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: 29
65
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Bruce Gary is cited often in this thread because he is a precise and experienced astronomer. He has also underlined for your attention that he is not an expert in comets.

edit on 15-12-2013 by Tallone because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 




On this site you will also see quite a bit of observational data from Ison during its journey through our solar system.



Trying to star you for that. But strangely no matter how many times I click your post cannot be starred. Might want to check what is up with that ATS.

EDIT
Checked again on your following post and there is definitely no empty star at top to click on. What's up with that?
edit on 15-12-2013 by Tallone because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Tallone
reply to post by eriktheawful
 




There are many reasons why something can be visible, when one would think it shouldn't be. And Plasma does not have to be the only answer.

But, according to the EC / EU model plasma is most definitely the most likely answer!

The EC model provides the most likely solution to why a comet can be seen far beyond Jupiter, at 8 AU, that is if you wish to apply occams razor to the problem.

Otherwise you are left with volatile gases the nature of which remain indeterminate, and the ridiculous notion of a giant dirty snowball with enough sublimating molecules to last from 8 AU - right into perihelion, a comet supposedly only 3 kilometres. Anyone believing this is a precise explanation of ISON probably believes in faeries.


So you are degrading your thread again with insults and abuse?

May I ask why you can not debate a mater on here without insulting and calling names of those that have a different opinion on the mater?



posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Tallone
reply to post by Pinkorchid
 




On this site you will also see quite a bit of observational data from Ison during its journey through our solar system.



Trying to star you for that. But strangely no matter how many times I click your post cannot be starred. Might want to check what is up with that ATS.

EDIT
Checked again on your following post and there is definitely no empty star at top to click on. What's up with that?
edit on 15-12-2013 by Tallone because: (no reason given)


You can not star a person's post who has been banned from ATS.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Tallone
reply to post by eriktheawful
 




There are many reasons why something can be visible, when one would think it shouldn't be. And Plasma does not have to be the only answer.

But, according to the EC / EU model plasma is most definitely the most likely answer!

The EC model provides the most likely solution to why a comet can be seen far beyond Jupiter, at 8 AU, that is if you wish to apply occams razor to the problem.

Otherwise you are left with volatile gases the nature of which remain indeterminate, and the ridiculous notion of a giant dirty snowball with enough sublimating molecules to last from 8 AU - right into perihelion, a comet supposedly only 3 kilometres. Anyone believing this is a precise explanation of ISON probably believes in faeries.


So let us take a look at your statement here with math. You are saying that there is no way that a comet that has a aprox. diameter of 3km would have enough material to sublimate over a distance of 8 AUs.

First, let us use some simple examples. Simple to make the math a bit easier, and because even though it is not exact, it still shows the idea of how much volume matter takes up depending upon it's state (gas, liquid, solid), even within the confines of our planet (at room temperature and 1 atmospheric pressure).

We'll use water or H2O as our example. One gallon of water takes up just over 277 cubic inches of space. That means it takes about 6.23 gallons of water to make 1 cubic foot of space.

What if we were to convert the water from liquid to gas? How much room does 1 gallon of liquid water, converted to steam take up? How much room would 1 cubic foot of water take up if we converted it to a gas (steam)?

We'll use the Ideal Gas Law for this example, who's formula states:

PV = nRT

Where P is the absolute pressure of the gas
V is the volume of the gas
n is the amount of substance of gas (measured in moles)
T is the absolute temperature of the gas and
R is the ideal, or universal, gas constant.

We can rearrange the formula as thus to give us volume:

V = nRT / P

Water's mass is about 18 grams per mole (we find this by taking a look at the periodic table, and add the mass of 2 hydrogen (1 mole) to 1 oxygen (16 moles).
Since we are changing the water into steam, that means the temperature must be 100 deg C (373 Kelvins) at one atmospheric pressure (which is 101325 Pascals). The Ideal Gas Constant is 8.3144 Joules/Kelvin/mole.

So the volume of 1 mole of water is: 1 * 8.3144 * 373 / 101325 = 0.0306 m^3

The mole is 18 grams, so the density is 18 g / 0.0306 m^3 = 588.2 g/m^3

The density of liquid water at room temperature is 1.0 g/cm^3 or 1000000 g/m^3.

So 1000000/588.2 = 1700.102

That number means that steam is 1700.102 times less dense at 373 k than liquid water is at 293 k, which means it will occupy just over 1700 time more room than liquid water.

That means that while 1 gallon of liquid water will take up 277 cubic inches of space, the same amount of water converted to steam will take up 470,928.254 cubic inches of space.

