BREAKING: Scientist claims comet ISON has companions!

Astro, is incredible the number of turns you do around a problem.

I will state what I believe is going, then you do the same:
1-) McCanney stated that he is analyzing some data that suggests C/2012 S1 have companions. He said he is analyzing, is being cautious about it, and later will confirm if is true. No problem on that, he is an independent scientist, if he were hired by NASA, probably the NASA's voicer would do the same. After scientst, McCanney is radialist and have his own audience;

2-) You affirm that McCanney took his data from the same source as SpaceWeather.com, and now he is lying about the mistake he did, confounding hot pixels and asteroids with companions. Also, he states that this is a conspiration against him;

3-) I said he could had made a mistake about this data, but you cannot prove that he get his data from Spaceweather.com. You know, sometimes various observatories releases same date at the same time, this depends on viewing conditions and other factors. As scientist and radialist, he don't have to release sources nor data until it is confirmed. NASA never release data neither to scientists.

4-) Alright, is good you will take a good professional measurement about Mars and its orbit. But don't forget about the electric discharges we will see naked eye from Earth between the comet and the planet. This counts as strange phenomena that proves McCanney's works.

I never said that objects orbits the comet nor McCanney did, he said *IS TOO EARLY TO CONFIRM* *INITIAL DATA SUGGESTS* *HAS TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS* *IT **APPEARS** TO BE REAL*. He is a radialist and scientist, he have the right to not release his sources nor data until the *SUGGESTION* is confirmed. That's the way science and jornalism always worked.

Also I'm trying to deal a bet with Doc Duck Dog, but he avoids talking straight.

jmccsci.com

How can you have stagnant science? Yet another illogical statement made since you have no real argument.



Arrogant (adj): Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.


His skills, knowledge is not exaggerated. Unlike the crazy claims made by others in this thread.


Glauco, ISON is a comet, nothing more. Read up on historical accounts of how comets behave, appear, etc. Not one instance will you find a satellite orbiting a comet.

He is not being cautious, he's fear mongering and spewing bullshit which is precisely why this thread and others just like it exist.

Yes problem on that. He already stated what he thinks it is and he has given no data at all to back up those statements. That is not how a real scientist operates. NASA or not.

This all started with Pete's images, and the first ones to claim that they showed "companions" were not even him, they were posters on other conspiracy forums. He simply latched onto the claim days later.

That is the lie, I never said he lied about his mistake, I said he lied about NASA altering Pete's images to remove the hot pixels, oh sorry, "companions." WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!

Again, I do not agree to your conditions, I'm not falling for your horse shit. WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?!

Last Edited by Astromut on 02/01/2013 08:48 AM

I do not agree to your "bet" for the reasons I already explained. I will not change my mind. Go away.

For sure man, here is the official finding from NASA of an object orbiting Hale Bopp:

Detection of a Satellite Orbiting the Nucleus of Comet Hale-Bopp (C/1995 O1), by Z. Sekanina (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., USA) at the First International Conference on Comet Hale-Bopp
Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain February 2-5, 1998. You can find it at [link to www.eso.org]

It is official information from NASA. Enough? I can suggest Immanuel Velikovsky also.



Last Edited by glauco on 02/01/2013 10:19 AM

Man, I said that if the people from Earth, all of them, does not see electrical discharges, naked eye, between the comet and the planet, you will win the bet. Electric Discharges in outspace have to be impossible, right?

Also, take a look at my post above, I found out NASA stating that they already found satelites orbiting comets.

Hihihihihi.

If correct, it is in direct contradiction to McCanney. The proposed satellite you linked to (your link was broken by the way, here's a fixed version: [link to tmgnow.com] ) was separated by no more than .1 arcseconds from the primary nucleus, which would have been impossible for any amateur observer to detect and is in direct contradiction to the claimed "companions" McCanney said it had. McCanney claimed Hale-Bopp had a planet-sized nucleus that started out with the mass of the moon and magically gained mass up to the mass of Mercury. With an orbital distance of about 180km and an orbital period of 2~3 days, the comet would necessarily have about 0.000001 times the moon's mass. So good job, you just debunked McCanney.

