Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

If comets are dry chunks of rock, why is ISON losing water (about three tons per second)?
groups.yahoo.com...
www.slate.com... (see fact #9)

reply to post by wildespace


That first source you give is more specific. "Two jets are now visible in OH band (coming from water dissociation)".

The second source you gave presumes he is measuring water emission. Then he goes on to underline it is water by comparing the quantity lost to the content of a swimming pool. That for a science writer is cavalier to say the least and to my mind the kind of 'analysis' that approaches the utterly inane.

There is no requirement for OH to originate from water inside the nucleus of a comet or on the surface in the form of ice. BTW remember it has been noted already on this thread that ice on the comet surface is not excluded by the EC model.

You do not have to obtain OH from the action of solar radiation. It can also be produced by an electrochemical process.

The electric field near the comet nucleus is expected if a comet is a highly negatively charged body, relative to the solar wind. Cathode sputtering of the comet nucleus will strip atoms and molecules directly from solid rock and charge them negatively. So the presence of negative oxygen and other ions close to the comet nucleus is to be expected. Negative oxygen ions will be accelerated away from the comet in the cathode jets and combine with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical at some distance from the nucleus

SOURCE

Tallone
reply to post by wildespace

 

That first source you give is more specific. "Two jets are now visible in OH band (coming from water dissociation)".

The second source you gave presumes he is measuring water emission. Then he goes on to underline it is water by comparing the quantity lost to the content of a swimming pool. That for a science writer is cavalier to say the least and to my mind the kind of 'analysis' that approaches the utterly inane.

There is no requirement for OH to originate from water inside the nucleus of a comet or on the surface in the form of ice. BTW remember it has been noted already on this thread that ice on the comet surface is not excluded by the EC model.

You do not have to obtain OH from the action of solar radiation. It can also be produced by an electrochemical process.

The electric field near the comet nucleus is expected if a comet is a highly negatively charged body, relative to the solar wind. Cathode sputtering of the comet nucleus will strip atoms and molecules directly from solid rock and charge them negatively. So the presence of negative oxygen and other ions close to the comet nucleus is to be expected. Negative oxygen ions will be accelerated away from the comet in the cathode jets and combine with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical at some distance from the nucleus

SOURCE

edit on 22-11-2013 by Tallone because: (no reason given)

The next fatal flaw in the Electric Universe theory: plasma at thousands of degrees is supposedly capable of being decelerated and cooled down abruptly by a weak magnetic field, creating atoms out of alpha and beta radiation! If someone could do this in a laboratory on Earth, they would receive an enormous grant to develop an interstellar ram-jet! EU theory consists of words strung together without reference to the physical phenomena they supposedly explain.

Tallone
Here is one for those on the dogwatch tonight.

Take a look at the video below and see what an X flare does to ISON when it slams into it. This is from SECCHI showing both Comet ISON and Comet Encke. This is the X flare that smacked into ISON on the 19th of this month. The action begins at 1:33 into the video. The tail and coma of ISON are stripped, and what you have left is the nucleus.

Points to be taken from this effective video by BPEarthWatch.

1. ISON does not fragment even though the flare is so powerful it rips the coma and tail away!
2. The nucleus is revealed and it looks to be ten times bigger at least than the 5 km most commonly estimated by astronomers working with the DST approach!
3. That nucleus does indeed look round (my observation here and supporting the observation of CGM above)

Now me those SECCHI images of ISON stripped by the X flare provide supporting evidence for the DST.

1. The coma and tail are extremely rarified, as is the solar wind. The nucleus is a more or less solid body. The solar wind has about three protons per cubic centimeter, making it a near perfect vacuum!

2. The size of the nucleus on a CCD of this type is a reflection of how bright it is, not how large. It is too small for its actual shape and size to be resolved.

3. Again, you cannot tell anything about the nucleus' size, only how many pixels it triggers.

Everything in this video, except the attempts by the editor to distort what is actually happens, is perfectly consistent with conventional theory.

Ask yourself, would an icy composite withstand that shock? Consider also Comet ISON has withstood the direct impacts of X flares 3 times so far in less than five days.

The "shock" consists of a few charged particles per cubic centimeter blowing pas at 300 km/hour, accompanied by X-rays. Nothing at all like a terrestrial hurricane. What you call the "DST" explains the observed behavior much better than EU, which implies that one should be able to see lightning bolts flashing.

Looking good for the EC model.

On the contrary: EU does not predict anything observed that "DST" doesn't, whereas it does predict things that are not observed.

