Electric Universe and Electric Comet folks - ISON predictions wanted.

And since it appears he's back...



And yet I was able to explain it after four minutes of searching.

Thread: Electric Universe and Electric Comet folks - ISON predictions wanted. (Page 10)

If IDW/A.A had done that, he wouldn't have made such a blunder again. Just goes to show about the fact that IDW/A.A will make and defend the claim long before he can be arsed to look into said claim. The Windows calculator comes to mind again.

Thread: Did we really go to the Moon? Why haven't we been back since 72? (Page 97)

Keep the thread going, but this one is definitely bookmarked and already on the List. IDW/A.A obviously wants to distance himself from it as much as is possible.

Like so many other claims of his.

You can *imagine* my surprise that he won't address yet *another* ginormous error.

Yes, I'm also waiting for specific predictions on ISON.

From NASA.
Seems this is all they've got:

“It's doing this death-defying plunge by the sun,” said astronomer Amy Mainzer of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. “The question is: What is going to happen when it makes that near miss? Anything could happen with this particular comet; we just don't know. Comets are funny things. They are notoriously difficult to predict. That's part of what makes them fun to look at.”

I guess their model doesn't give them enough confidence to make a prediction. Too bad, huh.

I'll answer that challenge! Here's my take on the potential of an electric universe vs. a couple of other more likely possibilities:
[link to www.hsv.com]

It's all about the energy: If you can't find enough then nothing will happen. Static sparks are pretty but don't really do much damage in the scheme of things. Magnetism on the other hand can really put things in motion.

No unique, substantive EU/EC predictions yet?

Step right up and get them in before the Mercury close approach:

19Nov 2013
Distance(min.) = 0.242075au = 36213904.5km = 22502277.0mi
22.5 million miles is as close as they come.

One might question how the fringers know that ISON is making a close approach to Mercury since that data comes from mainstream science, which they seem to distrust.

In fact, how do they even know ISON even exists?

Have the Thunderdolts or McCanney imaged ISON yet?
Why not?
I would think they'd have their Playskool® telescopes diligently trained on ISON as it makes its amazing and electrically death-defying pass by Mercury.
They can then record all that "electrical interaction" in Blur-a-Vision™ to display to their gullible acolytes.

I'm afraid they're not that interested in ISON... until something happens they can postdict.

Ah well, perhaps ISON isn't electrical after all.


R.
kOOks lie. Constantly. It's part of the job description.

They've made very precise predictions for ISON's location in 3D space at any time during its presence in the solar system.
They can tell you where it will be in the x,y,z planes at any time down to the second.
Anyone can check their predictions if they have the correct equipment.

What have McCanney and the Thunderdolts predicted to match, or even equal, that?
Nothing.

Not a good showing for the EU/EC proponents.


R.
Edited to fix quoting error in AC50009891's post, hopefully.

Last Edited by Reality420 on 11/18/2013 10:50 PM

I'm not reading pages of loondrool to try and determine what you are predicting.

It seems you haven't quite wrapped your head around Maxwell's equations, Lorentz invariance, and Einsteinian equivalence.
We aren't talking about "Elecronics" here.

Got a prediction which is substantive and unique to EU/EC?
Spit it out and post it up.


R.

Ok, ok. Mercury is the canary: ISON will pass about as close to it as us and as it has an iron core and a similar external magnetic field it should react similarly to Earth 12-26. IF it turns out to be made of collapsed matter and has fields like 10^8-10^11 T then it will really cause some havoc as it seems to have when it passed Mars. If not then it will be a non-even for us. I for one will be watching it through a decent sized scope pre-sunrise tomorrow to see for myself. I presume you will be too?

Try as I may, I can't find a prediction in all of that.
What should happen if ISON is an Electric Comet or whatever the EU people think it is?
I need a substantive, specific prediction.

What "havoc" happened to Mars?
Have any evidence for the "havoc" that doesn't depend on anonymous mental cases on RubeTube or J. McCanney just babbling his delusions?
You know... real evidence?

If you have an EU/EC specific prediction for ISON please spit it out and post it clearly.

Thanks.


R.

Well that's what I wrote my paper about and put hard numbers in it. Here it is:

The capacitance of a 3 mile diameter sphere is about 0.27 uF, a very small number. Even if the Earth were charged up to 1 billion volts the energy content in that charge would only be 134 gigajoules. That may sound like a lot but if you compare it to gasoline that only amounts to about 1,000 gallons. That’s 55 fill ups of my Volvo.

By comparison the Earth’s field is about 300,000V so it unlikely that ISON could get itself charged up to a billion volts anyway. Particularly since it begins repelling electrons more strongly as it charges and quickly attains a maximum charge, probably in the few kV range.