Or that a cubic foot of water converted to steam, the steam will take up 10,591.635 cubic feet of space.

So, that small box of water, that is only 1 foot by 1 foot by 1 foot, when converted to a gas, will take up enough space so that it's 5 times bigger than my house!

I just gave you some math. Take it and apply it to an object that is 3 kilometers in diameter. You don't need to convert the whole thing obviously. Instead, just use a very small portion, say 100 square meters (that's a very small fraction of an object with a diameter of 3 kilometers), and you can pick a different element, say any that they found through spectral analysis of the comet (Diatomic Carbon or Cyanide (CN)), and you can see what it would expand to here on Earth under 1 atmospheric pressure.

Then you can change your math and use the pressure of a near vacuum (space) and see how much more room it would cover.

Solid objects take up less space than when they are in gas form. The math doesn't lie.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by HumAnnunaki
 





It said "BLACK LIGHT" not "FLASHLIGHT"



So you are under the impression from what you are posting that scorpions are invisible unless you have UV light shone on them?

If you had a torch and shone the torch with normal visible light you would not see the scorpion?



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Dust and other debris is not going to create a tail, there is no friction in space, and the tail always points away from the sun, which indicates that the tail is created by the solar wind, which would not push atomic sized matter.

Instead of looking at cigarette smoke, consider a camp fire. Made with dry wood, not much smoke, throw some wet leaves on the fire, and you get a lot of smoke. This is where the dirty snowball theory came from.

The thing is, where there is smoke, there is fire. There ain't no O2 out in deep space able to feed a fire. But it is most likely a different form of plasma.

You are only succeeding in proving plasma theory correct.



posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Dust and other debris is not going to create a tail, there is no friction in space, and the tail always points away from the sun, which indicates that the tail is created by the solar wind, which would not push atomic sized matter.

Instead of looking at cigarette smoke, consider a camp fire. Made with dry wood, not much smoke, throw some wet leaves on the fire, and you get a lot of smoke. This is where the dirty snowball theory came from.

The thing is, where there is smoke, there is fire. There ain't no O2 out in deep space able to feed a fire. But it is most likely a different form of plasma.

You are only succeeding in proving plasma theory correct.



"Does not push atomic sized matter" ?????

Here.....Solar Wind.......educate yourself:


It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 1.5 and 10 keV.


Sub-Atomic particles (Atoms are made up of things like Electrons, Protons and Neutrons).

Molecules are made up of atoms.

So please. oh yes, oh please: educate us on how Solar wind can not move particles from a comet to form a tail.

Seriously. You have spouted off over and over in this thread, and yet you fail to CITE one thing. LINK one thing.

CITE your SOURCE sir.
edit on 16-12-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I have posted numerous links that back up what I am saying.

Plasma is subatomic. The solar wind is subatomic.

Wiki is a good enough link for this

en.wikipedia.org...


The solar wind is a stream of charged particles (a plasma) released from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 1.5 and 10 keV. The stream of particles varies in density, temperature, and speed over time and over solar longitude. These particles can escape the Sun's gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona.

The solar wind flows outward supersonically to great distances, filling a region known as the heliosphere, an enormous bubble-like volume surrounded by the interstellar medium. Other related phenomena include geomagnetic storms that can knock out power grids on Earth, the aurora (northern and southern lights), and the plasma tails of comets that always point away from the Sun.


Seems that is where you got your info, you just left out the parts that prove your claims wrong.

Electrons and protons, subatomic.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



In addition to the two ion species previously observed in the solar wind, H+1 and He++4, Vela satellite measurements reveal the presence of ions of He++3, He+4, various ion species of O16, and other unidentified heavy ions. From the number ratios of the O+7, O+6, and O+5 ion species measured near earth, it may be inferred that the ionization state ratios are established deep within the solar corona at million-degree temperatures.

Physical Review Letters, 19 February 1968



edit on 17/12/13 by Astyanax because: I felt like it.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I have posted numerous links that back up what I am saying.

Plasma is subatomic. The solar wind is subatomic.

Wiki is a good enough link for this

en.wikipedia.org...


The solar wind is a stream of charged particles (a plasma) released from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 1.5 and 10 keV. The stream of particles varies in density, temperature, and speed over time and over solar longitude. These particles can escape the Sun's gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona.

The solar wind flows outward supersonically to great distances, filling a region known as the heliosphere, an enormous bubble-like volume surrounded by the interstellar medium. Other related phenomena include geomagnetic storms that can knock out power grids on Earth, the aurora (northern and southern lights), and the plasma tails of comets that always point away from the Sun.


Seems that is where you got your info, you just left out the parts that prove your claims wrong.

