtherer out than the DST model would allow it.

He makes statements with no sourcing. I counter that with .. ISON flared exactly as the DST model predicts and much earlier than the EU model would predict or even allow. See how easy that is?

Then we have ....

DST cannot explain the rapidity and magnitude of the brightening of ISON.

His proof is this ...

On November 28 of this year, ISON will lie closest to the Sun — a scant 680,000 miles (1.1 million kilometers) from its surface. Latest predictions indicate that it will peak at magnitude –4.5, equivalent to the brightness of Venus.

This says nothing about the rapidity or magnitude of the brightening. It deals with PEAK brightness. It is still getting brighter according to the source HE posted. The information he posted as a source to disprove DST says the OPPOSITE of what he wants, it's 100% in line with the DST claims.

Really well explained thread. . S&F for that
But if the theory is correct what would significantly change in our understanding of the universe?

There's this video from NASA about ISON coming in curtain range if the sun and the sun reacts with commet and throws out this massive flare at ISON really bizar.
They compared that footage with other comets coming close and the sun reacted the same way and I believe also from same distance. .

You should look it up its on youtube.

0bserver1
Really well explained thread. . S&F for that
But if the theory is correct what would significantly change in our understanding of the universe?

Well for one we would have to figure out why all our technology is broken, since EU theory states Solar Winds have a positive charge, yet as far as we can tell they are 100% neutral, and it's 100% impossible for them to be positive.

In case you didn't understand .. it's 100% impossible for EU theory to be correct.

Also I can't find the video you refer to.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Thank You for the fast replay and the explanation to my question.

Thill
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Thank You for the fast replay and the explanation to my question.

No problem. Most of EU theory starts off like this ....

While the standard model is great for 99% of predictions, 1% isn't explained. That means 100% of the standard model is wrong.

When you start off saying I am right because they are wrong, it's a bad sign. If the EU theory was right, they wouldn't have to keep looking for something wrong in another model, they would simply keep making predictions with their model and the proof would follow. The problem is that the EU model is not predictive, and when people try to make predictions based on it, they end up being wrong.