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.

 

Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

page: 18
65
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 





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).


It wouldn't be the first time my parade was rained on so no problem.


So that cosmic ray followed the same path as Ison was supposed to follow, because if so I learn something new everyday.

I was just using the pic you posted earlier of it, that's what I get for jumping the gun thanks for the clarification on this.




posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Tallone
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.


You are the second person to take offense to a post where none was meant. Read it again... I wasn't insulting anyone here.

What I said:

"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 was referring to the videos, from wannabe "experts"... on Youtube... that constantly spread doom, misinformation, and constantly claim that NASA is always lying.

I don't find those videos credible, and I was only pointing it out and expressing my opinion about them.

I meant no offense, OP.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Haven't you watched any of the videos?

You don't remember the discussion about 4 pages back or so that claimed the flares about 24 hours before ISON dived into the sun were class M flares?

Something tells me I will get a response debate whether or not they were class M flares, which is completely irrelevant to the subject.

Several flares came out of the sun as ISON got with about 24 hours of its close encounter with the sun. Essentially everyone on your side of the debate has came out with this, sorry I am not convinced, argument.

Do any of you have anything to back your opinion?

I repeat myself.

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? I will edit this comment to avoid an irrelevant discussion on semantics. How often do these fairly/middlen 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.


edit on 1-12-2013 by poet1b because: typos



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Yeah, that is what you said. I am sorry, but it seems you do not understand basic physics.

The suns eruptions do not have to be directed directly at the comet. The static electricity response was simply an example.

It didn't take a day for electrons to bridge the gap. I don't know why you keep coming to this erroneous conclusion. See above.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by daryllyn
 


Ah, probably best to use standard punctuation when using terms like "lying, liars".

The multiple periods..are confusing.

It looks like you are pretending to say one thing while saying another.

By the way, have you come up with anything to back your opinion on ISON not interacting with the sun?



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   

poet1b
Haven't you watched any of the videos?

You don't remember the discussion about 4 pages back or so that claimed the flares about 24 hours before ISON dived into the sun were class M flares?


I've watched a lot of videos in the last few days, so it would be nice to let me know which one you're thinking of, because I'm not a mind reader.
And I dont care if somebody did claim in a video that there was an M class flare about 24 hours before perihelion, because there is no record of it ever happening... and I gave you the link for that.




poet1b
Something tells me I will get a response debate whether or not they were class M flares, which is completely irrelevant to the subject.


Well, actually it is very relevent, because the whole thing about this Electric Universe theory is that it claimed, predicted in advance, that there would be lots of **X** class flares at perihelion.
Now of course that didnt happen, so it seems that people pushing the theory are content with the smaller M class flares at perihelion.
Now of course that didnt happen so it is very relevent indeed to the predictions of the theory.




poet1b
You could explain how you define normal activity of the sun. Provide some links that describe normal activity of the sun.


Fair enough. There are a number of methods, and this page is a good outline of them.
Because we're talking about flares here, the 10.7cm solar flux is an excellent way of measuring the effects of those flares.

Another indicator of the level of solar activity is the flux of radio emission from the Sun at a wavelength of 10.7 cm (2.8 GHz frequency).

The graph linked to here shows how that value has been travelling recently.
One would expect, that if there was "interaction" between the comet and the sun as proposed, and multiple big flares of any value. X or M, (or even lots of C's) were produced, then the value of the 10.7cm radio flux would be at an abnormally high value on the perihelion day.
Lets check.
Scroll down to the bottom of this list to get the most recent values for the most recent days.
According to the graph just mentioned, a value somewhat about 100 to 130 would be normal for this time.
As you see from the data, no peak, unusual or otherwise, was noted at perihelion.
It is all very "normal".


But for other measurements of radio flux (because were still talking about flares), we can refer to this page.
That page shows the radio flux at different frequencies, at different observatiories, for the last 30 days.
Once again, no peak of any unusual kind is observed at perihelion.
It is all very "normal".

So as well as access to the lists of flares I gave you in the post you're replying to, which showed everything was at normal levels, I've now given you multiple other numerical sources of data which show the history of the sun, and evidence that things were normal at perihelion.




poet1b
How often do these M class eruptions take place in bursts of 3?
How often do these fairly/middlen eruptions take place in bursts of 3?
What are the current theories as to the reason why these eruptions take place?


Irrelevent, because they didnt happen.
You might as well be asking any number of hypothetical questions that also dont need answering because they didnt happen.

edit on amSundayfam1 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

edit on amSundayfam1 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


No, I am not the one asserting that ISON had an electrical reaction with the sun, as per the OP. You haven't provided enough evidence (in my opinion) to attest to that conclusion. The burden of proof is on you (and OP).

I already stated that in my opinion, I do not think that there is a reason to believe that ISON had any effect on the sun, based on the activity you guys (in the EU/EC camp) are showing as "proof". The sun's activity during that time, didn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary to warrant such a conclusion to made.

The sun has been known to throw off several flares in a day, even when there are no comets about to reach, reaching, or passing perihelion. IF the sun ONLY showed such activity upon a comet reaching perihelion, then you might have my attention.

The sun's activity ranges from nothing in a day... up to several flares in a day. Anyone who has watched its activity over time is aware of this, so I don't really see the need for me to "prove" anything in that regard.

To me your assertions are akin to someone believing a stoplight changed only because they approached it. Stoplights will still change, even if no one is nearing them. The fact that they will still change when someone approaches, doesn't mean that their approach made the light change because.. it would have changed anyway. See what I mean?

