Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

alfa1

Tallone
The dirty snowball theory... DST... unexplainable using DST.
...problem for DST...according to DST... problem for DST...
DST cannot explain.... problem for DST...
DST cannot explain...... DTS ...... DST ...... DST... DST ...
... DST ... the DST model .

Ah, the old "if they are wrong, then I must be right" fallacy.

Its also seen a lot in creationism, where they spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to prove evolution wrong, which would apparently prove creationism to be right (as if there are no other competing ideas).

Science doesnt work that way.

You prove your theory right by proving your theory right.
Not by proving others wrong.

Please give him a break man. Okay, ISON didn't interact with Mercury as predicted. That doesn't change the fact that the DST seems to explain a lot less than EC, and that we seem to bridge gaps in DST with half-baked explanations which don't really make any sense.

For all we know, EC could just be the tip of the iceberg. Earlier in the thread it was mentioned that comets might be 'controlled'. Suppose this is the case. Then it would make sense that ISON would be able to selectively interact other bodies. This isn't a very articulate example, and the assumption made seems ridiculous at this moment, but my point is that there is a lot we do not know and I imagine the celestial mechanics, and the way our universe operates in general, are far crazier than any of us could imagine.

By its own nature, a prediction is likely to fail. OP's prediction wasn't the first to fall through and I don't think it's fair to judge the theory based on his prediction. Either way, we're just over a week away from perihelion so it won't be too long before we see whether or not EC is a valid theory.

Bottom line: we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Cheers

Edit: Thanks for the well written post Tallone, I'm excited to see how thing will unfold in the coming month.

Tallone
reply to post by alfa1

 

Go back to the original post and you will see I state those images are intended to give a visual impression only. They are exaggerated.

The previous thread you refer to has been terminated by ATS. I am no longer able to reply, and have been directed by aforesaid not to carry on with the discussion. Since I am continuing to post on this site of course I abide by their decision.

Exaggeration means something would happen, but nothing did. Your post was wrong, your prediction was wrong, nothing happened. You were wrong because the theory you made predictions from is wrong. Or you can explain why nothing happened when the EU theory predicted something major. I expect you to ignore this and keep plodding forward.

Nootropic

alfa1

Tallone
The dirty snowball theory... DST... unexplainable using DST.
...problem for DST...according to DST... problem for DST...
DST cannot explain.... problem for DST...
DST cannot explain...... DTS ...... DST ...... DST... DST ...
... DST ... the DST model .

Ah, the old "if they are wrong, then I must be right" fallacy.

Its also seen a lot in creationism, where they spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to prove evolution wrong, which would apparently prove creationism to be right (as if there are no other competing ideas).

Science doesnt work that way.

You prove your theory right by proving your theory right.
Not by proving others wrong.

Please give him a break man. Okay, ISON didn't interact with Mercury as predicted. That doesn't change the fact that the DST seems to explain a lot less than EC, and that we seem to bridge gaps in DST with half-baked explanations which don't really make any sense.

For all we know, EC could just be the tip of the iceberg. Earlier in the thread it was mentioned that comets might be 'controlled'. Suppose this is the case. Then it would make sense that ISON would be able to selectively interact other bodies. This isn't a very articulate example, and the assumption made seems ridiculous at this moment, but my point is that there is a lot we do not know and I imagine the celestial mechanics, and the way our universe operates in general, are far crazier than any of us could imagine.

By its own nature, a prediction is likely to fail. OP's prediction wasn't the first to fall through and I don't think it's fair to judge the theory based on his prediction. Either way, we're just over a week away from perihelion so it won't be too long before we see whether or not EC is a valid theory.

Bottom line: we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Cheers

Edit: Thanks for the well written post Tallone, I'm excited to see how thing will unfold in the coming month.

edit on 20-11-2013 by Nootropic because: .

Please tell me where the DST fails, and why this failure means the entire theory is wrong and we should, as you put it, throw the baby out with the bathwater.

reply to post by Nootropic


The problem is scientific theory must be able to make accurate predictions. Year after year we see EU proponents making prediction after prediction regarding comets interacting with planets or the Sun. So far I have yet to see any of these predictions to be true. Let's take the current case of ISON as an example. I have seen a number of people claiming that on such and such a date ISON will interact with such and such an object and such and such will happen proving EU theory to be correct. So far that has hasn't happened. Of course when something happens they didn't predict, like say ISON developing comet wings (a phenomenon that fits in with the current model), they are quick to claim that is is proof of EU. If that's the case why didn't anyone make that prediction in the first place instead of all the other ones?

