Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

reply to post by poet1b

When you start making up false quotes, and attributing it to anonymous people who you claim to be responsible for your posting problems, then yeah, it is attacking others.

What are you talking about? Link the post for an example.

Lying liars, DING DING DING, that isn't attacking others?

Are you referring to this?

There is a lot of similar stuff being spouted on ATS.. and in the doom-y/NASA is full of lying, liars that always lie videos from wannabe Youtube "experts" that keep getting posted in the ISON threads (including this one).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If so, do we really need to break that down gramatically to show what is being said? It should be apparent.

How about a legitimate effort on you part to address the topic at hand. Its all over your head.

Simple grade school insult.

But you did claim, "Does that mean the activity was caused by the comet approaching? Absolutely not." Page 14.

She's correct.

poet1b
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

The evidence is out there, and has been provided on the thread.

But no one is going to drag you kicking and screaming to look at it.

Nonsense.

A link to counter your claims.

poet1b
reply to post by daryllyn

 

When you start making up false quotes, and attributing it to anonymous people who you claim to be responsible for your posting problems, then yeah, it is attacking others.

Lying liars, DING DING DING, that isn't attacking others?

The quote was sarcasm to illustrate a point. I thought that was pretty obvious.

For the record... I didn't call anyone a liar. I pointed out that others perpetuate the notion that NASA always lies.

Here is what I said.. read it again.

There is a lot of similar stuff being spouted on ATS.. and in the doom-y/NASA is full of lying, liars that always lie videos from wannabe Youtube "experts" that keep getting posted in the ISON threads (including this one).

I didn't call anyone a liar.

How about a legitimate effort on you part to address the topic at hand. Its all over your head.

But you did claim, "Does that mean the activity was caused by the comet approaching? Absolutely not." Page 14.

I already said that I don't personally have a reason to believe, based on what I have seen thus far, that the sun's activity was anything but ordinary during ISONs approach or departure from perhelion.

A causal relationship would need to be established before I'm going to personally believe it is anything but a correlation.

reply to post by daryllyn


Do you have anything to back your stance?

A contribution that leads you to your conclusion?

An attempt to add to the discussion that isn't sarcasm, or very obtuse statements?

Any comments on links provided to back up claims?

There we go again ATS - - - Please clarify what is going on with the flags on this thread. You removed my posts pointing out the same thing when it happened earlier. Others also noticed. So what is up with the flag removals?

WTF yesterday it was a 63 flag thread. That is 63 flags up for over EIGHT hours. Now we get 62 flags??? What is up with that? Just asking you know as a member of your community who shares the motto "deny ignorance", and who believes "the truth is out there".


So I have a question - for anyone reading. Can flags be removed at any time by the same poster? I ask because it is one thing for posters playing silly buggers, but surely that shouldn't be happening. Is it not a one hour limit on removal of flags??? I would like to have that one cleared up, you know just so it is clear. Otherwise people will get the idea the glitch is in the machine!

Now - back to ISON - Yeah, that is ISON the Electric comet that may well be in fragments. It did snuggle up very close to the sun and as I and others noted before perihelion getting itself fragmented for its overly intimate behaviour was always a possibility.

This from Bruce Gary expresses his disappointment well.

Nov 30, 15.3 UT: I'm now ready to declare that Comet ISON is "dying"! The past 4 months have been fun, sort of, but I'm looking forward to returning to a normal lifestyle. Whereas comet astronomers are embarrassed by the term "Comet of the Century," they continue to refer to it as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to learn about comets. There will be no more updates on this web page for what I will always remember as the "Dud of the Decade.

www.brucegary.net...

A number of observations from me as OP.

First on the comet.
1. Definite interaction with the sun.
2. Possible interaction with mars going only on from photos from various sources. Including a single image of three sent from the Mars rover during that period.
3. No image evidence of interaction with Mercury. The technology in place to confirm or deny any interaction with the planet is NASA and since it is part of the government is also funded by the people, I guess we will never know for sure. Too bad. I would stand by my claim though it remains only a claim without the evidence at this point.
4. The comet appears to have broken up at this point. These would be according to the EC model as I understand it, not ice, but metallic in nature. How the heck anyone can carry on believing in ice balls when

Comets are like cats; they have tails, and they do precisely what they want,

that old adage most recently expressed by David H. Levy (see 'Comets: Creators and Destroyers') underlines to me the number one inadequacy of DST. It cannot describe dependably the reality of comets. EC can and does. The EC models allows that comets will break up but will fragment with a higher degree of velocity then the DST model allows. The velocity at which ISON broke up is yet to be determined. It sure would be helpful if any of NASA's satellites set up to capture perihelion at the closest possible proximity were working (I think they were, we just never saw the images).

