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.

 

Comets Destroy Einstein's Nonsense

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

I've yet to see a plausible explanation by standard theorists for why comets should have such intense magnetic fields in the first place.

That's because they don't .

There is some cometary magnetism, true. What comets do contain are magnetic materials like iron and nickel, which respond to external magnetic fields such as the Sun's.


ORLY?

By "some" you must mean "magnetic fields intense enough to generate x-ray emissions"

Please explain how in the f*ck a melting ball of ice emits x-rays.

Please explain how in the f*ck a melting ball of ice produces a magnetic tail that can be separated from the nucleus by CME's. If the comet is "melting", how does a CME abruptly shut off the "melting"?

CME's now freeze matter?

Please, I'm all ears.

I have to assume that you think all ice in space will occasionally emit x-rays when it feels like it and produce magnetically active tails. I on the other hand prefer to believe in rational explanations.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

By "some" you must mean "magnetic fields intense enough to generate x-ray emissions"

Please explain how in the f*ck a melting ball of ice emits x-rays.

Please explain how in the f*ck a melting ball of ice produces a magnetic tail that can be separated from the nucleus by CME's. If the comet is "melting", how does a CME abruptly shut off the "melting"?

CME's now freeze matter?

Your language and your attitude are a poor match for your scholastic pretensions.

X-rays are produced in many ways, of which synchrotron radiation (photons created when electrons are accelerated in a magnetic field) is only one. How X-Rays Are Produced

As for your childish question about comet's tails, have you ever blown on a small fire and watched the flames disappear, only to return more strongly when you stop? Do you think combustion ceases in the fire while you're blowing on it? Do you think hot gases and smoke cease to be produced? No, your blowing has only dispersed them, so that they temporarily cease to be visible.

If this is the level at which your scientific reasoning works, I'm not surprised you think Einstein's work is nonsense.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

By "some" you must mean "magnetic fields intense enough to generate x-ray emissions"

Please explain how in the f*ck a melting ball of ice emits x-rays.

Please explain how in the f*ck a melting ball of ice produces a magnetic tail that can be separated from the nucleus by CME's. If the comet is "melting", how does a CME abruptly shut off the "melting"?

CME's now freeze matter?

Your language and your attitude are a poor match for your scholastic pretensions.

X-rays are produced in many ways, of which synchrotron radiation (photons created when electrons are accelerated in a magnetic field) is only one. How X-Rays Are Produced

As for your childish question about comet's tails, have you ever blown on a small fire and watched the flames disappear, only to return more strongly when you stop? Do you think combustion ceases in the fire while you're blowing on it? Do you think hot gases and smoke cease to be produced? No, your blowing has only dispersed them, so that they temporarily cease to be visible.

If this is the level at which your scientific reasoning works, I'm not surprised you think Einstein's work is nonsense.


Yeah, I know how x-rays are produced.

Now please explain how and why comets emit synchrotron radiation strong enough to create x-rays instead of totally avoiding the topic.

Sublimating ice does not produce a magnetic field.

Cometary outbursts of x-ray emission can only be explained by synchrotron radiation, however for that emission to occur, one must first have an electric field in the first place!

Where does this field come from?

How does sublimating ice accelerate electrons fast enough to emit x-rays?

There is no plausible explanation by the standard theory. Its a total joke.









[edit on 14-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   
If sublimating ice blow the surface is producing jets of H2O as Phage would have us believe, why is the comet not breaking apart light a waterlogged river rock in a bond fire? I mean, that scenario is just taking water and converting it to steam, the comet scenario is turning ice to steam?
Not trying to argu with the standard model here, but I really want to know what makes those balls of rock so special compared to rocks here on earth(so special that they can take the kind of pressures involved in sublimating ice below the surface?)



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
If sublimating ice blow the surface is producing jets of H2O as Phage would have us believe, why is the comet not breaking apart light a waterlogged river rock in a bond fire? I mean, that scenario is just taking water and converting it to steam, the comet scenario is turning ice to steam?
Not trying to argu with the standard model here, but I really want to know what makes those balls of rock so special compared to rocks here on earth(so special that they can take the kind of pressures involved in sublimating ice below the surface?)


What makes it special is that its the only possible way for them to explain the observations without caving into the obvious reality that the Sun is electrical in nature.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 

Not steam, water vapor. There's a difference. An remember, it isn't hot, it's pretty damned cold.
They do eject chunks of material at times. Here is an image from the Hubble telescope of it happening.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Short period comets, the ones that get warmed by the Sun, do not last forever. Probably in the neighborhood of half a million years at the most.


