Comet C/2012 S1 ISON is Nibiru the great perturber.

for pure entertainment value. this is going to be classic.

what is the estimated date of its close approach to Mars?

I did not put any words in your mouth. I explained why you are wrong and I asked you a question which you still have not answered.

I'm not a professional but it does not require a professional astronomer to accurately measure the position and orbit of Mars.

Atmospheric changes are not confirmation that the comet is massive, atmospheres change all the time in the absence of comets.

Orbital changes or the lack thereof are direct proof that the comet is either massive or is not massive regardless of what the atmosphere does. I will look for perturbations in the orbit of Mars and if they do not appear then the comet was not massive as McCanney claimed. You can either ignore that empirical data or accept it, which will it be? Answer the question.

Really?

LMAO

Yes, you did. I said (McCanney said) that if the comet is large, the atmosphere and surface changes could occur and probably minor to large orbital changes, but you ignore the first part that is easier to detect,

Alright, but I don't know how to do that and I will not be able to check it twice.

That is scientific: you claim something, get the data, and permit other people to confirm it. How would I check your data if I don't know how to do that nor I have equipment?

Give me only one example of a planet getting or losing large amount of atmosphere, or getting dozens of vulcans erupting, or getting new moutains by itself in one-week period and I do the bet in your conditions.

You *must* consider all the claimings, not just one that I can't check!

The first part is not confirmation of the claim. I did not put words in your mouth, I explained why you are wrong and asked you a question. I addressed the issue of "atmospheric changes." Atmospheric changes happen all the time in the absence of comets, it means nothing with respect to the claim. If NASA detects something new about the atmosphere of Mars after comet ISON it will not serve as confirmation that it had anything to do with ISON or that ISON was a massive object as McCanney claims.

If what McCanney claims is true then it would produce a detectable perturbation of the orbit. If there is no perturbation then it was not the massive object he claimed it was.

Will you ignore that empirical data if indeed it proves that McCanney was wrong, yes or no? Answer the question.

Your ignorance is your problem, not mine.

I don't give a damn. It is not up to me to teach you astronomy so that you can confirm it for yourself. I will show my data and you can work on your own at studying astronomy and acquiring the equipment or access to equipment needed to repeat it for yourself if you like, but that is not my problem if you are incapable or unwilling to do it. You clearly don't understand science at all if you think the onus is on me to do that for you.

I do not agree to your terms.

Either you will accept the empirical data or you will ignore the empirical data, which is it?

Nope. You have until October to learn how to do astronomy and astrometry for yourself if you want to be able to do it for yourself. That is not my problem. Atmospheric changes etc are not confirmation of ISON being a massive object, particularly in the face of a lack of perturbations in the orbit of Mars.

If NASA's probes detect something new about the atmosphere of Mars that they hadn't noticed before (entirely possible, maybe even likely given the rate of new discoveries), that would meet your arbitrary and incorrect goalpost and allow you to claim you were right when in fact it wouldn't be confirmation at all.

I will present astrometric data showing the presence or absence of perturbations in Mars' orbit. You can either choose to accept it or ignore empirical data. Your choice.

great now you tards have decided its a comet now.

Its a planet...

Its a solar system..

Its an Asteroid..

Now its a Comet..

Way to stay credible nirribooboo tards

The first part is not confirmation of the claim. I did not put words in your mouth, I explained why you are wrong and asked you a question. I addressed the issue of "atmospheric changes." Atmospheric changes happen all the time in the absence of comets, it means nothing with respect to the claim. If NASA detects something new about the atmosphere of Mars after comet ISON it will not serve as confirmation that it had anything to do with ISON or that ISON was a massive object as McCanney claims. If what McCanney claims is true then it would produce a detectable perturbation of the orbit. If there is no perturbation then it was not the massive object he claimed it was. Will you ignore that empirical data if indeed it proves that McCanney was wrong, yes or no? Answer the question.

Your ignorance is your problem, not mine.

I don't give a damn. It is not up to me to teach you astronomy so that you can confirm it for yourself. I will show my data and you can work on your own at studying astronomy and acquiring the equipment or access to equipment needed to repeat it for yourself if you like, but that is not my problem if you are incapable or unwilling to do it. You clearly don't understand science at all if you think the onus is on me to do that for you.

I do not agree to your terms. Either you will accept the empirical data or you will ignore the empirical data, which is it?

Nope. You have until October to learn how to do astronomy and astrometry for yourself if you want to be able to do it for yourself. That is not my problem. Atmospheric changes etc are not confirmation of ISON being a massive object, particularly in the face of a lack of perturbations in the orbit of Mars.

