Electric Comet ISON - Revealed

reply to post by Tallone

I don't know what NASA did with those images. If anyone does know they are not telling. The point is we are missing extremely valuable images telling us a lot about ISON particularly its shape, whether it is one object or several, and even the possible nature of its make up.

You have yet to explain which images you are talking about. Are you talking about the perihelion images that were obscured by the plate that creates an artificial eclipse? They were blocked by the plate that creates an artificial eclipse.

As for arguing the merits of the standard model vs. EU, you have yet to explain any of the flaws in the model that have been exposed. Setting aside the lack of Zeeman lines in the emission spectra, the unlikelihood of combining particle radiation into hydroxyl radicals without nuclear fusion (among other things) there are the problems you yourself have raised. You claim that ISON "ignited" further out than most comets, and that this was somehow incompatible with the standard model. But in the standard model, there can be many different ices in any given comet, some of which have lower fusion points than others. It is therefore not surprising that some comets activate further out than others, depending upon their composition. On the other hand, EU claims that it is a matter of "charge." Why would some comets have a greater "charge" than others, and why would this cause them to activate at different distances? And why do the vast majority of these comets just happen to have "charges" that cause them to light up just as they reach the inner limit of the "snowline?" Coincidence? How does a scientific mind like yours feel about so consistent a "coincidence?"

You also claim (for reasons you have never explained) that you believe ISON to be larger than astronomers estimate. Why? ISON's nucleus is too small to be measured directly. Astronomers assume that it has an albedo similar to other rocky bodies and calculate its size from that. If you believe it is larger, that is tantamount to saying that you believe it is much less reflective. Are you sure this is consistent with it being metallic? Speaking of metallic, if it were metal, why would it break apart so readily at perihelion? It would make sense for a loose clump of dust and gas to crumble as the gases volatized violently... but metal? Wouldn't that be more likely to remain intact?

In the meantime, please stop claiming that "NASA must be hiding something because what they are reporting does not confirm my beliefs." Why not simply ignore what actually happened and pretend your predictions came true. Here, let me help: "Wow! Everything I knew was wrong! Please Explain It All To Me!"

reply to post by alfa1


It was one of your fellow posters against EU/Plasma theory that claimed M class. You didn't correct it then, so pushing the issue only hits your own credibility now.

Now you claim they were B class flares. I don' think you know what size the flares are. The sun re-acting as ISON approached is the only issue here.

You link is to magnetic indices and other events, not solar flares.

I asked specifically about solar flares, solar data includes far more than solar flares.

But you did finally find a list of solar fares, and there were 4 C class solar flares during the day that ISON grazed the sun. So it wasn't a B class flares after all.

Ussually, in this chart, most of the large numbers of C class flares occured with M class flares or X class flares. Thanksgiving day did not include any M or X class flares, in that period. It was a calm period when those 4 C class flares popped up, and 5 S class. It stands out.

Have you looked at the info now that you finally found it?

reply to post by Astyanax


If you know so much about physics, then you should know it was not an arc discharge.

I don't know what kind of a discharge it could be. We know so very little about the plasma structure of our solar system, it is a safe bet that even if there was some sort of Plasma interaction taking place, if it was discovered, if we knew how to measure it, we would still have to give it a name.

And if you don' know that, there is not much you are going to learn here.

reply to post by poet1b

If you know so much about physics, then you should know it was not an arc discharge.

Very well. What kind of discharge does electric-universe 'theory' predict it should have been?

If there is no specific prediction, it's not a theory.

The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term 'theory' is hardly applicable.

poet1b
And if you don' know that, there is not much you are going to learn here.

I'll tell you what I've learnt here: that your 'theory' is about as scientific as a belief in flying hippopotami.

There was no electrical interaction between the comet and the Sun. The solar flares observed when ISON was close to the Sun were perfectly normal ones, entirely predictable and understandable in terms of conventional solar physics. Just like comet ISON itself, your childish attempt to play at physics has been torn apart by the Sun.

