It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Recurring Odd Shape Of Comets

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist



No discharging "vent" has ever been directly imaged with close-up pictures


Not true.

Comet Hartley 2 has been imaged showing jets and their locations...






edit on 6-8-2014 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist


Because EU theory says the Sun is surrounded by an electric field, the oblong orbit of comets will cause them to acquire a more negative charge while farther away from the Sun. As they quickly approach the Sun, the difference in charge between the surrounding space plasma and the comet will cause it to rapidly discharge in order to maintain a charge balance.


So why do some comets stop doing this? You have explained nothing.



Well I gave you an hour and a half long video to watch that explains it all, so if you don't want to watch it, I'm not sure how that's my fault.

Some comets stop doing this because there's simply not enough of a charge difference to cause discharging.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist



No discharging "vent" has ever been directly imaged with close-up pictures


Not true.

Comet Hartley 2 has been imaged showing jets and their locations...







They aren't close up images.

You can't see the supposed holes in the rock.

In fact, those images show a virtual white-out because the discharges are producing their own light. Ice doesn't produce it's own light. See how the discharges are glowing even in the shadows?






edit on 8/6/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Well you have just disproven your theory because there are astroids with elliptical orbit and there have also been found comets that stay in the astroid belt.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Well you have just disproven your theory because there are astroids with elliptical orbit and there have also been found comets that stay in the astroid belt.


It's all based on how charged the object is. If the composition of some does not allow them to acquire enough of a negative charge while at their farthest distance, they will not discharge as they approach.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Well you have just disproven your theory because there are astroids with elliptical orbit and there have also been found comets that stay in the astroid belt.


It's all based on how charged the object is. If the composition of some does not allow them to acquire enough of a negative charge while at their farthest distance, they will not discharge as they approach.



And by what mechanism is this negative electrical charge acquired?



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: BGTM90

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Well you have just disproven your theory because there are astroids with elliptical orbit and there have also been found comets that stay in the astroid belt.


It's all based on how charged the object is. If the composition of some does not allow them to acquire enough of a negative charge while at their farthest distance, they will not discharge as they approach.



And by what mechanism is this negative electrical charge acquired?


It's acquired from the surrounding electrical environment.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Thats not a mechanism that is a vague explanation. How does the surrounding electrical environment acquire its charge?



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Thats not a mechanism that is a vague explanation. How does the surrounding electrical environment acquire its charge?


EU theory says the Sun emits an electrical field.

It's all in the video.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Thats still not a mechanism by which a comet acquirers a negative electrical charge. So the sun emits a negative electrical charge? where does the positive charge coming from to cause discharge on the comet? I don't have the time or ability to watch a youtube video and I don't really find them a good source for scientific facts.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

That would be from the sunlight. Plus, ice has a high albedo.

But of course, they're electrical discharges, and they only discharge when close to the sun.

How convenient..



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I expect the Rosetta mission to "discover" that the comet is a rare kind with virtually no gas escaping from anywhere. Lo and behold it's being ionized right from the rock itself.

It won't fit the prevailing model so it will be classified as a rare exception.

Stay tuned for the answer.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Thats still not a mechanism by which a comet acquirers a negative electrical charge. So the sun emits a negative electrical charge? where does the positive charge coming from to cause discharge on the comet? I don't have the time or ability to watch a youtube video and I don't really find them a good source for scientific facts.


Well you can deny this is possible till your blue in the face, but experiments prove otherwise. I just handed you a wiki link that explains how a surface can be charged by a surrounding electric field.

If you don't want to watch the video, I'm not going to explain all 90 minutes of material in a forum post for you.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I'm not denying anything I'm just asking you questions to better understand a theory you seem so sure is right. I asked you one simple question by what mechanism does a comet acquire a negative electric charge. You have not answered my question and keep referring to a YouTube video that I am unable to watch. And your failure to answer my one question. Shows that you either don't understand the theory yourself or that the theory has some intrinsitc flaws



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko has already been imaged with a tail in 2003..

www.observatorij.org...

So it has a history of out gassing.

No sign of it from Rosetta though, probably because it's nearly out as far as Jupiter..



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist


EU theory predicts the Rosetta lander may have problems sticking to the surface of Chury because it will not have any ice to drill into. It will have to drill into solid rock, which will probably cause the lander to bounce off the surface once they attempt to drill into it.


If this prediction fails, will you be willing to admit that EU has no merit?



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Comet Churyumov–Gerasimenko has already been imaged with a tail in 2003..

www.observatorij.org...

So it has a history of out gassing.

No sign of it from Rosetta though, probably because it's nearly out as far as Jupiter..





There is a sign of activity from Rosetta, in this overexposed image from August 2nd: www.esa.int...

So, if' it's an electric discharge rather than sublimating volatiles, this should seriously affect Rosetta and the lander.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

I stand corrected.

Thanks for the link.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist


EU theory predicts the Rosetta lander may have problems sticking to the surface of Chury because it will not have any ice to drill into. It will have to drill into solid rock, which will probably cause the lander to bounce off the surface once they attempt to drill into it.


If this prediction fails, will you be willing to admit that EU has no merit?



How many predictions have failed for the standard theory?

The standard theory used to think comets were melting snow balls.

Then we imaged a comet nucleus and found that it was pitch black.

Then the standard theory used to think comets were dirty melting snowballs.

Then we looked closer and found comets with no ice on their surface at all.

Now the standard theory says that comets hold all the ice beneath their surface and discharged through holes in the rock.

Failure after failure after failure.

If the probe doesn't stick, it goes to show how hard the surface is. If the probe does stick, it may be because a layer of dust provides enough traction for it to hold, or possibly because the drills were able to penetrate the rock. There's no way to know for sure. The probe not sticking would simply be one more data point that supports the EU theory out of many.



posted on Aug, 6 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

I'm not sure which is worse, electric shock or bombardment by micro meteorites?




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join