Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

reply to post by DJW001


Fair enough!

My underlying point was simply that the failed prediction or "prophecy" as you said does not, in this case, negate the core principles of the EU comet hypothesis, and let us be clear, the EU in reference to specific predictions and models of comets is closer to a hypothesis than a theory for those that care to differentiate between the two in any meaningful way.

Both the EC and DST have serious flaws.

EC fails to demonstrate (for now) how a net neutral solar wind would cause discharge in non-net neutral objects as we currently understand those interactions take place.

DST fails to explain cometary out bursts in deep space and the apparent "extra solar luminosity" (the term I think that is generally used) to describe comas and tails of comets outside the expected brightness due to reflecting the suns light in areas of space deemed impossible to generate enough heat to cause ices to melt.

It would seem that both of those observations would = death to both ideas.

reply to post by wildespace


Well lets take a look at a similar object that is very close to us ,the moon.

For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum. The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity (compared to interplanetary medium), referred to as 'lunar atmosphere' for scientific objectives, is negligible in comparison with the gaseous envelope surrounding Earth and most planets of the Solar system – less than one hundred trillionth (10−14) of Earth's atmospheric density at sea level. Otherwise the Moon is considered to not have an atmosphere as it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation, does not appear layered or self-circulating, and requires constant replenishment given the high rate at which the atmosphere is lost to space.

One source of the lunar atmosphere is outgassing the release of gases such as radon and helium resulting from radioactive decay within the crust and mantle. Another important source is the bombardment of the lunar surface by micrometeorites, the solar wind, and sunlight, in a process known as sputtering.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

While the moon will lose atmosphere over geological time spans, it could hold onto gas for a very long time by human scales. For these gasses a different mechanism removes them from the lunar atmosphere. The unfiltered light of the sun ionizes the gas molecules, and the ionized molecules are then quickly swept away by electric fields associated with the solar wind. This occurs in a time span of approximately 100 days. When the atmosphere gets thick enough this mechanism stops happening--but the gas generation needed to make it "thick enough" is something like 10,000 tons/day--considerably higher than anything produced in our lunar industrial facility--at least in the next century or two.Joseph Friedlander here again --

What I wanted was a way to deoxygenate gigatons and teratons of lunar rock with impunity for a massive Lunar industrial buildup.

nextbigfuture.com...

So when the Comet gets close enough to the solar winds from the sun , starts to heat up and sputtering may occur at an ever increasing rate which releases the frozen oxygen trapped in the rocky Comet creating gas outbursts.

These solar winds also has a number of other unusual properties that are not obvious at first glance. For one, they are made up of the fourth state of matter - plasma. Because of the environment in the Sun, the particles in the solar wind are all tend to carry an electric charge. This means that, unlike a gas, the solar wind can conduct electricity and transmit magnetic fields across large distances.

answers.yahoo.com...

This electric charge within a magnetic field is what engages the Comets magnetically charged field and could create the affect seen in "The Electric Universe "theory.

reply to post by Pinkorchid


Thank you. Its getting really old watching the same people rip into anything EU when the basic princaples of the theory are already established science.

You don't need all kinds of peer reviewed papers from thornhill on topics that are already proven.

Either way EU is steadily gaining support, enough to be taken seriously and given proper examination. We have got a lot of time to argue about this stuff ahead of us.

reply to post by vind21


Ok so in keeping with my working out of the processes involved, here are a couple of pics for a visual explanation of my idea.

As the Comet gets closer to the Sun:-

And here an interesting video on the orbit of Ison :-

reply to post by Tallone


The only thing that would account for "out-gassing" in my opinion, would be that:
1: Outer Space is not an absolute vacumn.
2: the comets/meteror's, are experiencing,, friction,, in a " Ether ".
so therefore , space is NOT an absolute vacumn.
Friction causes molecules to vibrate at certain frequency that can be seen as "light",,
the different colours mean different rates of vibration/frequency/friction.




wave-lenghts.

reply to post by Pinkorchid


Wow, rational thought, 2 theories come together and complement each other, the world must be about to end.