If NASA's probes detect something new about the atmosphere of Mars that they hadn't noticed before (entirely possible, maybe even likely given the rate of new discoveries), that would meet your arbitrary and incorrect goalpost and allow you to claim you were right when in fact it wouldn't be confirmation at all. I will present astrometric data showing the presence or absence of perturbations in Mars' orbit. You can either choose to accept it or ignore empirical data. Your choice.

Sure it is! I will say that again, bring here one planet (only one, man!) that has had large atmospheric and surface changing like mountains building and volcanos going off and in one week period and you will be correct!

What is the difficulty to bring the name, if you're claiming such thing could happen any time by the planet itself??

I know you don't have, I'm still waiting for scientists names who desagrees with McCanney's model.

Sure would be detectable, but not by me without knowledge nor equipment!

You would ignore data if something occurs.

Alright, that's the way you do:
"Oh, let's do a car racing to decide who will take the girl. Lemme bring my Ferrari."
"Man, I don't have a car. I don't know even how to drive a car! We could run using our legs, as we are young and strong!"
"Well, that's your problem, not mine. I will pass my car over you while you are running, piss on you, take the girl, burn your house and of your fellowers and call the police to put you on the jail to the rest of your life. I don't give a damn. Decide, YES or NOT!".

Man, you sooooooo disonest that I can't even believe!

Ok, you present your telemetric data and I present photos of easy to see visual changings in Mars atmosphere got through amateur equipment.

I would be able to say why you got no telemetric changings with your procedures (even known that you are disonest),

OP remember ASStro still argues that we went to the Moon!

And lets not mention 911, his program is evident.

tra la la.

WOW. After reading this argument i have come to this conclusion.

I FEEL you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

Glauco just proved to me that your insights have no meaning.

He asked simple questions, 1 example to share your knowledge in astronomy. Which I think should not be hard for an any astronomer.

No, I just consider the most oficial sources we may have for this subject, which is wikipedia and my own observations in South America. If you think I'm wrong, so please prove it.

Yes, correct, but please specify which observation regarding McCanney science does not match with observations.

Why? Nobody needs rows and columns of PhDs to tell the people about the true. People recognizes it by themselves.

You didn't read them, how could you claim that? Are you a person able to read scientific papers? If so, you should read these publications before claiming.

Empirical evidence of what? That comets are made of dirty and ice? No ice or water was found in any comet's flyby.

I know it.

Yeah, talks like a girl

Don't looks so. You bring Phil's and cosmofear page but never check their statements.

Why is Hawking so important for you?

Who? Phil Plait? Give me names. Nobody goes to AGU meetings and publishes there without being formally invited.

Do you represent ALL OF THE SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD? Prove your claimings or go away, bring real names to this discussion, please.

Why would a so important institute to the space sciences to hire, publish papers, fire, hire again, and then publish again for two years a guy who don't have any clue of physicist or math?

I will not quote you,

instead will start over:
McCaney said that this comet is big and said that atmospheric, surface and orbit changings may occur due to that large comet size.

You said: I will focus on orbit changings.

I said: I will focus on atmospheric and surface changings.

You said: No, we must focus on orbit changings.

I said: I can't bet this way, I don't know how to calculate it nor I have equipment to do so.

You said: So fuck off you poor idiot without telemetric equipment, I will drink your blood next October!

Answer my question. I would not ignore data if something occurs, but what you posited would not indicate that it was a massive comet as claimed, it's unrelated silliness. What is realistic is that more modest atmospheric changes over time will be detected by NASA's probes and you will inevitably try to use that to claim he was right. In fact it is not confirmation of his claim and the data I collect will directly refute his claim. Now answer the question, will you ignore the empirical data if it shows that Mars' orbit was not perturbed? Yes or no. I will keep repeating this question until you answer it.

Wow, that's quite the defamatory claim. Prove I am dishonest. Now.

So the big question is, when will this thing arrive? I have heard November, and it will be visible in June? Correct?

Your feelings are irrelevant.

I keep asking 1 simple question, not a trick question either, just 1 simple question to see how intellectually honest or dishonest he is willing to be. I keep getting nothing but dodging from him. His request is inherently dishonest, he knows there is no planet (maybe you could make a case for Io, but that's a moon not a planet) in our solar system that currently undergoes changes that extreme that rapidly, so why exactly do YOU claim it should not be hard for an astronomer to produce an example of something that does not exist?

But ok, if you two are going to be like that and ask dishonest questions you already know the answer to, I'll give you an example to work with whether you like it or not. Io. Io is an example of a solar system body that undergoes massive amounts of volcanism, rapid turnover of surface material, and atmospheric density changes.

