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.

 

Comet Elenin is coming!

page: 16
384
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 



EDIT: As far as the tail is concerned, thats primarily just made up of gases and sand / pebble sized bits and bobs that have tore away due to the pressure of solar radiation, it's amazing just how big they can get.


"I am from Barcelona, I know Nothing"

I beseech you once again to investigate the Electric Universe theory. There are threads on it here on ATS or go to thunderbolts.info



If you read this subject up you 'may' find you view of the composition changing. This also has connections to the reasons why 'bolides' light up.

Edit: Picking up on another post of yours...


it wouldn't have reached the same brightness (think thats something to do with surface area, i'm honestly not sure how that works) to be classed as a bolide and it wouldn't have flashed as you would expect a bolide to


This is ALL explained by the Electric Universe. Enlighten yourself!


edit on 19/1/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy
 


Just out of interest (and save me googling or imdb'ing) was Armageddon released round about the same time as Deep impact? or did I just happen to watch them both for the first time during the same week?



Deep Impact - May 8, 1998

Armageddon - Aug 1998

List of disaster movies:
en.wikipedia.org...

Another list, with historical perspective and by decade:
www.filmsite.org...

btw, from the looks of the *giant* list, we must really want something bad to happen to our planet! :-(



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ns9504

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by Lil Drummerboy
 


Just out of interest (and save me googling or imdb'ing) was Armageddon released round about the same time as Deep impact? or did I just happen to watch them both for the first time during the same week?



Deep Impact - May 8, 1998

Armageddon - Aug 1998

List of disaster movies:
en.wikipedia.org...

Another list, with historical perspective and by decade:
www.filmsite.org...

btw, from the looks of the *giant* list, we must really want something bad to happen to our planet! :-(

I think it might just be that collectivly we have a way of seeing the future,
and maybe it is channeled in ways such as movies, writtings and paintings



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
that is an interesting story. i will be watching for updates.
s&f



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Very nice! THANKS FOR SHARING......Hugh implications possible, will continue to wait for your updates.

Jbondo



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Thats a fascinating link Puterman ... i'm reading the pages and it seems quite valid, to me.

Is there a way of summarizing the major differences between gravitational theory and electric theory?

For illiterates like myself



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
sorry i dont know how to insert images yet.

ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...

it appears that someone updated this in the last few days.
apparently quite abit farther from earth than originally predicted

pleas disregard this as i now see the date says January 19 2011.....hmm thats today.
edit on 19-1-2011 by hellenkeller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by hellenkeller
 


Yes, it can get confusing. It is still saying 0.24 Au between the 16th and 18th with Earth intersecting it's path on the 6th November.

Edit to add: Please forgive me if this is stating the obvious.



By the way 'Pause' is the one in the middle.

Using the Horizons system (link at top of JPL orbit) the closest point is actually calculated at 09:00 UTC on Oct 16, 2011.(2nd Column in Au)

2011-Oct-16 06:00 0.24031195514066
2011-Oct-16 07:00 0.24030892920166
2011-Oct-16 08:00 0.24030714576865
2011-Oct-16 09:00 0.24030660412556
2011-Oct-16 10:00 0.24030730354891
2011-Oct-16 11:00 0.24030924330789


edit on 19/1/2011 by PuterMan because: Bah box, can't you read?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan

I am more concerned with the debris that might be following in it's wake if it is large enough to drag anything with it.


There has never been a confirmed case of significant sized debris being dragged along in the tail of a comet, that has gone on to have an encounter with Earth. It is possible, but unless the comet has started to break up before hand, it's extremely unlikely.

You could say the same thing about all the other comet tails/dust trails that Earth passes through. This one is no more likely to have big chunks in it than any of the others.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by samlf3rd
This is truly a scary moment waiting for it to hopefully change its trajectory somewhere before it strikes.


As it stands, there is no danger of an impact between us and this comet. This one does not even qualify as a particularly close approach. We have known objects which come closer all the time, that are considered more dangerous.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
As far as I know, ALL of the regular meteor showers are caused by the Earth passing through the debris field left by passing comets.



