COMET C2012/S1 ISON : COMA/TAIL OF OVER 64,400 KM [UPDATE]

The image scale listed for that image is incorrect. It's about 3 times smaller in scale than that:
[link to nova.astrometry.net]
.647" / pixel

you're assuming gravity is the only way it could influence anything.

gravity is a piss-poor force compared to the electromagnetic forces.

Not at astronomical distances. Gravity dictates the motion of the asteroids, not electromagnetic forces. Solar radiation pressure is miniscule compared to gravity.

Is James McCanney the new Messiah for you doomtards?

If "gravity is a piss-poor force compared to the electromagnetic forces" none of the space probes had reached its destination.

.

Ops Hydra, you are doing bad here and putting words dishonestly. You and Astronut knows that Professor McCanney never said that eletromagnetic forces is more important than gravity. I said this to you a lot of times.

The same for you, Mr Astronut.

You claim we're putting words in someones mouth while you try to put words in McCanney's mouth? Hypocrite much? All I did was post a smiley you over-zealous McCanninite, how the heck does your post even apply to a freaking smilie?

Ok crying man, I take that back. My alert was only for Hydra.

you're assuming i support everything mccanney says, which i don't, as i'm nowhere near familiar enough to form such an opinion.

you're also assuming i'm a 'doomtard' - a childish over-generalization which indicates you're completely unfamiliar with what i talk about and how i present it.

you followed up with a strawman.

you having a bad day? has your patience run so short that you resort to such a fallacious retort?

Don't worry, she puts McCanney's name in anything that looks electric.

Ooops Glauco

It was an answer to the idiotic post of genba.

But I'm quite sure genba is a McCanney tard - probably with a lack of reading comprehension.



Remember, remember the third of ... October.

.

What did you present?

You just came up with the statement, that "gravity is a piss-poor force compared to the electromagnetic forces" without any presentation or proof.

Prove your claim.
Your claim - your burden of proof.


.

you're conflating subject matter. i am very anti-doom and i often talk about that in the voice chat. that's where my presentation comment stems from. i see most of the doom crap here as fear mongering in an attempt to bog people's minds and hearts down in a quagmire of negative quicksand.

as for my statement re: gravity and electromagnetic forces:

take a given non-magnetic mass and another object
take an equal given magnetic mass and another magnetically capable object

which force is stronger, the gravitational force, or the magnetic force?

it takes large amounts of mass to have appreciable gravitational forces. magnets are a far different story. with gravity, the larger mass attracts the [much] smaller mass. surely you're aware of the high-strength neodymium magnets that can attracts masses noticeably larger than its own?

you continue to label me tard, another over generalization, and a personal attack. you seem to have an agenda.

almost all of what has been presented to us as 'history' is a well crafted series of lies and conflation. science is quite similar, these days if you don't tow the line in a dogmatic fashion you will lose your peer's respect but much more importantly your funding.

the banksters won't fund anything that disrupts their control grid.

Surely lady. You rock

Last Edited by glauco on 04/10/2013 08:17 PM

:mccan:

.

Didn't know there are neodymium magnets in space.
Also didn't know that electromagnetic neodymium magnets exists.

Long text, nil content.

Still waiting for your poof, that "gravity is a piss-poor force compared to the electromagnetic forces" in space.


.

translation of your post -

you seem to be another person who solely goes by the status quo. if it's not in textbooks and on wikipedia it can't possibly exist. you commit fallacy after fallacy in your posts. you attack people quickly and often. you misrepresent me and conflate topics.

to the discerning eye it is obvious what you are.

ever hear of a maglev train?

Still waiting for the proof of your claim, that "gravity is a piss-poor force compared to the electromagnetic forces" in space.

.

[link to www.jick.net]

the gravitational attraction between the two protons is roughly a trillion trillion trillion times weaker than the electrostatic repulsion. The electrical force wins, hands down. However, in spite of its phenomenal puniness, gravity can overcome all other forces if enough mass gets piled up in one place.

as i said, mass per mass, the electromagnetic forces far exceed the forces of gravity. sure you can build up quintillions of times the matter to get some strong gravity, but that's not a fair comparison. even then, the electromagnetic forces hold their own.

