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.

 

Lovejoy Turns Into Killjoy - Comet Survives Close Encounter With Sun .... But

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheGreatRevelation
 




- The comet forms a cross in the sattelite image. The "reason" for this doesn't matter. If the comet was coming from another angle, and not in the "vertical" position, it would never have formed a cross to be seen by thousands of people who were checking the sattelite images, even if the same "lens flare" effect had took place. If it came from another angle, it could have formed an "X", or a "V", but never a cross, a very clear cross that even appear to have a person on it, a crucified person, with the open arms.

It is not a lens flare. As pointed out the "cross" is a sensor effect. That is why it is always horizontal, no matter the direction or angle of the comet.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

edit on 12/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



You know that I'm not talking about the horizontal line created by the sensor effect.

You know that I'm talking about the vertical component of the cross.

The horizontal part would appear anyway, but the vertical part would not form a cross if the comet didn't come from the "bottom" of the image frame, "arising" in a nearly vertical position.

You know very well that this is the first time that a comet on SOHO forms a nearly perfect cross like that. The past comet "Neat" wasn't even close to the "looking" of a cross.

edit on 16-12-2011 by TheGreatRevelation because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by TheGreatRevelation
 




The comet is named Lovejoy (Love + Joy)


As named after it's discoverer Terry Lovejoy who has two other comets bearing his name...

C/2007 E2
C/2007 K5




I know the reason why it's called Lovejoy, thank you.

With hundreds of thousands of astronomers in the world, someone named Lovejoy had to be the discoverer of this comet...

One more coincidence, sure. As I could imagine, "coincidence" is the only word that may comes out from the "rational thinkers".



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheGreatRevelation
 


Discoverer of this comet plus two others.

If this one is of significance because of his name, why aren't the two others significant?

And I'm sorry to say but bright comets, even planets create the 'winged' effect when viewed from SOHO...

Lovejoy:



Neat:



McNaught:



Machholz|:




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
"Is it the the cross can't be defeated?!" FACEPALM

You have got to be kidding me. Christians these days. oh PRAISE THE LORD. THE COMET SURVIVED. lol jk
Not to rain on your parade haha.
Any of you ever watched Stargate Universe. The Destiny (ancient ship) recharges when it goes through stars. This could very well be possible for all we know. We see incredible advancements in technology every year that are unexpected.

My guess it has to slow down by looping around the sun, while also using it as a charging station so that eventually it can align near earths orbit.

Greetings and Salutations Earthlings



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TheGreatRevelation
 


You know very well that this is the first time that a comet on SOHO forms a nearly perfect cross like that. The past comet "Neat" wasn't even close to the "looking" of a cross.

Are you sure?




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheGreatRevelation
- The comet is named Lovejoy (Love + Joy)

Lol, so what? That's the name of the amateur who found it!


- The comet forms a cross in the sattelite image. The "reason" for this doesn't matter.

Actually, it does, it's CCD blooming, it happens to any sufficiently bright object.


If the comet was coming from another angle, and not in the "vertical" position,

It came in at a curve, at some point it will be "vertical" on that curve in the image so as long as it's not obscured at that point you will see a cross guaranteed. Right now the tail is not in a "vertical" position. See the chadwickus and phage examples; those comets also came in on a curve, like all comets, and also formed "crosses" at certain points.


even if the same "lens flare" effect had took place.

Not a lens flare.


- The comet survives the approach of the Sun, much closer than planet Mercury, even when all the scientists predicted it would not survive

LOL, they said it probably wouldn't, but they couldn't guarantee it.


- Wikipedia says the comet has an Orbital period of 314 years. 2011 - 314 = 1697. The last perihelion was on the year 1697. The same year when the last surviving Maya state, the Itza kingdom, was conquered by the Spaniards, bringing to a definitive end any independent Maya state.

I don't even see how that's a coincidence except the date; the rest is just hunting for something even remotely interesting in order to confirm some sort of numerology confirmation bias.


Keep talking about "coincidences", dear "rational thinkers".

Keep engaging in confirmation bias.
edit on 16-12-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheGreatRevelation

One more coincidence, sure. As I could imagine, "coincidence" is the only word that may comes out from the "rational thinkers".



And what on earth is so important about the name "love + joy" ?

This isn't about religion, unless you are trying to tell us that your God is a space-ship-riding-alien ... otherwise, this is one more clue to the fact, that we are living in an electromagnetic universe, of plasma. Where there are several factors contributing to our orbit ... these being Gravity, speed and the last and not least ... electro magnetism.