First, Wikipedia is NOT an official source on anything.
Second, you should really actually READ it.

Hydra says you're wrong about Germany. I bet he could quote the relevant paragraph of the civil code.
I say you're wrong about the Netherlands. A nephew of mine is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Twente. Nobody calls him professor, they call him doctor.

So your statement that 'in any other country' every teacher can be called professor is wrong.

Thirdly, YOU made a claim, YOU must proof it.

Excuse me?
None of the predictions made by McCanneyism that differs from the predictions of real physics have ever been observed to be true.
Even when they should have been.

Well, let's close down the universities than.
Who needs them?

YOU made the claim that McCanneyism was published in peer-reviewed papers.
YOU need to proof it.

So you are willing to lie.

How are you not a cultist?

BTW, none of these probes got electrocuted, or had their orbits changed by these comets.
McCanney wrong again!

Than why are you a cultist in the Church of McCanneyism?

Cut it out.

I did not.

What I did is point out that it doesn't matter who claims what.
They still need to present the evidence.

Just an example of a scientist of considerable reputation.
Yes, Hawking too would have to present evidence.

Only McCanney and woo-peddlers like him ever try to pull the "trust me, I'm a scientist" shtick.

Are you confused?

IF you claim there's a single scientist in the world familiar with McCanneyism who doesn't think it is a bunch of woo I'd really like to know who it is.

Do you understand the difference between evidence and speculation?

Your claim: McCanney got canned for this and this reason.
So YOU need to provide evidence for:
A - McCanney DID get canned, rather than walked away.
B - The reason McCanney got canned.

Glauco: Give me only one example of a planet getting or losing large amount of atmosphere, or getting dozens of vulcans erupting, or getting new moutains by itself in one-week period and I do the bet in your conditions.

Astro: I'll give you an example to work with whether you like it or not. Io. Io is an example of a solar system body that undergoes massive amounts of volcanism, rapid turnover of surface material, and atmospheric density changes.

ok. Let me rephrase this. Not I FEEL but IMO.

Your right...my feelings are irrelevant but my OPINION might not be.

I like it! know why? Its an example! Now if its a planet or not doesnt matter to me. The fact there is a object out there that shows atmospheric changes (with in a week or not)
tells me that this has been observed before and is not enough evidence FOR ME that this comet IS the reason for said changes.

Astro: so why exactly do YOU claim it should not be hard for an astronomer to produce an example of something that does not exist?

Now was that hard?

Thanks for the reply Astro my OPINION of you just got better!

wow how long did it take you to write those huge paragraphs of useless bullshit?

I see, so you asked for an example showing massive and rapid volcanism, surface changes, and atmosphere changes, I provide it, you ignore it and want a complete do-over of the entire argument with you getting to put words in my mouth right at the start.

Regardless of what he said, atmospheric changes are not proof of the comet's size. Orbital perturbations of Mars or the lack thereof are.

Excuse me, I never said that.

This is not a competition, a bet, or a race to see who has telescopic equipment and who does not.

I will provide the data and the empirical data are all that matter, not who it came from.

If you wish to do it yourself as well you're welcome to, you have until October to learn how to do so.

You can buy or rent a telescope as needed.

You do not have to do so and it is really irrelevant to the matter, the question is whether you will ignore empirical data when it is presented.

I have asked this over and over and you still refuse to give an answer. Instead you ignore what I said and put words in my mouth.

Answer the question, will you ignore the empirical data if it shows that Mars' orbit was not perturbed and the mass of the comet was low contrary to what McCanney claimed. Yes or no?

Here's the obscure amateur image I've managed to find of Comet C/2012 S1 ISON taken in January 2013 for all the ADD/Demonic/Chaotic types so they don't have to read anything more than a few words and can quickly right it off with BS flags and make inane comments about Uranus.

[link to i791.photobucket.com]

I feel like the stripper who puts her jinger back on and walks down in to the audience to have a drink with the boys. Here's the back ground.

After the CometC/2010 X1 Elenin fizzle out last year, I lost interest in the whole PX/Nibiru/Red Dragon meme, which in hindsight we were all supposed via the to do as a result of the disinformation sown about the subject over the years, since the NASA psy-op Zetatalkby Nancy Leider brought it to prominence in the early years of 2000.

Zetatalks credibility was blown out of the water with the claim it would be seen on the 15 May 2003. When it didn't show up the Zetas confessed that date was a white lie just to get the subject in front of the public early. Just days ago Nancy then pops up claiming Zetatalk is the only authority to consider when looking for Planet X Earth Change information. Are we being set up for another round of disinformation.

