Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

reply to post by Trubeeleever

 

As a complete dumb-ass layman, the question of how water appears on the surface of the comet, when it was once inside is a simple case of thermal dynamics.

As the comet approaches a super hot celestial body like our sun, the comet and every compound within it also super heats. The heavier substances like iron, are reduced to a malleable erupting magma, and force their way to the centre of the corona, while pushing out the gaseous elements like hydrogen and oxygen.

FRACTALS.

The earth has a super heated iron core, while substances like water are displaced to the outer surface. But it's not to say that certain amounts of water are not trapped beneath the surface, but add enough heat, thus turning the entire earth into bubbling iron and gas stew, and the gases will migrate to the surface, while the heavier substance will fight to get to the core.

As the comet rounds the sun, it too becomes a bubbling stew of it's own juices, thermal dynamics push the lighter gases away from the core, but convection currents pull them back, but not all the way, because at the extreme core the densest metals will always dominate.

As the comet rounds the sun and then hides behind another celestial body like The Earth, it cools very quickly in the shadow of the Earth, and the violent eruptions now subside, leaving a brittle crust on the surface.

What astronomers can now see is a quiet sleeping comet with an icy outer surface, but as soon as it reappears out of the shadow of the earth and back into the blazing radioactive heat of the sun it explodes back to life, expelling it's icy crust in an instant, and then returns back to it's former bubbling brewing mass it was only a day or two before.

However, as it leaves our neighborhood and continues its fiery path towards the outer edges of our solar system, and no more celestial bodies to hide behind, it cools at a much much slower rate, therefore allowing the water to seep back to the core, as the molten metal cools slower. An Astronomers view of the comet at this stage would be one of an iron mass, with little water visible.

Whoa ! Gee I can write some B/S when I set my mind to it.

edit on 3-12-2013 by Trubeeleever because: Grammatical Corrections.

What you have there is a close approximate of the DST model. Less a lot of the prattle about icy molecules.

You have also exposed very handily some key inadequacies of that model, just as did comet ISON itself.

ISON was seen with a strong coma before it reached Jupiter, far too distant from the Sun for any sublimation to take place according to the standard DST account of comet characteristics and the interactions it uses to account for coma and tail production. A problem for DST is that comets departing perihelion regain their tail, more to the point comets that have passed very close to the Sun's surface do also. The explanation of this phenomenon by the DST model is simply inadequate, because it relies on explaining the coma and tail as the result primarily of emissions venting from inside the comet. As you have already noted since the interior should now be solid there is no logical way for the the reappearance of the coma let alone such extremely long tails as observed.

Had ISON survived perihelion intact and not fragmented, as the current data from NASA and other space agencies appears to show it to have done, it would have blown apart the DST model. Why? Because it was a Sun grazing comet.

Let's not forget that NASA, other world agencies, and DST advocates insist ISON is/was only 1 - 5 or so kilometres in diameter! That amounts to a smallish icy ball if dirt grazing the surface of the Sun, and an object like that would definitely not be expected to regain a coma and tail, it would not even be expected to survive perihelion intact, period.

Well done.

Comet ISON was never as small as stated, and clearly did not have an interior consisting of icy molecules and soft rock. It is time to move on to the EC / EU model and put DST where it belongs, behind us.

reply to post by BobAthome

Yes, a subtle weave of errr half truths and untruths from NASA's official public releases, maybe intended for our own good, maybe not. But we will find out.

It is bizarre isn't it, that there are now no images of the progress of the so called ISON debris? It is no surprise the majority of DST advocates are not demanding any such images.They all breathed a collective sigh of relief at the demise of ISON apparently, either that or they came to this thread to dance on the grave of the comet Trying hard not to look through their telescopes until any trace of ISON has definitively vanished - bad science.

reply to post by Tallone

Too:
Post by Trubeeleever:

i quote:

"Whoa ! Gee I can write some B/S when I set my mind to it."

gotta say for bull #tacles,,,there the one's., that hang on a cold winters day,,, dont smell at all.

im very impressed with your austute grasp of Molecular
Physics,,

well done,, hear,, hear,, he said standing


too Tallone,, opps but glad u agree.

reply to post by Tallone


So, have you been training your telescope on it? No? Why not? What are you afraid of?

Edit to add: Here you go; now please stop the BS:


spaceweathergallery.com...

Since ison fizzled out , does this means you cannot see it or it broke apart into vapor matter after going by the sun?

a questions. a: did ison turn vapor. if so, then is this vapor traveling at same speed. has it been altered course? will it have any effects on planets or is there still an elctric feild we cannot see yet.

Tallone
bizarre isn't it, that there are now no images of the progress of the so called ISON debris?

Gezushellandmighty, I just posted a freaking image of the debris on the last freaking page of this very thread.