Sekanina's proposed detection of a satellite nucleus closely orbiting the primary nucleus was extremely marginal, even with such powerful telescopes. It was so marginal that it's not clear that such a satellite even existed, it was disputed by other scientists including Hal Weaver, a principal investigator on a number of NASA missions including the first observation of a comet by Hubble as well as Hubble's observations of Hale-Bopp. Hal states in this paper (Estimating the Size of Hale-Bopp's Nucleus. H. A. Weaver, P. L. Lamy in Earth, Moon, and Planets (1997)):

"Sekanina finds that the effective radius of
the nucleus is 35 km (with values ranging between 30 km and 40 km depending
on the image), in excellent agreement with the results from Lamy et al. (2000).
...
As discussed above, comparing the observations to models containing only a
single point source sometimes leaves residuals that are significantly larger than
the counting-statistics noise level. Sekanina (1997–1999b) has interpreted some
of these excess residuals as being due to additional point sources, i.e., companion
fragments to Hale–Bopp’s primary nucleus. He has gone even further to suggest
that the brightest of the companions may be on stable orbits around the primary.
During the Hale–Bopp conference, a presentation was made suggesting that a fragment
was present in images taken in November 1997 and January 1998 using the
ADONIS adaptive optics system at the 3.6m telescope of the European Southern
Observatory in La Silla (Boehnhardt et al., personal communication), and this
result intensified the debate as to whether Hale–Bopp had companion nuclei.
There is no doubt that Sekanina decreases the magnitude of the residuals (datamodel)
by adding extra point sources to his model. However, this is to expected
simply as a consequence of adding more free parameters to the model and does
not necessarily have any physical significance. Based on careful examination of
data like those presented in Figure 4, we prefer to explain the excess residuals
as being due to inadequate modeling of the complex coma morphology and/or
temporal variability rather than invoking the presence of extra fragments. We note
that Sekanina’s largest companions are generally located within the strongest coma
jets, which are the most likely places for the models to fail. We also point out
that the HST CCDs are imperfect detectors whose noise does not always obey
the laws of counting statistics and that models of the PSF can be significantly
different from the actual PSFs (Krist and Hook, 1997). While Sekanina has been
very careful in attempting to account for all known deficiencies in the CCDs and
PSF modeling, perhaps he is being too optimistic in his assessment of these effects."

So not only does Sekanina's results directly contradict and disprove McCanney's claims about Hale-Bopp, but his proposed detection of a binary nucleus is not without problems and may not be accurate.

Last Edited by Astromut on 02/01/2013 11:49 AM

Man, the cowboy asked for a proof of satellites orbiting comets. There it is, it is possible. My opinion, however, is that these numbers are underestimated.

Your opinion is worth what, exactly? That is to say, what do you have to back that opinion up with? Good job genius, you debunked your own dear leader, McCanney.

Take care, I guess this content is protected.

With my opinion and more 5 dollars you win a beer in any bar. As well as yours.

I'm observing McCanney doing predictions of bad weather sometimes 10 months in advance for the past 10 years. He did it last October. He hits day, time, intensity, location, and type of event to expect. And he just calculates the electrical connections between the planets, our moon, the Sun and some comets if any present. His opinion have value. So, if he said Hale-Bopp or ISON is big, so it is.

I brought the proof that comets can have companions. Little dirty snow balls would never have enough gravitational force to do that.

http:\\jmccsci.com

I backed up my opinion with all kinds of sources and information. Your own information debunked McCanney's claims. You thought you could get away with confirmation bias by only paying attention to the part you liked while ignoring the rest which debunked McCanney's notions of Hale-Bopp's size and the distance of its "companions." It doesn't work like that, you dismantled your own claim without even realizing it. I'd say I handed your ass to you, but in truth you hoisted yourself with your own petard.

LMFAO! Nice logical fallacy, you're making a false appeal to authority. Blatantly. You just showed that McCanney is wrong without even realizing it. Good job.

Nope, doesn't work like that. As I previously showed, they don't have enough gravity to hold a companion at 1 LD or greater, but they certainly can at 180 km or so. That is a very close orbit, and even then at 2~3 days long it indicates that the comet's mass is only about 0.000001 times the moon's mass. So good job dumbass, you disproved your own claim.

Astro was long ago proven to be just a NASA shill.

Why no Moon Rovers astro? We know to much about the Moon? Our nearest next available resource. Been sending them to Mars......why not the Moon?

I think 40 years is enough time to lie......try the truth for a change.

Voltaic:


Me:


*I did what he asked for*

You:


McCanney estimated the size of Hale-Bopp by the electric reactions through the Solar System, which he predicted. He don't have professional equipment to do such kinds of observations like you would do with a professional radio telescope. He knew about the Hale-Bopp companion but *never* gave estimatives about it. And we was talking about C/2012 S1 (ISON), not Hale-Bopp. If Hale-Bopp can have companions, why not C/2012 S1(ISON)?


Do you believe that little dirty snowballs would carry gravitationaly objects a half of his size throughout the outer space? And I am the moron here? Also, as I said, he never made predictions about the size of Hale-Bopp companion, you are turning and turning McCanney's words again.

Sure he is, but is soooo funny to see the way he get angry defending his PhD.