EU proponents are the ones that call it a theory and in scientific parlance that has a very specific meaning. So far none of them have been able to make accurate, let alone consistent, predictions based on their "theory." Therefore, at this time, it fails as such.

Tallone
those images are intended to give a visual impression only. They are exaggerated.

So you just made them up to push the hoax EU theory.

I understand now, they are just a fantasy of how you want the universe to operate, they have zero relevance to how the universe actually operates!

reply to post by Tallone


Ok here's how I visualize the concept:-

We have two objects with magnetic fields, somewhat like we see in our standard magnets.
A.

B.

Now we are told by scientific research that the Earth also has a magnetic field.

I have sourced some information regarding the magnetic potential of rocks :-

Rock magnetism is the study of the magnetic properties of rocks, sediments and soils. The field arose out of the need in paleomagnetism to understand how rocks record the Earth's magnetic field. This remanence is carried by minerals, particularly certain strongly magnetic minerals like magnetite (the main source of magnetism in lodestone). An understanding of remanence helps paleomagnetists to develop methods for measuring the ancient magnetic field and correct for effects like sediment compaction and metamorphism. Rock magnetic methods are used to get a more detailed picture of the source of distinctive striped pattern in marine magnetic anomalies that provides important information on plate tectonics. They are also used to interpret terrestrial magnetic anomalies in magnetic surveys as well as the strong crustal magnetism on Mars.

en.wikipedia.org...

This in particular seems relevant to what we see in comet Ison :-

When an igneous rock cools, it acquires a thermoremanent magnetization (TRM) from the Earth's field. TRM can be much larger than it would be if exposed to the same field at room temperature (see isothermal remanence). This remanence can also be very stable, lasting without significant change for millions of years. TRM is the main reason that paleomagnetists are able to deduce the direction and magnitude of the ancient Earth's field.[7]

If a rock is later re-heated (as a result of burial, for example), part or all of the TRM can be replaced by a new remanence. If it is only part of the remanence, it is known as partial thermoremanent magnetization (pTRM). Because numerous experiments have been done modeling different ways of acquiring remanence, pTRM can have other meanings. For example, it can also be acquired in the laboratory by cooling in zero field to a temperature T_1 (below the Curie temperature), applying a magnetic field and cooling to a temperature T_2, then cooling the rest of the way to room temperature in zero field.

The standard model for TRM is as follows. When a mineral such as magnetite cools below the Curie temperature, it becomes ferromagnetic but is not immediately capable of carrying a remanence. Instead, it is superparamagnetic, responding reversibly to changes in the magnetic field. For remanence to be possible there must be a strong enough magnetic anisotropy to keep the magnetization near a stable state; otherwise, thermal fluctuations make the magnetic moment wander randomly. As the rock continues to cool, there is a critical temperature at which the magnetic anisotropy becomes large enough to keep the moment from wandering: this temperature is called the blocking temperature and referred to by the symbol T_B. The magnetization remains in the same state as the rock is cooled to room temperature and becomes a thermoremanent magnetization.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Coulomb's law

A law stating that the strength of the force exerted by one point charge on another depends on the strength of the charges and on the distance between them. Since Coulomb's law is an inverse square law , higher charges entail stronger force, while greater distances entail weaker force. The force is understood as arising from the electric field that surrounds the charges. The force is repulsive if the charges have the same sign, and attractive if they have opposite sign.

So am I in the ball park , on how this process could be working?

reply to post by Tallone


Is it possible that Comet Ison , is not a comet but a piece of a magnetar.?

Another interesting body in the universe that carries a magnetic pulse is a magnetar. A kind of star with the strongest magnetic fields known in the Universe – is giving off extraordinary radio pulses, which links this rare type of star with the much more common 'radio pulsars'...........

Debate raged for many years over the nature of AXPs. They are now thought to be magnetars, of which only a dozen are known in our Galaxy – very young neutron stars with magnetic fields a hundred million million times stronger than Earth's (10exp14 gauss, as compared with the Earth’s 0.5 gauss)...........

Radio pulsars are another, much more common, type of neutron star. More than 1700 are known. Their magnetic fields, while strong by terrestrial standards, are typically about 100 times weaker than those of magnetars. Radio pulsars also generally spin much faster than magnetars.

www.csiro.au...

hellobruce

Tallone
those images are intended to give a visual impression only. They are exaggerated.

So you just made them up to push the hoax EU theory.

I understand now, they are just a fantasy of how you want the universe to operate, they have zero relevance to how the universe actually operates!

