It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
If you know so much about physics, then you should know it was not an arc discharge.
The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term 'theory' is hardly applicable.
And if you don' know that, there is not much you are going to learn here.
It’s worth noting that when the theories of Relativity were published (1905 and 1915), astronomers thought that the Milky Way was the entire universe. Gravity was considered to be the only significant force in it. Space was thought to be a vacuum and a perfect insulator that ruled out any electrical interactions. There was little awareness of plasma. (The word wasn't invented until 1927.) Little has changed: The universe is now thought to be much larger but still ruled by gravity alone, and the vacuum of space is thought to be a perfect insulator that still rules out any electrical interactions.
Setting aside the lack of Zeeman lines in the emission spectra, the unlikelihood of combining particle radiation into hydroxyl radicals without nuclear fusion (among other things) there are the problems you yourself have raised.
Anyone who thinks that the standard model, relativistic theory, general or otherwise meets the criteria of:
"The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions."
Is out of their mind.
I am still very interested in these points you brought up earlier and am still looking into it. Zeeman effect do you have anything specific you would recommend? Are you simply saying that we should be able to visibly measure the strength of a magnetic field of an object that size by looking at the coma with a radio telescope and thus infer an electromagnetic interaction between two objects in space by simple observation?
1. The coma was observed to be active while it was still far from Jupiter in September 2012. It was far to distant from the Sun to be sublimating ice, silicates and stuff and yet a coma at that distance is something expected under EC. Not at all explainable under DST though!
2. ISON interacted with the Sun on several occasion mostly on approach to perihelion but also on departure. The pattern of flaring and non-flaring periods over the duration of ISONs progress is outstanding evidence of an interaction taking place between comet and Sun. Specifically I mean coma brightening following comet directed flaring, the obvious comet facing nature of the active Sun regions particularly immediately before perihelion and on departure, and the frequency and specificity of flaring in the direction of the comet trajectory.
3. The survival of comet ISON following perihelion is explainable under the EC model. It is very difficult to explain under the DST model (although some of you might like to try).
Can you provide an example of the standard model of comets failing in any way? As for relativity, it predicted that the Sun's gravitation would cause background stars to be shifted. This prediction was validated nearly a hundred years ago. Relativistic effects must be accounted for in GPS signals. It is not we who are out of our minds.
EU predicts that comets should be so incredibly magnetic that they can affect the Sun's behavior from at least the distance of Mars!
One need only review the extraordinary spectacle provided by Comet Holmes 17P to see how deep the crisis in cometology reaches. In October of 2007, Holmes suddenly and unexpectedly brightened by a factor of a million. In less then 24 hours, it grew from a small 17th magnitude comet to a magnitude of 2.5, so large it was easily visible to the naked eye on Earth. Holmes' coma continued expanding until by mid-November of '07 it had become the largest object in the solar system, vastly larger than the Sun. The coma's diameter had grown from 28 thousand kilometers to 7 million km.
At the time of Holmes' extraordinary display, the comet was actually moving away from the Sun, and therefore cooling. Among the common sense questions posed by the enigma: how does such a gravitationally minuscule body hold in place a uniform, spherical coma 7 million kilometers in diameter? If Holmes' flare-up was the result of a collapse or explosion (as some scientists speculated) why was the ejected material not asymmetrical (as one would anticipate from an explosion)? Why did the claimed explosion not produce a variety of fragmentary sizes instead of the extremely fine dust that was actually observed? What explosive event could have caused the comet to luminate for MONTHS, rather than the SECONDS typical of an explosion's luminescence? Why did the comet's gaseous, dusty, spherical cloud persist for months, rather than dispersing quickly away from the comet?
it is interesting that there has been very little ISON data forthcoming since perihelion from the boys and girls with really big telescopes and cameras in space.
reply to post by wildespace
I have already explained that it's too early to point the big telescopes at ISON - it's still too close to the Sun.
I'm not gonna invest time in watching Youtube videos you posted, but I'd like to see solid scientific data showing that comets carry electric charge and interact with the Sun. I haven't seen any of it in this very lengthy thread full of words, assumptions, and accusations...
BPEarthWatch20 hours ago
Nikola your are correct.. Ison is a V shaped debris field with objects that are miles wide each..at least 21 large ones.. they are moving at 2 million miles per day. Ison is moving away from Secchi A at that speed which makes it appear smaller from that camera each hour.. THE ROCKS ARE DARK NOW. They will become darker as they move further from the sun over Earth..They will not become smaller..GOOD Job.
marlon david2 minutes ago
good job sir. you know, after you post this video, nasa has been releasing news that a fraction of ison might have survived. karl battams, the nasa comet expert is still unsure what happened to ison after perihelion
[reply to post by vind21
Allow me to posit an answer to your question as to why NASA removed those videos.
[reply to post by vind21
He makes an ok point about the failure of NASA representatives to make accurate statements about the visible angle they are displaying but he is not using the RAW data in his analysis. He is using over exposed high contrast images that do not accurately show what happened.
[reply to post by vind21
Notice right away you see BPE confirming the videos and talking about "dark rocks" this is how people assume you are posting information from BPE, by posting videos of people associated with him.
[reply to post by vind21So on to why I say NASA pulled their information. We know about the botched ISON special and that NASA was involved in it, we know NASA posted a video about what happened to ISON, but ISWA did not remove ISON until Dec 3, so they were obviously still detecting something. I would say isn't it just as likely that they pulled thier video simply because they would like to reconsider their position on the subject?
[reply to post by vind21
Kinda echo's exactly what I was saying, NASA is simply reconsidering their position based on new data. They are allowed to do that, no doom conspiracy required.edit on 5-12-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)
If I choose to discuss the co-occurrence of clusters of smokers with incidences of lung cancer on this forum, does that make me a ‘doom conspiracy’ theorist? That is inane. I have pointed out all along the danger to the public of official policies to withhold data /information from the general public. That is the entire point of the comments by myself and others leveled at NASA and ESA. This is critical data scientists of all kinds, levels, and fields could be using to protect the public welfare and better the condition of human kind.
Insinuating I am somehow presenting a ‘doom conspiracy’ misrepresents not only the explicitly expressed intent of my OP posts on the first page but the entire argument I make throughout. Your post amounts to an intent to throw lots of mud in the hope some sticks.edit on 5-12-2013 by Tallone because: (no reason given)extra DIV