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.
Quoting: Dr. Astro That's why I didn't quote you: it was getting so long that I did not see your example. Io is not a valid example, as it is always an inferno, I'm talking about "from heaven to hell".
Moving the goalposts. I can see it's why you didn't quote me though. Heaven forbid you should have to address it and show your intellectual dishonesty again. If you removed Jupiter from the equation Io would go dormant. Moons further from Jupiter are examples of less activity, though you couldn't call them dead either.
The big thing to realize on Io would be the contrary: to Io turns from Inferno to Heaven.
Quoting: glaucoMoving the goalposts. If you don't care that Io is a moon, and you have indicated that is not your problem with it, then your goalpost has been met. Now answer my question as you agreed to.
Regardless of what he said, atmospheric changes are not proof of the comet's size. Orbital perturbations of Mars or the lack thereof are.
Quoting: Dr. Astro So how would you explain Mars getting blue, yellow, green, marble brown or gray one week after this comet passage if it is not a big one?
Considering you and your self-admitted layman knowledge, it will most likely be a case of chromatic aberration or poor white balance. Whatever the case it will be irrelevant and have nothing to do with the mass of the comet which I will show is not at all like what McCanney claimed it was. The question is whether you will ignore that empirical data or not. Yes or no?
Excuse me, I never said that.
Quoting: Dr. Astro Yes, you did. You know I can't do that but you don't care, you want my blood.
No, I did not say that. I don't care that you're incapable of doing the measurements yourself because that is your problem and has nothing to do with the real issue. I never said anything about wanting your blood. Your vile statement that you falsely (lie) attributed to me had nothing to do with what I've been saying.
This is not a competition, a bet, or a race to see who has telescopic equipment and who does not.
Quoting: Dr. Astro No this is a bet to see if the comet is large or not.
It is not a bet. I did not ask you to wager anything, I only asked a simple question, will you ignore empirical evidence showing that the mass of the comet is not what McCanney claimed. Yes or no?
I will provide the data and the empirical data are all that matter, not who it came from.
Quoting: Dr. Astro What matter is that I should be able to check if your data is correct or not.
You can, there is nothing physically preventing you from doing so. You can recheck my calculations if you like, even acquire your own data to recheck the results, that is up to you.
Would not you take a picture by yourself from Jupiter if NASA says that it begun to light like a star?
Quoting: glaucoAnother irrelevant question, but yes of course I would take a picture of Jupiter if NASA said it began to shine like a star, I take pictures of Jupiter all the time anyway.
If you wish to do it yourself as well you're welcome to, you have until October to learn how to do so.
Quoting: Dr. Astro Could do, but can't guarantee, so I can't bet.
You still don't get it. This is not a bet or a competition. I did not ask you to wager anything, I only asked a simple question, will you ignore empirical evidence showing that the mass of the comet is not what McCanney claimed. Yes or no?
You can buy or rent a telescope as needed.
Quoting: Dr. Astro Man, this is not America, this is Brazil.
Irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that services like itelescope.net are not banned in Brazil.
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.
Quoting: Dr. Astro You say that is not important to check if the other guy really won the bet? I don't think so!
It's not a goddamn bet, it's a question of whether you will ignore the empirical data or not. If you want to check my calculations you're absolutely free to do so. Nothing is preventing you. Your ignorance is not a valid excuse. Answer the question.
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.
Quoting: Dr. Astro Don't try to turn the game.
You're the one putting words in my mouth. It's not a competition, bet, or game, it's just a question. Answer it.
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?
Quoting: Dr. Astro Depends on. Will you ignore if Mars get Olympus and other volcanos going off, turns its atmosphere to blue, yellow, green, marble brown or gray one week after this comet passage?
I wouldn't "ignore" that if it actually happened, it would be an exciting time to study Mars, but I fully expect you to claim it happened even though it didn't, and such an event happening would not be proof of ISON's mass. I will demonstrate that ISON's mass is not what McCanney claimed and the way to do that is by looking at what effect it does or doesn't have on Mars' orbit. Will you ignore that empirical evidence which IS a test of ISON's mass (unlike your other nonsense about the color of mars), yes or no?
