Comet Elenin Does NOT EXISTS!! Instead - Brown Dwarf: NIBIRU!

page: 22
48
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 


Interesting thoughts here.

You do realize that no object has been nuked. 9P/Temple was hit with an impactor that did not include an explosive. Impactors have also been used on the Moon. A planned impactor to Mars failed.

Elenin is coming no where near the Earth. It will be over 20 million miles away at closest.

A brown dwarf on the other hand would be larger than the Earth. An impact would destroy all life on Earth. The issue of the atmosphere mixing with ours is a moot point.

So what is the problem with people not seeing a comet. Most comets are not visible to the unaided eye.




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
The problem with people not seeing Elenin is that a guy supposedly found it with a small telescope so they are wondering why they can't see it too.... or are you talking about something else because that is a known issue. I personally have never looked for it but I am not concerned about Elenin. Not that I don't think it could be a concern... that is just my feelings on it. I think IF we have trouble in the near future, it's not a comet.

If there was a Brown dwarf for example, a GMC, even a destroyed planet, the atmosphere issue is VERY important because nothing is going to "hit us" that is not there, like a large object.... unless of course it's still too far or is being masked, but at this point in time no one is seeing a huge planetar sized object in the sky... so something like that crashing into us is actually the moot point until someone sees this alleged beast

However, at lower density... if this thing did exist...many people who are looking very hard but only with their eyes may completely miss it altogether if it rains over us as gas and debris because quite often large masses are simply not solid. That is definitely NOT a moot point, that would be very VERY serious.

If we found ourselves in the midst of a GMC or even a small one and most of us could not see it or even know how to look for the signs... our atmosphere would be devastated and could be quite an accelerant for a GMC.
edit on 16-8-2011 by ChaosMagician because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 


Leonid Elenin did not discover the comet using a "small telescope". He discovered it while reviewing imagery from this telescope.

spaceobs.org...

Many others have seen and imaged it.
edit on 8/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 


Leonid Elenin did not discover the comet using a "small telescope". He discovered while reviewing imagery from this telescope.

spaceobs.org...

Many others have seen and imaged it.
edit on 8/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


lol... well then... that would make sense.

I wonder where that story come about.
edit on 16-8-2011 by ChaosMagician because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 



If we found ourselves in the midst of a GMC or even a small one and most of us could not see it or even know how to look for the signs... our atmosphere would be devastated and could be quite an accelerant for a GMC.

Why would our atmosphere be devastated by a GMC? Please take the time to look up these issues before making weird assertions.

archive.ncsa.illinois.edu...

Our atmosphere is extremely dense compared to GMC's, about a trillion times more so! Spread across great distances, up to tens of light years across, GMC's are very much thinner than even the wispiest clouds in the sky. On the other hand, GMC's are over one thousand times denser than the interstellar gases which surround them.


www.absoluteastronomy.com...

The clouds can reach tens of parsecs in diameter and have an average density of 10²–10³ particles per cubic centimetre (the average density in the solar vicinity is one particle per cubic centimetre).



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
yes, the density is light... which is why you very well might not see it but the density or lack there of is not what would screw up our atmosphere. being closely related to the interstellar medium it is probably mostly hydrogen. Ah, fun with hydrogen. Oxygen is the most well known accelerant, that's where our atmosphere comes into play.
remember these things, seemingly benign, collapse into... stars? Wow. They need the right conditions.

You can trust them... i'd want to keep my eye on them.

We are like a giant oxygenated floating flint ball.

Sometimes you just gotta wonder if your balls are being lined and racked up!



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 


I can't remember if it was Terral or Astrolpatriot that started that claim. He claimed that the 18" scope Elenin used was small compared to the one he used. He then showed a picture of a beginner level Mead 3" scope. The funny thing is the scope wasn't even his. He stole the picture off of a UK astronomy forum.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 



remember these things, seemingly benign, collapse into... stars? Wow. They need the right conditions.

What is this supposed to mean?


We are like a giant oxygenated floating flint ball.

Flint is not a source of fuel or oxidizer. Flint is the source of the heat to initiate combustion.

This is rather meaningless drivel. If there were more H2 around, the predominant material in GMCs, then nothing particularly interesting happens to the atmosphere. Larger amounts of fuel are dumped into the atmosphere all of the time from terrestrial sources.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 



remember these things, seemingly benign, collapse into... stars? Wow. They need the right conditions.