I guess the whole debate about EU and EC boils down to this: what evidence do we have that the Sun is positively chrged, and the outer solar system is negatively charged? What could have created this difference of charge? Have we got reliable scinetific measurements that this is so?

Man, I thought this dirty snowball theory was laid to rest by now. Despite occamsrazor04 assertions, deep impact findings did not support the DST and thunderbolts did not predict that ZERO water would be found.

Source

ollowing pointers from Wallace Thornhill, the leading proponent of the electric comet model, the Thunderbolts crew registered a series of predictions for Deep Impact on July 3, the most specific and detailed scientific predictions offered by any group in anticipation of the event. On the matter of water, we stated:

“An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the “dirty snowball” hypothesis) is unlikely”. Though this was never a deal killer for the electric model, the absence of sufficient water in a comet is a deal killer for the dirty snowball model. We wrote: “In fact none of the electrical theorists will be surprised if the impactor exposes a subsurface with little or no ices”.

The Deep Impact team had hoped that, by excavating material from the comet's interior, they could find the one thing the standard model required. “SWAS operators were puzzled by the lack of increased water vapor from Tempel 1”. In fact, an observation from the Odin telescope in Sweden found that the relative abundance of water decreased after the impact, due to the injection of quantities of dry dust, not water.

On February 2, 2006, the official Deep Impact site, posted the headline, “Deep Impact Finds Water Ice on Comet” ...
As reported in the journal New Scientist, the water ice “is present in surprisingly small amounts”. By all accounts, the surface of Tempel 1 presented no better than 0.5 percent of the icy surface needed to account for the supposed watery output of Tempel. (The exceedingly small and thin “icy” areas were about 94 percent dirt).

But surely other comets are dirty snowballs and this was an inconvenient exeption, right?

But as best we can tell, until very recently there had been no public acknowledgment by NASA that none of the prior comet visits (Halley, Borrelly, Wild 2) had revealed surface water! (See below)

One other possibility for saving the snowball theory of comets was to observe the fragments of comets that have disintegrated. When comet Shoemaker-Levy-9 broke apart, astronomers reasoned that the fractured nucleus would expose fresh ices that would sublimate furiously. So several ground-based telescopes and the Hubble Space Telescope trained their spectroscopes on the tails of the fragments of SL-9, looking for traces of volatile gases. None of the gases were found. When Comet Linear disintegrated in front of their eyes, astronomers were not just shocked by the event (a comet exploding many millions of miles from the Sun), they were astonished to find virtually no water in the immediate debris.

And, if you are really interested in reading more...
Where's the water part 2
Where's the water part 3

Take a look at this. It's very short.



Does this show out-gassing separate from a coma tail? If I understand what Im looking at well, we have a comet heading away from the sun, with a tail assumed to be facing away from the sun, traveling into it's own out-gassing but not visibly collecting any material to form the coma and tail.

I feel like there are so many contradictions in this video that I must be misinterpreting what Im looking at, any opinions?

Roughly 38 million miles from Earth and traveling at a relative velocity of 140,000 miles per hour, the speedy Comet C/2007 N3 Lulin has caught our imaginations in a big way during the beginning months of the International Year of Astronomy. Right now, Comet Lulin has already sped past the Sun, slipped by stately Saturn from our point of view and is on a parabolic trajectory heading out from our solar system. This means it will never come back…

So if I am reading that right, this shows a comet beyond Saturn's orbit fully active.

Thanks to Joe Brimacombe, right now one of the most fascinating aspects of studying Comet Lulin as been watching its activity as it spews a hydroxyl/cyanogen gas cloud spanning over 250,000 miles across the starry background. It’s being fed by an out gassing rate of 800 gallons of “water” each second – that’s enough liquid to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool in less than 15 minutes.

So from that description you can infer that by "water" they don't really mean H2O they did not have the gear to make that determination. Water is inferred by hydroxil production as this was from 2009.

Its strange orbital geometry with a small inclination, has put it nearly on the same plane as the our solar system for a short time – giving us a long-lived anti-tail appearance as the ion tail and dust tail fan out from either side of the Oort cloud visitor. Solar wind? Plasma? We could debate for far longer on what’s caused what we can see that Lulin is going to hang around for…

Read more: www.universetoday.com...

About Tammy Plotner
Tammy is a professional astronomy author, President Emeritus of Warren Rupp Observatory and retired Astronomical League Executive Secretary. She’s received a vast number of astronomy achievement and observing awards, including the Great Lakes Astronomy Achievement Award, RG Wright Service Award and the first woman astronomer to achieve Comet Hunter's Gold Status.

reply to post by vind21

So if I am reading that right, this shows a comet beyond Saturn's orbit fully active.

