Comet Elenin
- Thread starter Dotini
- 236 comments
- 31,385 views
- 3,679
- Warwick Uni
- lbsf1 GTP_lbsf1
- obsmu (my brothers acount)
Guys, stop having a go at him. So far scientists have said it could go from 0.8-0.15 au, that is a big range and could change easily to get closer. However how unlikely a hit would be it is still a posibility. This comet is a complete unknown since it has been so far away.
Its unlikely anything will happen however its a close call in astronomical terms.
Its unlikely anything will happen however its a close call in astronomical terms.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Look, fellow GTP member, and supposed human being, you can't be both dismissive, abusive and asking for information. Please take your choice. I don't mind answering questions from those who are polite and sincere, but you can't have it both ways. If you continue to be abusive you can expect to be ignored.
When confronted with strange or potentially threatening information, it is a natural human reaction to become skeptical, particularly of the messenger. But I expect better treatment than contempt, belittlement and ridicule. If you want serious answers, try treating the other party seriously and with a modicum of respect. I am in fact a credible person. I am whom I say I am. I've done what I've said I've done. I can work with you, but only if you give me a patch of ground to stand on.
http://translate.google.co.nz/trans...ru/science/2010/12/20_a_3471201.shtml&prev=_t
Translated interview with the discoverer. Apparently his name is Yelenin, not Elenin. And apparently the period is not determined. That changes things. If it's a short period comet, that makes it a lot less dangerous.
Last edited:
I don't think this is true. From what I can tell the potential range of closest approach was FORMERLY larger, which is where the .15 and .8 numbers are coming from. It isn't any longer. It's been narrowed down to .23ish. What I suspect is happening is that he is using outdated age ranges from when there weren't as many measurements, from the same source that is NOW saying that it won't be anywhere near .15.
If they are indeed the same source he cannot very well say that it could get to .15 and then ignore the more recent (more dependable) data that says it can't get closer than .22.
If it were really a complete unknown we wouldn't have any measurements at all.
Yeah, I can.
You can't insist on sincerity when your original post was anything but.
Anyone on the internet can say they are whoever or whatever they want. It doesn't matter. What matters are the content of your posts, and the content of your posts in this thread don't pass the stink test. I'm sorry that you don't like to hear that, but it's true. Your posts are (intentionally) alarmist and have little to no evidence supporting them. If you want credibility and respect, earn it. But demanding it after making a bunch of extraordinary claims and not providing any evidence? You're not going to get it, and you don't deserve it:
Alarmist hogwash #1:
As has already been pointed out, numerous times by numerous people, this isn't that slim a margin, and unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, the number you're using isn't even correct given current data (i.e. you selected it SPECIFICALLY to make things look bad).
The trajectory of ANY body could change. Even to an impact! Considering there are huge numbers of asteroids and comets that have come as close or closer than this (there was an up to 1.3 km asteroid at .158 AU just LAST WEEK, where were you on that one?), this is more fearmongering hogwash.
I don't think you've actually established that this is true, and it isn't a big deal anyway.
As already stated, I recall that NONE of its fragments ended up .15 AU from the rest of them. Also, maybe you recall that Jupiter is a tad bit larger than Earth, and the reason Levy broke up is 1. because of Jupiters tidal forces and 2. a previous close approach to Jupiter. Neither is applicable here. I can't think of a reason you would mention Shoemaker-Levy other than sheer ignorance.
P.S. everyone is ignorant about some things (a lot of things, actually). Accusing someone of ignorance isn't a put down. I am entirely ignorant about knitting. Don't know a single thing about it, other than someone can take a ball of yarn and a couple sticks and make a hat. That's why you will never see me making posts about knitting attempting to tell other people about it.
More unsupported "facts."
Alarmist and largely irrelevant.
Completely unsupported. In addition: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Alarmist hogwash, not to mention bordline conspiracy theory nutcasish.