What is this supposed to mean?


We are like a giant oxygenated floating flint ball.

Flint is not a source of fuel or oxidizer. Flint is the source of the heat to initiate combustion.

This is rather meaningless drivel. If there were more H2 around, the predominant material in GMCs, then nothing particularly interesting happens to the atmosphere. Larger amounts of fuel are dumped into the atmosphere all of the time from terrestrial sources.


we have oxygen in our atmosphere, brainiac... the flint ball reference is simply because we are a big rock with plenty of ignition and accelerant sources but I forgot how you need everything explained to you. How much more obvious could it have been?

if you can't figure out what that first statement means, I really wish you would quit wasting my time.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
You have claimed that terrestrial x-ray observatories are watching events in space. Where are these x-ray observatories?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
You have claimed that terrestrial x-ray observatories are watching events in space. Where are these x-ray observatories?


I claimed that multiple observatories were watching it, which is true.

Get your stuff straight. I feel no obligation to answer anything if you are not going to at least get your own stuff straight.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 


Leonid Elenin did not discover the comet using a "small telescope". He discovered it while reviewing imagery from this telescope.

spaceobs.org...

Many others have seen and imaged it.
edit on 8/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Well Phage, it is a small telescope compared to the VLT


www.eso.org...

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE VLT IS NOT RUN BY NASA!!!!!!, so you might be able to trust them if you don't trust NASA
edit on 18/8/2011 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 



I claimed that multiple observatories were watching it, which is true.


Here is what you claimed:

and again, many different observatories all over the world observing this object as well under all sorts of project names..


Please name some or the project names. You claim these are all over the world. Why are you balking at naming them? Folks here at ATS are probably curious about this claim. How can others do their own research if you don't name them?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 



I claimed that multiple observatories were watching it, which is true.


Here is what you claimed:

and again, many different observatories all over the world observing this object as well under all sorts of project names..


Please name some or the project names. You claim these are all over the world. Why are you balking at naming them? Folks here at ATS are probably curious about this claim. How can others do their own research if you don't name them?


I'm not balking at naming them... I have already answered your question. As soon as you figure this out, you can stop making stuff up.

I was kind enough to answer you to begin with... and now that I have answered you, you have some gall by still demanding the same thing. Aren't you afraid of how unobservant that makes you look?.. but we both know you are just trying to upset people.

your question about the observatories has been answered and i know that there are a slew of people who have come through here that understand this fact, but they are not saying anything about your oversight right now.

I know the reason this is. You're making a lot of very careless, very thoughtless mistakes and those around you don't care enough about anything to stop you.

You remind me just how hopeless it is to fight for any kind of good life in this world.
The sooner this world is over, the better!

..and I hope all the radio observatories around the world that you think do not exists or are obsolete or whatever tell you of your demise every single step of the way.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 



I'm not balking at naming them... I have already answered your question. As soon as you figure this out, you can stop making stuff up.

Can you refresh our memories by pointing to this post you made?


I was kind enough to answer you to begin with... and now that I have answered you, you have some gall by still demanding the same thing. Aren't you afraid of how unobservant that makes you look?

We all know you haven't answered the question. From the start you have balked.

So please show us the post. I know it isn't there.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Oh yes, i can... but i should not have to.

it was the very last thing you should have read right before making your last post in this thread.

i mean really, how much more easy can I make than as easy as possible. I mean it is literally right there.

Maybe you'd like to have more in depth conversation about these things some time. I'm very serious about this.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 


I'm sorry, but nothing you have posted has answered the question. I accept that you just made it up.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ChaosMagician
 


I'm sorry, but nothing you have posted has answered the question. I accept that you just made it up.


Ok... since it is only right that I should be willing to offer up my own life to help you see the truth about anything that may concern you...

A radio emitting x-ray binary is observable by radio telescopes.

Get it now?

They can certainly observe events like the one I mentioned... an event where it is already known and established that it floods the local galaxy with X-rays.

X-rays are not the only thing it sends out... get it? This is very very basic stuff here.

perhaps I can help you somehow understand these things a little better if we talk some more.





new topics
top topics
 
48
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join