There have been no images of ISON in perihelion recorded by the satellites. None that we know of that is. I have pointed that out already above.
'
Seeingatruth posted a video today giving a very good analysis of the images published by NASA - failing to capture any image of ISON. The particularly interesting aspect of the image analysis is not so much what is not being shown as it is what IS shown. What we have in this video is a step by step breakdown of glitches, images that are either blacked out or are total blurs.

Here is a quote from the video of a summary of EUVI-B.

The results of EUVI-B are:
EUVI-B 171 gets darker at 18:14
EUVI-B 195 goes hazy at 18:16
(also has multiple glitches)
EUVI-B 284 goes black at 18:17
EUVI-B 304 glitch at 18:17

I particularly want to recommend the first section up to 12:02.

Tallone
There have been no images of ISON in perihelion recorded by the satellites.

No images of comet ISON at perihelion????
Good lordy, is there even ONE time you could say something that is actually true?

Take a look at this video, see 1:08 for the view from STEREO-A...

reply to post by alfa1


What an obtuse reply, surely you understand what he meant???

If you didn't then I will tell you , stills actual pictures of the comet , without the glitches and the excuses.

reply to post by alfa1

Yes we are familiar with those images of the wider periphery range. But no problem Alfa1 I have been steering you back on track throughout the thread. I will do it again now.

The cameras I have been talking about are those set up to supply close proximity images of the comet in perhelion including approach and departure. I specified that in my second to last post bottom of page 18. I thought paying attention to posts had suddenly become your thing?

Never mind, here is that link again.
cometison.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Here is a quote from NASA made on the pretty page prior to perihelion. A promise they never fulfilled.

On November 28, 2013, the SDO (Solar Dynamics Observatory) spacecraft will off-point at three different positions as Comet ISON moves through perihelion. This website will display near realtime images and movies of this sungrazing comet. Images should begin appearing sometime between 12:45 pm and 1:00 pm ET.

One of the great things about the video is it incorporates the particularly interesting glitches apparent in the SECCHI EUVI-B specifically when ISON was travelling in its field of view!

Very interesting and of course nothing but coincidence. Unless you don't believe in coincidence. Most scientists don't for good reason.

Tallone
It is bizarre isn't it, that there are now no images of the progress of the so called ISON debris?

*ahem* STEREO-A HI1 camera (also called H1A). stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov...


For non-solar telescopes, ISON is still too close to the Sun. I'm sure large telescopes will have a look at what's left of ISON, when it will be safe to do so.

So, SDO didn't see ISON. What can NASA do about it? Other satellites saw it entering perihelion and exiting it, so we know it was there. Do you think NASA erased the comet from SDO images, or took images when it was not there and put false timestamps? Go on, let your conspiracy-ridden mind run free. Me, I'm happy with the images of ISON we have from SOHO and STEREO, despite all the glitches, image artifacts, and low resolution.

Tallone
The cameras I have been talking about are those set up to supply close proximity images of the comet in perhelion including approach and departure.

To quote your own words, your original claim is:

"There have been no images of ISON in perihelion recorded by the satellites. "
and
"Specifically I am talking about all cameras placed to view comet ISON as it entered perihelion, undertook perhelion, and departed from perihelion. "
and again above
"The cameras I have been talking about are those set up to supply close proximity images of the comet in perhelion including approach and departure. "

Cameras, plural
Satellites, plural.
Use of the word "all", encompassing the whole set.

And now you try to weasel out of it (after being caught out) by claiming you were just talking about the SDO alone.

Come on, be a man and just admit that despite your all encompasing claim of denial, there were indeed images captures showing perihelion, that you just personally didnt know about.
Much indeed like your earlier incorrect claim that there were no images captured after perihelion of the "debris" in recent days, that its seems that you just personally didnt know about.


Edit -- it also occurs to me to ask what you meant by "close proximity" images, when the SDO is, like the STEREO satellites, the exact same distance of 1AU from the sun.

reply to post by alfa1

And now you try to weasel out of it (after being caught out) by claiming you were just talking about the SDO alone.

Is that kind of like the way he never responded to the pre vs. post perihelion debris thing? After insisting that the fragments were spiraling towards earth, even though, the path he was talking about and the orbit we will actually pass through are two entirely different things? Millions of miles apart?

reply to post by wildespace
So, SDO didn't see ISON. What can NASA do about it? Other satellites saw it entering perihelion and exiting it, so we know it was there. Do you think NASA erased the comet from SDO images, or took images when it was not there and put false timestamps? Go on, let your conspiracy-ridden mind run free. Me, I'm happy with the images of ISON we have from SOHO and STEREO, despite all the glitches, image artifacts, and low resolution.

Precisely. ISON was not seen by ALL cameras (not meaning to shout but to highlight). There is no question at all that ISON both entered perihelion and departed it, seemingly intact for a period at least. That isn't the issue.