Heat is generated by resistance ... the sun isn't "generating" heat, it is emitting particles that when bombarding other particles, generate heat. And heat is not some "magic" wand in your oven, it is the motional and energetic state of particles. The comet is obviously, "emitting" it's own electromagnetism which is warding off the particles of the sun, at a distance that protects the comet ... the comet had enough speed, and electromagnetism to escape the Suns gravity.


There is nothing coincidential about this ... it's pure science.

And IFF you are religious, you should abide to the words "blessed are those who ..., because there's is the knowledge of heaven" .... you should fill in the words "hunger for knowledge", for the dots. Because, that is the "original meaning" of the word there. Now go and educate yourself in science, and stop babbling about crosses.

edit on 19-12-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I still have my questions as in my other thread:

1. how come a comet managed to spin around the sun without, let's just say melting? I don't remember hearing something like this before. The sun is a pretty hot place, what material does not melt when going that close to the sun? any scientific explanation? I'm curious to hear it.

2. The sun has a pretty awesome gravity. How come that little comet did not get sucked in the sun? And, really, did it have that perfect trajectory to spin around the sun without getting pulled in? wow, then we should calculate it and send our probes to gain speed on that exact same trajectory... honestly i doubt this so can anyone provide an answer how that bloddy thing did not get sucked by the sun?

Thanks



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Christians believe there will be "signs from the heavens" when we are approaching the end times. It is part of our faith. So therefore, a comet called "Lovejoy" appearing in the shape of the cross after it does not do what NASA has predicted it would do (disintegrate upon approach to the sun)....let's just say, that sounds like "signs from the heavens" to me.

This, of course, would sound ludicrous to a non-Christian, because you would not be looking for signs.

There are MANY signs right now pointing to the end times described in the Christian Bible. We are in interesting times.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by kobewan69
I still have my questions as in my other thread:

1. how come a comet managed to spin around the sun without, let's just say melting? I don't remember hearing something like this before. The sun is a pretty hot place, what material does not melt when going that close to the sun? any scientific explanation? I'm curious to hear it.

First of all, generally speaking solids do not melt in the vacuum of space, they sublimate. Lots of comets go around the sun without vaporizing, even some of this particular type of comet. Previous examples include the great comet of 1843 and the great comet of 1882. Just because the sun's corona is hot does not mean that a given object within the corona will assume the same temperature in a very short time frame during perihelion. The density of the corona is only about 10 to 15 particles per cubic meter, so even though they're very hot, the particles are few and far between, thus a sufficiently large comet may not reach a temperature high enough to disintegrate it during a high velocity perihelion. It is quite likely that the comet will start outgassing more as a result of the encounter though.


2. The sun has a pretty awesome gravity. How come that little comet did not get sucked in the sun? And, really, did it have that perfect trajectory to spin around the sun without getting pulled in?

I really mean it when I say I intend no offense, but this really speaks to your lack of knowledge about astronomy and astrodynamics. I don't even know where to start; I would basically have to teach you how orbits work from the ground up because it appears you don't understand it at all. "That perfect trajectory" is just a natural consequence of having a highly eccentric orbit that isn't quite so eccentric that it hits the sun. It's just how it is for this particular comet, there's nothing magical about it, but in order for you to understand what I just said you'd have to understand how orbital eccentricity works. Here's a basic textbook that can help you with that:
search.barnesandnoble.com...

wow, then we should calculate it

We already did. That's how people like me can make videos like this:



and send our probes to gain speed on that exact same trajectory...

Gain speed relative to what and to what end? If you mean, to intercept the comet, such missions require years to build and test the equipment. By then, this long period comet will be long gone.


honestly i doubt this so can anyone provide an answer how that bloddy thing did not get sucked by the sun?

It's a natural consequence of its orbit. Please study some basic astrodynamics if you want to understand more about how that works.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by kobewan69
 


I can't answer why the comet didn't disintegrate, I've not researched that. However I can help a bit about the orbital dynamics, of which for this comet was as I have seen again without much research into it, is highly elliptical. This means the comet was being drawn towards the sun, though very close, in an angle that would have just flown by a smaller gravity, like a Jupiter gravity, with a slight bend in its continued trajectory. However the sun's gravity is so huge it captured the tiny comet and the comet was flung around, the speed at which this happened was likely close to 300,000 mph. NASA's 1970's HELIOS spacecrafts shot around the sun just inside the orbit of Mercury and exceed 158,000 mph doing so. This comet was millions of miles closer to the sun, thus achieved a greater speed.