Electrons and protons, subatomic.


Proving nothing wrong.

Here, are you trying to say that because the solar wind is made from sub atomic particles that there is no way that it can influence anything physically that is larger than sub atomic particles?

That Protons that have mass and volume, are not able to interact and influence things larger than them?

That the pressure from the solar wind (which is 1 to 6 nanoPascals) within 1 AU of the sun, and is something that can actually be measured with instruments that interact with the sub atomic particles in the first place........are not able to also interact physically with moles of dust and elements of a comet?

Step outside and observe the wind. Note how even the gentlest breeze can move a leaf (much denser than air). Note how even in a gentle breeze the smoke is moved by the air currents.

Note how even though your body or the trees are much denser than air, if the wind is strong enough, it will bend the trees and move you.

Go back inside. Find some dust while cleaning. Blow on it. Note how the dust moves....even though the particles of the dust are much more dense than the air you are blowing, they still move.

Let us take a single neutron, which is a sub atomic particle, and has close to the same mass and volume as a proton. Let us move it at great speed and have it slam into a atom of U235. If there are enough atoms of U235 near by, and a significant amount of U235.....what happens?

This is one thing that can happen:



So please do not sit there and tell me that there is no way for something that is small (sub atomic particles) but given enough quantity of can not interact with something that is larger in a physical way. It's simply not true.

In order to prove what you are saying, you will need to show us how it is impossible for sub atomic particles, that have mass and volume are unable to interact with things that are larger, such as complete atoms and molecules.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


It is increasingly clear that you do not understand what the standard model of comets actually is. Just so we are all talking about the same thing, please explain, in your own words, what you believe the standard model to be. Next, explain the model you are proposing.
edit on 17-12-2013 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Nope, didn't say any of those things.

The plasma will not push particles large enough to reflect the sun light so that they are visible from Earth, behind and ahead of the comet head.

Those particles will stay close to the body of the comet.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I understand the classic model, and that is why I am showing how it is wrong.

This has been shown over and over again on this thread.

For those who understand the science.



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Nope, didn't say any of those things.

The plasma will not push particles large enough to reflect the sun light so that they are visible from Earth, behind and ahead of the comet head.

Those particles will stay close to the body of the comet.





"particles large enough to reflect the sun light"



While I don't normally expect the lay person on the street to understand what I know about engineering, since I spent several years in college and then decades working in the field, I do have to wonder what is being taught in today's world where science is concerned, especially how matter works on a atomic and sub atomic level.

There is so much wrong with that statement of yours that I feel like crying. I'm a teacher, but even I've given up at this point. Hopefully someone else will come along and explain to you what is wrong with that statement.....
edit on 17-12-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


It is truly sad how much money people pay for an education at a university, only to come out not really knowing anything about anything, no real practical understanding at all.

I have had a long career proving people with college degrees wrong, on real world technical issues, where what you do works or it does not work.

The really good engineers and scientists are always willing to hear alternative concepts and weigh them on their probability. The ones who worked hard and got through school, but never really understood the science are always the ones against doing anything outside of their very narrow understanding.

Plasma's influence in space is not understood in any reasonable manner. This is recognized by most of the talented scientists and engineers.

ISON and other recent comets observed have continuously punched holes in the dirty snowball theory. The solar wind isn't pulling ions away from the comet body like the wind driving a sand storm. There simply isn't enough friction in space. It is magnetic, most likely more like what happens with the aurora borealis, filaments.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Stellar wind is strong enough to push, shape, and erode clouds of interstellar dust, as seen in images of nebulae. www.nasa.gov...

Heck, even light itself exerts very slight pressure. Ever heard of solar sails? A couple of spacecraft have already been succesfully tested using them. In fact, had the effects of the sun's radiation pressure on the spacecraft of the Viking program been ignored, the spacecraft would have missed Mars orbit by about 15,000 kilometers. en.wikipedia.org...


Plasma's influence in space is not understood in any reasonable manner.

Then what business does the EU theory have trying to explain everything using plasma? Or are you just using that argument to discredit the mainstream, while at the same time implying your theory is always right?
edit on 18-12-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



I understand the classic model, and that is why I am showing how it is wrong.

This has been shown over and over again on this thread.


On the contrary. You clearly have no clue what the standard model is. That is why you do not understand that you have not shown anything that in any way falsifies it on this thread. The fact that you keep calling it the "Dirty Snowball Theory (DST)" is a giveaway. This is like calling Relativity the "Rubber Sheet Theory of Gravity."


For those who understand the science.