No, he said there would be fireworks that everyone could see. So it's not possible he is saying he made it up, he must be saying it just wouldn't be that noticeable. The fact is, NOTHING happened, when he claimed there would be a fireworks display so big the EU theory would no longer be able to be denied. He just has no answer for why nothing happened, because the EU theory says it MUST happen. So either he admits the EU theory is wrong, or he sticks his head in the sand. He chose to be an ostrich.

reply to post by Tallone


Same old same old. If there is one indisputable fact of human nature to be drawn from our past, it is that we are dragged into the future kicking and screaming. Buckminster Fuller said it best, when he described the future of science as overstocked with inspectors for the inspectors, suffocating the less than one percent who actually bring about change.

IQ testing is garbage, and I am not saying this as someone who has not done well, but Mensans are predominantly taxi drivers, and PHD's are the largest obstacle to advancement of science. I compare the sciences today to the arts, where genius and masters no longer have a place, being replaced with people eating food colouring and defecating on canvases, or self mutilating themselves, and telling the horrified masses they are too philistine to get it.

The EC model goes deep to explain much of the misplaced faith in Ruthoford's model of the atom, and the nature of gravitation energy as distinctive force from that of charge. It is the same knowledge Rockefeller went out of his way in erasing from the history books when he commissioned the production of the history of the second world war. It was at the root of much of what was driving the vrillian scientific exploits.

We the sheeple will always buy the party line, but nature has an elegant way of letting the truth out.

AX
FTNWO

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

OccamsRazor04

Tallone
reply to post by alfa1

 

Go back to the original post and you will see I state those images are intended to give a visual impression only. They are exaggerated.

The previous thread you refer to has been terminated by ATS. I am no longer able to reply, and have been directed by aforesaid not to carry on with the discussion. Since I am continuing to post on this site of course I abide by their decision.

Exaggeration means something would happen, but nothing did. Your post was wrong, your prediction was wrong, nothing happened. You were wrong because the theory you made predictions from is wrong. Or you can explain why nothing happened when the EU theory predicted something major. I expect you to ignore this and keep plodding forward.

No 'exaggerated' does not mean "something would happen" and as the sentence clearly reads it means the images are not exactly what will be seen. That is all. Were you really expecting to see neon dragons as depicted in a pretty image? Why are you trying so hard?

How exactly do you know "nothing happened"?

How is the EC model wrong exactly?

The most recent evidence from comet ISON observations alone reveal DTS is full of holes. Why did ISON brighten when it was way way out of the zone where DTS predicts comets brighten? How does DTS explain the magnitude of the outburst over the past few days and the rapidity of it? DTS cannot. Yet that very data we got is entirely in keeping with the EC model.

Then there is all of the images from the Stardust mission and the data from Deep Impact, showing NO evidence of an abundance of water necessary to produce the emission in the tail or any vents apparent on 9P/Tempel 1, nor in ANY of the the close up detailed images NASA has published of other comets photographed by spacecraft. How does DST explain that? It can't!






So how do you want it? Do we just have to unplug our brains and ignore all that and keep repeating to ourselves (with hands over our eyes) 'dirty snowball theory, dirty snowball theory'…? The evidence we are getting from recent past and the present supports EC.

reply to post by Pinkorchid


Magnetar. That is an awesome name for a space object. I am going to have to do some reading.


EDIT
And I will get back to you about your detailed and thought provoking post about the magnetic field. I have to get back to work right now.

have to agree with you on that one ,
Science is brilliant and stupid at the same time
what once was is no longer in the history of science..
umm flat world theory must go

reply to post by AlphaExray

You said it well. Totally agree with you!

reply to post by Tallone


WOW this what i mean! electric Universe! Tq Mr.Tallone!
Big SnF

reply to post by cheesy


I just stared you because I love seeing your face pop into these threads.

Summary, for those who came in late.

Back early last week Tallone was predicting that the EU theory would show comet ISON interacting with the planet Mercury, on the 15th.

He said:

... an electrical interaction between ISON and Mercury on its fly pass should surely also be expected.

we have the comet’s Mercury fly pass to observe – that’s going to be November 15th folks!. This time the evidence will be clear.

I am saying look to the ELectric Universe Theory. See the video I posted in the OP. Watch what happens when ISON passes Mercury.

And remember - 4 days to go until ISON passes Mercury. That is when we just may get a second chance to see an electrical interaction between the comet and a planet.

When Comet ISON comes closest to Mercury - in just two more days we may well get to see something like this in our night sky - plasma connecting planets

This is the plasma connection that will run between the Sun, Saturn, Mercury, and ISON.

