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.

 

Our Sun is Cold And Inhabited With Life.

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Edited original, it was comet Tempel One, apologies for quick research.

EMM

Edit: Not strictly true, although, they do claim it is an ion trail, the discharge between the inner solar system, and the comets would create 'fine dust'.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]




posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 



"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."


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, as well as ejecting a huge amount of fine, bright dust into the surrounding space. This wads predicted by PC, but was unexpected by NASA, so they must be onto something in some way.

EMM



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

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]


how can stardust be sure the grains came from the comet..
did stardust land on the comet and get actual grains from the comet and compare them with what was in the tail of the comet??



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

Very true, NASA where worrying about the impact not going to be big enough,

Actually NASA encouraged amateurs to help them observe it because they expected it to be large enough to be noticeable in backyard telescopes. They were proven right. Some models thought the impact would produce chunkier debris, but this was not universally expected.


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,

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.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   

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


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.


B)What sensors were knocked offline? The observing probe functioned just fine.


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?

EMM



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

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.

They thought the debris might be clumpier and that would permit them to spot the crater through it, but it was much actually fine clay and carbonates indicating that liquid water was trapped in comets before they found their way to the outer solar system and froze. The bright flash definately happened after impact, not before. Had it happened before, the final images from the impactor would have spotted it. Instead it saw the surface of the comet:
www.nasa.gov...


It functioned fine in the end, but they missed the initial impact, due to the energy given off by the 'discharge'.

The fact is that it never went offline, it did not miss the initial impact. Here is the first image, right at the moment of impact:
www.fas.org...


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?

Clay-like material. Comets have always been thought to be dirty snowballs, not pure ice. As detected by ground observers, the brightening of the comet was caused by carbonate compounds which only form in the presence of water. Later analysis confirmed that water ice was on the surface of the comet as well. Between the vaporized water and pulverized clay, there was plenty of material kicked up to reflect sunlight and generate a dramatic brightening that lasted for weeks. A "discharge" wouldn't have lasted that long.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   


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?


There's a type of luminescence that occurs when you grind certain crystals together- the 'chewing a wintergreen (spearmint?) mint in the dark produces flashes is a good example... This could be a another example of that sort of action- Ice crystals that are so frozen, packed with godknows what kind of particles and/ or minerals, could probably not only produce a similar flash, but also release steam/ vaporized water along with the energetic shock.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

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.


What difference does that make?
The point is that the people of this Earth have sent a probe there.
Or you just trying to pick an argument with the other poster by splitting hairs on a technicality?



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:52 AM
link   

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..

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? The heat radiates out from the sun and as the comet passes it, you should expect the tail to shift to the opposite side, as the sun is now hitting the other side of the comet. The direction of the tail has nothing to do with the direction that the comet is traveling.
Please stop beating around the bush and explain what you are trying to say here.


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..

Not that it goes away as soon as it passes the sun, but that it goes away after it gets far enough from the sun for the heating to stop. You notice this part about it passing into deep space:

Comets lose their tails when they head away from the sun into colder deep space.

So what I am saying is that as distance from the sun increases the tail disappears. Not that it magically shuts off the second it goes past the sun.
Kind of like this:

O O O -O =O =O =O(SUN)O= O= O= O- O O O
Get my meaning?



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..

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.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

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?


as i pointed out before..
you are the one talking about heat from the sun..
you brought it up and are still harping on about it and now trying to tell me i am the one with all the heat theories.. you appear to be the heat expert so i will leave that subject to you..



I have yet to find a real astronomer who believes in the Electric Universe Theory.

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..


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.


what is that supposed to mean..?


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.


now you are on to something.. if you do some research on tesla you will find he was working on a similar theory in the early 1900.. he is the reason your computer works..


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.


kinda but more the electricity is in the surrounding athmosphere..


In reality, the Earth is just the opposite, and we run wires into it because it is neutral and gladly accepts a positive charge.


so the earth is neutral is it..
and not ground???

peace

daz__



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

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..


My (ex) father-in-law is an astronomer who is also a PhD physicist would argue against that statement, as would a lot of people.



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.
Source

[edit on 1-11-2008 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

my apologies..
point taken..
i did of coarse realise that but carried away in the heat of the moment..

peace

daz__



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
The sun is NOT hot?



