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.
Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
reply to post by ngchunter
Edited original, it was comet Tempel One, apologies for quick research.
EMM
"Ok, well Tempel 1 was hit with an impactor, not a lander. They intentionally smashed it to try to create a visible plume they could analyze."
Originally posted by ngchunter
Originally posted by daz__
Then why did Stardust return a bunch of physical comet grains from the tail? If EU was right it should have come back empty-handed.
[edit on 31-10-2008 by ngchunter]
Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
Very true, NASA where worrying about the impact not going to be big enough,
where as PC's claimed that the impact would be a large reaction, between the 2. Needled to say, the 'discharge' before the impact was so violent, it knocked some of the sensors offline for a spell,
Originally posted by ngchunter
A)Can you prove a "discharge" happened before impact? The last image the impactor was to have sent was received properly
B)What sensors were knocked offline? The observing probe functioned just fine.
Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
I believe the bright flash happened just before the impact, although I'd guess there would be no way to confirm this, it would have been hardly noticable and as far as I know, NASA didn't know it would have been the size it was, they thought it would of been a small plume of ice/debris as the impactor hit, they were trying to see the crater that the impactor made, this would have given an idea of the composition of the comet.
It functioned fine in the end, but they missed the initial impact, due to the energy given off by the 'discharge'.
May I ask you, what do you think caused this enormous 'flash'? NASA believes comets are composed of ice, what could have caused this flash?
May I ask you, what do you think caused this enormous 'flash'? NASA believes comets are composed of ice, what could have caused this flash?
Originally posted by ngchunter
Originally posted by defcon5
Actually, yes… We have landed on Venus:
Venera-9
like in 1975…
That was a Soviet probe, not a NASA probe.
Originally posted by daz__
well direction of the tail to me is very important..
as the comet approaches the sun the tail is millions of miles behind it. this gives a casual observer the idea that something is coming off the comet.. you said the heat coming from the sun is exciting the comet forcing all this debris off the comet and out about 40 million miles into space..
ok
now the comet reaches perhelion (closest point to sun) and passes by the sun the tail changes direction.. the tail is now in front of the comet.. is the comet flying through the tail..
Originally posted by daz__
i picked the part of your statement that i thought didn't add up..
i did not say anything about your theory of heat..
i picked the part you said where the comet is going away from the sun and the tail dissapears coz it's getting colder..
Comets lose their tails when they head away from the sun into colder deep space.
Originally posted by daz__
i don't know exactly.. all i know is you have a stream of posative protons coming from the sun.. this creates an x ray spike and as i understand the electric comet model you get a stream of negative ions coming in from the far side to neutralise the charging body.. correct me if i'm wrong.. i'm sure you will.. this stream of negative ions are what i understand to be the tail..
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by daz__
Yeah.... So?
You have officially confused me now as to the point you are trying to make. To me it looks as though you are saying that the heat of the sun somehow controls the direction of the comets path?
I have yet to find a real astronomer who believes in the Electric Universe Theory.
Objects in space a electrically neutral, which we know as we have accumulated tons of space rock over the years. If there was any truth to them being electrical in nature, then you could make a battery out of a chunk of meteoroid that has fallen back to Earth.
As a matter of fact, the Earth itself, being a heavenly body, would produce a positive flow of electricity rather then being a perfect grounding medium.
So you could then in theory go outside, stick a wire into the ground, and draw electrical energy right from the surface of the planet.
In reality, the Earth is just the opposite, and we run wires into it because it is neutral and gladly accepts a positive charge.
Originally posted by daz__
perhaps you should be listening to physists instead of astronomers..
after all most astronomers dont have a grounding in physics.. hell astronomy is not even a bonafied science..
Source
In the United States, a typical astronomer has a Ph.D. in astronomy or physics. This can take a long time - six years beyond a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree is common. After earning a B.S., graduate school courses take another two to three years. By the end of the second year, course work should be almost complete and a thesis advisor is selected. At this point, a "qualifying exam" is necessary for the school to determine if students are capable of proceeding with the Ph.D. program. Specifying a thesis topic and beginning the dissertation is next. Completing the research, writing, and defense for a dissertation can easily take another three years. After earning a Ph.D., it is common to take a postdoctoral position, a temporary appointment which allows an astronomer to concentrate on his or her own research for about two to three years. These days, most people take a second postdoc or even a third before they are able to land a faculty or scientific staff position.
Source
Professional astronomers are highly educated individuals who typically have a PhD in physics or astronomy and are employed by research institutions or universities
Source
Physicists study the laws and structures of all that exists in the universe, including gravity and other natural forces. Astronomers use physics to study space and the bodies within it, like planets and stars.
Source
Some of us are astronomers and astrophysicists. We build instruments for our work at observatories around the world and from orbiting satellites, and we use the principles of physics and mathematics to learn about the nature and origin of the universe, including the black holes, galaxies and the Big Bang. We are now partnering with several other universities and the South African government to build near Capetown, the largest astronomical telescope in the southern hemisphere.
Originally posted by golemina
I mean you have NASA... they've never lied or been mistaken or anything have they?
Do we need to create a list of all of the experts that have been reversed... upon further review?
Do we need to create a list of all of the truths that have been swept under the rug... because it's basically too different, too radical, too DISTURBING for our little minds?
Originally posted by golemina
Sorry big guy, rhetorical isn't going to get any responses
The ENTIRETY of 'science' is just total BS.
Please DO share with us the 'facts'.