I don't give a damn what he claims, you just proved him wrong.

What the fuck are you even talking about? Nowhere did I say anything about a radio telescope. You don't quit, you just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.

No he didn't. He had no ability to resolve Hale-Bopp to .1 arcsecond resolution, nor did he do anything to prove Sakanina's proposed binary nucleus. You said yourself he didn't have access to professional equipment.

Holy shit, you still don't get it. What part of 2LD do you not understand? The claim was that there are "companions" at 2LD or farther. Bullshit. There is a HUGE difference between a binary nucleus with two parts orbiting each other at a close distance of 180 km and "companions" orbiting at a comet at 2LD. Read this post again and again and again. Read it for the rest of the day until you understand it:


Yes, you're a moron, your reply is completely nonsensical. Read the above post I quoted from myself until you understand it.

The size of the "companion" has nothing to do with it. You're way in over your head and you're having your ass handed to you over and over. Sadly you don't even realize it. I don't have endless amounts of time to teach you just how ignorant you are though, you're going to have to figure that out for yourself. Now quit wasting my time and read the quote post above.

Prove it or retract your defamatory claim.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
[link to lroc.sese.asu.edu]
[link to farm7.staticflickr.com]
Now prove your defamatory remark or and

If you don't want even to hear about what the other side said to proof his work, you will never know at all. Your position is not the one that a real scientist would assume(I have scientifical degree also).

I just said the way he does to calculate the probably nucleous side. The radio telescope was just an example. yet turns and turns.


He never said nothing about Sakanina's work, I did, and Sanina's proposal for what he found is his own interpretation. I just brought it for you to see that comets may have companions. The finding is a fact, the binary nucleous proposal is just a proposal.


The binary nucleous, as I said above, is a proposal for what Sakanina saw. The 2LD that McCanney said (he is yet analyzing) have nothing to do about it. Sakanina follows the same theorical world as you do, McCanney not. The method is scientifical, is the same, but the model's proposal is different.


Not if the nucleous is really bigger than this one you proposed. I'm talking about planet sized nucleous, this one is too small. And, also, there are more than gravitational effects in play on McCanney's work. This model predicts that orbits may change if the electrical forces envolved in the comet are too high.



He never claimed, he said it is a possibility, you're still putting words in McCanney's mouth.


Do you *really* wanna talk about contradictions? Little dirty snow balls comet model have a lot.


Yeah, it is very larger and massive than common comets.


This part is yet open, probably he really has made this mistake. But it have nothing to do about the claiming of the comet nucleous size. He estimated it long ago in October.


Now do you the same.


This we will know on September-October 2013. Folks, look to Mars!

Hold on, hold on, take it easy, nobody will gonna hurt you here.

Shut up. He claims I was proven to be just a NASA shill. He can prove it or shut up. You can either help him prove it or shut up yourself.

Look the way you act, man. No balanced person would react like you do with all these offenses without a higher ($$$$) motivation.

Your proof Astro is a shill is that Astro reacts negatively to being called a shill?

No, it is based on all this thread, take a look on how he is a unstoppable offenser, totally out of control.

You have not proven this comet to be earth sized. The claimed evidence for it being earth sized is a false claim of companions. I agreed in that post it WOULD have to be much more massive in order to hold companions at that distance, you clearly did not understand what I wrote. Furthermore, I wrote that for something to orbit a real comet it would have to do so at a much, much closer distance. You clearly didn't understand that part either since you thought the Sakanina paper was such a big deal. In fact it destroyed McCanney's Hale-Bopp claim.

Oh, I see, so McCanney used a radio telescope to determine ISON's nucleus size. Seems legit... lol

I don't care what you "prefer" to say, you're dead fucking wrong and suffering from severe confirmation bias. You don't get to ignore the parts that are inconvenient for you. Sakanina's DATA, yes I said DATA, not CONCLUSIONS, indicate that if anything is there it was separated by .1 arcseconds or less and is therefore NOT DETECTABLE BY AMATEUR EQUIPMENT AS MCCANNEY CLAIMED IT WAS! Furthermore, it WOULD indicate that it was only a couple hundred kilometers from the primary nucleus, not several LDs. It has nothing to do with Sakanina's conclusions about the data, which if false simply means there was nothing there at all but just the nucleus by itself.

McCanney supported that BS and claims that Chuck Shramek's image showed it. Convenient that suddenly you won't look at it.

Hey dipshit, I was replying with that to this comment of yours:

I then quoted myself to show you why the above comment from you is pointless and idiotic. That has nothing to do with McCanney's claims. You refuse to even follow the course of the argument, you just act like comments that are directed to specific parts of your arguments are actually directed at other parts. You're fucking trolling.

