| Users Online Now: 1,822 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 595,081 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,004,350 | Threads Today: 319 | Posts Today: 5,984 |
| 10:26 AM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,822 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 595,081 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,004,350 | Threads Today: 319 | Posts Today: 5,984 |
| 10:26 AM | ||
Comet C/2012 S1 ISON is Nibiru the great perturber. | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 37090056  Spain03/29/2013 05:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: glauco You mean that there are no mass around the sun? With all the wind coming out full of mass from it? And if you yourself go there, nothing would happen to you? Have you ever walked in the streets during a hot summer day? Have you ever put an ice cube on a glowing iron plate? If not try it - it's fun. . That region is an oven, not a iron plate. Have you ever put an ice cub in a furnace? Right, the comparison with the iron plate don't realy fit - but gives an idea what happens. But your comparison with the furnace does not fit either - except you establish a near vacuum in the furnace and then put the ice cube into it. Will take the cube a quite long time to vanish. Solar corona density: 2.0x10^-14 kg/m3 (~ 60,000 particles/m3) In comparison: Earth atmosphere at sea level: 1.48 kg/m3 See the difference? Temperature and heat are not the same thing. Review your assertion: The mean Solar Corona density is of the order of 10^15 particle/m^3 according to Wikipedia: [link to en.wikipedia.org] The analysis of intensity ratios of emission lines reports densities of order 10^11-10^12 particles/cm^3 (Foukal, Peter V. (2004) Solar Astrophysics.WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany: p. 308. |
glauco  User ID: 36333120  Brazil03/29/2013 05:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: glauco You mean that there are no mass around the sun? With all the wind coming out full of mass from it? And if you yourself go there, nothing would happen to you? Have you ever walked in the streets during a hot summer day? Have you ever put an ice cube on a glowing iron plate? If not try it - it's fun. . That region is an oven, not a iron plate. Have you ever put an ice cub in a furnace? In order to discuss a topic properly, one first must learn the subject: 1. Here, you have a useful theoretical framework applied to the estimation of mass lost from the comet Comet C/2011 N3 (SOHO) within the Low Solar Corona: [link to sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu] 2. Explanation in the case of Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3): ftp://arachne.cfa.harvard.edu/pub/transfer/saar/lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf Read the papers and catch the principal ideas. If something is not clear, answer and I'll give you a response in lay terms. Well, it took a lot to read and understand. This explains how could an object with pockets inside the nucleous being so extremely heated that the pressure inside the nucleous was so high that contrabalanced the pressure outside the nucleous, keeping the object in one piece. This is good to explain how the object do not dismantled itself in minor pieces. But do not explain how a 400m diameter object do not melted away into molecules at a so high temperature and pressure. This process would actually help to object to melt. Understand that the paper were published from a Framework that consider these objects as having such pockets and do not consider the melting process, only the heating process inside these pockets. Explains how to keep it in one piece, but not how to not melt away. Listen to McCanney: [link to jmccsci.com] |
| glauco User ID: 36333120 Brazil03/29/2013 06:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Ninja? Listen to McCanney: [link to jmccsci.com] |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 37090056 Spain03/29/2013 06:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | That region is an oven, not a iron plate. Have you ever put an ice cub in a furnace? In order to discuss a topic properly, one first must learn the subject: 1. Here, you have a useful theoretical framework applied to the estimation of mass lost from the comet Comet C/2011 N3 (SOHO) within the Low Solar Corona: [link to sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu] 2. Explanation in the case of Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3): ftp://arachne.cfa.harvard.edu/pub/transfer/saar/lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf Read the papers and catch the principal ideas. If something is not clear, answer and I'll give you a response in lay terms. Well, it took a lot to read and understand. This explains how could an object with pockets inside the nucleous being so