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: 30
65
<< 27  28  29    31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The OH production is assumed, since that's the general target of what they were looking for interactions in. (Not to say that's what was actually used in the experiment to derive wave interactions)

It was in collaboration of this paper: OH Production as Proxy

It discusses the viability of using OH as a proxy for water detection in comets back in 04' between 2-4AU This is where they claim to have found and prove the correlation and why OH is now taken as evidence of H2O disassociation.
edit on 19-12-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   

vind21
reply to post by DJW001
 


The OH production is assumed, since that's the general target of what they were looking for interactions in. (Not to say that's what was actually used in the experiment to derive wave interactions)

It was in collaboration of this paper: OH Production as Proxy

It discusses the viability of using OH as a proxy for water detection in comets back in 04' between 2-4AU This is where they claim to have found and prove the correlation and why OH is now taken as evidence of H2O disassociation.
edit on 19-12-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)


In other words, these papers support the standard model, in which water ice sublimates and dissociates into hydroxyl radicals. This is the opposite of EU, which claims that alpha and beta particles in the solar wind are assembled into hydroxyl radicals by some sort of magnetic field intrinsic to the comet.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Yes, that is correct. My goal was to try and find something that could be used as a base line to define the "Standard Model" including the equations used to model some factors and to show what the actual processes were. The best thing I could find was the model they developed for Rosetta mission.

When you asked someone to define the standard model I realized that it has never been defined in this thread and we had no references for declaring what and how the standard model, models things.




This is the opposite of EU, which claims that alpha and beta particles in the solar wind are assembled into hydroxyl radicals by some sort of magnetic field intrinsic to the comet.


That is a mostly correct statement, the primary difference is that the equations used in the standard model have been shown to be inaccurate both in the papers themselves to a small degree and by other fields modeling similar behavior, EU claims that there is evidence to show that these interactions can and do take place and is the primary factor in the visual display.

Several people agree that it is possible if not likely this is the case hence the actual acceptance of peer review on this issue. If Thornhill had been able to present more accurate equations in his paper he would not be considered a hack by some. He instead pointed to other people's suorce and cited them as the equations to be used. I do not know the exact details at the moment so I can link them sorry.



edit on 20-12-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 



When you asked someone to define the standard model I realized that it has never been defined in this thread and we had no references for declaring what and how the standard model, models things.


Exactly. How can one refute something that has not been defined? And yet a certain poster keeps proclaiming this ill defined "theory" dead!



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The dirty snowball theory has been around for over a half a century, but over that time it has fallen apart so completely that it currently can't be defined.

While Plasma definitions continue to take over, thus the whole point of the thread.

And yet many still don't get it.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


Replace the term "interstellar dust" with plasma, and there you have it.

With ISON, the comet of the subject, and Tallone's point that the only explanation for ISON to grow a tail so distant from the sun, way out around the distance of the orbit of Jupiter, you have to consider the state of the solar wind at that distance from our sun.

Plasma forces are the most powerful forces in the universe, as far as we know, plasma is what powers the stars.

However, out where Jupiter orbits it is pretty thin. What causes the comet to form a tail at such a distance is very much a mystery, and plasma does offer the best explanation.

Planets have tails, the Earth has a tail, Venus has a tail. The tail of Venus is so long, it almost reaches into Earth's orbit. We just don't see those tails. Possibly the comet arrives with a tail already in tow, but it only lights up to the visible eye when it has built up enough charge, as it gets closer to the Sun.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by DJW001
 


The dirty snowball theory has been around for over a half a century, but over that time it has fallen apart so completely that it currently can't be defined.

While Plasma definitions continue to take over, thus the whole point of the thread.

And yet many still don't get it.



Once again: what do you mean by "the dirty snowball theory?" Please explain.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


What do you mean by mean. Do you have a definition of the definition?


Dirty Snowball theory.

starryskies.com...



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


So you base your understanding of the standard model of comets on a webpage intended for children. That explains a lot. Even so, please note that it says:


The gas, or ion tail is composed of ionized gasses excited by the ultraviolet radiation from the Sun. This tail is a wispy bluish color and is blown straight back. The gas tail is brighter than the dust tail.