Let’s try to keep an open mind here. If you can’t do that, this thread is going to really make you p*****. I don’t think there is much to gain arguing semantics, who said what, where, and how often. For those with an open mind, one ready to look at the patterns already observed and chronicled in this thread - without falling back to the default position of flat denial - the number of questions raised by comet ISON should provide much meat to chew. To my mind ISON has fulfilled my expectations in most areas and dealt severely to the DST model, and frankly I think DST is akin to the flat Earth model and therefore most deserving.
Focusing on the observations reported on in this thread that support the EC model because EC is the one I argue for, I would nominate as prime data these three comet ISON ‘anomalies’. Err anomalies only to DST advocates you understand.

1. The coma was observed to be active while it was still far from Jupiter in September 2012. It was far to distant from the Sun to be sublimating ice, silicates and stuff and yet a coma at that distance is something expected under EC. Not at all explainable under DST though!
2. ISON interacted with the Sun on several occasion mostly on approach to perihelion but also on departure. The pattern of flaring and non-flaring periods over the duration of ISONs progress is outstanding evidence of an interaction taking place between comet and Sun. Specifically I mean coma brightening following comet directed flaring, the obvious comet facing nature of the active Sun regions particularly immediately before perihelion and on departure, and the frequency and specificity of flaring in the direction of the comet trajectory.
3. The survival of comet ISON following perihelion is explainable under the EC model. It is very difficult to explain under the DST model (although some of you might like to try).

The evidence for point 1 is well established by NASA and other space agencies and cannot be denied. Point 2 remains the subject of debate on this thread, but to my mind DST advocates are simply refusing to examine the evidence cited here in numerous posts, including links, and images. Point 3 is something I have mentioned and is now subject to arguments reduced to mere semantics over what does and does not constituted debris, and who said what about where it would go and why. Semantics is a bit of a yawn and a cop out when it comes down to theories, models, and analysing the data.

On top of all of this NASA and ESA have displayed either an appalling level of incompetence in flat out failure to capture images of the comet ISON nucleus during perihelion, OR those agencies are simply covering up data they surely must have captured. I am leaning toward the latter. I don’t think either NASA or the ESA with all their immense funding, technological wizardry (much of which we are not privy to), and high level ability and intellect of their top scientists are incompetent by any means. But where is the data guys!! Hmmm? We pay taxes you give us what we pay for - simple as that.

Now to look for some pretty pictures.

reply to post by Astyanax


Better than the current institutional theories of physics with dark matter, quarks, and the god particle, and don't forget the whole big bang theory created by a catholic priest.

Then there is the whole elven magic theory on force, and don't forget gravitons.

EV/Plasma theory is at least based on observable phenomenon. It was predicted that comet ISON would cause a reaction to the sun, and it looks like that is exactly what happened.

But there are some who would prefer to continue drinking the dark matter kool aid.

Yeah that line is getting really old.

Anyone who thinks that the standard model, relativistic theory, general or otherwise meets the criteria of:

"The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions."

Is out of their mind.

I'd also be curious to know why if "understandable in terms of conventional solar physics" is true then why does just about any "conventional" solar researcher seem to disagree with the fact that anything our sun does being "understandable" right now. If solar flares were explained by convention we would not even be having this conversation.

It’s worth noting that when the theories of Relativity were published (1905 and 1915), astronomers thought that the Milky Way was the entire universe. Gravity was considered to be the only significant force in it. Space was thought to be a vacuum and a perfect insulator that ruled out any electrical interactions. There was little awareness of plasma. (The word wasn't invented until 1927.) Little has changed: The universe is now thought to be much larger but still ruled by gravity alone, and the vacuum of space is thought to be a perfect insulator that still rules out any electrical interactions.

And while we may admit that space is not a perfect vacuum, it is still treated as such in most cases to this day when it comes to physics calculations. You can not argue about testable, we have had a few "tests" of the DST model in the form of stardust and deep impact. What was the most commonly used word from all released statements of those researchers? "Unexpected" certainly comes to mind.

As an aside to DJ:

Setting aside the lack of Zeeman lines in the emission spectra, the unlikelihood of combining particle radiation into hydroxyl radicals without nuclear fusion (among other things) there are the problems you yourself have raised.

I am still very interested in these points you brought up earlier and am still looking into it. Zeeman effect do you have anything specific you would recommend? Are you simply saying that we should be able to visibly measure the strength of a magnetic field of an object that size by looking at the coma with a radio telescope and thus infer an electromagnetic interaction between two objects in space by simple observation?

reply to post by vind21

Anyone who thinks that the standard model, relativistic theory, general or otherwise meets the criteria of:

"The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions."