[edit on 5/14/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 

Not steam, water vapor. There's a difference. An remember, it isn't hot, it's pretty damned cold.
They do eject chunks of material at times. Here is an image from the Hubble telescope of it happening.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Short period comets, the ones that get warmed by the Sun, do not last forever. Probably in the neighborhood of half a million years at the most.


[edit on 5/14/2010 by Phage]


Ah yes, "fragmenting" comets.

Let us talk about this.

Something you should all note about fragmenting comets, all the pieces line up like a choo-choo train every time.

EVERY TIME

I want you all to think about this very carefully.

If a comet is fragmenting from explosive "out gassing" does it make any sense that all the pieces break off and line up in a neat little choo-choo train?

Think about this.

In space, there is no air pressure to slow down larger particles. As Newton says, an object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by an outside force. If a comet fragments explosively, we should expect to see fragments flying in all directions - but we never do.

The standard theory of cometary fragmentation makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Only magnetic field aligned forces can account for such observations.

The solar wind has no "pressure". Its simply diffuse ions, mostly hydrogen ions. It is not "wind" - it is not "air" - it does not exert physical force.

Here's that same comet just a few moments later:

www.astro.caltech.edu...

choo-choo train.

An even better picture of the choo-choo from 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3

farm1.static.flickr.com...

Comets fragment because of the intense electrical load they are under. They are under extreme electrical stress, which causes the discharging in the first place, and this stress can break apart the nucleus. This is why we see fragmenting comets as they approach strong magnetic field sources such as Jupiter or the Sun.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Here is a cool vid: soho.nascom.nasa.gov...
It shows comets getting close to the sun and meeting a CME. And, didn't the comet NEAT have the same thing? Seems to happen too frequently for a "chance" encounter.
Here's the NEAT one: www.windows2universe.org...
and another: soho.nascom.nasa.gov...

[edit on 14-5-2010 by PplVSNWO]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Some more choo-choo train comets

Shoemaker-levy
upload.wikimedia.org...

Kreutz sungrazer
www.youtube.com...
(awesome video of 3 cometary fragments all hitting the sun at the exact same angle along the exact same path)

Linear
imgsrc.hubblesite.org...
(not quite a perfect string of pearls, but its clearly evident most pieces are in-line. I personally think this is due to the small size of the fragments. Also, its not clear just how soon after the break up this was taken. They might all be in a neat line by now.)

73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3
farm1.static.flickr.com...


Its safe to say "tidal forces" are not responsible for the neat lines of cometary fragments.

These lines of fragments can only be explained by the electric comet theory.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

That image is not from "a few moments later", it is from twelve days later. The image I posted is from the Hubble telescope and was taken on April 20, 2006.
hubble.stsci.edu...

The image from the Palomar observatory was taken on May 2.
www.astro.caltech.edu...

As the animation on the Palomar link shows the pieces actually have a slight lateral movement relative to the direction of the comet's motion. The original fragments of the comet are actually all over the place, not in a "choo choo train".

We report on our search campaign for the fragments of the Jupiter family comet and target of NASA's CONTOUR mission, Comet 3P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3, one orbit revolution after the splitting of its nucleus in 1995 (Boehnhardt et al., 1995). Fragment C was found back with coma in November 1999 at 4 AU inbound and it continued to be active during the perihelion arc until at least December 2001 when we observed it last at 3.3 AU outbound. Fragment B was observed with coma between July and September 2001 when moving outbound from 2.35 to 2.75 AU. The search for other fragments including A, D (Boehnhardt et al., 1995) and E (Kodata et al., 2000a, b; Nakamura et al., 2000) in a search area of 15 × 4 arcmin starting at fragment C along direction of the extended radius vector was not successful in July and September 2001. The limiting magnitude of this search of ~ 25 mag in R puts an upper limit on the radius of potential fragments of about 200 m (assuming albedo 0.04). The orbit deceleration parameter and the observed coma brightness of component C suggest that this object is the primary fragment that may contain a major part of the original nucleus.

adsabs.harvard.edu...&P...90..131B



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You're proving my point for me.

The fragments magically moved into line over a period of several days.

Pray tell, what force did this?

The invisible hand of Zeus?


Its clear that the pieces were explosively blown apart by electrical stress, then aligned themselves due to their charge. There is no other explanation for the pieces forming into a chain after being explosively broken apart.

Keep posting though, you keep managing to bring up falsifying evidence I forgot to mention previously.

Schwassmann-Wachmann 3
hubble.stsci.edu...
Apr. 20, 2006

Schwassmann-Wachmann 3
farm1.static.flickr.com...
NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope from May 4 to 6

MAGIC FORCES!



[edit on 14-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

I'm glad you realize you were "mistaken" about the timing of the images. You are also mistaken about what you are looking at.


Comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 - Fragment B: Apr. 20, 2006

hubble.stsci.edu...


A sequence of images showing the piece of the comet known as fragment R has been assembled into a movie.

www.astro.caltech.edu...

Two different objects. You are not looking at a progression from scattered to linear.


[edit on 5/14/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm not mistaken about the timing.

I clearly said the image showing a trail of fragments was taken LATER - hence AFTER - the first image. Which is precicely the order they were taken in.

The comet exploded, then the pieces magically aligned themselves into a trail.

As to your "different objects" nonsense, here's the series of images taken by spitzer to compose the mosaic of all pieces.


www.birtwhistle.org...
Fragments with perihelion times from June 6.4 - 7.1 UT 2006

www.birtwhistle.org...
Fragments with perihelion times from June 7.2 - 8.0 UT 2006

www.birtwhistle.org...
Fragments with perihelion times from June 7.9 - 8.8 UT 2006


Well look at that!

All the pieces form a clear choo-choo train!

The Spitzer team rotated the photos and lined them up to make the mosaic, which clearly shows a full "string of pearls" configuration of all pieces, just like SL9.

For SL9, the liars concocted the theory of "tidal forces" slowly pulling the comet apart to form a string of pearls. No explanation has been given as to why Schwassmann-Wachmann 3's fragments formed a perfect choo-choo train.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

My apologies. I guess I misunderstood when you said:

Here's that same comet just a few moments later:
I didn't think "a few moments" meant 12 days.

Yes, the two images are showing different fragments of the comet. The Hubble image is of fragment B, the Palomar is of fragment R. The two fragments are quite widely separated (about 5º) as can be seen in this chart. Also note in the chart that the direction of travel of the fragments is shown. They are moving in roughly parallel orbits as would be expected in objects with slightly different vectors (the result of the ejection from the original comet), not a "choo choo train".


The above figure indicates the relative position of 59 of the known cometary fragments, as identified using the JPL/Horizons database for May 04 from 0800 - 1200 UT. Lines of motion for all fragments are indicated. For clarity only some of the fragments have been labeled.

www.astro.caltech.edu...


[edit on 5/14/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


In astronomical terms, I consider that a few moments.

The fragments are all in a string of pearls.

All of them.

They are not scattered like buckshot across the sky, just look at the freaking Spitzer images, I posted them for you to look at.

The major fragments are separated by distance along the string, but they are all in a neat line. The Spitzer image plates make it abundantly clear that the fragments are all in line.

What's next, are you going to deny that the sky is blue?

Even the chart you posted points out they are all in line!

See that "dec" and "ra" - that's a chart showing relative position of all the fragments - and they all make a neat line across the sky.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Yes, objects falling in slightly different orbits will spread out in a line. It's called orbital mechanics.

Are the cars in your "choo choo train" going sideways?



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Yes, objects falling in slightly different orbits will spread out in a line. It's called orbital mechanics.

Are the cars in your "choo choo train" going sideways?


LOOK AT THE FREAKING IMAGES!

THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!

Explosive separation should lead to MUCH BROADER spread of the fragments, not a string of pearls.

Fragments should be exploding in a buck shot pattern widening out from the core if this is purely the function of explosive out-gassing.



[edit on 14-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Well, in a sense it is rocket science. The fragments are behaving according to orbital mechanics, as they should.

Who said anything about "explosive separation"?


[edit on 5/14/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Well, in a sense it is rocket science. The fragments are behaving according to orbital mechanics, as they should.


I think anyone with half a brain can see that the fragments in this image:
msnbcmedia.msn.com...

Don't look like the fragments in this image taken later:
farm1.static.flickr.com...



The first image appropriately looks like buckshot, which is what we should expect to see from an exploding object.

The second image clearly shows those fragments then moved into a string of pearls.





[edit on 14-5-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

Once again...you are not looking at the same thing in the two different images.

The Spitzer image is of a group of fragments. Fragment "B" is the one in the left center of the image. The Hubble image is a close up of Fragment "B".

Recorded on May 4-6 by an infrared camera on board the Spitzer Space Telescope, the picture captures about 45 of the 60 or more alphabetically cataloged large comet fragments. The brightest fragment at the upper right of the track is Fragment C. Bright Fragment B is below and left of center.

www.astronet.ru...

The comet crumbled in 1995. The fragments acquired their own vectors though independent outgassing. Those slightly different vectors have resulted in parallel orbits, orbits which will separate more and more as time goes on. The orbits are parallel, not linear, not what you are claiming the electrical model produces.

Here's a little animation (Hubble, fragment "B") that shows how those vectors develop. Notice the fragments moving to the side.


[edit on 5/14/2010 by Phage]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join