Ionized gas has always been a part of the model. Are you saying that there is no ion tail?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by wildespace
 


Replace the term "interstellar dust" with plasma, and there you have it.

I don't get it. I was talking specifically about interstellar dust, being pushed around by the stellar wind (which is plasma). Now you're asking me to imagine plasma being blown around by plasma?


Plasma forces are the most powerful forces in the universe, as far as we know, plasma is what powers the stars.

Nope, we don't know that. How are plasma forces the most powerful forces in the universe? Equations, articles, scientific papers please. Or at least a legible explanation. What evidence do we have that plasma powers the stars (and in what way), apart from the generalised assumptions by the EU theorists? Has a plasma force ever pulled a planet away from it's orbit around a star, or prevented a massive star from collapsing into a black hole?


However, out where Jupiter orbits it is pretty thin. What causes the comet to form a tail at such a distance is very much a mystery, and plasma does offer the best explanation.

First you say that plasma forces in the universe are incredibly powerful, then you say that they are weak at Jupiter distance, but then retract and say that a comet's tail at such distance is explained by plasma. Make up your mind already! Is there any actual evidence that the solar wind/plasma is very weak at Jupiter distance and cannot form a comet's tail?


Possibly the comet arrives with a tail already in tow, but it only lights up to the visible eye when it has built up enough charge, as it gets closer to the Sun.

How does a comet build up enough charge as it gets closer to the Sun? Are there any scientific measurements of comets having electric charge, or having their electric charge change as it approaches the Sun?

I'm not an expert in astrophysics, but your posts seem to be filled with nonsense and wild guessing.

~~~

This thread in general feels like we're talking to parrots, having the same thing repeated to us without any sense.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Considering my target audience in my reply, I thought the article was appropriate.

Plasma is not ionized gas. That has been the problem with mainstreams sciences need to ignore plasma science for far too long now.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 



Now you're asking me to imagine plasma being blown around by plasma?


Yepper, you got it.


How are plasma forces the most powerful forces in the universe?


The stars are made of plasma. Our sun is made of plasma.

Once you learn these basics, then re-read my posts. Then do some research.

Sorry they didn't teach you this stuff in school, but hating on the messenger is no answer. I feel like I am trying to have a discussion on something interesting, only to get constantly interrupted by a bunch of hostile teenagers who think they know it all, but never bother to do any research on their own. This is how the thread gets caught in loops because people just don't read what is posted. Rather than do their own research they just keep making misinformed statements attempting to ridicule others, when they only make themselves look bad.



edit on 22-12-2013 by poet1b because: missing /

edit on 22-12-2013 by poet1b because: Add last response to parrot comment.

edit on 22-12-2013 by poet1b because: typo



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by wildespace
 

The stars are made of plasma. Our sun is made of plasma.

I know stars are made of plasma. Still doesn't answer my question about plasma being the most powerful force in the universe. Instead of sending me off to "do some research", how about explaining it here? You make the statement, it's upon you to support it.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


As far as we know, there is nothing more powerful than the stars. Black holes are still a theory, as are the other powerful cosmic observations.

This basic reality puts plasma as top of of the pyramid.

Come on out of the box.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Plasma is not ionized gas.


What do you mean by "plasma?"



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by wildespace
 


As far as we know, there is nothing more powerful than the stars.

They are powerful due to their titanic mass, which due to gravity creates immense pressures and temperatures, leading to nuclear fusion.

But since you don't believe stars are powered by fusion, go ahead and explain how plasma makes them so powerful. Or if stars aren't as massive as the standard model says, how do planets keep their orbits them?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by wildespace
 


Black holes are still a theory


Sorry, what?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Flaunt

poet1b
reply to post by wildespace
 


Black holes are still a theory


Sorry, what?


Seconded. Whut?



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


And stars have such enormous masses because their structure is plasma.


Fusion takes place in a plasma state. It is pretty obvious.

I don't know who told you that you could read minds, and know what I believe, or why you think you can read my mind, but you aren't even close.



posted on Dec, 22 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You also have to take into account what the composition of the comet is, despite popular belief they are made up of different things including rocks and thus their different colors. Also you don't have to talk down at people to get your point across and there is different kinds of plasma as well.

The Bot



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 27  28  29    31  32 >>

log in

join