Is out of their mind.

Can you provide an example of the standard model of comets failing in any way? As for relativity, it predicted that the Sun's gravitation would cause background stars to be shifted. This prediction was validated nearly a hundred years ago. Relativistic effects must be accounted for in GPS signals. It is not we who are out of our minds.

I am still very interested in these points you brought up earlier and am still looking into it. Zeeman effect do you have anything specific you would recommend? Are you simply saying that we should be able to visibly measure the strength of a magnetic field of an object that size by looking at the coma with a radio telescope and thus infer an electromagnetic interaction between two objects in space by simple observation?

Exactly. The effect should even be detectable in visible light spectroscopy. EU predicts that comets should be so incredibly magnetic that they can affect the Sun's behavior from at least the distance of Mars!

reply to post by Tallone

1. The coma was observed to be active while it was still far from Jupiter in September 2012. It was far to distant from the Sun to be sublimating ice, silicates and stuff and yet a coma at that distance is something expected under EC. Not at all explainable under DST though!

What part of: "some substances volatize at lower temperatures than others" do you not understand? Also, why do most comets not become active at that distance?

2. ISON interacted with the Sun on several occasion mostly on approach to perihelion but also on departure. The pattern of flaring and non-flaring periods over the duration of ISONs progress is outstanding evidence of an interaction taking place between comet and Sun. Specifically I mean coma brightening following comet directed flaring, the obvious comet facing nature of the active Sun regions particularly immediately before perihelion and on departure, and the frequency and specificity of flaring in the direction of the comet trajectory.

Obviously, any comet will react to the Sun's behavior. Unfortunately, EU predicts that the Sun will react to a comet. Any and all comets. Can you explain why the Sun does not seem to be "interacting" with comet Encke? Or all the other comets throughout the Solar System?

3. The survival of comet ISON following perihelion is explainable under the EC model. It is very difficult to explain under the DST model (although some of you might like to try).

Are you so sure that ISON survived?

Can you provide an example of the standard model of comets failing in any way? As for relativity, it predicted that the Sun's gravitation would cause background stars to be shifted. This prediction was validated nearly a hundred years ago. Relativistic effects must be accounted for in GPS signals. It is not we who are out of our minds.

As far as the bending of light due to gravity, Photons have no restmass yet bend because of their relativistic mass = hf/c^2, that is all good and fine, but it does not validate the theory.

Take a look at this: Manipulating Light with a magnetic field

(For the purposes of this thread I will simply agree with you that for all practical purposes EM has no effect on photons and I think it will be simpler to just go on this assumption in general)

GPS is in no way any form of validation for relativity, that requires a walk through history, Dr Tom Van Flandern, while he was on the US Naval Observatory team that developed and commissioned the GPS, used Newtonian mechanics and produced the same answers precisely. Ron hatch, the inventor of the hatch filter something every gps device uses would also disagree with the need for relativity in the use of GPS. Let's just not even go there, you already have 1 solid point that is pertinent to the topic

I would also ask you to entertain the idea you do not fully understand how the Eu actually describes the relationship of charge neutralization between 2 bodies in an electrically neutral environment.

EU predicts that comets should be so incredibly magnetic that they can affect the Sun's behavior from at least the distance of Mars!

Where did you find this claim?

I would not make the claim that a comet is going to have any noticeable effect on the sun itself, any statements of Flares from the sun being directed at comets, CME's reacting to them, coma's brightening, is expected by EU theory but at this time is pure conjecture or amounts to nothing more than, "It sure looks like it to me" there is no data on that and I don't think anyone is looking into it beyond "hey lemme watch all these sun diving comet videos and see what I think" at this time.

I could just as easily ask you to justify why relativity fails to explain the rotational properties of galaxies; the standard response is Dark matter, which does all this woo-joo of non-interaction with the exception of gravity which is supposed to be a property of mass, so how does dark matter have gravity when it has no mass, and oh wait we have just recently discovered that galaxies might contain more dark exo-planets than stars and oh hey there is our magical dark matter, look we found it! See it was there and it's actually mass, so about all these equations and dark matter maps.... yeah our bad!