extremely heated that the pressure inside the nucleous was so high that contrabalanced the pressure outside the nucleous, keeping the object in one piece. This is good to explain how the object do not dismantled itself in minor pieces. But do not explain how a 400m diameter object do not melted away into molecules at a so high temperature and pressure. This process would actually help to object to melt. Understand that the paper were published from a Framework that consider these objects as having such pockets and do not consider the melting process, only the heating process inside these pockets. Explains how to keep it in one piece, but not how to not melt away. 1. The mass loss is dominated by insolation sublimation, where the surface layers are evaporated into space as they absorb the incident solar radiative energy. A basic explanation of the process of sublimation can be seen in the following reference: [link to arxiv.org] 2. The characteristics and size of Comet Lovejoy were such that the thermal stresses experienced by the comet caused a successive fragmentation and not a complete melting: "(...) the thermal stresses experienced as the comet swept into the lower corona would have taken time to propagate into the interior, after which pockets of water ice would have exploded upon reaching 130 K due to an exothermic reaction related to the crystallization of amorphous ice (Schmitt et al. 1989). In this scenario, the comet is destroyed by successive, large fragmentation events rather than steady outgassing." Ref.: ftp://arachne.cfa.harvard.edu/pub/transfer/saar/lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf (p.2) Ref. quoted in the text (Schmitt et al. 1989): [link to articles.adsabs.harvard.edu] 3. Measuring the rate of the erosion of the comet the researchers could compute the total mass lost: "Based on our total mass loss estimate of 10^13 g, we suggest that the nucleus was at least 400 m at the start of our observations, 25 min after perihelion. At a bulk density of 0.4 g cm^-3, this is equivalent to the erosion of a 73 m layer, leaving the nucleus at 254 m upon exiting the AIA FOV." Ref.: ftp://arachne.cfa.harvard.edu/pub/transfer/saar/lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf (p. 16) |
| Hydra User ID: 37100895  Germany03/29/2013 06:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | That region is an oven, not a iron plate. Have you ever put an ice cub in a furnace? Right, the comparison with the iron plate don't realy fit - but gives an idea what happens. But your comparison with the furnace does not fit either - except you establish a near vacuum in the furnace and then put the ice cube into it. Will take the cube a quite long time to vanish. Solar corona density: 2.0x10^-14 kg/m3 (~ 60,000 particles/m3) In comparison: Earth atmosphere at sea level: 1.48 kg/m3 See the difference? Temperature and heat are not the same thing. Review your assertion: The mean Solar Corona density is of the order of 10^15 particle/m^3 according to Wikipedia: [link to en.wikipedia.org] The analysis of intensity ratios of emission lines reports densities of order 10^11-10^12 particles/cm^3 (Foukal, Peter V. (2004) Solar Astrophysics.WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany: p. 308. Took another table: [link to en.wikipedia.org] Your Wikipedia source would it even make more thin - 6,000 particles/m3 (I assume you meant: 10^-15 and 10^-11-10^-12) . :ase26122019: Annular Solar Eclipse - December 26, 2019 - Kannur, Kerala, India |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 37090056 Spain03/29/2013 06:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: glauco That region is an oven, not a iron plate. Have you ever put an ice cub in a furnace? Right, the comparison with the iron plate don't realy fit - but gives an idea what happens. But your comparison with the furnace does not fit either - except you establish a near vacuum in the furnace and then put the ice cube into it. Will take the cube a quite long time to vanish. Solar corona density: 2.0x10^-14 kg/m3 (~ 60,000 particles/m3) In comparison: Earth atmosphere at sea level: 1.48 kg/m3 See the difference? Temperature and heat are not the same thing. Review your assertion: The mean Solar Corona density is of the order of 10^15 particle/m^3 according to Wikipedia: [link to en.wikipedia.org] The analysis of intensity ratios of emission lines reports densities of order 10^11-10^12 particles/cm^3 (Foukal, Peter V. (2004) Solar Astrophysics.WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany: p. 308. Took another table: [link to en.wikipedia.org] Your Wikipedia source would it even make more thin - 6,000 particles/m3 (I assume you meant: 10^-15 and 10^-11-10^-12) . You have not understood what are you saying: 10^-15 particles = 0,000000000000001 particles! No dude! The data of my references are correct: 10^15 particle/ m^3. Again: review your assertion (and your maths) |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 37090056 Spain03/29/2013 06:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Hydra Right, the comparison with the iron plate don't realy fit - but gives an idea what happens. But your comparison with the furnace does not fit either - except you establish a near vacuum in the furnace and then put the ice cube into it. Will take the cube a quite long time to vanish. Solar corona density: 2.0x10^-14 kg/m3 (~ 60,000 particles/m3) In comparison: Earth atmosphere at sea level: 1.48 kg/m3 See the difference? Temperature and heat are not the same thing. Review your assertion: The mean Solar Corona density is of the order of 10^15 particle/m^3 according to Wikipedia: [link to en.wikipedia.org] The analysis of intensity ratios of emission lines reports densities of order 10^11-10^12 particles/cm^3 (Foukal, Peter V. (2004) Solar Astrophysics.WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany: p. 308. Took another table: [link to en.wikipedia.org] Your Wikipedia source would it even make more thin - 6,000 particles/m3 (I assume you meant: 10^-15 and 10^-11-10^-12) . You have not understood what are you saying: 10^-15 particles = 0,000000000000001 particles! No dude! The data of my references are correct: 10^15 particle/ m^3. Again: review your assertion (and your maths) Again: your wikipedia data are 10^-15 g/m^3. g = grams. (not particles) |
| Hydra User ID: 37100895 Germany03/29/2013 06:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | In order to discuss a topic properly, one first must learn the subject: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37090056 1. Here, you have a useful theoretical framework applied to the estimation of mass lost from the comet Comet C/2011 N3 (SOHO) within the Low Solar Corona: [link to sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu] 2. Explanation in the case of Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3): ftp://arachne.cfa.harvard.edu/pub/transfer/saar/lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf Read the papers and catch the principal ideas. If something is not clear, answer and I'll give you a response in lay terms. The Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3) paper (lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf) is not accessible via web browser, only via ftp. I downloaded it - if someone wants it, please post here and I will you give an URI for an easier download. . :ase26122019: Annular Solar Eclipse - December 26, 2019 - Kannur, Kerala, India |
| glauco User ID: 36333120 Brazil03/29/2013 06:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: glauco That region is an oven, not a iron plate. Have you ever put an ice cub in a furnace? In order to discuss a topic properly, one first must learn the subject: 1. Here, you have a useful theoretical framework applied to the estimation of mass lost from the comet Comet C/2011 N3 (SOHO) within the Low Solar Corona: [link to sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu] 2. Explanation in the case of Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3): ftp://arachne.cfa.harvard.edu/pub/transfer/saar/lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf Read the papers and catch the principal ideas. If something is not clear, answer and I'll give you a response in lay terms. Well, it took a lot to read and understand. This explains how could an object with pockets inside the nucleous being so extremely heated that the pressure inside the nucleous was so high that contrabalanced the pressure outside the nucleous, keeping the object in one piece. This is good to explain how the object do not dismantled itself in minor pieces. But do not explain how a 400m diameter object do not melted away into molecules at a so high temperature and pressure. This process would actually help to object to melt. Understand that the paper were published from a Framework that consider these objects as having such pockets and do not consider the melting process, only the heating process inside these pockets. Explains how to keep it in one piece, but not how to not melt away. 1. The mass loss is dominated by insolation sublimation, where the surface layers are evaporated into space as they absorb the incident solar radiative energy. A basic explanation of the process of sublimation can be seen in the following reference: [link to arxiv.org] Not related. 2. The characteristics and size of Comet Lovejoy were such that the thermal stresses experienced by the comet caused a successive fragmentation and not a complete melting: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37090056 You know you added up the sentence "not a complete melting". Nowhere in the papers this is mentioned. "(...) the thermal stresses experienced as the comet swept into the lower corona would have taken time to propagate into the interior, after which pockets of water ice would have exploded upon reaching 130 K due to an exothermic reaction related to the crystallization of amorphous ice (Schmitt et al. 1989). In this scenario, the comet is destroyed by successive, large fragmentation events rather than steady outgassing." Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37090056 Ref.: ftp://arachne.cfa.harvard.edu/pub/transfer/saar/lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf (p.2) Ref. quoted in the text (Schmitt et al. 1989): [link to articles.adsabs.harvard.edu] I understand this part. The paper states that the fragmentation would occur only for comets a little smaller or a little bigger. So the comet had not being destroyed. I'm talking about melting process. If you believe in comets being a little dirty snowball, of course. 3. Measuring the rate of the erosion of the comet the researchers could compute the total mass lost: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37090056 "Based on our total mass loss estimate of 10^13 g, we suggest that the nucleus was at least 400 m at the start of our observations, 25 min after perihelion. At a bulk density of 0.4 g cm^-3, this is equivalent to the erosion of a 73 m layer, leaving the nucleus at 254 m upon exiting the AIA FOV." Ref.: ftp://arachne.cfa.harvard.edu/pub/transfer/saar/lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf (p. 16) Sure, a little snow ball of 400m diameter would lost only 73m of its surface when diving into the gentle Sun of the land of the Unicorns. Listen to McCanney: [link to jmccsci.com] |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 37090056 Spain03/29/2013 06:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | In order to discuss a topic properly, one first must learn the subject: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37090056 1. Here, you have a useful theoretical framework applied to the estimation of mass lost from the comet Comet C/2011 N3 (SOHO) within the Low Solar Corona: [link to sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu] 2. Explanation in the case of Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3): ftp://arachne.cfa.harvard.edu/pub/transfer/saar/lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf Read the papers and catch the principal ideas. If something is not clear, answer and I'll give you a response in lay terms. The Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3) paper (lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf) is not accessible via web browser, only via ftp. I downloaded it - if someone wants it, please post here and I will you give an URI for an easier download. . Insert the direction provided in the browser an you get it directly... |
| Hydra User ID: 37100895 Germany03/29/2013 06:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37090056 Review your assertion: The mean Solar Corona density is of the order of 10^15 particle/m^3 according to Wikipedia: [link to en.wikipedia.org] The analysis of intensity ratios of emission lines reports densities of order 10^11-10^12 particles/cm^3 (Foukal, Peter V. (2004) Solar Astrophysics.WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany: p. 308. Took another table: [link to en.wikipedia.org] Your Wikipedia source would it even make more thin - 6,000 particles/m3 (I assume you meant: 10^-15 and 10^-11-10^-12) . You have not understood what are you saying: 10^-15 particles = 0,000000000000001 particles! No dude! The data of my references are correct: 10^15 particle/ m^3. Again: review your assertion (and your maths) Again: your wikipedia data are 10^-15 g/m^3. g = grams. (not particles) Yep, that was my mental twist. Thanks for the correction. . :ase26122019: Annular Solar Eclipse - December 26, 2019 - Kannur, Kerala, India |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 37090056 Spain03/29/2013 06:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37090056 In order to discuss a topic properly, one first must learn the subject: 1. Here, you have a useful theoretical framework applied to the estimation of mass lost from the comet Comet C/2011 N3 (SOHO) within the Low Solar Corona: [link to sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu] 2. Explanation in the case of Comet Lovejoy (C/2011 W3): ftp://arachne.cfa.harvard.edu/pub/transfer/saar/lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf Read the papers and catch the principal ideas. If something is not clear, answer and I'll give you a response in lay terms. Well, it took a lot to read and understand. This explains how could an object with pockets inside the nucleous being so extremely heated that the pressure inside the nucleous was so high that contrabalanced the pressure outside the nucleous, keeping the object in one piece. This is good to explain how the object do not dismantled itself