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.

 

September 11 2011, Elenin closes to Sun, Elenin will cross the ecliptic plane

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Cheers for posting the pics,

I wanted to do that but ATS won't let me upload pictures at the moment.
The pictures say it all really.




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by EmptinessDancing
 


And again I ask, if EU theory is true why did Comet West cause no problems? It traveled 70,000 AU over the course of a million years. It should have had plenty of time to build up a huge charge that would completely decimate the Earth. Instead we got a single 8.0 earthquake in 1976. Do you want to know the fate of Comet West? It broke up while it was approaching the Sun.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by EmptinessDancing
 


And again I ask, if EU theory is true why did Comet West cause no problems? It traveled 70,000 AU over the course of a million years. It should have had plenty of time to build up a huge charge that would completely decimate the Earth. Instead we got a single 8.0 earthquake in 1976. Do you want to know the fate of Comet West? It broke up while it was approaching the Sun.



Not all comets are composed of the same material.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


That's a complete and utter cop out. For one we only know the composition of 9P/Tempel, so there is no evidence the comet compositions are radically different. In EU theory it states that all comets are capacitors, not just some. So, Comet West should have built up a huge charge, but it didn't. Why? Because EU theory is bogus.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


All comets are capacitors to some extent and there is no evidence that they are all comprised of the same material. The comets that have been photographed up close appear to be made of the same material as asteroids. So there could be stoney ones with lots of olivine, or metallic ones with lots of gold, silver, iron and most other metals. This is where the metals in the earths crust are thought to come from.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 


No, no, not really, and no. It's a matter of the matter of where it was accreted that makes comets different than asteroids. Not all asteroids are alike either, nothing is, but none of these bodies have any magnetosphere, charge, or any fictitious electromagnetic attractions, they are really kind of tiny comparatively and even if they did it would be negligible. NASA Mission Dawn is at Vest now and will visit a near polar opposite asteroid later, two of the largest asteroids (hundreds of times the size of any comet) in the main belt, and we will get a little smarter soon.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by manticorex5
reply to post by Dalke07
 


omgggg 9/11.... some people need to get over the 9/11 incident, its just a date, it means nothing and nothing will ever happen again on that day.



george bush sr gave his 1st speech talking about NWO on 9/11



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
9/11 date is now off because some believe comet elenin has slowed DOWN now

so that will throw off those dates as speed changes



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Elenin has a unique orbit. The comparison to other Comets that do not come between the Sun and Earth almost
exactly along the ecliptic is meaningless. Comet West for example was high on the ecliptic plane not almost exactly between the sun and earth. If anyone can show another comet from the past that has come between the sun and earth traveling along the ecliptic plane like our planets then please post it as I do not know of one.
Comet WEST. ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...

The latest JPL orbital simulation shows perihelion as Sept. 10, 2011 about the 11th hour. Setting the simulation
time to ONE Hour and advancing the day from Sept. 9th to Sept. 10th shows that the distance from the Sun to Elenin changes from 0.483 AU on Sept. 9th to 0.482 on Sept. 10th. About 2 hours into the Sept. 11th day Elenin moves 0.483 AU from the Sun. JPL now shows perihelion on Sept. 10th..........
Comet Elenin. ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerDave007
 


If anyone can show another comet from the past that has come between the sun and earth traveling along the ecliptic plane like our planets then please post it as I do not know of one.


On September 26, 1910, the Earth passed through the tail of Halley's Comet. The nucleus was 0.39 AU from Earth. Fearmongers predicted the end of the world. Charlatans sold gullible fools pills to protect them from the cyanide gas detected in the comet's tail. Nothing happened.



Oh, look! There was a perfect alignment with Mercury, too. Please step away from the internet and do some learning.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Learning?

Nice try.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Halley has an inclination of 169 degrees. Elenin has an inclination of 1.89 degrees.

Elenin is a hyperbolic comet. Halley is not.

Halley's tail was too far off the ecliptic plane for it to pass anywhere close to being between the earth and the sun like Elenin.

You may as well compare Elenin to the moon because there is no other comparable example.

And since there is no comparable example, then its an unknown and your response is no more valid than someone who says its a spaceship because you haven't ever seen a comet like Elenin before, and neither have others seen a spaceship like Elenin before.




edit on 10-9-2011 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-9-2011 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
are we still operating on the assumtion elenin is 2 km wide, and will not come within 22 million miles of earth ?

did I miss something ?



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Leonid claims his comet is a bunch of 100 m and smaller pieces now.

However, comet's size is calculated based on brightness. Didn't the sudden flare up of comet Holmes by a factor of a million instantly increase its size by a proportional amount.

If brightness determines size, Holmes instantly gained mass, but we all know that this did not happen. So, brightness of an object cannot be used to adequately determine the size of an object.

To ignore this is just bad science and a logical fatal flaw in astronomy.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by EmptinessDancing
 
I stopped reading the garbage from your link after the first paragraph which states;

Elenin is a very dangerous cosmic object.
...
...because it is a long period (10000+ years) comet whose tail the Earth passes through.
Earth will not pass through the tail of comet Elenin. This is a huge mistake to make and shows a complete lack of understanding of this comet and orbital mechanics. I actually like EU theories but I wouldn't give this link any more of my time.


reply to post by SeekerDave007
 

The comparison to other Comets that do not come between the Sun and Earth almost
exactly along the ecliptic is meaningless.
...
If anyone can show another comet from the past that has come between the sun and earth...
Here you are insinuating that comet Elenin will transit the Sun. I know I have posted this in the past several times but let me do it again to clear up any confusion.
Comet Elenin WILL NOT transit the Sun!
A solar transit means passing between the Earth and the Sun which comet Elenin WILL NOT do!