As far as the real point: I provided a very nice example of just such DST failings a few pages back.

One need only review the extraordinary spectacle provided by Comet Holmes 17P to see how deep the crisis in cometology reaches. In October of 2007, Holmes suddenly and unexpectedly brightened by a factor of a million. In less then 24 hours, it grew from a small 17th magnitude comet to a magnitude of 2.5, so large it was easily visible to the naked eye on Earth. Holmes' coma continued expanding until by mid-November of '07 it had become the largest object in the solar system, vastly larger than the Sun. The coma's diameter had grown from 28 thousand kilometers to 7 million km.

At the time of Holmes' extraordinary display, the comet was actually moving away from the Sun, and therefore cooling. Among the common sense questions posed by the enigma: how does such a gravitationally minuscule body hold in place a uniform, spherical coma 7 million kilometers in diameter? If Holmes' flare-up was the result of a collapse or explosion (as some scientists speculated) why was the ejected material not asymmetrical (as one would anticipate from an explosion)? Why did the claimed explosion not produce a variety of fragmentary sizes instead of the extremely fine dust that was actually observed? What explosive event could have caused the comet to luminate for MONTHS, rather than the SECONDS typical of an explosion's luminescence? Why did the comet's gaseous, dusty, spherical cloud persist for months, rather than dispersing quickly away from the comet?

I think there are enough issues in that one event to make any rational thinking person say "Oh hell, maybe THERE IS more going on here than we thought."

Add to that all the things that happened on deep impact with preemptive flash and veracity of the explosion that can in no way be accounted for by mass and speed alone and you really should be asking questions.

How do you explain 20 hour long gamma ray bursts using gravity and rebounding matter alone? How do you explain X-ray emissions from balls of ice beyond the orbit of Saturn? These are valid questions, even if you refuse to accept electrical interactions of plasma to be the cause, there is obvious problems with the idea of balls of rock and ice slinging about the cosmos by gravity alone.

Where is the comet ISON data NASA and ESA??

There is no denying comet ISON has lost the brightness and the tail. Since completing perihelion it has looked like little more than a blurry smudge of debris in the images captured and offered to us by NASA and ESA. It appears ISON no longer has a cohesive nucleus and is now a grouping of fragments large and small. That may explain the lack of brightness and former tail; as a grouping of fragments it is unable to maintain a charge. Clearly though something significant remains and it is interesting that there has been very little ISON data forthcoming since perihelion from the boys and girls with really big telescopes and cameras in space.

Below I embed two recent videos from NikolaTeslasGhost. And why do I embed these? Firstly, because I can folks and do. Secondly, pictures are worth a few hundred or so words. Personally I recommend after watching the videos and with your interest peaked you ought next to visit the links this OP as well as others arguing the EC /EU model on this thread have posted – several with more apparent physics cred. It should be apparent by now even to the blind, comet ISON was much bigger than we were being told, and it was something metallic in nature, and nothing like a dirty snowball (in any sense of that laughable label).

You can make your own minds up about the loudest voices on this thread, if they have a genuine background in science or observing comets, and/or more importantly intending to take part in the debate rather than end the discussion. But BEFORE you make your mind up take a look and consider the ample evidence we have presented that ISON has already shown that the emperor (DST) is standing there starkers – see for yourself!

I mentioned in this post already ISON is still a significant body of something. Here are some images to consider if you wonder why anyone should be bothering to ask for images of the nucleus in perihelion.
In this first video pay particular attention from 4:35 on, the point when you see the most recent image from SECCHI-A-H1-1 (red like the sunset on DST).


The second video focuses on a NASA video released on Youtube today but since removed by NASA (Science casts: what happened to comet ISON). Interesting.


To those who do not have a hard science background these vids sum up some of what I posted already. These are not THE evidence guys, but are provided to peak your appetite for a plunge into some deeper consideration and research of your own.

Tallone
it is interesting that there has been very little ISON data forthcoming since perihelion from the boys and girls with really big telescopes and cameras in space.

I have already explained that it's too early to point the big telescopes at ISON - it's still too close to the Sun.