If you would like to provide something to convince me otherwise, be my guest.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   

poet1b
You could explain how you define normal activity of the sun. Provide some links that describe normal activity of the sun.


Bonus data.
Because this discussion is about flares, the X ray flux itself is also an excellent measure of the number of flares (and they arent called X ray flares for nothing).

This post showed the X ray flux at time of perihelion.
Normal.
No peak there.

And also from this link I also give you a graph of the X ray flux for the last few days.
As you can see, its all sitting low down in the random background noise level that you could see on any day.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 



Here is the link from page 13 where I previously proved you wrong, responding to your claims, for which you still don't have a response.

4 large flares come out of the Sun as ISON approached.

www.nasa.gov...

It is really getting old, you making all of these false claims over and over again, even though you have been proven wrong.

If you have any links that back up your claims about Electric/Plasma Universe, please post them, or else stop posting your made up claims.

Nothing in you link backs up your claims. Number of sunspots in the summer of 2013, about 65, that is about on average about one every day and a half. That makes it look like the number of flares seen as ISON approached to be a very high number. Your link actually provides evidence to prove you wrong.

All the flares took place before the time of the first row of data on the table you provided, which means that your table has nothing to do with what happened.

In addition your link on solar radio flux does not indicate number or size of solar flares, it looks for


nonradiative heating of the coronal plasma trapped by magnetic fields over active regions.

It has been suggested that 10.7 cm solar flux could interfere with point-to-point terrestrial communications.


en.wikipedia.org...

Nobody claimed ISON would interfere with terrestrial communications.

You are just throwing links up on the thread, hoping something sticks.

Once again, do you have any data that back up your position?

Sop while I am at it, I might as well provide another link that proves you wrong.

www.sciencedaily.com...


A giant cloud of solar material, called a coronal mass ejection or CME, is also seen in the images bursting off the bottom of the sun and heading out into space. It is as yet unclear if the CME is heading towards ISON but even if it does, it poses no real danger to the comet.


See how easy that was.
edit on 1-12-2013 by poet1b because: Add additiona link and quote.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by daryllyn
 


Evidence has been provided that ISON did interact with the Sun.

If your evaluation is to have any merit, then you need to provide something, preferably logic and reason, along with links to data, to back up your evaluation of the evidence presented.

Without logic, reason, and data, your opinion is without merit.


To me your assertions are akin to someone believing a stoplight changed only because they approached it. Stoplights will still change, even if no one is nearing them. The fact that they will still change when someone approaches, doesn't mean that their approach made the light change because.. it would have changed anyway. See what I mean?




Are you aware that these days sensors have been put into place, that detect the presence of a vehicle, and change the traffic light, allowing the driver to continue? The traffic lights then go back to a determined state best for traffic flow, until the next car shows up, causing the traffic light to change, so no, it would not have changed anyway on these advanced traffic light systems until a car showed up to trigger the change. These system are the norm where I live.

Do you see what I mean?



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


I have already addressed this point. Go back to page 10, and actually read the responses up until the current page.

This is very annoying. Again, you ignore that which proves you wrong, and then regurgitate your ideas pages later.

Is it your goal to lower the quality of the discussion?



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I'll take it back.


edit on 1-12-2013 by DenyObfuscation because: retracted



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

DenyObfuscation
reply to post by poet1b
 



A giant cloud of solar material, called a coronal mass ejection or CME, is also seen in the images bursting off the bottom of the sun and heading out into space. It is as yet unclear if the CME is heading towards ISON but even if it does, it poses no real danger to the comet.


*Emphasis mine*

Did you read that before presenting it as evidence?

It does prove something but T&C prevent me from stating it.



'unclear' as to the direction of the CME but 100% clear that the CME happened. i think you misinterpreted the point of what you were replying to.
edit on 1/12/13 by RoScoLaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by RoScoLaz
 


I think you're right. He's not going for "interaction" in that post as far as I can see.

Thank you for the correction.


edit on 1-12-2013 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-12-2013 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Big of you to say that.

Thanks!



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   

reply to post by wildespace
 


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.

Whaaaaaaaat? Do you mind linking to where Tallone makes that point?


Comets are discovered so far as I am aware with comas.

BTW did have you been to the site I gave you the link to yet? Jewitt a mass of his published journal articles there for you to download free of charge.

A relevant point I DID make further up this thread is that ISON was discovered WITH a coma way way before the point it should have had one according to the DST model. This underlines the veracity of the EC model that has noted the formation of strong comas and tails on comets where DST predicts they should be diminishing or entirely absent!
edit on 1-12-2013 by Tallone because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by daryllyn
 

Got it. Thank you for the clarification. I retract my over reaction most fully.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Tallone
 





Whaaaaaaaat? Do you mind linking to where Tallone makes that point?


I believe he's referring to "Point 3" listed from the vid.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Specifically I am talking about all cameras placed to view comet ISON as it entered perihelion, undertook perhelion, and departed from perihelion.

NASA set up a page to show all of this. A very pretty page. Unfortunately it showed zilch, zippo, zero of any of that. I say 'unfortunately' but that is my sarcasm. It appears the page was set up to give us a false feed as we watched ISON's progress (even allowing for the delayed images). In other words NASA appears to have set up the images before hand and inserted the rolling time stamps over the images. I realise the wacky outlandish nature of such a claim to many who consider it sacrilege for anyone to suggest a government department would purposefully mislead the public. But it appears that is exactly what happened according to Occams Razor. Or you might otherwise believe it was wilful incompetence. Here is the link.
cometison.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I can tell you there are some severly p*** astronomers about. But you may already be aware of that.



posted on Dec, 1 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join