You are not reading this correctly. The Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun; the comet was only 38 million miles from us, putting it well within the orbit of Mars.

You are not reading this correctly. The Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun; the comet was only 38 million miles from us, putting it well within the orbit of Mars.

So then we will just assume that the picture was out of date at the time of posting the image was taken well within the acepted active zone and was not posted until it was "past saturn" so the image does not reflect the conditions of the comet at the time of posting. That was what I was figuring they were trying to say.

wildespace
I guess the whole debate about EU and EC boils down to this: what evidence do we have that the Sun is positively chrged, and the outer solar system is negatively charged? What could have created this difference of charge? Have we got reliable scinetific measurements that this is so?

Wild I know you to be a very intelligent person as we have had a few back and forths before. If you recall I was the one who posted the thunderbolts EC documentary the day it was released. I was assisting thunderbolts who at the time were looking for counter point thesis to their video. You can see the thread here I believe you were the last one to post to that thread anyhow.

Electric Universe Strikes again - Comets destroy the standard model

It was a rather civil and constructive thread, despite my overly zealous title

Did you see my post about referring to the wiki about plasma's earlier in this thread?

I too take issue with the claims of a positive inner solar system and a negative outer solar system. All the evidence we have says that space is neutral in most cases (exceptions are inside a nuebla or anywhere that's not "empty" space), and rightly so!

There is a cevat, however, complex plasmas forming double layers. This idea is important to understanding what we see in comets. Electrically neutral plasmas form double layers and can still conduct electricity over great distances between objects as long as their is sufficient density. This is a proven mechanic that does allow for these kinds of interactions to be possible while under the magnetic influence of the sun or "inside the heliosphere".

Infact it would SEEM that in order for most electromagnetic interactions to take place in complex system you need an electrical neutral environment or a net neutral system. Your body spends ALOT of energy to maintain a balanced PH. Electro-chemical processes and the absorption of the nutrients require this kind of environment to pass ions between molecules in order for your body to absorb nutrients and create new chemicals. I would suggest that similar processes take place in our solar system on larger scales as well.



Most of the EU videos on youtube do not lay out the mechanic for plasma physics, they simply say positive here negative there, it is not an accurate representation of the physics involved, this is known. You have alot of plasma physicists in the EU world. The primer fields a documentary about a theory from a CERN employee shows what happens to objects in an electrically neutral environment being acted upon by a magnetic field at range, it's pretty interesting to see the objects snap to place in certain orbital distances.

Does anyone here speak English? I'm so lost.

In a nutshell, according to the OP, comet ISON is going to electrify the universe will emit the sounds of Pink Floyd throughout the stars. Much like Bill & Ted's music was supposed to save the universe and bring harmony, in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.

Be excellent to each other !

reply to post by SMR


But can we party on, dudes?

RicketyCricket
But can we party on, dudes?

Dude, If we can find our car it's on!

Now that I mention that...my car has an electric ignition. Think I'll quote myself here:

We exist in an electric universe, on an electric earth, in an electrically modulated system we call the human body in which we conjure electrically charged thoughts.

It seems as if electromagnetism may relate to all of our greatest profound philosophical, physical, and metaphysical questions and mysteries.

My use of "EU" in the above is meant broadly, not necessarily specifically. But, yeah: EM seems to run through it all...and in the most pertinent of ways. Hit the switch and everything fades to black.

Come to think of it, my guitar is electric, too. EM is even responsible for Rock n Roll. That is way profound. Woah. I just blew my own mind. That settles it. Rock on, Garth, the universe IS electric!

Hit it Electric Light Orchestra!

i know nothing of astrophysics.. the bulk of my knowledge regarding this comet comes from all of the threads that Cheesey has created over the past few months...

so... as far as i can make out our current scientific model explains comets as being balls of dust and ice that are on continuous orbit through our solar system/galaxy (not quite sure which term is correct)

Comet Ison is being used as an example to boost the EC model because our current understanding of comets fail to predict the movements of Ison throughout our solar system/galaxy.. is this correct or am i totally not getting it? if anyone can enlighten me on this subject i would appreciate it because i find it all fascinating..

P.S does anybody else think the total lack of media interest in this once in a lifetime event extremely disconcerting... they are more than happy to tell me how big Jay-z's diamonds are or what colour of thong Miley cyrus happens to be wearing on any given day but a comet making it's way through our solar system doesn't even get mentioned?? odd!

Ph03n1x
P.S does anybody else think the total lack of media interest in this once in a lifetime event extremely disconcerting...