I'm not gonna invest time in watching Youtube videos you posted, but I'd like to see solid scientific data showing that comets carry electric charge and interact with the Sun. I haven't seen any of it in this very lengthy thread full of words, assumptions, and accusations...

reply to post by Tallone


Hubble will not be able to look at the remains of C/2012 S1 (ISON) until mid-December (sometime at the end of next week) as the remains needs to move further from the sun in order to not damage the HST.

Ground bases telescopes are also having to wait also because C/2012 S1's brightness has dimmed quite a bit and is not very visible with the morning sun's glare (both professional observatories and amateur).

I'm afraid you are making much ado about nothing at this time.

*******************REQUIEUM FOR A COMET**********************

Brilliant in it's analysis,, outstanding in it's harsh., Truth,,!





Well done too all who are responsable,, 10 out of ten Stars.



ISON Examined Up Close and Personal
seeingatruth !

reply to post by wildespace
I have already explained that it's too early to point the big telescopes at ISON - it's still too close to the Sun.

I'm not gonna invest time in watching Youtube videos you posted, but I'd like to see solid scientific data showing that comets carry electric charge and interact with the Sun. I haven't seen any of it in this very lengthy thread full of words, assumptions, and accusations...

No. Read my post rather than just reacting the moment your eyes settle on something you want to use as ammo. I suggest also my post just before that one on this same page to understand what I am talking about. I am not talking about ground based telescopes now. Your point about ISON being too close to the Sun seems to me irrelevant to the points I am making in the post you are replying to.

See the images already gathered since perihelion by SECCHI-A-HI-1 (red like the sunset on DST...).

I have stated my position on NASA (and ESA). I do not believe their top scientists to be incompetent. Those agencies are with holding data from the wider scientific community. Why? I would say because the DST myth is shot to pieces by ISON. The data, and likely the images NASA and ESA captured and hold from us of comet ISON nucleus through perihelion would confirm as much. That is the gist of my most recent posts. Period.

reply to post by eriktheawful

Yes, Hubble images of ISON are mucho anticipated.

See also my post to Wildespace.

reply to post by Tallone


Allow me to posit an answer to your question as to why NASA removed those videos.


Firstly here is your guy from the "NASA is shady" youtube videos:



He makes an ok point about the failure of NASA representatives to make accurate statements about the visible angle they are displaying but he is not using the RAW data in his analysis. He is using over exposed high contrast images that do not accurately show what happened.

Notice right away you see BPE confirming the videos and talking about "dark rocks" this is how people assume you are posting information from BPE, by posting videos of people associated with him.

BPEarthWatch20 hours ago

Nikola your are correct.. Ison is a V shaped debris field with objects that are miles wide each..at least 21 large ones.. they are moving at 2 million miles per day. Ison is moving away from Secchi A at that speed which makes it appear smaller from that camera each hour.. THE ROCKS ARE DARK NOW. They will become darker as they move further from the sun over Earth..They will not become smaller..GOOD Job.

Here is the RAW footage of the same event.



So on to why I say NASA pulled their information. We know about the botched ISON special and that NASA was involved in it, we know NASA posted a video about what happened to ISON, but ISWA did not remove ISON until Dec 3, so they were obviously still detecting something. I would say isn't it just as likely that they pulled thier video simply because they would like to reconsider their position on the subject?


ISWA Dec 03 2013

We can also assume a few things.

1. Hubble and several other devices will be pointed at ISON's debris field.
2. If NASA chooses not to look at ISON, several other amateurs WILL look for it along it's supposed orbital.
3. If nothing is found then we will get more videos from BPE and crew about a cover up. Possibly about how his 3 winged parallax spaceship went to warp. And NASA just wanted you to think it was a comet who knows.



UPDATE: Hilariously enough just a few minutes ago this coment came up

marlon david2 minutes ago

good job sir. you know, after you post this video, nasa has been releasing news that a fraction of ison might have survived. karl battams, the nasa comet expert is still unsure what happened to ison after perihelion

Kinda echo's exactly what I was saying, NASA is simply reconsidering their position based on new data. They are allowed to do that, no doom conspiracy required.

reply to post by wildespace


So I wont waste your time reminding you of the results of the deep impact double flash.