The comet remains in orbit because the escape velocity of the sun is way over a million miles per hour, around 1.38 mill/hr but at the distance the comet was from the sun was sufficient enough to prevent the comet from falling into the sun. Had the sun been Jupiter the escape velocity would be only about 133,000 mph so the comet at the speed it was going would have not been flung around, it's trajectory would have just been bent, and continued on forever without a return trip back.

I think that may have something to do with a partial answer to the 2nd quest.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I never claimed I was an astronomer nor that I have the knowledge so basicly all i asked for was a clean answer. what I ment is this, if the sun has a much higher gravity than the planets in the solar system, logically it can be used to accelerate an object faster than the rest of celestial bodies for example (from my basic understanding watching tv shows).

astronomy is a science that yet has many spaces missing, just like this comet proved, so to study something that is not conclusive science is passion, and I grant you for your passion, however, by your statements, we could send a probe and actually get closeup data on the sun, why haven't we done that yet? since we know a trajectory that would not cause the probe to crush into the sun and since at certain speeds the proba does not disintegrate.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Thanks



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I see ngchunter furnished a more comprehensive explanation that what I offered. The funny thing about space is due to the lack of a carrier in a vacuum (near vacuum) space has no temperature. Though surface heating from direct solar radiation is near instant while cooling back down from less solar radiation takes longer because of the lack of a carrier–air, or gaseous matter, in short, there is no wind chill effect in space.

A study of why Venus is hotter than Mercury would be a good subject to research a bit to understand how the sun heats bodies and how bodies retain heat from the sun.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Well for me personally this event has further distanced myself from the "accepted" facts (of which there are very few that are KNOWN) on Comets.

Some recent events behavior and observations such as this one, show something is not right on our current acceptance of this.

If it is Ice , rock, whatever it still has to be affected and react in the same manner across the universe (depending on factors such as temp, pressure etc), that is what science is.

That is why the exclusion principle, even at sub atomic and quantum fields, showed that, and tens of thousands of subsequent observations proved this, that an star of mass more that about 1.6 x the suns is the biggest White Dwarf that can be produced.

No matter where in the universe.

It is an constant, like the melting point of water and the speed of light (again depending how and how observed, what pressures, gravity, higs bosein being used etc etc) wherever you put water in the universe, at a certain pressure, gravity and such like it will always hit the melt,vapor state * at the same temprature.

Now ok up until now Comets have been Dusty snowballs, this has changed to loose rocks and sometimes packed rocks and dust with icy cores or ice mixed in.

However some scientific facts, not speculation, if it is Rock 100% with an say 1% covering of ice (amazing how this would make such big comas but hey ho for the purpose of illustration) and we assume then that the core is the hardest and most high melting point known for extraterrestrial rocks can be found from the results and observations on both Iron Meteriotes and also rock ones that have come to earth and as we know:


At temperatures of around 2,700°F, asteroidal lithologies put up little resistance. Once the melt becomes fluid, it is instantly carried away in the gas and plasma jet stream and new material is melted underneath. In this process of ablation, depending on entry angle, entry velocity and mineral composition, the meteoroid loses up to ninety percent of its original mass


Meteorite Recon

and further:


Enstatite meteorites are a diverse group of strange rocks. They contain little or no oxidized iron, a rare occurrence in the Solar System. Nevertheless, melting experiments on these oxygen-depleted meteorites give clues about magma compositions and core formation in asteroids. Tim McCoy (Smithsonian Institution), Tamara Dickinson (Catholic University), and Gary Lofgren (Johnson Space Center) heated an enstatite chondrite (called Indarch) to a range of temperatures above the temperature of initial melting. They found that the sulfide minerals in the rock melted at 1000o C. This disproved a hypothesis that the calcium sulfide in the rock formed at a very high temperature in the gas-dust cloud from which the planets formed and survived melting in igneous enstatite meteorites. The experiments also indicate that the metallic iron and sulfide minerals begin to form connected networks when only about 20% of the rocky material is melted. This suggests that core formation in the asteroid could have taken place at such low amounts of melting, rather than requiring much higher amounts of melting as some scientists have argued. The experiments also show that igneous enstatite meteorites could have formed from unmelted enstatite chondrites.
Hawaii University

and further on the highest known temp of melt for extraterrestrial rock:


One of the exotic sulfide minerals in enstatite chondrites and aubrites is oldhamite, calcium sulfide (CaS). This mineral has a very high melting temperature if it is pure, around 2525 oC. Some scientists, most notably Katharina Lodders (Washington University in St. Louis), have argued that it formed in the solar nebula, the cloud of gas and dust from which the Sun and planets formed. That might be feasible for chondrites, most of which were not melted, but in aubrites the oldhamite must have survived the melting process. Proponents of the nebula idea argue that the aubrites would have melted at about 1500 oC, well below the oldhamite melting temperature. Opponents argue that oldhamite's high melting temperature is irrelevant in a mixed system with other sulfides.


