Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

reply to post by dlbott


I think if we learned more about plasma, we could identify the make up of the comet by how it effects the solar wind. I wasn't talking down, I was replying in kind.

poet1b
reply to post by wildespace

 

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

No, they have such enormous masses because they consist of an enormous amount of matter compacted into relatively small space - by gravity. Structure doesn't explain mass. We can create plasma on Earth, does that produce something of great mass?

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

We know that.

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.

The EU theory states that star's aren't powered by fusion. Apologies for assuming you were defending the EU here. Do you agree that stars are powered by fusion?

reply to post by wildespace

Structure doesn't explain mass.

Um, yes it does. This is basic physics. The mass of the sun could not be as dense as it is, if the structure was at a atomic structure, like with a gas, liquid, or solid.

In addition, there is no basis what so ever for your claim that structure does not play a critical role in the force of gravity.

And I meant Fission, that was a typo.

[post deleted as I give up on this thread, got better things to do than argue nonsense]

reply to post by poet1b


You really do have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Goodbye.

reply to post by wildespace


That is your problem, you want to argue, and I am just trying to have a discussion on Plasma and comets.

What do we know, and more important what don't we know, and the latter is far more extensive than the former.

poet1b
reply to post by wildespace

 

That is your problem, you want to argue, and I am just trying to have a discussion on Plasma and comets.

What do we know, and more important what don't we know, and the latter is far more extensive than the former.

No, it's not that.

The problem is you do not even understand basic high school physics. Yet here you are trying to argue that comets prove EU theory........

Here, check out this reading. It might help you communicate better. Maybe it's just a mater of not understanding that in science if you use certain terms or words, they mean something, and mixing them up does not help:

Mass:

In physics, mass is a property of a physical body which determines the body's resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction with other bodies.

Density:

The density, or more precisely, the volumetric mass density, of a substance is its mass per unit volume.

Volume:

Volume is the quantity of three-dimensional space enclosed by some closed boundary, for example, the space that a substance (solid, liquid, gas, or plasma) or shape occupies or contains.

Structure:

Structure is a fundamental, tangible or intangible notion referring to the recognition, observation, nature, and permanence of patterns and relationships of entities.

You can have something that has mass, yet have no volume. An electron is a perfect example of this. It is a "point mass".
A proton or neutron on the other hand, DO have mass AND volume.

An object can have a very large volume, and a certain amount of mass, yet have a low density. The planet Saturn is a perfect example of this. It's density is only 0.687 g/cm^3. That's less than the density of water.

Finding an object's density is very easy since the formula for it is simply d=v/m, Where "d" is density, "v" is volume and "m" is mass.

Can something be smaller than a planet, yet be denser than one? It sure can. Just take a look at the properties of Lead.

A "structure" as you've seen defined above, is a very grey word to use for something, so you should be careful how you use it. For example, Quartz, a common mineral has mass, volume, density, AND structure.
The mass and volume gives us it's density. Looking at it closely, we can see that it has a crystal "structure".

This is my last post too, as it is very hard to debate with someone that has shown repeatedly that they lack a basic grasp of physics.

You didn't even understand that photons are a quantum of light, have no size, and yes, they DO INDEED reflect off of not only molecules, but atoms. You showed that you didn't even understand this basic concept, that's been proven over and over in real world physics right here on Earth for over a century.

Yet you would have us believe that you can argue EU theory? Even EU theory uses basic physics to present itself. There is nothing "magical" about it nor is there anything "magical" and all answering about plasma.

Not sure exactly what it is you are trying to support: Plasma Cosmology or Electric Universe.....you do know that the two are different, correct? One actually has real basis in real science and experiments....the other is mostly writings from some rather........imaginative people.

Some advice as I leave this thread: if you're going to champion a cause, read up on it, and then read up on the view it opposes. Look for things that stick out that should raise red flags (EU says stars do not work with nuclear fusion.....yet nuclear fusion has been proven to work many times over in labs and even with special fission-fusion nuclear bombs........)

reply to post by eriktheawful


I am quite familiar with those properties, and nothing I have posted does not fit in with those concepts.