So tell me, where in that post have you demonstrated your credibility and earned the respect that you demand?
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/epoxi/epoxi-1-20101104.html
Here's NASA's Hartley 2 comet photo. It is a rocky body without a trace of ice or snow - 100% typical of all close up photos taken of comets by NASA and the Japanese.
Notice the brightly illuminated jets sprouting from the shadowed region on the comet? This proves that the comet is self-illuminated - glowing - and not dependent on reflected light from the Sun. That the comet begins to glow when it enters the Sun's magnetosphere indicates electrical plasma discharge at work. Its electric charge is very different from that of our solar system.
Edit: This is a mind-ripping photo. It will shatter all previous illusory notions about comets. It will also shatter the credibility of several of my nattering naysayer's. Those folks are now dismissed from the conversation. I will continue with the polite and knowledgeable only.
Here's NASA's Hartley 2 comet photo. It is a rocky body without a trace of ice or snow - 100% typical of all close up photos taken of comets by NASA and the Japanese.
Notice the brightly illuminated jets sprouting from the shadowed region on the comet? This proves that the comet is self-illuminated - glowing - and not dependent on reflected light from the Sun. That the comet begins to glow when it enters the Sun's magnetosphere indicates electrical plasma discharge at work. Its electric charge is very different from that of our solar system.
Edit: This is a mind-ripping photo. It will shatter all previous illusory notions about comets. It will also shatter the credibility of several of my nattering naysayer's. Those folks are now dismissed from the conversation. I will continue with the polite and knowledgeable only.
Last edited:
Hey Dotini i understand your worry about long period commets and i agree that it is possible for one of these to stike and end all life on earth. It must be noted that we have a few body guards to help us most noticeable Jupiter and the moon.
On another note, commet trails can extend to over 1AU, however comet tails are so thin they are described as "as close to nothing as you can get while still being something".
Sorry, comets are not self illuminating, they are illuminated by the solar wind, which is a stream of charged particles radiated by the sun.
On another note, commet trails can extend to over 1AU, however comet tails are so thin they are described as "as close to nothing as you can get while still being something".
Sorry, comets are not self illuminating, they are illuminated by the solar wind, which is a stream of charged particles radiated by the sun.
- 7,621
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
NASA's website seems to disagree though
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/dictionary/Comet.html
And the lights are traces of ice and snow.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
NASA is divided into numerous discrete operational centers. There is internal disagreement amongst all scientific bodies, particularly with respect to the nature of comets. When the boffins at the top don't agree, what are they to tell the students? Politics, careers and budgets are involved.
Look again at the original picture I posted. The jets are glowing and from shadowed areas. It is self-illuminated. Believe your own eyes, man!
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/epoxi/epoxi-1-20101104.html
blaaah
(Banned)
- 1,078
Talking of near misses a world record was broken on Friday for the closest observed near miss.
An asteroid passed at only 5,480Km away. Because it came so close Earth's gravity could influence it, and by a lot, a 60degree turn, see the image. The sharpest ever turn spotted in the solar system.
It's probably never to be seen again as it's a very dim light. One reason being, it's only 1 metre across.
An asteroid passed at only 5,480Km away. Because it came so close Earth's gravity could influence it, and by a lot, a 60degree turn, see the image. The sharpest ever turn spotted in the solar system.
It's probably never to be seen again as it's a very dim light. One reason being, it's only 1 metre across.
- 7,621
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
They aren't on the dark side, they seem to be on the edge of the shadow at best. Eyes aren't completely reliable anyway, and we only have a 2D image that is a little blurry.
If they are in the shadows, the vapor would only need to come a little ways off the surface to reflect light. Also, if it was self illuminating, wouldn't it not have very many shadows at all?
If they are in the shadows, the vapor would only need to come a little ways off the surface to reflect light. Also, if it was self illuminating, wouldn't it not have very many shadows at all?