I don't know what NASA did with those images. If anyone does know they are not telling. The point is we are missing extremely valuable images telling us a lot about ISON particularly its shape, whether it is one object or several, and even the possible nature of its make up.

Any good scientist examines the MISSING data. Analysing what is missing, where it is missing, and when it is missing is crucial - when data is missing.

I don't understand why you, seemingly extremely interested in objectivity also, wishes to ignore what was apriori to the perihelion of ISON considered to be critical data - NASA created a site just for that data I am talking about and I have quoted from that site to demonstrate just how critical that data was considered to be. At the very least NASA acknowledged that other professional and amateur astronomers expected to see those images.

BTW Your reply completely misses the point of that video analysis I embedded. You say, "I'm happy with the images of ISON we have from SOHO and STEREO, despite all the glitches, image artifacts, and low resolution." But scientists during analysis generally look for patterns in data present and absent.

An artist may say 'gee, I am happy with the image and I will stop there'. A scientist does not. A scientist, say an astronomer, is focused on explaining the results and not on admiring them. Being 'happy with the images' is what joe and jayne non-scientist may be, and they are entitled to say that - but if you are arguing from a scientific POV you will want to analyse and explain images as data and not simply as pretty pictures.

I respect your opinion. But that opinion is not the basis for a counter-argument.

Remember, this thread is a debate between EC and DST over the evidence supporting or denying one theory over the other drawn from the observations of comet ISON. I think that requires a poster to offer some attempt to analyse and explain on our posts to present an argument. This is not a thread devoted to going 'oh' and 'ah' over the pretty pictures we gratefully receive from those with humungous telescopes.

When I see trolling I will not respond. Repeated attempts to divert the thread from the subject, particularly by attempting to provoke constitute trolling to my mind. I will ignore these. I will leave it for others to work their way back over the threads of discussion between posters within the thread and make their own conclusions.

Then again… repeated attempts to provoke can mean we are on to something significant enough they want the conversation to stop. The inverse rule in action, the one I mentioned on my earlier thread.

reply to post by Tallone

I don't know what NASA did with those images. If anyone does know they are not telling. The point is we are missing extremely valuable images telling us a lot about ISON particularly its shape, whether it is one object or several, and even the possible nature of its make up.

And what exactly would be the reason NASA is lying about ISON?

reply to post by Tallone

When I see trolling I will not respond. Repeated attempts to divert the thread from the subject, particularly by attempting to provoke constitute trolling to my mind. I will ignore these. I will leave it for others to work their way back over the threads of discussion between posters within the thread and make their own conclusions.

So unless someone agrees with you aren't going to reply, is this correct?

Interesting...

Just wondering if it's worth the time to reply anymore, or would I be having a conversation with myself?

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Tallone

 

When I see trolling I will not respond. Repeated attempts to divert the thread from the subject, particularly by attempting to provoke constitute trolling to my mind. I will ignore these. I will leave it for others to work their way back over the threads of discussion between posters within the thread and make their own conclusions.

So unless someone agrees with you aren't going to reply, is this correct?

Interesting...

Just wondering if it's worth the time to reply anymore, or would I be having a conversation with myself?

I'd say that is a rather unfair response and kind of goes to the heart of what he was saying. Tallone has responded to disagreement quite often, maybe less so on specific predictions but that is nearly irrelevant as hindsight is 20/20 if you know what I mean. I understand the idea of attempting to discredit someones character to defeat an argument but this is one of the longer threads in this forum lately, and many issues have been addressed, it's hard to pick everyone's point up, I don't know how constructive it is to try and rake someone over the coals when all one has to do is read the thread to see what went on, that's one nice thing about message boards.

We know NASA does edit their information sent out by SDO and Stereo, they do it often for sun diving comets, and have admitted to such. The thing is they don't ALWAYS edit it out, so whether you believe they edit it for nefarious purposes or technical ones is up to your own judgement. They are not the only source of information and armatures are starting to approach the capabilities of NASA when it comes to solar observation. They will never equal it for obvious reasons but if NASA was editing out some super controversial information I am suspect that they really have the capability to mask it simply by editing videos.

When I think about this from an EU perspective I would say that any major electrical event would produce x-rays and data in more than just visible light and would have happened several times previously, those kinds of interactions would be detectable by many people. This pretty much eliminates the need for video of perihelion even if it is disappointing and suspicious to not have it on that basis.

reply to post by vind21

I'd say that is a rather unfair response and kind of goes to the heart of what he was saying. Tallone has responded to disagreement quite often, maybe less so on specific predictions but that is nearly irrelevant as hindsight is 20/20 if you know what I mean.

I think the response was more than fair, as I would like to know if that was his/her (just covering both sides) definition of a troll, because there is no reason to reply anymore if it is.

A one sided conversation is not fun.