The fragments are up there following the trajectory of the comet. That is still something to observe, although no tail is going to be a disappointment for everyone.

Second, the reactions of the DST camp (I presume).
I am talking about what I consider to be the genuine comet enthusiasts here. Absolutely incredible the hysteria with which the EC model has been greeted. Up to the point where, when NASA announced ISON had disappeared many from this camp were actually posting their delight. Strange that comet enthusiasts would do that, but hey maybe that is only me.

Fragments of ISON that are obviously metallic in nature not ice are flying through space on the comets projected trajectory. Observations are still possible, although no longer have a comet body (it seems at this point). For example, it should be possible to determine the nature of the debris trail.

Third. NASA's manipulation of the ISON information coming out. Constantly changing orbits. Yes I know the numbers appear very very small but the implications are huge. The total lack of any image of ISON from NASA that was not a distant fuzz ball. No images at all from the cameras set up to capture ISON in perihelion by satellites positioned at the closest proximity. Incredible haste in proclaiming ISON fizzled. Expect no explanations forthcoming from NASA - none that should be directed at anyone over 12 years old anyway.

reply to post by poet1b


I already explained how I arrived at my conclusion.

I personally didn't find the activity of the sun during, or anywhere near perihelion, to be anything out of the ordinary as far as the sun's activity goes, therefore, I do not attribute the very normal and average activity of the sun during that time to be a result of anything having to do with ISON.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that.

reply to post by Pinkorchid

Hahaha. Never have I seen such hysteria on any threads anywhere before then on my two threads on ISON. Maybe I am just one offensive SOB. Anyway, as someone said once and I paraphrase only, if an ISON thread is not going 'oh' and 'ah' over the wonder of shooting stars it is liable to get threatened with a shut down. Yes, you are bang on there. It is almost as though we are on to something.

I have purposefully kept to a pop format with videos from Youtube, and bland generalizations, and totally admit this may have been offending some of the real boffs that might venture onto ATS. But this is not the Phyz forum and so I reckon the tone is correct. Particularly where Wiki is the preferred link to use as a source.

The thread has been fun, both were fun. Thanks again to everyone for taking part. And again take a look at the data on here. It is a nice little collection of inconvenient truths on ISON and the DST model, and also something else going on that the site management will not allow me to discuss.

Eyes to the sky. There is 'dust' blowing over...

reply to post by Tallone


A couple of questions if you don't mind.

When you say

1. Definite interaction with the sun.

Are we talking about reciprocal action or influence or something else?

Also, which cameras are you referring to specifically in the following

No images at all from the cameras set up to capture ISON in perihelion by satellites positioned at the closest proximity.

DenyObfuscation
Also, which cameras are you referring to specifically in the following
No images at all from the cameras set up to capture ISON in perihelion by satellites positioned at the closest proximity.

I've already tried with no success twice now to pin him down on that point.

His original claim was that NASA were keeping images hidden from the public, and that there were images that should have been released, that were not.
Then, when pressed on exactly which images were missing, his claim got watered down to "cant see the comet in the SOHO images".
But when I asked if that meant all images were indeed released, he got all defensive and refuses to be clear on exactly what his assertion is anymore.

reply to post by Tallone

Can flags be removed at any time by the same poster?

Yes, they can.

Someone likely had a change of heart and removed their flag...

reply to post by daryllyn


You could explain how you define normal activity of the sun. Provide some links that describe normal activity of the sun.

How often do these M class eruptions take place in bursts of 3?

What are the current theories as to the reason why these eruptions take place?

Anyone can say they disagree, or that they don't think the evidence is adequate, but without a reasonable and logical explanation, and references to scientific reasons, it is meaningless, and does not contribute.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

I don't mind, directing you to the chronicle of ISON the electric comet. I gave you the summary, what you need to do now is go back and read for that detail. It is all there above or it wouldn't be in the summary. We don't want to be filling the thread with posts that are repeats of repeats now do we?