OMG .. SERIOUSLY GUYS YOUR CLOGGING MY THREAD.. TAKE IT TO THE PM ALREADY..
found 2 winning sites n me reading

[link to eplumer.blogspot.com]

[link to www.slate.com]

Nice links, we're about 172 days out from this thing showing up in November. Seems there should be a little more official info out there about it. Did you see Thor's video?

yes I saw it .. the guy has talent...
astro is complaining about my GIMP processing of his image... the purple fractal n the green filter to see the tail better

quote:Isis One:MV8yMTg5MjUwXzM3MjIwNTQ1X0MzNEVEQzcy]


Nice links, we're about 172 days out from this thing showing up in November. Seems there should be a little more official info out there about it. Did you see Thor's video?

Look, you can do whatever you want, but forgive me for not wanting my name attached to your processed version of my picture as if I was the one who made it look like that.

I dig it man.wasnt trying to make fun of the images you so kindly aquired.. i was seriously trying to get a better idea of the comet's composition not just scrrewing around...
the vid is funny but ,it shows me no mercy either




Look, you can do whatever you want, but forgive me for not wanting my name attached to your processed version of my picture as if I was the one who made it look like that.

I dig it man.wasnt trying to make fun of the images you so kindly aquired.. i was seriously trying to get a better idea of the comet's composition not just scrrewing around...
the vid is funny but ,it shows me no mercy either




Look, you can do whatever you want, but forgive me for not wanting my name attached to your processed version of my picture as if I was the one who made it look like that.

What has the link to do with your original claim?

Your original claim talks about electromagnetic forces in space.
Your link (and your italic quote) talks about electrostatic forces.

Big difference - Trying to confuse the readers?




Quoting right from the video - nice, when it's on YouTube, it must be true.

Before you post such a video you should inform about interatomic bonds like ionic, covalent and van der Waals bonds. All these are closer to electrostatic forces than electromagnetic forces.

To prove you video wrong:
Drop a 70kg iron ball from a building to a concrete pavement. Will it bounce back or will the concrete brake?
Or smash a wrecking ball agains a concrete wall. Empirical observation confirms, that it breaks the concrete and is not bounced back from electromagnetic forces.

Or drop an iron ball into water. According to the video it shouldn't sink but also bounce back because of the electromagnetic forces.

And best of all: If the video is right and the ground is electromagnetic you should get a magnet to hover above the pavement. If you can built such a device and it's working, you'll for sure get the Nobel Prize.


But what has all this to do with your claim of immense electromagnetic forces in space. Atoms and molecules are quite rare in space.

Next try - I'm still waiting for the proof of your claim, that "gravity is a piss-poor force compared to the electromagnetic forces" in space.

.

Hey, this is the McCanney's electric spaceship schema

There is a correction to my calculation of the comet ISON sizes some pages ago.


[link to www.aerith.net]
The value in the third line for 1 pixel = 2" is wrong.
The value for the field (7' x 4') is also questionable - it gives 0.60"/px horizontal and 0.46"/px vertical.

Most probably the values are from an earlier picture or it's a display detail with the original values kept.




Nevertheless, the astrometric data of the picture gives a value of: 1 pixel = 0.647" (Thanks Astro)
[link to nova.astrometry.net]

Corrected calculation with: 1 pixel = 0.647"

Innermost brightest part = 1 px = 0.647"
Coma = 26 px = 16.8"
Tail + coma = 57 px = 36.9"
Distance Earth-ISON = 4.199 AU = 628,161,459 kilometers

The correct values:

Innermost part = ~1970 km
This is not the size of the nucleus - it's just the brightest part of the coma.
The nucleus itself is far beyond the resolution of the camera.
Coma = ~51,200 km
Coma + Tail = ~112,400 km
Tail = ~61,200 km


.

To an extremely high degree of accuracy we can predict the positions of all the objects in the solar system using just gravitational forces. While electromagnetic forces are stronger than gravitational forces the fact that most objects are electrically neutral means the electrical force is negligible. A strong electrical charge would require an additional term in the perturbation mechanics. Such a term has never been needed. Gravitational forces fall off as one over r squared. Electrical dipoles fall off as one over r cubed. Magnetic dipoles fall off as one over r to the fourth. The long range electrical and magnetic forces can be ignored.