Sorry Dotini, i do not see how it is self-illuminating the pictue does show it to be brighter in some parts than others, but i do not think this is proof that it is self-illuminating.
I also belive we are in no danger from any "electrical charge" (if there was one an a comet) as we would be protced by our magnetic feild/Ionoshpere.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
I think we need to fund more unmanned missions to work on basic science. Manned missions are a giant waste of the money needed to do basic research.
I firmly believe that every new mission that NASA launches to study the Sun, the solar system and stars reveals startling new observations, both calling for new versions of old theories, but also a necessity to re-examine even basic assumptions. The photo challenges previous concepts of comets. That is a start, that is better than where we were. But we do need to question and explore some more.
High regards,
Dotini
@gary31, do you see the little, multiple "jets" shooting out here and there? Some originate in shadow, and glow immediately upon exiting the comet. The NASA caption says as much.
With regard to electric charge danger, we regularly receive such discharges from the Sun, known as CME's. In 1859 a such a storm burned down many telegraph lines, which were then just being installed for the first time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1989_geomagnetic_storm
If a comet on a long period gathered a large enough charge compared to that of Earth, it or its corona could discharge to Earths magnetosphere, causing a disruption similar to a solar storm.
Last edited:
Agree whole heartedly...with the exception that manned missions are kinda cool, in a 'i'd love that to be me kind of way'.
I agree that every mission should have scientific merit to learn something new, to understand things better or to confirm previous theories. I agee also that this mission has shown us a closer look at the composition of a comet.
I do see the 'jets' however remeber this photo was taken at a distance of 700Km (435 miles) so i think it is hard to say it gloes immediately after leaving the comet. I am still inclined to think it is the solar wind that is exciting these jets causeing the 'glow' thus not being self illuminating.
I think the mass of charged particles leaving the sun (6.7 billion tons per hour) would be much greater than most commets.
Cheers,
Gary
Last edited:
- 5,077
- Panama City, FL
The jets "glow" immediately on reaching sunlight, after the material making up the jet passes out of the shadow cast by the part of the body between the eject point and the sun.
This is a sunlit photograph, nothing in it is self illuminated. If this object were self-illuminated, that crater wall in the upper left would not cast a shadow across the crater. The areas you refer to as glowing are simply higher-density areas of ejected mater. Matter which is lighter in color than the object itslef, and thus brighter in the reflected sunlight.
The "glowing" effect, especially at the right side of the image, is something we in photography commonly refer to as overexposure.
Mind-ripping photo? Shatter all previously illusory notions? Shatter credibility???
All that from an over-exposed image of a sunlit object???
My credibility is quite safe, thanks for worrying.
As to the other poster saying the items are set to glowing by the solar wind . . . Um, no. They're set to reflecting by the solar light. Plain ole Mark I photons!!!
BTW, you know those "glowing" jets you keep referring to? That's volatile material (um, water) evaporating forcefully (erupting) after being heated by closer proximity to that big energy source in the middle (sun.) It "glows" because it's brighter in color than the external surface, thus reflects more light. In an image exposed for the surface material, the lighter-colored (whiter) material gets overexposed. And that ejected material (water, maybe some dust) is what makes that horrible corona you are so fearful of. As the comet reaches the inner solar system, that horrible corona gets blown by the solar wind into the familiar shape of a comet's tail.
Same crap that happens with EVERY COMET EVER ENCOUNTERED SINCE BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF LIFE ON EARTH. Yet this one is going to destroy us?
As for melted wires: a solar storm, a collection of charged particles, will never melt a telegraph wire, or any other wire. Runaway current induced by magnetic activity, with no grounding path, well that's another story. All you've done is you've turned your cable into a fuse.
This is a sunlit photograph, nothing in it is self illuminated. If this object were self-illuminated, that crater wall in the upper left would not cast a shadow across the crater. The areas you refer to as glowing are simply higher-density areas of ejected mater. Matter which is lighter in color than the object itslef, and thus brighter in the reflected sunlight.