I don't understand this bickering and back and forth its pretty obvious to me that alot of things that go unexplained by DST can be explained by EU and vise versa.

Its time to start viewing the inherent electrical properties of our universe as something that coincides and compliments what we already understand. CERN and PLANCK in my opinion are pretty good examples of that cooperation in practice.

Alot of plasma research going on in those places and alot of "new theory" it'd be nice if the renewed cooperation of these places would filter down alittle more into the public domain.

Dragoon01
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Why dont you confine your debate to what EC ACTUALLY predicts rather than what a poster on ATS predicted?
The EC model predicts an interaction between bodies as the comet passes by. That interaction can be so dynamic that it is openly visable in the sky but it can also be rather dark and unnoticed unless devices were in place to measure it. While I appreciate what Tallone has done with his threads on EC and EU in general he has made predictions that no one offically connected with the EU theory would support. It was possible under the EC model that we could have seen a dynamic interaction with Mercury however no one could make an accurate prediction on the level of interaction unless we had direct measurments of the electrical conditions of the comet itself. Plenty of "Possible" and "Maybe" should have been added to that prediction to qualify the expectations. Had the dynamic interaction occured the DST could not have explained it. It did not occur. That however does not invalidate the EC.

That's the problem. There's a lot of maybe and possibly, and NEVER does it turn out to happen. Not once. So basically if the predictions happen, EC is right. If they NEVER happen, EC is still right. Must be nice when no matter what happens you are always right, even when you are wrong about everything. How about you tell me what "official" EC sources predict in regards to ISON that contradicts the standard model.

BobAthome
reply to post by Tallone

 

The only thing that would account for "out-gassing" in my opinion, would be that:
1: Outer Space is not an absolute vacumn.
2: the comets/meteror's, are experiencing,, friction,, in a " Ether ".
so therefore , space is NOT an absolute vacumn.
Friction causes molecules to vibrate at certain frequency that can be seen as "light",,
the different colours mean different rates of vibration/frequency/friction.

edit on 11/21/2013 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)

wave-lenghts.

edit on 11/21/2013 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)

Point 1. is already known to be true. You can find that information anywhere, even wikipedia.

If you want to debate if the friction generated by moving through normal "empty space" is sufficient to cause heating in an object..... it depends on how dense the space it is traveling through.

Think about how much momentum an object like the earth has. Also you need to take into account that the earth does not orbit the sun in a 2 dimensional manner. We are always experiencing "new space" the earth does not cross the same point in space ever. So any effects due to friction would always be changing, also friction does not require gravity but it is certainly magnified in intensity by it. If two objects in space collide they do not necessarily grind together as they would on earth. In fact most of the material that the earth encounters is pushed aside by its magnetic field. The particles in space are also pushed around the heliosphere as the sun moves along its path meaning that most of the extra solar particles that we encounter as we plunge along through the universe are pushed out of the system long before the earth encounters it.

If you want to relate that idea to comets, I suppose you could try to explain deep space comet out bursts by saying they encounter a dense part of space that caused them to heat due to friction and begin out gassing ala DST.....

I don't really think friction and space are generally thought of as related, I can see where your coming from if you want to propose an aether,space IS filled with plasma I guess you could call that an aether of sorts (not 0 point energy, aether or whatnot) there are other things that cause material to vibrate besides friction, such as magnetic fields.

OccamsRazor04

Dragoon01
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Why dont you confine your debate to what EC ACTUALLY predicts rather than what a poster on ATS predicted?
The EC model predicts an interaction between bodies as the comet passes by. That interaction can be so dynamic that it is openly visable in the sky but it can also be rather dark and unnoticed unless devices were in place to measure it. While I appreciate what Tallone has done with his threads on EC and EU in general he has made predictions that no one offically connected with the EU theory would support. It was possible under the EC model that we could have seen a dynamic interaction with Mercury however no one could make an accurate prediction on the level of interaction unless we had direct measurments of the electrical conditions of the comet itself. Plenty of "Possible" and "Maybe" should have been added to that prediction to qualify the expectations. Had the dynamic interaction occured the DST could not have explained it. It did not occur. That however does not invalidate the EC.