There are a couple of annual meteor showers that are thought to be associated with asteroids rather than comets. The best known example is the Geminid meteor shower which is thought to be associated with rocky object called 3200 Phaethon, which is more like an asteroid than a comet. In this case its likely that the object was once a comet, but all the volatile materials that normally coat the nucleus of comets (and are the source of the comets tail) have been stripped away leaving a "dead" comet nucleus.




Originally posted by nenothtu
Just because we pass through that field once doesn't mean that all the debris gets swept up by Earth, so there's always more for years, sometimes centuries, to come.



I agree. Earth's orbit takes it through a new part of space every time, so there is little danger of us "hoovering up" all the meteoroids in a particular trail.

edit on 19-1-2011 by C.H.U.D. because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stargate2012
Regardless though, it is the Draconid meteor shower that could be the concern here for Oct. 2011. NASA is currently warning about it.

The Draconid Meteor shower 2010 continues, 2011 could be downright dangerous


Dangerous to satellites perhaps... but even so this is a relatively minor event/prediction. If the prediction is accurate, and we get an observed rate of around 750 Draconid meteors every hour, that is not even true "storm level". A storm is defined as anything over 1000 ZHR (observed hourly rate).

Between 1998 and 2002 we had three Leonid meteor storms which exceeded 1000 ZHR, but there was no damage done. I was lucky enough to observe two of them myself, and although there were some impressive fireballs, there was nothing large enough to get worried about.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stargate2012


October 8th, 2009

This is a large bolide coming from the Draconid meteor shower I would assume. Can't wait for what 2011 brings with this. HOLY SH**


Why would you assume this? There is no evidence to support your assumption that I know of. Just because a large fireball occurs at the same time as a meteor shower does not mean there is any connection. Indeed, we get large fireballs throughout the year, and in many cases they coincide with the peaks of known meteor showers. There has not been a single instance where a big fireball like this has been connected to a meteor shower. When events like this are analyzed, the orbits tend to indicate that the source of the object is in the vicinity of the asteroid belt.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stargate2012
Um ever heard of Tunguska? Pretty sure it was a bolide. Yes, large bolides can do damage here on Earth or above in the sky, which could do damage here on Earth even if it explodes above. Get your facts straight.


Woogleuk has his facts straight. I've read through the entire thread, and all of his posts. All of them are spot on. I know because I have been reading about, and observing meteors/fireballs for over 12 years now. Although I'm not a professional researcher, I do talk with the pros, so much of what I know comes directly from the horses mouth so to speak.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


Because we are passing through the Draconid meteor shower at that time. It happened back in 1992 when a large bolide was seen in the sky at the same time.

An interesting connection to say the least.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Close-Approach Data Modified: 2011-Jan-14 18:59 By JPL

Date/Time (TDB) 2011-Oct-16 08:54

Time Uncertainty
(days_HH:MM 1_20:06

Body Earth

Nominal Distance (AU) 0.240329306725919

Minimum Distance (AU) 0.151994961462445

Maximum Distance (AU) 0.334401137730749

V-relative (km/s) 23.7711912998138

V-infinity (km/s) 23.7707248993927

JD (TDB 2455850.870993304

Time Uncertainty (minutes 2646.65186572156

Semi-major axis (km) 3936998.57500146

Semi-minor axis (km) 3605.9430246237

range-LOV angle (deg) 7.71676861541309

N-sigma 1210.4737745201

Imp. Prob 0 ( Is this IMPACT PROBYLITY?)

BP T

Orbit Ref. 10

Reference CATAB v2.0c-linF95 2011-Jan-14 18:59:15

Modified 2011-Jan-14 18:59

ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...

Under the button: [ show close-approach data ]



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ntech
 


Not to mention this movie. Where appliances and cars try to kill you! Bad comet!


edit on 19-1-2011 by Cybermerc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 
Soo, it would be safe to assume that the "safe" distance will only be valid
if it makes the trip without bumping into anything,. right?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stargate2012
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


Because we are passing through the Draconid meteor shower at that time. It happened back in 1992 when a large bolide was seen in the sky at the same time.


But it also happened at the same time of year as we expect to see asteroids, and at the same time of year the following meteor showers are also active:


Radiant Duration Maximum
Arietids (Autumn) September 7-October 27 Oct. 8/9
Delta Aurigids (DAU) September 22-October 23 Oct. 6-15
Eta Cetids September 20-November 2 Oct. 1-5
October Cetids September 8?-October 30? Oct. 5/6
October Cygnids September 22-October 11 Oct. 4-9
Epsilon Geminids (EGE) October 10-27 Oct. 18/19
Northern Piscids October 5-16 Oct. 12/13

Source: meteorshowersonline.com

Why does it have to be a Draconid?

In fact, why does it have to be of cometary origin at all? As I said before, we expect asteroid impacts at this time of year, and indeed throughout the year. It's been estimated that as many as a few thousand 1 meter objects come within 1 LD of Earth every day. The vast majority of these objects are small asteroids, that are made of comparatively hard material.

Cometary material on the other hand is usually no where near as dense, and in some cases of similar consistency as cigarette ash. We know even the hard asteroidal material usually disintegrates above 50 Km altitude, and that cometary meteoroids/fragments hit the atmosphere at 2-7x the speed of asteroids. That makes cometary material even more likely to explode almost on contact with the atmosphere.

The American Meteor Society Fireball FAQ says this about cometary material:


Based upon photographic fireball studies, cometary meteoroids have extremely low densities, about 0.8 grams/cc for class IIIA fireballs, and 0.3 grams/cc for class IIIB fireballs. This composition is very fragile and vaporizes so readily when entering the atmosphere, that it is called “friable” material. These meteoroids have virtually no chance of making it to the ground unless an extremely large piece of the comet enters the atmosphere, in which case it would very likely explode at some point in its flight, due to mechanical and thermal stresses.



The point I am trying to make here is that all of the evidence points to big fireballs being caused by hard asteroidal material, and there has not been a single confirmed case of a large fireball having been proved to be of cometary origin.

Just saying it happened at the same time as the Draconids, does not make it a Draconid. Without more info (date, time, location, direction?) it's impossible to say what the origin of the object that caused the event in the clip you posted was anyway.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 



There has never been a confirmed case of significant sized debris being dragged along in the tail of a comet, that has gone on to have an encounter with Earth. It is possible, but unless the comet has started to break up before hand, it's extremely unlikely.


Up until a short while ago there had never been a hemispheric quake on the Sun, and scientists did not know this could happen. The fact that a comet has not, in the experience of the scientists, apparently dragged any significant debris does not mean that a comet has never done so, nor does it mean that this could not occur in the future at some time. In the grand order of things the experience of scientists exists for a millisecond or two in 24 hrs.


As it stands, there is no danger of an impact between us and this comet. This one does not even qualify as a particularly close approach. We have known objects which come closer all the time, that are considered more dangerous.


Your reply to samlf3rd is correct, however in view of the fact that this object has yet to negotiate the Taurids debris belt I don't think that 'we' are in any position to consider the science settled. I think I have made it quite clear that as it stands there is no danger of impact, but 'we' will have to wait and see as time progresses.

Re: Reply to nenothtu


There are a couple of annual meteor showers that are thought to be associated with asteroids rather than comets. The best known example is the Geminid meteor shower which is thought to be associated with rocky object called 3200 Phaethon, which is more like an asteroid than a comet. In this case its likely that the object was once a comet, but all the volatile materials that normally coat the nucleus of comets (and are the source of the comets tail) have been stripped away leaving a "dead" comet nucleus.


As I said to woggleuk, go and read the Electric Universe theory and stop making statements about the state of a comet that you are unable to prove and which in the 4 flybys have been proven to be untrue. You really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and are spouting standard astronomy for all you are worth. Established astronomy makes all sorts of ridiculous claims starting with the big bang and ending with black holes and dark matter.

If as you suggest the surface of a comet is coated with 'volatile' materials then can you explain the complete absence of these from the surface of the comets that have been visited? Of course you can quote the standard answer that the materials must be buried under the rocky surface but really that is a bit of a fudge to get round the problem isn't it.

Can you also describe in what manner these so called volatile materials can be the source of a tail possibly 150 million lies long and describe the reaction that causes this? Can you also describe how it is that comets, like bolides, can flare up? Can you also describe the reason that comets may give out high X-ray frequencies, something that seems to have got the astronomical establishment in a bit of a tizzy as it should not happen.

Sorry but the science is NOT settled and on this thread I prefer to entertain minds that are open, open to new possibilities and new theories and not closed by the establishment.


Dangerous to satellites perhaps... but even so this is a relatively minor event/prediction. If the prediction is accurate, and we get an observed rate of around 750 Draconid meteors every hour, that is not even true "storm level". A storm is defined as anything over 1000 ZHR (observed hourly rate).


I think that was the point. This report in space.com seems to indicate that NASA are not quite so unconcerned as you. Perhaps they don't have the benefit of your superior establishment knowledge?

By the way were you aware of this?


However, this shower has a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality. In 1933 and 1946 the Draconids dazzled skywatchers with astounding meteor "storms" - delivering shooting stars at rates that briefly topped 10,000 per hour! - because Earth crossed through a particularly dense ribbon of debris shed by the comet in 1900. The shower hasn't put on that kind of performance in the years since, though in 2005 it surged unexpectedly to double or triple the usual rate.


Source

I think perhaps you should not assume anything. The prediction may not be accurate and obviously has not been on some occasions in the past.


Why would you assume this? There is no evidence to support your assumption that I know of. Just because a large fireball occurs at the same time as a meteor shower does not mean there is any connection. Indeed, we get large fireballs throughout the year, and in many cases they coincide with the peaks of known meteor showers. There has not been a single instance where a big fireball like this has been connected to a meteor shower. When events like this are analyzed, the orbits tend to indicate that the source of the object is in the vicinity of the asteroid belt.


I take it from your answer that you are party to all fireballs that have occurred during all meteor showers and have calculated the trajectories of all of them in order for you to be able to spout such utterly illogical nonsense.

Whilst your supposition that a fireball occurring at the same time as a meteor shower may not be connected to the meteor shower may be correct, the fact of the matter is that a bolide or a fireball may well come in with a meteor shower and indeed they most likely do.


A fireball is a brighter-than-usual meteor. The International Astronomical Union defines a fireball as "a meteor brighter than any of the planets" (magnitude -4 or greater).[7] The International Meteor Organization (an amateur organization that studies meteors) has a more rigid definition. It defines a fireball as a meteor that would have a magnitude of -3 or brighter if seen at zenith. This definition corrects for the greater distance between an observer and a meteor near the horizon. For example, a meteor of magnitude -1 at 5 degrees above the horizon would be classified as a fireball because if the observer had been directly below the meteor it would have appeared as magnitude -6

Bolide
An especially bright meteor, a bolide (in astronomy)

In astronomy

The word bolide comes from the Greek (bolis) which can mean a missile or to flash. The IAU has no official definition of "bolide", and generally considers the term synonymous with "fireball". The bolide term is generally used for fireballs reaching magnitude -14 or brighter. Astronomers tend to use the term to mean an exceptionally bright fireball, particularly one that explodes (sometimes called a detonating fireball).


Source: Wikipedia

So given that the IAU defines it as a bright meteor, why could it not arrive in a meteor shower? Would that just be a teensy bit too logical perhaps? In addition just how are you going to determine it's trajectory unless you actually see it and can define the point of origin and the final burn up location? Is your average observer going to be able to tell you this accurately so you can make your statement. No , I don't think so.

During the Geminids last year I saw a fireball. Well wouldn't you know it, it appeared out of the sky just below Gemini. Of course according to your theory that is just a pure coincidence, despite the fact that you say the Geminids come from an asteroid source but then quickly say this is an 'extinct' comet. I guess the 'dirty snowball' analogy does not work too well then? In my opinion there is little wrong with the 'supposition' made by Stargate2012 as a possibility.


Woogleuk has his facts straight.


Let me rephrase that for you. He has his facts straight in accordance with the establishment bible of astronomy to which you both obviously subscribe. That does not mean they are right. There is often more than one possibility to these things and alternative theories should be investigated. Closed minds will lead to the destruction of our planet and the human race.


edit on 19/1/2011 by PuterMan because: missing words, bad spelling - the usual stuff!





top topics



 
384
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join