Are you KIDDING me?

I've often thought the exact same thing.


It's a shame we can't REALLY talk about this... The weight of those in the 'know' is just so overpowering!

I mean you have NASA... they've never lied or been mistaken or anything have they?

And those bright boys are of course backed by an entire phalanx of 'scientists'... They are EXPERTS... It's not like 'experts' have ever been wrong or lied.

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?

The idea that the sun is a thermonuclear device is just too humorous.

Who is it that has actually confirmed this?

Gotta run, prior engagement...
But I leave you with this thought about microwave ovens...

Based on the heat it imparts to my trusty tv dinner... How does GE get those consumer grade suns into those tiny enclosures?





[edit on 3-11-2008 by golemina]



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

I mean you have NASA... they've never lied or been mistaken or anything have they?

Just what do you think they've "lied" about?


Do we need to create a list of all of the experts that have been reversed... upon further review?

How would that prove anything about the temperature of the sun? It's a red herring. The ability of humans to be human is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the sun is hot.


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?

How about too contradicted by simple observation and this pesky thing called fact? What other truths do you think have been "swept under the rug" exactly? Not to change subjects, but I'm just curious, do you also think planet X is approaching the inner solar system for a close approach in 2012 in a way that can only be seen from the south pole and the government is sweeping it under the rug?



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Sorry big guy, rhetorical isn't going to get any responses (other than this
).

The ENTIRETY of 'science' is just total BS. Without reservation, the biggest area of fabrication, is what we could loosely call astrophysics.

Please DO share with us the 'facts'.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

Sorry big guy, rhetorical isn't going to get any responses

Oh the irony, complaining about "rhetoric" (funny, i thought i asked you questions too) and then posting nothing but rhetoric!


The ENTIRETY of 'science' is just total BS.
Please DO share with us the 'facts'.

That's a mighty big claim, lets see you prove it. Here's the facts, these formulas are in agreement about the temperature of the sun despite using two completely different methods of observation to determine the actual temperature.

Temperature Kelvin = 2.9 × 10^6 nanometers/peak wavelength

Ts = Te/Sqrt(rs/2a0)

Now, lets see you prove that these formulas do not confirm each others results.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter


Thank you! (for SO precisely making my point
)

Let's do a small recap:

golem: 'The ENTIRETY of 'science' is just total BS. '
golem: 'Please DO share with us the 'facts'.'

ngchunter: yada yada yada, formula, yada yada yada.

Do I have that right?


The basic thrust of my argument(s) (just in case you're slooowwww on the uptake), is that of 'basis'.

Does the concept of 'basis' mean ANYTHING to you?


In all fairness... I should warn you that I am firm believer in the 98/2 maxim.

ngchunter: 'Oh the irony, complaining about "rhetoric" (funny, i thought i'
ngchunter: 'asked you questions too) and then posting nothing but'
ngchunter: 'rhetoric!'

DO explain to me how your 'questions' are germane to the topic at hand? Don't spare ANY details on how you think 'planet X' somehow fits in...


Not to mention, that apparently you seem to be offering the supposition that EVERYTHING NASA has ever told the 'public' is the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I don't believe in much of anything Einstein ever had to say... But I might be starting to come around on one of his viewpoints involving infinity.


Where is the beef? (I was really thinking you were going to bring something somehow more substantial in your seemingly quixotesque defense of 'astrophysics').

How IS that search for ET progressing? Maybe the SETIs should mimic the transmission characteristics of the local FOX affiliates.


And finally... I am sorry my simplistic analogy about the little microwave that could blew by you... like a 104 mph fastball.

You might also consider another simplistic analogy of an incandescent lightbulb... as an emitter... in an electrical circuit. You dig?




[edit on 4-11-2008 by golemina]



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
The ignorance here is damnable.

The sun is hot, honey. Hot as hell. Very very very very hot. Something like 6000 degrees if I remember right.

How in the world could you be duped like this? Seriously, please think about it a little more. Sometimes an "open" mind is a bad thing.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by uplander
 


Indeed. There seems to be a fine line between an open mind and voluntary gullibility. Sometimes it's hard to figure out which side of the line you're on, but that's where a little research can help.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join