in minor pieces. But do not explain how a 400m diameter object do not melted away into molecules at a so high temperature and pressure. This process would actually help to object to melt. Understand that the paper were published from a Framework that consider these objects as having such pockets and do not consider the melting process, only the heating process inside these pockets. Explains how to keep it in one piece, but not how to not melt away. 1. The mass loss is dominated by insolation sublimation, where the surface layers are evaporated into space as they absorb the incident solar radiative energy. A basic explanation of the process of sublimation can be seen in the following reference: [link to arxiv.org] Not related. 2. The characteristics and size of Comet Lovejoy were such that the thermal stresses experienced by the comet caused a successive fragmentation and not a complete melting: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37090056 You know you added up the sentence "not a complete melting". Nowhere in the papers this is mentioned. "(...) the thermal stresses experienced as the comet swept into the lower corona would have taken time to propagate into the interior, after which pockets of water ice would have exploded upon reaching 130 K due to an exothermic reaction related to the crystallization of amorphous ice (Schmitt et al. 1989). In this scenario, the comet is destroyed by successive, large fragmentation events rather than steady outgassing." Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37090056 Ref.: ftp://arachne.cfa.harvard.edu/pub/transfer/saar/lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf (p.2) Ref. quoted in the text (Schmitt et al. 1989): [link to articles.adsabs.harvard.edu] I understand this part. The paper states that the fragmentation would occur only for comets a little smaller or a little bigger. So the comet had not being destroyed. I'm talking about melting process. If you believe in comets being a little dirty snowball, of course. 3. Measuring the rate of the erosion of the comet the researchers could compute the total mass lost: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37090056 "Based on our total mass loss estimate of 10^13 g, we suggest that the nucleus was at least 400 m at the start of our observations, 25 min after perihelion. At a bulk density of 0.4 g cm^-3, this is equivalent to the erosion of a 73 m layer, leaving the nucleus at 254 m upon exiting the AIA FOV." Ref.: ftp://arachne.cfa.harvard.edu/pub/transfer/saar/lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf (p. 16) Sure, a little snow ball of 400m diameter would lost only 73m of its surface when diving into the gentle Sun of the land of the Unicorns. The nucleus was not a "little snow ball" but a mixture of porous ices and meteoric forming aggregates that had a heat conductivity much smaller than that of crystalline ice. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 11519284  Thailand03/29/2013 06:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11519284 Your ignorance is also astounding. I see since you have joined this is the only thre3ad you focus on, are you canvassing for mccanney? you seem to have a fixation on his work, you also have the same characteristic ignorance as him. Respond the question or face the consequences. Lemme feed my cat. Are you threatening me? mccanney had a deep relation to south america, i think you are either him or a student trying to help sell his books Actually he never responded to my emails :( But I'm glad you think my english is good. Never did a course. But is McCanney's Portuguese as good as my English? I don't think so. I don't think your english is good at all, in fact I think you are incomprehensible most of the time, but we can all have an avatar and pretend, as could mccanney. It is funny how suddenly mccanney thinks ISON is nibiru and bammm, you are here showing us his ebooks. Makes one think. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 11519284 Thailand03/29/2013 06:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 37090056 Spain03/29/2013 06:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Hydra Took another table: [link to en.wikipedia.org] Your Wikipedia source would it even make more thin - 6,000 particles/m3 (I assume you meant: 10^-15 and 10^-11-10^-12) . You have not understood what are you saying: 10^-15 particles = 0,000000000000001 particles! No dude! The data of my references are correct: 10^15 particle/ m^3. Again: review your assertion (and your maths) Again: your wikipedia data are 10^-15 g/m^3. g = grams. (not particles) Yep, that was my mental twist. Thanks for the correction. . No problem. Anyone has an error. It's a pleasure to read your balanced posts. |