A few days into the new year I became aware of a subtle energy change I found myself saying to the casual acquaintance who would quiz me about the latest doom news, "Not long to go now before the big Earth changes!" that was after the end of the Mayan Calendar came and went (another psy-op) I had no additional information yet something in me was confident the big changes were just around the proverbial corner.

I religiously check Space Weather's near Earth Object reports and noticed an influx of new asteroids all discovered in the new year. I threaded it on LOP and got a bit of interest.

Then the Pope resigned followed quickly by the Russian Meteorite and I was off the spidey senses were tingling.
I combed the news releases about the ISS and comets noticed the articles about the three for this year,

Comet Pan-STARRS (C/2011 L4)
Comet Lemmon (C/2012 F6)
Comet ISON (C/2012 S1)

Saw the official images which were just highly magnified images of feeble looking light smudges against the sea of streaked stars. Comet Lemmon was the brightest and best formed its luminescent blue/green colour I decided makes it a great candidate for the blue Kachina of the Hopi prophecy.
I checked the orbit diagrams noted none were coming from under the elliptic as we have been programmed to believe about PX. Why else were they racing to build infrared telescopes in Antarctica I reasoned. Comet C/2012 S1 ISON was coming from the opposite direction above the elliptic. So I moved on to other areas of Earth monitoring.

I picked up on a rumour started by a major Electric Universe Scientist that he was hearing chatter about an incoming mini solar system type object spotted just outside Jupiter's orbit. I remembered reading one of the comets had been discovered just outside the orbit of Jupiter.

I Combed the alternate space weather sites again but could find nothing. Then articles appeared about C/2012 S1 ISON could be a candidate for a major spectacle as its orbit was following that of the Great Comet of1680. No sooner had that article appeared then another one came out disputing that saying Comet displays are highly unpredictable and listing all the comets that were hyped up but fizzled out.

This piece of cognitive dissonance annoyed me. I had read C/2012 S1 ISON's core was a big as a mountain at least twice as big as Comet Lovejoy and hadn't started out gassing yet. It's orbit would start above the elliptic lit up by the Sun and it would swing close by Mars in plain view from the Earth before dipping below the elliptic at around 1 AU from the Sun (Great View from Antarctica) rip around the Sun's South Pole inside the orbit of Mercury before screaming out of the solar system from the Sun up and out above Earths North Pole in high arc. If that wasn't going to look pretty neat I don't know what was.

It then occurred to me they don't want us looking at it. Comb the internet again, despite all the high profile, main stream telescopes out there as usual we have to rely on the amateurs for any images. Like our tax money pays for these big toys and we have to wait years to get images that have been purged of any anomalies likely to dispute the Newtonian Physics world view.

Trying to find the mass of any comet is a difficult thing, for years now that information is classified like they don't want us know how big are these things that are increasingly blasting though our solar system.

They don't need to know the mass to calculate an orbit. Remember the old school physics video when they drop a wooden ball and a iron ball of a tower and see which on hits first. They both hit at the same time its Newtons Law the force of gravity is a constant.

They use observations to plot the objects movement and extrapolate the orbit based on Keplers laws which predict freely falling Solar bodies move in a conic orbit with the Sun at one of the foci that sweeps equal areas in equal time periods according to a known constant.

None of the Ephemerides of the Near Earth Objects have a value for mass. They calculate mass using other methods active and passive to measure density, so arriving at an estimated value.

Pulling up obscure academic PDF articles which is about as exciting as reading a reserve bank annual report. The authors report little evidence of cometary activity. ( No Out Gassing) blah jargon blah, meaningless graphs, obligatory comment dirty snowball blah blah..Then I came across this image buried in the document.

[link to i791.photobucket.com]

First impression its spherical, icy objects need to be over 400 km in diameter to reach hydrostatic equilibrium with gravity and take on a spherical shape. That's a big mountain!

Then I notice the angular diameter scale in arc seconds. C/2012 S1 is 15 arc seconds wide! That's 50,000 kilometres at 5.22 AU distance from the Sun. Jupiter at the same distance is 30 arc seconds the same width as the scale line. Its half the size of Jupiter! The Earth's average diameter is 12,742 kilometres so its four times as big as the Earth!

I rush off looking up astronomy tables to compare the sizes. Then come back for a third look at the image and do my second double take of the evening I can make out the companion moons right beside it!

Here's some later images with internal processed images and one I jacked up the red hue saturation to reveal the cold detail.

[link to i791.photobucket.com]

[link to i791.photobucket.com]

Define "arrive." According to current projections it will reach naked eye magnitude sometime in early November.
[link to www.aerith.net]

What an excellent thread!
Thanks for your observations OP........