That's the problem. There's a lot of maybe and possibly, and NEVER does it turn out to happen. Not once. So basically if the predictions happen, EC is right. If they NEVER happen, EC is still right. Must be nice when no matter what happens you are always right, even when you are wrong about everything. How about you tell me what "official" EC sources predict in regards to ISON that contradicts the standard model.

edit on 21-11-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

Oh man..... your not that same guy on a different site that starts with "G" ranting on, using that same phrase are you???

Let me ask you this, what makes ISON special in anyway that would require specific "predictions" that would not be applicable to ANY OTHER comet?

vind21
I would agree with the net charge but there is evidence to the contrary, and especially that the solar wind may not be hetero-genus in its dispersion and that areas of space may infact contain negative and positive charges. Anyway, lunch time.

edit on 21-11-2013 by vind21 because: Fixed sourcing issue

Perfect. Some EU theorists state very SPECIFIC areas MUST be positively charged. You counter with some areas somewhere MAY be positively charged, so EU is still right.

reply to post by vind21


ohhh and this mythic "not 0 point energy",, is called a "vacumn" in my day,,ya vacumn.,,sucks.

but sure is helpfull,,when ur flying a plane.

vind21
Both the EC and DST have serious flaws.

EC fails to demonstrate (for now) how a net neutral solar wind would cause discharge in non-net neutral objects as we currently understand those interactions take place.

DST fails to explain cometary out bursts in deep space and the apparent "extra solar luminosity" (the term I think that is generally used) to describe comas and tails of comets outside the expected brightness due to reflecting the suns light in areas of space deemed impossible to generate enough heat to cause ices to melt.

It would seem that both of those observations would = death to both ideas.

False. Only one of them is dead. The DST gains traction the more we know. EC theorists said Deep Impact would find solid comets with no "ice" material and it would prove EC was right. Instead Deep Impact has proven EC wrong, and explained away some of the problems with the DST model.

For many years we have known that a handful of comets (fewer than 10 percent) produced more water vapor than should be possible by sublimation of nucleus of water ice, in which the sizes of the nuclei are known. The flyby of comet Hartley 2 showed a large number of icy grains in the coma are driven out of the nucleus by the outgassing of carbon dioxide. These icy grains are plausibly the source of much of the water coming from the comet.

www.nasa.gov...

OccamsRazor04

vind21
I would agree with the net charge but there is evidence to the contrary, and especially that the solar wind may not be hetero-genus in its dispersion and that areas of space may infact contain negative and positive charges. Anyway, lunch time.

edit on 21-11-2013 by vind21 because: Fixed sourcing issue

Perfect. Some EU theorists state very SPECIFIC areas MUST be positively charged. You counter with some areas somewhere MAY be positively charged, so EU is still right.

No..... it really would not assist EU if certain places were not neutral in charge, how would that have effect on a large enough scale to alter an entire system such as our solar system? Try a little harder if you want to attack me personally or suggest that I am trying to patch work EU in a layman way. I simply said there is evidence stating that certain areas may not be charge neutral and as has been said before, these ARE charged particles and may have unexpected effects.

BobAthome
reply to post by vind21

 

ohhh and this mythic "not 0 point energy",, is called a "vacumn" in my day,,ya vacumn.,,sucks.

but sure is helpfull,,when ur flying a plane.

Don't misunderstand me as supporting 0 point energy or aether just because I know of their exsistance and was attempting to relate them to an idea someone proposed.

vind21

OccamsRazor04

vind21
I would agree with the net charge but there is evidence to the contrary, and especially that the solar wind may not be hetero-genus in its dispersion and that areas of space may infact contain negative and positive charges. Anyway, lunch time.

edit on 21-11-2013 by vind21 because: Fixed sourcing issue

Perfect. Some EU theorists state very SPECIFIC areas MUST be positively charged. You counter with some areas somewhere MAY be positively charged, so EU is still right.

No..... it really would not assist EU if certain places were not neutral in charge, how would that have effect on a large enough scale to alter an entire system such as our solar system? Try a little harder if you want to attack me personally or suggest that I am trying to patch work EU in a layman way. I simply said there is evidence stating that certain areas may not be charge neutral and as has been said before, these ARE charged particles and may have unexpected effects.