Let’s get serious. A one megaton warhead releases about 4 petajoules. That’s a thousand gigajoules. I think we all know that an atomic warhead is just a firecracker when it comes to the sun. In fact the energy released by a typical flare is about 1024 Joules. That’s 10 trillion gigajoules. Note that all that energy is in the form of magnetic flux…

In light of the extreme order of magnitude failure of the electrical explanation I immediately thought of magnetism. In our universe the forces associated with magnetism are three orders of magnitude stronger than electric forces so if a magnetic scenario could be constructed then I thought that it might actually be a candidate. Here is the result of my calculations:

Based on this I started wondering what kind of object could possibly harbor such a powerful field and actually came up with a viable candidate: If ISON is even partially constructed of collapsed matter it could easily produce such a field. If so there is more bad news as such an object three miles in diameter would have a mass equal to about 1/10 of the Sun. So there would be other very serious effects were it to pass anywhere close to the Sun. First would be the tidal distortion due to its high gravitational gradient. The second would be a modification of the trajectory of the Sun due to its passing. In other words the motion of the Solar System within the Galaxy would be changed by its passing and it is hard to imagine what the corresponding effects would be on the planetary orbits either on the short term (days, weeks, months) or the long term (decades, millennia, eons).

It will be very interesting to watch the effects of ISON on Mercury on Tuesday the 19th of November as it will be at nearly the same distance as it will pass the Earth the day after Christmas. Mercury actually has a large iron core like the Earth has, as opposed to Mars which has almost no core nor magnetic field. The direct effects of ISON on Mercury therefore should be similar to what we should expect here.

Here are some numbers for the case that ISON is composed of collapsed matter:

The force of gravity between Mars and ISON at their closest would be 2.25 times the force of gravity between Mars and the Sun. You would definitely expect a large effect on Mars during the passage and by some observations that did happen. Mars appeared to develop a coma like a comet as ISON passed by, and the dust cloud emitted appeared to be on the order of double the diameter of Mars.

Fortunately ISON’s distance to Earth at its closest point will be much greater and thus the force between ISON and Earth will be about 1/3 the force between the Sun and Earth.

That is still a huge number though and it would have a substantial effect on the Earth. By comparison the moon’s force on the earth is only 0.0056 the force of the Sun on the earth. Tides are caused by a difference in gravitational attraction across a body so the tidal force due to ISON’s passage would be 1/3 the tidal force due to the Moon. So it appears that the primary effect would be an orbital perturbation of the Earth around the Sun, but there may be some tidal action.

At the surface of a pulsar, or neutron star, the magnetic field may be as strong as 106 -108 but if it is a magnetar it can be between 109 - 1011 T. To put this into perspective the field strength of the Earth is 0.00005 T and a very strong rare earth magnet is 1 T and the strongest field ever produced by Man was 2,800 T. Fields as strong as this can melt metal that passes anywhere close to it just by the current induced into it by motion in the field. This is far beyond the strength of any conceivable EMP emitted by a nuclear explosion.

If such a magnetized body passes within 730,000 miles of the Sun as ISON is supposed to do it would really cause havoc with its photosphere. Sunspots harbor the strongest fields on the Sun’s surface and routinely fling millions of tons of solar matter into space (coronal mass ejections, or CMEs) and they only achieve 0.15 T.

Soooo, tomorrow morning is really crucial. If we see magnetic and/or gravitational interaction then we need to hunker down in late December. And we would also expect a rather major CME as it passes perihelion on Thanksgiving. If not it's just a pretty sight.

My personal feeling is that it is just a rock and won't be a big deal, but that's really a guess pending tomorrow's show. It's not clear though if we will even be able to tell what the level of interaction is without access to the Messenger data , and that will not be forthcoming if the past is any guide.

Ok. So you are predicting... nothing?
Thanks, that was time well spent.

Have fun and check out this site, you may like it:
[link to www.timecube.com]

Gene is the God of Gibberish.
You will kneel in obeisance in his (virtual) presence.

Have fun.


R.
kOOks lie. Constantly. It's part of the job description.

Yea, it's usually safest to predict that the future will be much like the present. At least that the best way to win a bet. But, it's also the poorest with regard to survival since that strategy is eventually going to lose. I suppose that's what drives the kooks, betting on the long shot and sometimes winning.

That was a really bizarre site and I couldn't make heads nor tails what they were trying to say, prove, assert, disprove or rant. Hope that's not yours...

But, I did get a good look at ISON this morning despite the low angle and the bright moonlight. It has really brightened in the past few days for sure. Then I took a look at Mercury. I'm just a casual, amateur observer but in the past mercury could only be barely resolved in my 6" refractor but this morning it looked pretty big, and very bright. Could be normal but it looked abnormal to me. I got some photos and will analyze them later today. I'm really looking forward to hearing about what others saw this morning...