| glauco User ID: 37117246 Brazil03/29/2013 07:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Are you threatening me? mccanney had a deep relation to south america, i think you are either him or a student trying to help sell his books Actually he never responded to my emails :( But I'm glad you think my english is good. Never did a course. But is McCanney's Portuguese as good as my English? I don't think so. I don't think your english is good at all, in fact I think you are incomprehensible most of the time, but we can all have an avatar and pretend, as could mccanney. It is funny how suddenly mccanney thinks ISON is nibiru and bammm, you are here showing us his ebooks. Makes one think. Alright, now I have to proof that I'm Glauco, not McCanney? Don't make me laugh. Actually he said this is not Nibiru as soon as it had been discovered. Listen to McCanney: [link to jmccsci.com] |
| glauco User ID: 37117246 Brazil03/29/2013 07:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: glauco Well, it took a lot to read and understand. This explains how could an object with pockets inside the nucleous being so extremely heated that the pressure inside the nucleous was so high that contrabalanced the pressure outside the nucleous, keeping the object in one piece. This is good to explain how the object do not dismantled itself in minor pieces. But do not explain how a 400m diameter object do not melted away into molecules at a so high temperature and pressure. This process would actually help to object to melt. Understand that the paper were published from a Framework that consider these objects as having such pockets and do not consider the melting process, only the heating process inside these pockets. Explains how to keep it in one piece, but not how to not melt away. 1. The mass loss is dominated by insolation sublimation, where the surface layers are evaporated into space as they absorb the incident solar radiative energy. A basic explanation of the process of sublimation can be seen in the following reference: [link to arxiv.org] Not related. 2. The characteristics and size of Comet Lovejoy were such that the thermal stresses experienced by the comet caused a successive fragmentation and not a complete melting: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37090056 You know you added up the sentence "not a complete melting". Nowhere in the papers this is mentioned. "(...) the thermal stresses experienced as the comet swept into the lower corona would have taken time to propagate into the interior, after which pockets of water ice would have exploded upon reaching 130 K due to an exothermic reaction related to the crystallization of amorphous ice (Schmitt et al. 1989). In this scenario, the comet is destroyed by successive, large fragmentation events rather than steady outgassing." Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37090056 Ref.: ftp://arachne.cfa.harvard.edu/pub/transfer/saar/lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf (p.2) Ref. quoted in the text (Schmitt et al. 1989): [link to articles.adsabs.harvard.edu] I understand this part. The paper states that the fragmentation would occur only for comets a little smaller or a little bigger. So the comet had not being destroyed. I'm talking about melting process. If you believe in comets being a little dirty snowball, of course. 3. Measuring the rate of the erosion of the comet the researchers could compute the total mass lost: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37090056 "Based on our total mass loss estimate of 10^13 g, we suggest that the nucleus was at least 400 m at the start of our observations, 25 min after perihelion. At a bulk density of 0.4 g cm^-3, this is equivalent to the erosion of a 73 m layer, leaving the nucleus at 254 m upon exiting the AIA FOV." Ref.: ftp://arachne.cfa.harvard.edu/pub/transfer/saar/lovejoy_paper_v4.pdf (p. 16) Sure, a little snow ball of 400m diameter would lost only 73m of its surface when diving into the gentle Sun of the land of the Unicorns. The nucleus was not a "little snow ball" but a mixture of porous ices and meteoric forming aggregates that had a heat conductivity much smaller than that of crystalline ice. What's the difference in a environment 2 millions celsius degrees with solar wind blasting your face? Listen to McCanney: [link to jmccsci.com] |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 11519284 Thailand03/29/2013 07:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11519284 Are you threatening me? mccanney had a deep relation to south america, i think you are either him or a student trying to help sell his books Actually he never responded to my emails :( But I'm glad you think my english is good. Never did a course. But is McCanney's Portuguese as good as my English? I don't think so. I don't think your english is good at all, in fact I think you are incomprehensible most of the time, but we can all have an avatar and pretend, as could mccanney. It is funny how suddenly mccanney thinks ISON is nibiru and bammm, you are here showing us his ebooks. Makes one think. Alright, now I have to proof that I'm Glauco, not McCanney? Don't make me laugh. Actually he said this is not Nibiru as soon as it had been discovered. I'm not asking you to prove anything, I know what you are up to, who you are makes no difference to your agenda. |