The "glowing" effect, especially at the right side of the image, is something we in photography commonly refer to as overexposure.
Mind-ripping photo? Shatter all previously illusory notions? Shatter credibility???
All that from an over-exposed image of a sunlit object???
My credibility is quite safe, thanks for worrying.
As to the other poster saying the items are set to glowing by the solar wind . . . Um, no. They're set to reflecting by the solar light. Plain ole Mark I photons!!!
BTW, you know those "glowing" jets you keep referring to? That's volatile material (um, water) evaporating forcefully (erupting) after being heated by closer proximity to that big energy source in the middle (sun.) It "glows" because it's brighter in color than the external surface, thus reflects more light. In an image exposed for the surface material, the lighter-colored (whiter) material gets overexposed. And that ejected material (water, maybe some dust) is what makes that horrible corona you are so fearful of. As the comet reaches the inner solar system, that horrible corona gets blown by the solar wind into the familiar shape of a comet's tail.
Same crap that happens with EVERY COMET EVER ENCOUNTERED SINCE BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF LIFE ON EARTH. Yet this one is going to destroy us?
As for melted wires: a solar storm, a collection of charged particles, will never melt a telegraph wire, or any other wire. Runaway current induced by magnetic activity, with no grounding path, well that's another story. All you've done is you've turned your cable into a fuse.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
There is a very simple, and very obvious explanation for that. As comets lose volatiles due to solar heating, what is left at the surface? The volatiles are gone and the layers of dust and rock are left. If it's rock then what is spouting from it? Here's some quotes from NASA about your "rocky body." And it's not a rocky body without trace of ice or snow, that's what the bright white blobs that are all over it are.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Comet_Snowstorm_Engulfs_Hartley_2_999.html
Comets in general:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...imlZXsKKxgsJUV94w&sig2=nWrseBEpm19-ijd2h1-28g
No, it doesn't. It proves that the jets aren't in shadow even though the area that they're spouting from is. You can even SEE that in the picture! The areas that you're talking about are BARELY in shadow. They're extremely close to areas that ARE NOT in shadow. As the volatiles shoot out, they MOVE OUT OF SHADOW. It's extremely obvious.
And that, if it's true, means it is capable of "burning up every piece of unprotected electrical wiring on the planet." No, it doesn't.
The fact that you think this does more to diminish your own credibility than anyone elses.
- 5,077
- Panama City, FL
I'm having trouble reconciling those . . . . He's a "good guy" because he's not trying to "correct" you??? Is that it?
And if the only thing about it that's different is its long period, then how is it going to destroy the Earth, unlike the millions of comets that have preceeded it??
No, but that the comet gets brighter with proximity to the sun indicates a higher number of photons being reflected from it, as expected by being closer to the light source. (Ooh, physics!!) Its electric charge is pretty much exactly like any other object in the solar system, because it is an object in our solar system. We wouldn't be observing and tracking it if it wasn't, see?
Even if you buy that, it's a LONG ways away from a clump of ice being able to store the massive amout of charge needed to melt every electrical item on the planet. I'm not an electrical engineer, but I kind of doubt a chunk of ice and dust has that kind of capacitance, and I'd be willing to bet that Dotini hasn't done the math to prove that it can.
Maybe not to you, but it does to me. As a scientist, when I see someone that obviously is ignorant of the subject spreading FUD and misinformation I get pissed. The general public is already mis and uninformed enough, they don't need people like Dotini actively trying to make it worse.
Saying that his posts are ignorant fear mongering, when they've be proven, in this thread, by multiple people, to be ignorant fear mongering, is not attacking. I never called him a moron. Attacking the post is not the same as attacking the poster, it seems to me like you're confusing the two.
I think i've tried to correct him numerus times, but i am tring to do it without mocking him or belittleing his ideas.