Still not willing to sign your own work, IDW/A.A?

Pitiful.

Well we seemed to have survived the ISON - Mercury close approach DOOM!!!!!!!!!!!! with nary a scratch.

Did anyone notice anything happening out of the ordinary?

I think McCanney was predicting Mercury to become a "comet" back on Nov. 13 - 14 and surely by close approach time.
How could it not since he said Mars became a comet back during its close approach. (snicker)

He even has images of Mars as a comet but can't release them for some incoherent reason... you'll just have to take his word for it. Who wouldn't take the word of a notorious internet loon?


Any EU/EC predictions for the coming days?

Bueller? Bueller?

How disappointing, but not unexpected.


R.
kOOks lie. Constantly. It's part of the job description.

I have already given my very specific predictions. A significant element of my prediction has already manifested itself as ISON directed CME's resulted in a radical brightening. I personally made no prediction concerning Mercury as I thought the distances involved would preclude any interaction.

We have a few more days to wait to see who is right.

So, while IDW/A.A. now scrambles to walk back another amazingly basic mistake, apparently claiming and believing that GPS satellites are in geostationary orbits, here's some details about relativistic corrections in GPS.

"The GPS satellites are uniformly distributed in a total of six orbits such that there are four satellites per orbit. This number of satellites and spatial distribution of orbits insures that at least eight satellites can be simultaneously seen at any time from almost anywhere on Earth. The GPS satellites circle the Earth at an altitude of about 20,000 km (13,000 miles) and complete two full orbits every day. The GPS satellites are not in a geostationary orbit, but rise and set two times per day."

[link to www.cfa.harvard.edu]

"General Relativity (GR) predicts that clocks in a stronger gravitational field will tick at a slower rate. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that moving clocks will appear to tick slower than non-moving ones. Remarkably, these two effects cancel each other for clocks located at sea level anywhere on Earth. So if a hypothetical clock at Earth’s north or south pole is used as a reference, a clock at Earth’s equator would tick slower because of its relative speed due to Earth’s spin, but faster because of its greater distance from Earth’s center of mass due to the flattening of the Earth. Because Earth’s spin rate determines its shape, these two effects are not independent, and it is therefore not entirely coincidental that the effects exactly cancel. The cancellation is not general, however. Clocks at any altitude above sea level do tick faster than clocks at sea level; and clocks on rocket sleds do tick slower than stationary clocks.

For GPS satellites, GR predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick faster by about 45,900 ns/day because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200 ns/day than stationary ground clocks. Rather than have clocks with such large rate differences, the satellite clocks are reset in rate before launch to compensate for these predicted effects. In practice, simply changing the international definition of the number of atomic transitions that constitute a one-second interval accomplishes this goal. Therefore, we observe the clocks running at their offset rates before launch. Then we observe the clocks running after launch and compare their rates with the predictions of relativity, both GR and SR combined. If the predictions are right, we should see the clocks run again at nearly the same rates as ground clocks, despite using an offset definition for the length of one second.

We note that this post-launch rate comparison is independent of frame or observer considerations. Since the ground tracks repeat day after day, the distance from satellite to ground remains essentially unchanged. Yet, any rate difference between satellite and ground clocks continues to build a larger and larger time reading difference as the days go by. Therefore, no confusion can arise due to the satellite clock being located some distance away from the ground clock when we compare their time readings. One only needs to wait long enough and the time difference due to a rate discrepancy will eventually exceed any imaginable error source or ambiguity in such comparisons."


It continues:

"The highest precision GPS receiver data is collected continuously in two frequencies at 1.5-second intervals from all GPS satellites at five Air Force monitor stations distributed around the Earth. An in-depth discussion of the data and its analysis is beyond the scope of this paper. [1] This data shows that the on-board atomic clock rates do indeed agree with ground clock rates to the predicted extent, which varies slightly from nominal because the orbit actually achieved is not always precisely as planned. The accuracy of this comparison is limited mainly because atomic clocks change frequencies by small, semi-random amounts (of order 1 ns/day) at unpredictable times for reasons that are not fully understood. As a consequence, the long-term accuracy of these clocks is poorer than their short-term accuracy.

Therefore, we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days. In ground solutions with the data, new corrections for epoch offset and rate for each clock are determined anew typically once each day. These corrections differ by a few ns and a few ns/day, respectively, from similar corrections for other days in the same week. At much later times, unpredictable errors in the clocks build up with time squared, so comparisons with predictions become increasingly uncertain unless these empirical corrections are used. But within each day, the clock corrections remain stable to within about 1 ns in epoch and 1 ns/day in rate.