Its not really a "once in a lifetime" event.
Comets pass through and around our solar system all the time. Anyone with a big backyard telescope can see at least one or two on any night in history. Usually more. 22 in one night is the most I'm personally aware of.

And as for comet ISON, it is only newsworthy because a year ago it was thought to be spectacular and sensationally described as "brighter than the moon". Now we know its not so much, its a very ordinary comet indeed.

If comet ISON had been discovered a few months ago when its real (fainter) brightness was known, there would not be a single thread about it on ATS. Not a single one. And if discovered a few months ago, it might merely have made a tiny paragraph on the bottom of page 12 of a newspaper.

RicketyCricket
Does anyone here speak English? I'm so lost.

I was lost, but now I'm in love with a couple of members in this thread.

Outstanding discussions here. ATS still has it's more positive points.

Flagged a couple of days ago.

reply to post by alfa1


I see... thanks for explaining it..

FYI when i said once in a lifetime i was referring to the fact that comet ison will not be returning to our little corner of the universe for a very very long time... i wasn't trying to sensationalize i promise



thanks again for clearing that up for me

alfa1

Ph03n1x
P.S does anybody else think the total lack of media interest in this once in a lifetime event extremely disconcerting...

Its not really a "once in a lifetime" event.
Comets pass through and around our solar system all the time. Anyone with a big backyard telescope can see at least one or two on any night in history. Usually more. 22 in one night is the most I'm personally aware of.

And as for comet ISON, it is only newsworthy because a year ago it was thought to be spectacular and sensationally described as "brighter than the moon". Now we know its not so much, its a very ordinary comet indeed.

If comet ISON had been discovered a few months ago when its real (fainter) brightness was known, there would not be a single thread about it on ATS. Not a single one. And if discovered a few months ago, it might merely have made a tiny paragraph on the bottom of page 12 of a newspaper.

I have a big backyard telescope and I don't see anything quite as spectacular as ISON in the sky at the moment, mainly for the cloud - but even so I am out there often scanning the skies and this is the first time I have heard of a comet giving a tail / coma to a planet, Mars... I remember Hale Bopp and Halley's but I don't recall the same info as ISON floating around at the time (and I was too young to dig around for it, so maybe that's why).

Granted I am no astrophysicist but even without all the hype in the media why are so many people talking about it here on ATS if it's so 'ordinary'?

I don't understand why we'd all waste our time if it's just another comet...

reply to post by Ph03n1x


Comet ISON has been showing a number of anomalies that mean it should be of keen interest to anyone interested in comets, and yes, also to the rest of us even if we couldn't care less. More than that I cannot say.

Except…

that astronomers have already been pointed to a number of features about ISON they find difficult to explain. The reason they are anomalous to those commentators is because they are not explainable under DST the model they advocate. These anomalies do not fit with the characteristics exhibited by comets under the conventional DS model.

It is these anomalies displayed by ISON that is making the comet one huge obvious outlier for DST. But you know what? The EC model can explain what otherwise seem to be contradictions between what astronomers are saying about ISON and what it is being observed to be actually happening. That's why ISON is of keen interest to those advocating the EU model, and why I have called ISON in the title of this thread an 'Electric comet'!

There are also some speculative points about ISON I raise on this thread the other day. I am wanting to draw attention to ISON phenomena that seem to require more explaining that DST can provide.

And there is another aspect to this. When people attempt to discuss those features (and these are the REAL anomalies about ISON) others advocating DST react in kneejerk fashion to silence the discussion before it begins. These real anomalies I am talking about are the discrepancies found in the images observed and data analysed, AND what is being said and not said by 'the experts' (who happen to be advocating DST of course).

Watch the 4 videos I posted on page 7.

I posted them because I thought they all make their points very well. I will not be making any further comments regarding those. People can make their own minds up.

Your two posts draw attention to all of this and that is the reason I starred both of them on this page.

reply to post by crzayfool

 

I have a big backyard telescope and I don't see anything quite as spectacular as ISON in the sky at the moment, mainly for the cloud - but even so I am out there often scanning the skies and this is the first time I have heard of a comet giving a tail / coma to a planet, Mars... I remember Hale Bopp and Halley's but I don't recall the same info as ISON floating around at the time (and I was too young to dig around for it, so maybe that's why).

Granted I am no astrophysicist but even without all the hype in the media why are so many people talking about it here on ATS if it's so 'ordinary'?

I don't understand why we'd all waste our time if it's just another comet...

If is just another comet why then would astronomers of the calibre of Gary Bruce be taking such a very keen interest in it?

Why would he bother to set up a page on his site dedicated to ISON?
www.brucegary.net...