Ok, let's try this again. EC theory states VERY SPECIFIC areas are positively charged. Some areas somewhere that may or may not be positively charged in no way supports EC theory that states SPECIFIC places are positively charged, when we have absolute proof they are not.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


And I can counter by saying:

The explosion removed many thousands of tons of material. But prior to impact, the calculated "water" output was 550 pounds per second; and not long after the impact, the calculated output was, once again, 550 pounds per second (See picture above regarding the return to previous level). So despite the impressive explosion, the envisioned sub-surface water refused to reveal itself. By NASA's own calculations, therefore, Deep Impact has only made matters worse for standard theory.

Or any number of claims that can all be found readily on thunderbolts.info

THE latest analysis of pictures taken by NASA’s Stardust probe during its headlong plunge through comet Wild 2 on 2 January has revealed a big surprise: the comet’s icy nucleus is covered in what look like impact craters.

In its first bulletin last week on the mission’s findings, the Stardust team reported that the jets of gas producing the comet’s spectacular coma and tail appear to be emanating from pits on the surface of the nucleus (New Scientist, 10 January, p 11).

Now the team has studied more detailed pictures from the probe and found that as well as sinkholes apparently caused by ice vaporising below the surface, the nucleus is covered in what look like well-preserved impact craters. That is completely unexpected because comets are believed to be loose aggregations of dust and ice that would shatter on impact.

“I don’t think any of us ever really considered the possibility of impact craters,” says Ray Newburn of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. If the pits are craters, the surface of the comet nucleus must be much stronger than experts thought. “It may be a well-cemented rubble pile, but it’s definitely not a loose powdery surface,” he says.


Shall we continue posting point - counter point or might there be a better way to advance the conversation?

OccamsRazor04

vind21

OccamsRazor04

vind21
I would agree with the net charge but there is evidence to the contrary, and especially that the solar wind may not be hetero-genus in its dispersion and that areas of space may infact contain negative and positive charges. Anyway, lunch time.

edit on 21-11-2013 by vind21 because: Fixed sourcing issue

Perfect. Some EU theorists state very SPECIFIC areas MUST be positively charged. You counter with some areas somewhere MAY be positively charged, so EU is still right.

No..... it really would not assist EU if certain places were not neutral in charge, how would that have effect on a large enough scale to alter an entire system such as our solar system? Try a little harder if you want to attack me personally or suggest that I am trying to patch work EU in a layman way. I simply said there is evidence stating that certain areas may not be charge neutral and as has been said before, these ARE charged particles and may have unexpected effects.

Ok, let's try this again. EC theory states VERY SPECIFIC areas are positively charged. Some areas somewhere that may or may not be positively charged in no way supports EC theory that states SPECIFIC places are positively charged, when we have absolute proof they are not.

...???? I'm not disagreeing with this current take on the evidence we have. In fact it HAS to be true or as was stated before we'd have some really funky things going on in the solar system.

The only difference we have here is that I am suggesting that just because I have a nuetral charged enviorment on any given scale, does not mean that this nuetral enviroment holds true on all scales.

Please think about that, If I have a neutral atom but I happen to be a small particle and I encounter an electron, I might just bind to it and create a molecule or isotope. I am running out of time so my description is lacking but do you see what I am saying?

reply to post by vind21


You made claims without sources. You have no point. Source it and then we can go point by point, that IS how you advance the debate. That is what the EC crowd hates to do. They want to just jump all over the place.

reply to post by vind21


What you are saying is meaningless. The EC theory (at least some of them) require positively charged solar winds from OUR sun. Talking about other scales is meaningless. If solar winds are not positively charged (and they are not) then EC fails to explain anything.

reply to post by BobAthome


I concur, Space is acting like an uncompressed liquid at this point.

Maybe this on a large scale for Stars.

Stars are just illuminated Gas Bubbles sitting in the liquid....

Sonarluminescence- is this nuclear fusion?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWO93G-zLZ0
www.youtube.com...