Yes, it is, which is why the binary nucleus he proposed to have detected was so orbiting so closely. That is a fact, it does not change just because you falsely claim Hale Bopp was significantly larger than it actually was. You were wrong and you posted evidence supporting the fact that you're wrong. Sucks to be that stupid, doesn't it?

Why the fuck do you care?

No, I'm not. That's not even the least bit clever as a comeback.

You don't understand what I posted that in reply to, even though I made it perfectly fucking clear.

I will repeat, you're a fucking idiot, look at what I fucking said pages ago!

Guess what Sakanina's work showed dumbass? That the binary nucleus was in a much lower orbit than what McCanney claims and that it WAS virtually indistinguishable from the comet's nucleus at only about .1 arcsecond separation.

No, he measured its angular separation as being that small. Period. That IS the size of the nucleus, fucking tiny, not huge as McCanney claimed. End of story. You debunked yourself.

No, I directly addressed you point by point, you deflect by pretending I'm addressing different points with each of my points. Fuck you.

Another logical fallacy, argument from incredulity. You're one fucking fail after another. I don't care what makes sense to you, you're a fucking moron, your own paper that you yourself posted showed that Hale-Bopp's physical nucleus was tiny. End of story.

No, he saw the video, that is a fact, he fucking lied about what it contained and you are sitting here in denial of these facts. That is not just my interpretation, that is the FACT of the situation.

I will repeat, I was responding to this statement of yours. I'll repeat it several times so that it can get through your thick fucking skull.








No, you'll just latch onto whatever bullshit McCanney and the other pseudoscientific idiots are offering in October.

Again, you'll point to all the idiots who are claiming to see shit by eye and agreeing with the youtube videos that claim to show 'strange shit' in the sky.

That you don't like the way I act does not prove me to be a "shill." You continuously waste my time trolling me by deflecting and dishonestly misconstruing everything I say as if I were replying to different parts of your arguments than what I actually was. I now get the feeling you're just doing this to get a rise out of me, which is why you now accuse me of being a "shill." Whatever pal, I don't expect to see you admitting you were wrong come this fall when the comet comes by and the planets are all still right where they should be. You're not honest enough for that.

I will be more clear: *folks, look directly to Mars in September/October, not to a youtube video.


Mccanney is suggesting people go out and pick up a good pair of astronomy friendly field glasses to watch the show. He is not saying you will be able to see the discharges with the naked eye, though he is stating it is possible we humans will witness a show like our ancestors once saw.


Hale Bopp was discovered much earlier and much further out than any other comet. Was it something like seen and discussed while it was still 18 months out, something like that.

Not likely with a "tiny" comet.


I believe the solar capacitor electric plasma theory has something to it.


Last time the comets really came through, there was a massive effect on the entire solar system.

Well, I'm tired =/

After one week talking with a real PhD, finaly we get in a point were we cannot go further. I cannot prove that Hale-Bopp was large, but no official images were made professionaly by real good equipment, like radio telescopes. The majority of images available from this comet came from amateurs. So any conclusion about this comet's size, no matter it is or not a dirty snow ball, would come from what the model says about.

The dirty snow ball says he is small, dirty and cold. The electric plasma discharge comet model says he is large, hot and electric. *period*.

I prefer to let common people to decide what is real or not by showing them the truth. This is the comet lemmon's picture taken by Rolf Wahl Olsen in Auckland, Nueva Zelanda, at January 28 2013, available in [link to www.eluniversohoy.com]

[link to www.eluniversohoy.com]


Let's people decide by themselves what makes more sense:
1-) This extreme green neon light, naked eye visible during the day light, being reflected by sun light far away from him, warming up a tiny cold cloud

or

2-) An electric discharge that realy makes this small thing to light like a light bulb!

Do you remember when I said your PhD is only in your mind? I mean that, when some comet realy big and potentially dangerous come in to our inner solar system, and the people got to realize that it is not a tiny little snow ball, people with knowledge and academic status like you will be the most unwelcome people in the world for lying to us for so long!

Last Edited by glauco on 02/04/2013 06:59 AM

Yes they were, including the hubble images we were discussing last week the inconvenient parts of which you ignored.

No shit. Welcome to every major comet.

Wrong. Strict upper limits on its size can be, and were, established by the images that were taken. As the hubble images showed, it was tiny and if there was a companion, it was separated by no more than about .1 arcseconds.

I don't care what you think it is, but it is NOT potentially dangerous. You're fear mongering and playing on people's ignorance.

You are 100 % correct.
And it is not when some comet realy big and potentially dangerous come in to our inner solar system because it is (they are in fact) already here. Wait and see.