As far as how the degree of trajectory to the plane of the ecliptic will effect the bodies in the solar system I am unconvinced. Perhaps this will make a big difference but I don't think so. It is definitely something to keep in consideration though.


reply to post by consciousgod
 

Halley's tail was too far off the ecliptic plane for it to pass anywhere close to being between the earth and the sun like Elenin.
*sigh* It makes me wonder if anyone actually reads these threads. Do you know what a solar transit means? I have linked to wiki in the past and I can do it again if that helps. Objects do actually pass between the Earth and the Sun from time to time which we call solar transits. Halley did it back in 1910, Venus did in 2004 and will again in 2012. Mercury does it and so does our Moon during a solar eclipse. Elenin WILL NOT pass between the Earth and the Sun (solar transit), no coma will touch Earth's atmosphere, Earth will not pass through its tail nor any debris field.

Halley's comet did transit the Sun back in 1910 and its tail did touch Earth's atmosphere. This, however, is different from Elenin as Halley passed between the Earth and the Sun and Elenin will not.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


Sigh right back at you Devino.

30 years ago, I believed what I was told and didn't find out for myself either, but since I have seen 30 years of scientific fraud, I choose to investigate for myself.

If you go to the JPL Orbital Diagram for Halley. The same diagram that is a few post up, and you rotate the screen so the ecliptic plane is perpendicular to your screen, you will see that comet Halley comes no where near a transit position. The JPL diagram shows Halley about the distance to the orbit of Venus above the ecliptic on September 26, 1910.

Now rotate the Elenin diagram in a similar fashion on September 26, 2011. Elenin is hardly above the ecliptic.

Either science made a mistake in this assumption about Halley or the Orbital Diagram is wrong.

Hence, if you consider Halley as completing a solar transit when it is that far above the ecliptic, then Elenin is surely a solar transit comet if Halley was in 1910.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 

The diagram is wrong. Very wrong when it comes to Halley's comet.

This applet is provided as a 3D orbit visualization tool. The applet was implemented using 2-body methods, and hence should not be used for determining accurate long-term trajectories (over several years or decades) or planetary encounter circumstances. For accurate long-term ephemerides, please instead use our Horizons system.

ssd.jpl.nasa.gov...

Halley did transit the Sun in 1910, in May.
adsabs.harvard.edu...
edit on 9/10/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by consciousgod
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Leonid claims his comet is a bunch of 100 m and smaller pieces now.

However, comet's size is calculated based on brightness. Didn't the sudden flare up of comet Holmes by a factor of a million instantly increase its size by a proportional amount.

If brightness determines size, Holmes instantly gained mass, but we all know that this did not happen. So, brightness of an object cannot be used to adequately determine the size of an object.

To ignore this is just bad science and a logical fatal flaw in astronomy.


but it is still 22 million miles away at it's closest point to earth ?



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 



Leonid claims his comet is a bunch of 100 m and smaller pieces now.

However, comet's size is calculated based on brightness. Didn't the sudden flare up of comet Holmes by a factor of a million instantly increase its size by a proportional amount.


The size of the comet's nucleus was determined by its brightness before it had developed a sizable coma. Its brightness, when compared to other comet nuclei, suggest a figure in a range of between two to four kilometers. The size of the coma, which, as you recall, is a cloud of gas emitted by the comet, is determined by actually measuring its size on photographs and calculating it based on its distance. Its distance can be determined by its velocity, in keeping with Kepler's laws.


If brightness determines size, Holmes instantly gained mass, but we all know that this did not happen. So, brightness of an object cannot be used to adequately determine the size of an object.


Holmes increased its brightness due to a sudden increase in outgassing, resulting in a larger coma. The size of the nucleus is not determined by the brightness of the coma. At least you recognize that Holmes did not suddenly acquire more mass; in fact, the outgassing caused a decline in mass.


To ignore this is just bad science and a logical fatal flaw in astronomy.


I humbly submit that science is not the one plagued by logical fallacies.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 

I would have to agree with Phage that the diagram is wrong. You can clearly see that from this image (below) that Halley is not making a node crossing at inferior conjunction, which I believe is your point.

The point where Halley's orbital line changed from dark blue to light blue is its node crossing.

We do know, however, that Halley did in fact transited the Sun back in 1910. It was predicted to do so before hand and was recorded, it did in fact happen. I would guess the reason why this diagram is wrong is because the program was back dated 100 years which is not what this program was designed to do. Any subtle changes and errors would accumulate over time throwing it off.

Another point I would like to make is that solar transits are rare and predictable and they are announced before they happen. Look up transits of Venus, Mercury and our Moon. Solar transits are not as common as one might think. There is a very small window of opportunity for such an event to occur but it does happen. Halley was the last comet to transit the Sun that I know of and if Elenin was predicted to make a solar transit I have confidence that it would be reported.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join