Your problem is that you confuse theories with proven facts.

Sorry, but an electron does have mass, it is just so small that typically it is ignored.

physics.nist.gov...

The concept of the photon is a theory, not proven, even our current model of atomic structure is not proven.

Here is the best link I could find on the subject, for this discussion.

physics.bu.edu...

I don't care what you do for a living, or what degrees you have, if you can't tell the difference between theories and facts, then your grasp of science is weak at best.

The Theory that Plasma creates structures, has far more evidence to back it than the theory of photons. The connection between electricity and plasma has far more evidence backing the science.

If you can't have a discussion about these possibilities, then that is your problem, sorry that you can't get out of the box.

poet1b
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I am quite familiar with those properties, and nothing I have posted does not fit in with those concepts.

Your problem is that you confuse theories with proven facts.

Sorry, but an electron does have mass, it is just so small that typically it is ignored.

physics.nist.gov...

The concept of the photon is a theory, not proven, even our current model of atomic structure is not proven.

Here is the best link I could find on the subject, for this discussion.

physics.bu.edu...

I don't care what you do for a living, or what degrees you have, if you can't tell the difference between theories and facts, then your grasp of science is weak at best.

The Theory that Plasma creates structures, has far more evidence to back it than the theory of photons. The connection between electricity and plasma has far more evidence backing the science.

If you can't have a discussion about these possibilities, then that is your problem, sorry that you can't get out of the box.

You see? You can't even read a post correctly..... :shakes head sadly:

go back...read my post correctly. You'll see I said that a electron DOES have mass......but it does not have volume.

THIS is why people do not want to debate you. Whether it's about EU theory, or Global Warming. You do this all the time. You mis-quote, ignore, or worse: make things up as you go along.

You just did it again.....

And we're OUTTA HERE....... :waves bye:

reply to post by eriktheawful


I'm sorry, I made a mistake in correcting one of your misstatements.

Your claim that an electron has no volume is just another version of the same mistake you constantly make.

It is only a theory, in fact a very weak theory that an electron has no volume. Others even claim it has no mass, that it isn't really a particle but a wave. All of these claims have no evidence to support said claims, nothing but pure conjecture.

That you can't tell the difference remains to be a failure to understand science.

ISON still lives?

Dear members,

I tried imaging of the ephemeris of C/2012 S1 ISON at 11,000 feet above sea level. There looked to be some faint and vast elongated object near the direction on the frame showing some amount of IFN, integrated flux nebulae, though I can not confirm it the remnant of the comet. The object was faint as IFN.

www.flickr.com...

I will image the ephemeris area again in the coming days, and I may be able to confirm it, if it moved as expected. The object looked vast and faint, and telephoto lens of focal length 150mm - 300mm may be suitable for imaging.

Best Wishes,
hiro

Aparently there are some NASA tweets agreeing with the possibility. Does anyone have confirmation on this? Does anyone still care?

reply to post by poet1b


I think you have it right there. Well done Poet.

As someone posted earlier on this thread stands as an example of how to present an argument threatening the status quo. It also presents an excellent example of the kind of response to expect when one does.



ISON was something special and it is unfortunate in the extreme that we may never get to see the data, or the best of the images from NASA and ESA. Unfortunate, but not unexpected. The EU / EC model I believe is a work in progress, like science itself. DST is a crumbling edifice maintained only to hide a truth that cannot be hidden for much longer.

One more for the thread. This from The Thunderbolts Project.

When Mind Games Masquerade as Physics | Space News
We must describe what we find rather than hiding it whatever data disproves our preferred explanation of phenomena. In the end DST amounts to an act of faith, another kind of mysticism as useful as the madness of maths when maths is used to prove when it should be used to describe. That is what this video is about.

This is the kind of stuff coming out of the EU approach that makes it for me the rational and logical way to proceed with astronomy. Any comet will provide good evidence for the EC because the same principles apply to all.