So this Piece of Rock and some ice passed through over 1 million degrees for an period of time not an "flash" event, to include the increase of temp before hand for many hours and afterwards and unlike all known space rocks and all known laws of physics it did not melt and survived.

Something is so very obviously different about Comets than what is theorised, and for me to even debate the old theory or current theory of Comets is Lame and also anyone who is interested understands science cannot but see the glaring hole in observations against theory.

Kind Regards,

Elf



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 

It's a little deceptive to talk about the Sun's corona being millions of degrees and to guess how that temperature would affect a comet passing through it. The corona is indeed very hot but it is not very dense (about 0.0000000037% that of the Earth's atmosphere at the surface). It's not exactly as if the comet was falling through a blast furnace. There isn't much material to transfer heat to the comet (though the radiation would be very intense).

It was surprising that the comet survived but rather than requiring an entirely new model of what a comet is, it only requires that the estimated size of the nucleus be increased.

At the time of discovery, Comet Lovejoy appeared to be at least ten times larger than the usual Kreutz sungrazer, somewhere in the in the 100 to 200 meter range. In light of today's events, researchers are revising those numbers upward.

"I'd guess the comet's core must have been at least 500 meters in diameter; otherwise it couldn't have survived so much solar heating," says Matthew Knight. "A significant fraction of that mass would have been lost during the encounter. What's left is probably much smaller than the original comet."

science.nasa.gov...


edit on 12/19/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by kobewan69
reply to post by ngchunter
 

what I ment is this, if the sun has a much higher gravity than the planets in the solar system, logically it can be used to accelerate an object faster than the rest of celestial bodies for example (from my basic understanding watching tv shows).

Gravity assist maneuvers can only be performed using the satellites of a given reference body. There is nothing to be gained (velocity-wise) from a close approach to the sun with respect to reaching the planets. As another example, you could use Jupiter as a gravity assist to reach Neptune since they're both satellites of the sun, but you cannot use Jupiter as a gravity assist to reach Europa from Ganymede since Europa and Ganymede both orbit Jupiter. You may need to orbit Jupiter in your Ganymede-to-Europa trip in order to line up your trajectory for rendezvous, but you can't use it for gravity assist purposes (traditionally called a "slingshot" maneuver). Likewise, you cannot use the sun for a gravity assist to reach anything in our solar system since everything ultimately orbits the sun. TV shows never tend to explain the physics of why the "slingshot maneuver" works and frequently get it wrong themselves by depicting manuevers that would not actually produce a true "slingshot." Again, if you study the textbook I recommended, you'll understand why this is; it only works by stealing a tiny fraction of the orbital energy of one object to reach a second orbiting object.


astronomy is a science that yet has many spaces missing, just like this comet proved, so to study something that is not conclusive science is passion, and I grant you for your passion, however, by your statements, we could send a probe and actually get closeup data on the sun, why haven't we done that yet?

A solar probe mission is currently being developed. That this comet didn't disintegrate is interesting, but astronomers did hold out the possibility that this would happen. In fact, in the days leading up to it I saw post after post emphasizing this possibility. That's why I find it mildly surprising that people are now suddenly acting so surprised.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 

It's a little deceptive to talk about the Sun's corona being millions of degrees and to guess how that temperature would affect a comet passing through it. The corona is indeed very hot but it is not very dense (about 0.0000000037% that of the Earth's atmosphere at the surface). It's not exactly as if the comet was falling through a blast furnace. There isn't much material to transfer heat to the comet.

Bingo, bingo, bingo. This is the fact that everyone's overlooking. I need to revise my earlier statement though; the density should have been 10 TO the 15th per cubic meter, not 10 to 15 per cubic meter. Sounds like a lot, but the density of earth's atmosphere is even higher than that at about 150km altitude.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Why the "fire tail" after getting around the sun, stays in the same direction (in front of the travel direction of the comet) and not is back? Shouldn't be behind the comet ?



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by voyger2
 


The tail of a comet always points away from the Sun.
www.pd.astro.it...



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join