If you truly believe that you understand the science better than anyone here, please explain it for the rest of us. Start by explaining the standard model in detail, being certain to highlight such features as the dust and ion tails, spectroscopic analysis of cometary composition, the nature of the grains collected by space probes and other well established observations. Then explain why EU is a better fit for these observations. Provide equations to support the EU model. Should be duck soup to someone who really understands the science, as you claim to do.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
First let me say that the intent here is in no way disrespectful.




Start by explaining the standard model in detail, being certain to highlight such features as the dust and ion tails


Ok, can anyone here do this?

I have been looking for the 'Standard Theory' expecting to find a nice laid out paper with some descriptions of phenom expectations of their cause, then some math proofs describing the process and model.

I can't find it, does anyone have a link to anything comprehensive? Is the idea to take the 30 or so papers I have found, ad-hoc them into a "standard" are we calling the 'standard model' simply the MHD equations that would be used to describe a comet? If it's already been linked then I guess I missed it.


EDIT: (Haha Apparently I CAN, found this, looks like it will have to do, Rosseta MIssion, comet model so you can see from the references they indeed are using thermal and MHD models)


It's pretty easy to find from EU, with regards to comets -EU Comet


Under the spell of theoretical assumptions, and lacking the training to recognize electrical discharge phenomena in space, astrophysicists explain comet behavior in terms of electrically neutral ‘magnetohydrodynamics.’ In other words, ‘winds’ and ‘supersonic shocks’ in electrically conducting, magnetized gas. They have ignored Alfvén’s warning that magnetic fields cannot be ‘frozen in’ to the diffuse plasma of the solar wind and the comet’s coma and tail. They are unaware that a source of electrical energy is required to produce and sustain cometary phenomena.


The main issue being that Tallbot simply points out where the MHD equations fail and does not replace them with working refined equations of his own.

It seems the Air Force is well on its way in forming its own models:


Summary form only given. The goal of this paper is to model the interaction of electromagnetic (EM) waves with the ion tail of a comet using ICEPIC (Improved Concurrent Electromagnetic Particle-In-Cell) code. In order to simplify this complicated system as much as possible, a uniform, low-density, two-dimensional plasma was used. This plasma was placed in a vacuum and surrounded by PML (wave-absorbing material). The radius of the plasma was set at 2*10/sup 7/ meters (the estimated size of an actual ion tail) and the plasma was placed in the x-y plane. Initially, a plane wave generator was used to send EM waves through the plasma, with the electric field polarized in the z-direction. When a frequency sweep was run between 4 and 22 Hz and |E/sub z/| was plotted vs. frequency for specific points in the system, oscillations were observed. The most violent of these occurred on the left edge of the plasma. Three frequencies were chosen for further analysis: 4.68 Hz at a peak, 7.29 Hz at the next trough, and the intermediate frequency, 5.98 Hz.

Published in:
Plasma Science, 2004. ICOPS 2004. IEEE Conference Record - Abstracts. The 31st IEEE International Conference on


So, what does that say right there? To me it says in order to generate a coma tail interaction(OH- production) an electric current was required. It also says that they have deviated significantly from MHD in order to create a model in the first place.

It seems very significant to me. It says that there must be interactions reliant on unaccounted forces present in the production of the visible structure of a comet, not simply a result of pressure and bow shock from the solar wind, the solar window obviously plays some part as has been outlined just recently but IBEX and Voyager highly support this conclusion with data collected while observing the boundaries of our solar system not being a result of MHD predictions.






Then explain why EU is a better fit for these observations. Provide equations to support the EU model.


EU in my opinion is a better fit for everything right from square one. It assumes interconnection between systems and matter. This is important because it, right from the get go, provides a bigger more complete frame of refference. It says that observation A is always going to be reliant on variable C interpenetrated through observation B.

Equations supporting the EU model are plentiful or scare depending on your point of view. I will leave this alone as it's pretty much a matter of technicalities usually ending in the statements "Well those equations may agree with what you are saying but they are NOT YOUR EQUATIONS therefore they don't support your theory. Instead I'll just wait a few more years for safire so an actual model can be developed. (Or CERN if their guys beat them to it) either way adopting EU ideas does not require you to drop current math and models in the trash, it just requires them to be updated a bit to acount for the more subtle interactions, I don't see this as bad.
edit on 19-12-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 



So, what does that say right there? To me it says in order to generate a coma tail interaction(OH- production) an electric current was required. It also says that they have deviated significantly from MHD in order to create a model in the first place.


Where does it say anything about OH production? Presumably, the plasma in the experiment was composed of the gases known to be in the coma and tail of a comet. These originate in the nucleus, where they have been stored as ice.




top topics



 
65
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join