What we are going to see is the electrical nature of our universe.

We are due for a pass by Mercury in just two days, then perihelion around the sun, then it passes by us here on planet Earth. Fireworks in the sky - and a lot of questions will be asked by an awful lot of people.

But, now all he has in response to nothing happening is:

How exactly do you know "nothing happened"?

Even for him, that is a lame reply.
I quote his own words back at him:

you know very well you can't prove a negative. An inability to prove something is proof of nothing. Better luck with your next attempt.

reply to post by alfa1


Well it appears to me that all the highly qualified Astrophysicists... have been incorrect about Ison as well.

It just puts him in the same speculative crowd , I would say.

Lets go stone the Astrophysicists...

Lets chuck out all their scientific fact , they got it wrong too.

Tallone
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

OccamsRazor04

Tallone
reply to post by alfa1

 

Go back to the original post and you will see I state those images are intended to give a visual impression only. They are exaggerated.

The previous thread you refer to has been terminated by ATS. I am no longer able to reply, and have been directed by aforesaid not to carry on with the discussion. Since I am continuing to post on this site of course I abide by their decision.

Exaggeration means something would happen, but nothing did. Your post was wrong, your prediction was wrong, nothing happened. You were wrong because the theory you made predictions from is wrong. Or you can explain why nothing happened when the EU theory predicted something major. I expect you to ignore this and keep plodding forward.

No 'exaggerated' does not mean "something would happen" and as the sentence clearly reads it means the images are not exactly what will be seen. That is all. Were you really expecting to see neon dragons as depicted in a pretty image? Why are you trying so hard?

ex·ag·ger·ate
/igˈzajəˌrāt/
verb
past tense: exaggerated; past participle: exaggerated
1. represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.

In order for it to be an exaggeration there has to be something to exaggerate. Saying come to my party I am going to serve the biggest hamburger anyone has ever seen, and then giving a quarter pounder is an exaggeration. If you serve no food whatsoever then you are no longer exaggerating, you are lying.

If you are now saying NOTHING was ever expected to be seen, after claiming it would be amazing fireworks, is not an exaggeration, it's a lie. So, were you lying then, or are you lying now?

ETA: Oh, and when you need to flat out lie, you have lost. Per your post ...

What is significant is that the extent of this ice on Tempel 1's surface is not sufficient to produce the observed abundance of water and its by-products in the comet's coma.

This is the ACTUAL quote, which you would never post.

What is significant is that the extent of this ice on Tempel 1's surface is not sufficient to produce the observed abundance of water and its by-products in the comet's coma. The team thus concludes that there are sources of water from beneath the comet's surface that supply the cometary coma as well.

discoverynewfrontiers.msfc.nasa.gov...
Then we have ....

Sunshine, Schultz and the rest of the team arrived at their findings by analyzing data captured by an infrared spectrometer, an optical instrument that uses light to determine the composition of matter.

Based on this spectral data, it appears that the surface ice used to be inside Tempel 1 but became exposed over time. The team reports that jets – occasional blasts of dust and vapor – may send this surface ice, as well as interior ice, to the coma, or tail, of Tempel 1.

"So we know we're looking at a geologically active body whose surface is changing over time," Schultz said. "Now we can begin to understand how and why these jets erupt."

www.nasa.gov...

I guess it's harder to lie when you tell the whole truth.

reply to post by alfa1



I stick with pretty much all that I said too - And you could also post this statement again later if you like.


Good repost from the shut down MSM cover-up thread. Thank you!

Look Alfa old buddy. You cannot prove a negative. Full stop. Example; How can we prove alien lifeforms don't exist because we can't see them? We certainly can't by argument and we can't do it empirically either. All experiments can show is what is the likelihood of something existing. So if you as a scientist say there is an absence of evidence and therefore that equates to evidence of absence you would be laughed at. Justifiably.

Someone else claims nothing happened between ISON and Mercury. I don't claim that, they do. I am not asking them to prove a negative at all. I don't believe they could come up with the evidence at all because you can't prove a negative and all of that.

But, I AM asking them how they KNOW that. I am pointing out there is no way at all to KNOW that, and on that basis the claim EC is invalid is well, plain stupid.

Tallone
Look Alfa old buddy. You cannot prove a negative.

Someone else claims nothing happened between ISON and Mercury. I don't claim that, they do. I am not asking them to prove a negative at all. I don't believe they could come up with the evidence at all because you can't prove a negative and all of that.

No one is asking anyone to prove a negative. You made a statement. You said something would happen. You said it would be visible. Nothing was visible. Now you need to prove something happened.