The initial clock rate errors just after launch would give the best indication of the absolute accuracy of the predictions of relativity because they would be least affected by accumulated random errors in clock rates over time. Unfortunately, these have not yet been studied. But if the errors were significantly greater than the rate variance among the 24 GPS satellites, which is less than 200 ns/day under normal circumstances, it would have been noticed even without a study. So we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate. In an actual study, most of that maximum 200 ns/day variance would almost certainly be accounted for by differences between planned and achieved orbits, and the predictions of relativity would be confirmed with much better precision.

12-hour variations (the orbital period) in clock rates due to small changes in the orbital altitude and speed of the satellites, caused by the small eccentricity of their orbits, are also detected. These are observed to be of the expected size for each GPS satellite's own orbit. For example, for an orbital eccentricity of 0.01, the amplitude of this 12-hour term is 23 ns. Contributions from both altitude and speed changes, while not separable, are clearly both present because the observed amplitude equals the sum of the two predicted amplitudes."

[link to www.metaresearch.org]


Looking forward to the IDWexcuse *this* time.

I'm still waiting for his sea level x-ray attenuation calculations which he promised back in 2004.
Since he's shown he doesn't understand 10^5 I think the wait may be endless.

I'd have to find my calc on a CD from 9 years ago but IIRC it was something on the order of 10^(-160) or some such for x-ray flares.
IOW - absolutely zero.

But in IDW-Phyzzykz, who knows? It would be humorous to see his "calculations" but he just can't bring himself to provide them... after all these years.
Sigh. Unfulfilled laughs.

STILL waiting on a specific, substantive EU/EC ISON prediction.

Have fun.


R.
kOOks lie. Constantly. It's part of the job description.

No EU/EC specific predictions?

I guess this comet isn't electric. That's a relief.
(snicker)

How about some predictions for Nov. 23?
Something inconsequential is going to occur but I'm sure the kOOks would think it of great significance...
If they knew about it.

That's the thing. Once science reveals these "portentous" events, the kOOks latch onto them and invent all sorts of bizarre stories around them.
If science would keep its mouth shut the kOOks wouldn't even know the "event" was taking place since they are pig-ignorant.

Anyone care to post anything about Nov.23 and ISON?

Anyone care to post any substantive and unique prediction for ISON vis-a-vis EU/EC?

No?
I'm not surprised.


R.
kOOks lie. Constantly. It's part of the job description.

Nobody has a guess about what event is happening today with ISON?

It is really, really meaningless so naturally it should be of great importance to all the EU/EC and esoteric "researchers" here.

By the way, did anyone happen to get images of Mercury "going comet"? Anything posted on RubeTube by anonymous mental cases?
Anything from McCanney?
(Chortle.)


R.

No, of course not - after making Mars "going comet" there is not enough charge left for Merury.

But when it comes around the sun, it is freshly charged and when it passes Earth: ZAP -- ZAP -- BOOOOOOOM.

/sarcasm

I'm a little surprised, why the bold electric comet/universe proponent from the NewTard threads don't show up here to show his evidence and make his predictions.

No, not really.

.

Mein Gott!!!!
Sie sind richtig!

You must have studied many long minutes at the College of Electrical Universe at RubeTube University.

Might I suggest you attend Google U. for a couple minutes to get your post-grad degree?
I suggest fitting these courses into your load:
Drooling - The Dangers In An Electric Universe.
and:
Electromagnetic Theory Without Math - The Easy Way.

I'm beginning to suspect you may be a stealth EU shill considering how much you know about the esoteric knowledge that is Electric Universe (Boogie Woogie Woogie).

**************************************************8




He's learned to shill properly.
Rant and rave and regurgitate/spam complete idiocy as if it were the 10 Commandments revealed to Moses by God.
A truly dimwitted cultie/acolyte.

Have fun.


R.

I guess no EU/EC proponent was able to come up with a single substantive and EU specific prediction.
And now ISON is nothing but a smear of dust.

I wonder if EU/EC predicts a comet can dissociate? They seem to claim comets are really asteroids and McCanney says they gain mass as they near the sun.
How did that work out...?
(Snicker)

Were there any stellar sized arc-welding sparks?
Where were the sparks?
I thought there would be giant sparks.
"Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!"

BTW - Mars didn't "go comet and gain a coma".
Mercury didn't "go comet and gain a coma".
Hell, even ISON ultimately didn't "go comet and gain a coma"... it lost it all.

What a victory for the tards.
I'm sure you'll claim some sort of victory even though you didn't have the guts to make a prediction and what happened is nothing like what EU/EC has stated in the past.


R.
kOOks lie. Constantly. It's part of the job description.

I looked for IDW's thread that was created in response to this one, but could not find it.

He offered up a very nebulous and unscientific prediction which of course failed. If anyone has a link to that thread I would be interested in hearing his excuses, as they are always entertaining.

Thread: Electric Universe: Specific Predictions Concerning ISON (Page 12)

.

Thanks Hydra