(You see what I did there )

But I wanted to take a second to bring up the V shaped nature and Double filament images commonly seen in comets.

Is it not possible that when we look at a comet and we see two "tails" one blurred one defined that we ARE seeing the electromagnetic interaction between the sun and the comet. This is what NASA states and in my point of view is congruent with the EU. This is exactly what we see in the videos above.


We see some ice sublimation which is the debris tail that does not respond the the perihelion but is blown out in a delayed fashion by the stellar win and we see the electrical component of the ion tail that does always face away from the sun in a constant fashion.

Im am still looking where it expressly says that comets will effect the sun from an EU perspective. I only see information that says that the sun will effect the comet. Claims to the contrary in my opinion are based on youtube videos and conjecture. In fact if you look on thunderbolts it clearly says that the idea that comets have a visible effect on the sun or cause the sun to emit CME's as unconfirmed.

[reply to post by vind21
Allow me to posit an answer to your question as to why NASA removed those videos.

You have been posting on this thread for a while now. Continuing to suggest I post videos as evidence is akin to disinfo. Is this what you are doing or have I got you wrong?

The video was not mine. It is not evidence I use in my argument. My argument has not shifted from the first thread I put up on ISON a month ago. The substance of any claim I make is linked to sources I regard as authorities, usually NASA as it happens. Let’s get that out of the way now for any new comer to this thread.

Back to the misleading question you direct at me, I have explicitly stated as part of my argument ISON exemplifies the characteristics of a comet in an electric universe, that NASA has purposefully kept data out of the public realm that would likely confirm a number of EC model based postulates. One of these is the electrical connection between Sun and comet.

[reply to post by vind21
He makes an ok point about the failure of NASA representatives to make accurate statements about the visible angle they are displaying but he is not using the RAW data in his analysis. He is using over exposed high contrast images that do not accurately show what happened.

Allow me to put you right here. Analysis begins with raw data. Data are then manipulated in order to pull from it the patterns you as analyst observe, WITHOUT misrepresenting the data itself. Manipulating the data is simply a means of communicating your observations to the audience. Pick up most any science article and you will see in the analysis section data that has been manipulated. Examples of high contrast images can be found in peer reviewed articles of in medical journals to name just one other area of science out side of those fields related to space.

[reply to post by vind21
Notice right away you see BPE confirming the videos and talking about "dark rocks" this is how people assume you are posting information from BPE, by posting videos of people associated with him.

Why are you bringing up another Youtube video poster here? It sounds like that is all you relying on for a source. The substance of any claim I make is linked to sources I regard as authorities, usually NASA as it happens. I suggest you do the same.

[reply to post by vind21So on to why I say NASA pulled their information. We know about the botched ISON special and that NASA was involved in it, we know NASA posted a video about what happened to ISON, but ISWA did not remove ISON until Dec 3, so they were obviously still detecting something. I would say isn't it just as likely that they pulled thier video simply because they would like to reconsider their position on the subject?

I have no idea what you are going on about here. What do you mean ‘but ISWA did not remove ISON until Dec 3’? Point of fact. In my eyes NASA are pulling the wool over yours, either that or you are trying to do the same to the audience here. The video poster is actually citing the video content and the pulling of it by NASA on the same day, as further proof there is an intentional campaign of obfuscation under way. He does that brilliantly so far as I can see. That is why I posted both of course, because this demonstrates what I have been saying since October.

[reply to post by vind21
Kinda echo's exactly what I was saying, NASA is simply reconsidering their position based on new data. They are allowed to do that, no doom conspiracy required.

edit on 5-12-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)

If I choose to discuss the co-occurrence of clusters of smokers with incidences of lung cancer on this forum, does that make me a ‘doom conspiracy’ theorist? That is inane. I have pointed out all along the danger to the public of official policies to withhold data /information from the general public. That is the entire point of the comments by myself and others leveled at NASA and ESA. This is critical data scientists of all kinds, levels, and fields could be using to protect the public welfare and better the condition of human kind.

Insinuating I am somehow presenting a ‘doom conspiracy’ misrepresents not only the explicitly expressed intent of my OP posts on the first page but the entire argument I make throughout. Your post amounts to an intent to throw lots of mud in the hope some sticks.
extra DIV