Welcome to a fact filled thread that does more than just go oh and ah at ISON. That's ISON the electric comet - I don't think we have seen the end of it yet.

poet1b
How often do these M class eruptions take place in bursts of 3?

"bursts of 3"?
Depends what fictional scenario you're talking about.
I've just looked back through the records of the last few days here and there were no M class flares at all.

reply to post by poet1b

The flares did not last 24 hours.

That's not what I said. It's what you implied, though perhaps you did not understand that you did so.

Now.

Go. And. Look. At. The. Video.

The flare does not bridge a gap between the comet and the Sun. It emerges on the opposite side of the Sun to the comet, 24 hours later.

To forestall your obvious (and erroneous) comeback, the equatorial rotation period of the Sun is 24 days.

Anyway, if those (nonexistent) electrons of yours took a day to bridge the gap between the comet and the Sun, it means they were travelling at only twenty thousand kilometres per hour. Odd, when you consider that the electrons emitted from the Sun as part of the solar wind travel at hundreds of thousands of kilometres per second — and particles emitted in a solar flare must be travelling at least as fast.

There is no way you can be right.

reply to post by daryllyn


Intrepid should have removed the post I am replying to. I missed seeing that but it is way way out of order. There is no need to sling mud at posters (or possibly the OP). No need at all.

Better to address the topic of the thread which is Electric Comet ISON - Revealed.

reply to post by Tallone

Welcome to a fact filled thread that does more than just go oh and ah at ISON. That's ISON the electric comet - I don't think we have seen the end of it yet

When do we see the beginning of this electric comet, because we have yet to see it interact with the sun as you generously try to say this whole thread.

Staying with the spirit of the thread which explores the EC model using comet ISON as a case study if you like.

Metal comet ISON?

I mention above several times ISON demonstrates not an icy mass but rather a metallic mass.
Just a wee while ago NASA explained why the Solar Dynamics Observatory instruments did not observe comet ISON in perihelion. The "lack of a visible trail" (actually the lack of ISON absolute) was due they say to having set AIA telescopes to account for the oxygen expected.This would be expected under the standard DST model of course. In other words they are implying (not stating outright but as good as doing so) that ISON has little to no water in its composition. Interesting no?
sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I was prompted to post this when I found this recent video - really interesting!!

My thanks to Daniel Briskin for the excellent points he makes in his video.


Check out the points daniel makes I quote here.

Published on Nov 30, 2013
What what do we know?

1. ISON was observed at a distance of 8 AU from the sun.
www.astro.umd.edu...
2. ISON has never been observed without a coma.
3. Comets are usually discovered without a coma first, and develop comas at much closer distances to the sun.
4. ISON entered perihelion with a coma. (LASCO C3)
5. ISON exited perihelion with a coma. (LASCO C3)
6. ISON would have shown up in the SDO observations if it was emitting oxygen.
7. ISON displayed some potential magnetic / electric properties. i.imgur.com...
Also covered in my previous video with greater detail.

Thus ISON's nucleus is not made out of ice, water, or rock, and neither is it's coma. So, what is it made out of?

reply to post by Tallone

The "lack of a visible trail" (actually the lack of ISON absolute) was due they say to having set AIA telescopes to account for the oxygen expected.

Actually there was a visible trail it just wasn't that big of a trail as seen here...

reply to post by Tallone


I want to touch on point 6.

6. ISON would have shown up in the SDO observations if it was emitting oxygen.

As I have shown in my prior post it did show up on SDO and it was showing a tail. so that must mean it was emitting oxygen, albeit not a large tail there was a tail in the SDO views.

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Tallone

 

The "lack of a visible trail" (actually the lack of ISON absolute) was due they say to having set AIA telescopes to account for the oxygen expected.

Actually there was a visible trail it just wasn't that big of a trail as seen here...

Sorry to rain on your parade, but after a more careful examination of SDO images showing that "thing", I came to the conclusion that it's image artifacts (probably caused by cosmic rays). They appear randomly at times and in places inconsistent with the passage of ISON. The comet is not visible in SDO, sorry.

~~~

On the Tallone's point that comets are discovered before they develop a coma - that's not what I've seen. A new object has to have diffuse appearance (i.e. a coma and, sometimes, a tail) before it can be designated a comet.