| Hydra User ID: 37100895 Germany03/29/2013 07:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Again: your wikipedia data are 10^-15 g/m^3. g = grams. (not particles) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 37090056 Yep, that was my mental twist. Thanks for the correction. . No problem. Anyone has an error. It's a pleasure to read your balanced posts. The same to you! Thanks to your referenced pdf documents I have learned something more today. . :ase26122019: Annular Solar Eclipse - December 26, 2019 - Kannur, Kerala, India |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 11519284 Thailand03/29/2013 07:20 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| glauco User ID: 37117246 Brazil03/29/2013 07:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Man, you are in trouble here. Listen to McCanney: [link to jmccsci.com] |
| shadasonic User ID: 34416224  United States03/29/2013 07:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11519284 Are you threatening me? mccanney had a deep relation to south america, i think you are either him or a student trying to help sell his books Actually he never responded to my emails :( But I'm glad you think my english is good. Never did a course. But is McCanney's Portuguese as good as my English? I don't think so. I don't think your english is good at all, in fact I think you are incomprehensible most of the time, but we can all have an avatar and pretend, as could mccanney. It is funny how suddenly mccanney thinks ISON is nibiru and bammm, you are here showing us his ebooks. Makes one think. Alright, now I have to proof that I'm Glauco, not McCanney? Don't make me laugh. Actually he said this is not Nibiru as soon as it had been discovered. Last Edited by Thinking out loud on 03/29/2013 07:32 PM “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” – Carl Sagan |
| shadasonic User ID: 34416224 United States03/29/2013 07:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: glauco Actually he never responded to my emails :( But I'm glad you think my english is good. Never did a course. But is McCanney's Portuguese as good as my English? I don't think so. I don't think your english is good at all, in fact I think you are incomprehensible most of the time, but we can all have an avatar and pretend, as could mccanney. It is funny how suddenly mccanney thinks ISON is nibiru and bammm, you are here showing us his ebooks. Makes one think. Alright, now I have to proof that I'm Glauco, not McCanney? Don't make me laugh. Actually he said this is not Nibiru as soon as it had been discovered. Velikovskys 'returning' asteroid “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” – Carl Sagan |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 11519284 Thailand03/29/2013 07:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29195080  Australia03/29/2013 07:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| shadasonic User ID: 34416224 United States03/29/2013 07:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” – Carl Sagan |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 11519284 Thailand03/29/2013 07:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | lol, here comes one of the tards, don't let them loose on this thread or they will make gauco look intelligent. Glauco is kicking ass, i'm running out of popcorn!  Bullshit, you see glauco writing lots of words (incomprehensible words) and you think he is fasntastic. hey, how about, in your own words, you tell us what glauco is saying. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 11519284 Thailand03/29/2013 07:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| glauco User ID: 37117246 Brazil03/29/2013 08:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | lol, here comes one of the tards, don't let them loose on this thread or they will make gauco look intelligent. Glauco is kicking ass, i'm running out of popcorn! Hehehehe, very thanks!! Now I'm going to sleep! Listen to McCanney: [link to jmccsci.com] |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 29195080 Australia03/29/2013 08:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | lol, here comes one of the tards, don't let them loose on this thread or they will make gauco look intelligent. Glauco is kicking ass, i'm running out of popcorn! Bullshit, you see glauco writing lots of words (incomprehensible words) and you think he is fasntastic. hey, how about, in your own words, you tell us what glauco is saying. lol you spelt fantastic wrong |