Lordy lordy, how time flies.
We've passed another doomsday moment in time, and I'd totally forgotten about it.

For those that came in late to this thread...
- comet ISON left a small debris trail along its orbital path as it travelled towards the sun,
- the trail was said by astronomers to be insignificant, and only consisting of microparticles,
- earth would pass through this dust trail around January 12th,
- it was said by astronomers that we probably wouldnt even notice.

But internet doomsdayers played up the danger. As usual, youtube was a big source for this January 12th "debris cloud" fear.

Some commenters in this thread didnt help either.
From several pages back, we have an example...

Tallone
... that ISON is MUCH bigger than we were led to believe. I say IS because those fragments are still out there.

Very big metallic comet fragments spreading through space is not good for Earth. You will be aware by now how the fragments of ISON are spreading out, and that the trajectories of Earth and of those fragments are due to intersect. In fact from the rate and scale of dispersion already observable the Earth will almost definitely be travelling through the debris field. People should / need to be aware of this.

and cites as his source...

Tallone
by way by Paul Wiegert of the University of Western Ontario and used by NASA on their site to which I linked.

So now that we're quite a number of days past January 12th, are we dead yet?
Did anyone actually notice, or was it in fact the wouldnt-even-notice event that astronomers had been saying all year?

reply to post by alfa1


I'm not seeing where anyone predicted we were all going to die when we passed through the debris left by ISON.

I think the odds something major could happen was only slightly higher than the norm.

Comet 67P. Another dirty snowball. Oh yeah. Right.

What we have right there is one huge **************G Mountain! No LEss!

I give you, electric comet 67P. A myth buster. Just like ISON was in fact.

Off the daily briefing from the ESA site. Listen to this scientist. From the 10" point he's talking about the nature of the material the Philae lander is sitting on.

It's like a rock.It's not powder. It's a rock.

www.esa.int...

originally posted by: Tallone
Comet 67P. Another dirty snowball. Oh yeah. Right.

What we have right there is one huge **************G Mountain! No LEss!

I give you, electric comet 67P. A myth buster. Just like ISON was in fact.

Explain to me how does a mountain have the density of 0.4 g/cm³, which is less than ice and only slightly higher than cork.

"Dirty snowball" is an unfortunate term for the layman public, it's not used scientifically. Comets are aggregations of rocky material, frozen volatiles (ices) and organic stuff. With repeated passages close to the Sun, a comet's surface gets depleted of the volatiles, making it dry and dusty/rocky. The surface is also affected by the cosmic and solar radiation, creating a dark "irradiation crust".

All these things are part of the mainstream model.
www2.ess.ucla.edu...

Scientists actually predicted that comets, such as the one visited by Rosetta, will have a thick "crust": ntrs.nasa.gov...

~~~

People still go on about ISON? Really? It was a feeble conglomerate of ices and dust that disintegrated when it got too close to the Sun. Case closed.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Tallone
Comet 67P. Another dirty snowball. Oh yeah. Right.

What we have right there is one huge **************G Mountain! No LEss!

I give you, electric comet 67P. A myth buster. Just like ISON was in fact.

Explain to me how does a mountain have the density of 0.4 g/cm³, which is less than ice and only slightly higher than cork.

It is a common courtesy to cite a source,

Where do you get your density data from?

www.esa.int...< br /> Tell me how this photo gives any indication at all 67P is "aggregations of rocky material, frozen volatiles (ices) and organic stuff." Where is all of this ice?

The corpse of your 'mainstream model' is skewered by the evidence in the photos we are seeing.

a reply to: Tallone

The corpse of your 'mainstream model' is skewered by the evidence in the photos we are seeing.

Interesting. You can tell by looking at a monochrome image what something is composed of. Can you tell me what the composition of this is?
i0.wp.com...

The density is determined by dividing the mass by the volume. The volume is determined by external measurements. The mass is determined by the orbit of Rosetta around the comet.