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.
On this site you will also see quite a bit of observational data from Ison during its journey through our solar system.
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.
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)
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.
It said "BLACK LIGHT" not "FLASHLIGHT"
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.
It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 1.5 and 10 keV.
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.
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
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.
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.
Plasma's influence in space is not understood in any reasonable manner.
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.
Start by explaining the standard model in detail, being certain to highlight such features as the dust and ion tails
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.
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
Then explain why EU is a better fit for these observations. Provide equations to support the EU model.
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.