Getting back to the idea of comets reflecting light.
Comet nucli are some of the least reflective material in the solar system reflecting about 5% of light that falls on it.
The coma radiates x-rays, which indicates high temperatures (physics agian) given the phisics we know i would say that the x-rays would most likly come form the interaction of charged particles and the gas and dust surounding the nucli. I belive this is a similar mechanism to that which illuminates the tail of comets.
As a engineer/scientist/space nerd i also hate seeing misinformation, however i think there are better ways to desiminate the information rather than saying 'you are wrong this is right', i think if you do that people get more defencive and stop asking questions.
Last edited:
More diplomatic? Of course. Better? That's subjective, and to me, best = most efficient, and saying "you are wrong, this is right" is about the most efficient way I can think of. Especially as in this case, where there are clearly numerous things that Dotini is flat out wrong about.
When someone publishes a scientific paper that is chock full of absolute and utter malarky, they get ripped apart. They get pilloried, as publicly as possible. There's no "feelings" in science. No one writing a rebuttal sits and thinks to him/herself "Gee, I'm going to hurt Franks feelings by pointing out, to the world, that what he's is saying is complete hogwash."
Some of the statements and "information" disseminated on the internet are, quite frankly, absolute garbage. We all know this. You see it every day, on practically every forum in existence. People that have no clue what they're talking about trot out their ill informed and ill reasoned "opinions" as absolute, undeniable fact, and will argue with you to the bitter end defending them. Opinions that not only don't have any evidence or support, but display a complete lack of rational cogitation on the matter. Statements such as these should be kept to one's self. Vomiting them out onto public forums is doing a serious disservice to that public, because not everyone is informed or intelligent enough to spot them for the tripe that they are.
- 295
I've been following this debate from the beginning, the Universe and Physics have always been a facination. However, most of my knowledge comes from years of documentaries, so I chose to hang back.
It's very difficult in this field to determine, what's credible and what isn't, due to all the variables that have yet to be defined consistently.
I make referrence to our most recent correction, Pluto. Just imagine yourself going through twenty-odd years of academics and career field experience, to find out that they (scientific cummunity) have re-classified what you've always known as a planet to a star. Pretty hillarious from my perspective.
I do think though that brouching these types of subject matter with some "degree of accuracy" is probably a sound way to debate. Just from observation, I've never really heard or seen the scientific cummunity debate in terms of finite conclusions or determinations. So, I think we need to give each other some slack, margin for error, as far as credibillity goes.
@Duke: There's an old saying, and this is in reference to the Chicken Little Post, " What's joke to the boy, is death to the frog". This saying originated when frogs were used as soccer balls by boys who loved to see them fly far and high, legs, spread, spinning and all. Just for shear amusement. However, the frog was deathly hurting and hanging on for dear life.
Yeah it may have sturred chuckles of witt and so on, but the other end was shear humilliation. Just a thought.
It's very difficult in this field to determine, what's credible and what isn't, due to all the variables that have yet to be defined consistently.
I make referrence to our most recent correction, Pluto. Just imagine yourself going through twenty-odd years of academics and career field experience, to find out that they (scientific cummunity) have re-classified what you've always known as a planet to a star. Pretty hillarious from my perspective.
I do think though that brouching these types of subject matter with some "degree of accuracy" is probably a sound way to debate. Just from observation, I've never really heard or seen the scientific cummunity debate in terms of finite conclusions or determinations. So, I think we need to give each other some slack, margin for error, as far as credibillity goes.
@Duke: There's an old saying, and this is in reference to the Chicken Little Post, " What's joke to the boy, is death to the frog". This saying originated when frogs were used as soccer balls by boys who loved to see them fly far and high, legs, spread, spinning and all. Just for shear amusement. However, the frog was deathly hurting and hanging on for dear life.
Yeah it may have sturred chuckles of witt and so on, but the other end was shear humilliation. Just a thought.
Last edited:
