Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

I found your source .. why are you posting a 2004 article when I am posting 2013 information? Is that what you need to do in order to support EC theory, go back in time and ignore all the latest research?

reply to post by vind21


Here's another post on ATS that relates to C2:-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The spectrum of Comet ISON is dominated by a green spectral line from diatomic carbon (C2). This substance is common in the atmospheres of comets, and it glows green when illuminated by sunlight in the near-vacuum of space. The spectrum also shows a weaker but still significant blue emission line from C2. Comet ISON's mixture of green and blue light gives it the aqua hue seen in many long-exposure photographs. Finally, the spectrum reveals a contribution from atomic oxygen. This element is familiar to readers of spaceweather.com as a source of green light in auroras.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Yeah its best for everyone if we ignore all previous information before date X as anything before date X is automaticaly false.

I suppose we will just toss out quantum theory as differing scales don't efffect physics right?

What ever I already agreed with you on your point a few posts ago, maybe you missed that? Its not like I am trying to hide my sources. I said its from thunderbolts which makes it ez to find I've properly cited my past posts I'm on a cell phone makes it kinda hard.

I feel like I'm arguing with a child about who has the cooler transformer toy.

reply to post by vind21


lol , then your Avatar is a pretty good representation of how you must be feeling.

vind21
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Yeah its best for everyone if we ignore all previous information before date X as anything before date X is automaticaly false.

You post a 2004 article to try to refute 2013 latest breaking research. As I posted when I sourced the 2013 research, it ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS they had in 2004. You say DST can't answer X. I post the answer to X. You then go back and post something 10 years old saying they don't have an answer to X 10 years ago. As I said, keep ignoring the fact I posted the answer already.

I suppose we will just toss out quantum theory as differing scales don't efffect physics right?

.... please stop talking

What ever I already agreed with you on your point a few posts ago, maybe you missed that? Its not like I am trying to hide my sources. I said its from thunderbolts which makes it ez to find I've properly cited my past posts I'm on a cell phone makes it kinda hard.

I feel like I'm arguing with a child about who has the cooler transformer toy.

edit on 21-11-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)

Thunderbolts predicted Deep Impact would find solid comets with NO ICY MATERIAL. My sources are NEW, yours are OLD. The OLD questions are answered by the NEW research I posted for you to read. Thunderbolts was wrong, Deep Impact found Icy material on every comet and answered many of the questions regarding aspects of comets that did not have a good explanation.

Stop telling me 10 years ago they had questions, and start looking at the answers to those questions which I have posted.

Ice rich AREA....?


www.nasa.gov...




You're the one that suggested that "scale is meaningless" when it very clearly is not. Especialy when you are talking about IONs.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


So, just to be clear, you are saying protons are not positively charged right? The solar wind is charged particles and plenty of protons.

InverseLookingGlass
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

So, just to be clear, you are saying protons are not positively charged right? The solar wind is charged particles and plenty of protons.

.... you clearly have little to no understanding. I suggest you do some reading on whether solar winds are positively charged, and stick to actual science. Then feel free to post sources that show solar winds are positively charged.

vind21

edit on 21-11-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)

Ice rich AREA....?


www.nasa.gov...

edit on 21-11-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)

Yes, that is the "ice" that thunderbolts predicted would not be there. I am not sure what you are questioning.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Im questioning if that could really be considered and Ice rich enviroment based on 3 locations on a half scanned body.

Thunderbolts said no such thing, they said abundant ice and water. Which was not found. SOME was found which was expected.

Mercury has SOME ice, the MOON has some ICE. Venus has comet tail, none of these things define a comet.

The big argument is around water ice and hydroxl production right? Ice is very unspecific as the post on the first page of this thread laid out.

Pinkorchid
reply to post by wildespace

So when the Comet gets close enough to the solar winds from the sun , starts to heat up and sputtering may occur at an ever increasing rate which releases the frozen oxygen trapped in the rocky Comet creating gas outbursts.

How do you know there is frozen oxygen in the comet? As far as I know no spacecraft has visited this comet. Just because there may be "some oxygen" in the tail does not mean that frozen diatomic oxygen is in the comet. Possible sources are iron oxide and silicon dioxide. The Earth was made from asteroids. So asteroids will contain elements common to the Earth. Deep Impact has suggested that comets are not frozen snowballs but simply asteroids. The Earth's atmosphere was created by reactions in the molten rock that made up the Earth. It started with no atmosphere. We have most of our oxygen because photosynthetic organisms converted one gas, CO2, to another gas, O2. Proton, electron, and photon bombardment from the sun is causing reactions within the rock of comets on the surface, producing atmosphere just as happened with the Earth, Mars, Venus, and Mercury. When they leave the inner solar system the production of atmosphere decreases. They don't have enough gravity to hold onto an atmosphere, and they don't have a molten core to produce one when they lose it. So they only produce a substantial atmosphere from interactions on their outer surface when they get close to the sun.

vind21
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Im questioning if that could really be considered and Ice rich enviroment based on 3 locations on a half scanned body.

I don't know why you are questioning anything, the results are right there. The information gathered by deep impact 100% supports DST, and answered a lot of questions that didn't have answers before. Nothing in Deep Impact support EC, and the claims made by EC theorists of what Deep Impact would find were 100% wrong.

During the mission extension, the EPOXI observations of comet Hartley 2 showed that the comet's smooth waist was emitting pure water

This is actual data, not some guy in a chair making guesses.

During the mission extension, the EPOXI observations of comet Hartley 2 showed that the comet's smooth waist was emitting pure water, while the small end was emitting excess carbon dioxide, regardless of time of day. This was a clear sign that chemical diversity was the important factor in a comet's chemical makeup.

....wha....? They really said that, I've read the link. I don't know that I agree with the interpretation of the data. That is not a crime, they are still making guesses. I fail to see anything that specifically refutes that a comets tail is an electrical property.

They found pure water coming from stars to.... what am I to make of that?

Star Water

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

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?

As conventional DST has it, coma and tail form as a result of sublimation of icy layers at 750,000 km, or 5 AU from the Sun. Jupiter is 816,520,800 km or just over 5.4 AU. That means we only see a coma and tail after the comet passes Jupiter on its way toward the Sun, according to DST. See the source for details on edge of that zone the comet begins sublimating.SOURCE
Additionally, ultraviolet radiation from the sun causes gases in the coma to fluoresce.

But ISON was between Saturn and Jupiter when NASA’s Swift spacecraft observed the comet to be “already very active”!
SOURCE

Despite still being in the outer Solar System and a long distance from the Sun, ISON is already quite “variable” said A’Hearn, and it’s actively spewing material and ‘outgassing”.

The tail extending from the nucleus was already more than 40,000 miles (64,400 kilometers) long on Jan. 18. It’s a science mystery as to why and the Deep Impact team aims to try and determine why.

- Deep Impact Principal Investigator Prof. Michael A’Hearn of the University of Maryland.
SOURCE

So far there has been no conclusive explanation offered as to why ISON became active outside of the expected zone. Why? Because DST cannot explain why this could happen. However, the EC model can!
See points in above post and refer to the EC PDF and video I have linked above.

ISON was not the first to display comet and tail before entering the zone prescribed by DST. The Great Comet Hale-Bopp in 1997 developed a coma 70 kilometers in diameter before it passed Jupiter. Comet 17P/Holmes in 2007 brightened hugely from +17 to +2.8 in just two days as it moved away from the Sun.
SOURCE
NB The lower the magnitude number the brighter is the comet.

Those observed comet outbursts are entirely explainable under the EC model, but they cannot be explained using DST.

And then in the same post you say this -
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

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.

I am interested in a theory that explains how things work that is all. So long as DST proposed to explain comets then it was fine. But when the facts don't match the model we need to revise our model and maybe the entire theory. There is nothing wrong with doing that. Science works because it can and does do this often.

DST does not explain this observed phenomena at all. But I will let Bruce Gary do the talking, If you prefer simply go to the site I link to and enter the quotes using the find function. Bruce Gary suggests the “dramatic” outburst beginning November 13 was due to the comet fragmenting so some degree and “pieces of nucleus material” breaking off and “exposing fresh surface area to solar illumination”.

However Gary finds evidence for a break up of the comet to have taken place to be “unconvincing”.

There is much discussion about the comet breaking-up ~ Nov 13 or 14, causing more surface area to be exposed and thereby accounting for a brightening. The only observational evidence for this seems to be spatial structure image enhancement, showing distinct bright spots. I remain unconvinced...

The latest report from Gary has this comment:

I still claim that there is no evidence for "break-up," which improves the probability that the comet will survive perihelion passage (but perihelion survival is not assured).

SOURCE

BTW Re your most recent post.
The EC model does include the possibility of ice on the surface of comets. It does not exclude ice.

reply to post by Tallone


So basically if any part of the tail hits the sky will burn lol...

The Bot

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

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

Me two I coulnt find it anymore it was very interesting they showed three different comets that when were on this plunge course the sun hot a flare at them , I don't remember where I saw this but I thought a member made a thread around that maybe someone else did see it too?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Short electromagnetic waves carry enough energy to eject electrons from matter, in particular ultra-violet light and x-rays. A near-vacuum is necessary for any such procedure to be effective, because in ordinary air free electrons collide with molecules, lose their energy and are recaptured. In most of space however matter is so rarefied and encounters are so few that free electrons persist for a long time.

As we climb upwards through the atmosphere, space conditions begin at about 70 km or 45 miles, where electrons liberated by sunlight last long enough to allow air to conduct electricity to a significant degree. That is the beginning of the ionosphere, a layer with enough free electrons (and ions) to play an important role in radio communications. At sunset the electrons of the lowest part of the ionosphere are quickly recaptured and that layer disappears. However, at about 200 km (120 miles), where the density of free electrons is the greatest (up to a million in each cubic centimeter), collisions are so few that the ionosphere persists day and night.

Positive Ions

When one or more electons are torn off an atom, the remaining atom becomes positively charged and is known as a positive ion. Positive ions carry most of the energy and electrical current in the magnetosphere, and are the main component of both the inner and the outer radiation belts. Fast ions are also produced by the Sun as a continuous outflow in all directions, known as the solar wind, which initiates and powers magnetic storms and similar phenomena.
The simplest atom is the one of hydrogen, with just one electron. Tearing off that electron gives the simplest ion, the proton. The proton has a close relative, the neutron--nearly the same mass, but no electric charge--and together these two form the basic building blocks from which the nuclei of all atoms are constructed.

Most of the fast ions in the magnetosphere and in the solar wind are protons. In the ionosphere one would expect to see ions of oxygen or nitrogen, the main atmospheric gases, and in fact most ions there are O+, oxygen atoms which have lost one electron (out of eight). Some O+ ions end up in the radiation belt, greatly energized by magnetic storms.

www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Pinkorchid


Did you even read your own source? It proves me right and you wrong.

Ions and electrons in space are usually intimately mixed, in a "soup" containing equal amounts of positive and negative charges.

Equal amounts of positive and negative charges .. charge NEUTRAL. Thank you for proving me right.

reply to post by 0bserver1


In a dramatic fashion: (music wise) here's an example of what your talking about. Its circumstantial evidence of course but it's certainly curios, just like coronal hole correlation to some earth quakes etc etc.






You can also see that topic discussed on S0's daily cast when it happens. NASA always takes the live feed down and chops a few seconds out, wonder why.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


emphasis on this :-

usually intimately mixed

We have two vastly different strengths of fields meeting each other. Sun/ Ison.

I do not know whether this would affect this interaction or not, but I'm willing to theorize that it would make a difference.