We discussed the ISON ISOFF again nature of comet ISON in this WUWT thread, now it looks like ISOFF again.
From NASA’s Spaceweather.com (h/t Fernando): Comet ISON is fading fast as it recedes from the sun. Whatever piece of the comet survived the Thanksgiving flyby of the sun is now dissipating in a cloud of dust. (animation follows)
(Note: The animation may take a minute or more to load, based on your Internet connection speed.) Click to view a 3-day movie centered on perihelion (closest approach to the sun):
This development makes it unlikely that Comet ISON will put on a good show after it exits the glare of the sun in early December. Experienced astro-photographers might be able to capture the comet’s fading “ghost” in the pre-dawn sky, but a naked-eye spectacle can be ruled out.
On Nov. 29th, pilot Brian Whittaker tried to catch a first glimpse of Comet ISON from Earth, post-perihelion, from a plane flying 36,000 feet over the Arctic Circle in northern Canada. No luck:
“Ideal viewing conditions from the Arctic revealed no Comet ISON,” reports Whittaker. “This negative report is to quench the thirst of other fellow dreamers under cloudy skies or further south. Later I could see that SOHO showed the comet dimming further.”
Despite Whittaker’s negative result, it is too soon to rule out observations from Earth as the twice-dead comet moves away from the glare of the sun. Meanwhile, NASA’s fleet of solar observatory will be tracking the remains.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
meemoe_uk says:
December 1, 2013 at 2:32 pm
“Seriously I do have my own science website, but it’s not an EU or astronomy site.
If you want more EU theory try google thunderbolts. ( I’m not going to link, the WUWT mods don’t like EU )”
No, I do not want a site you read from and repeat here. I want the site which shows the list of published papers on the subject that you have written that shows the scientific reasons you believe Dr S is wrong. Just repeating what is on the thunderbolts website because you think it is correct is not good enough. Where is your research that causes you to have these opinions?
=================================================================
Whoever first came up with that (ISON ISOFF) deserves some kind of award.
(I also liked the “CO2 at it’s core” explanation.8-)
Max™
November 30, 2013 at 8:16 pm
quotes me as saying on the parallel WUWT thread « Comet ISON appears to be toast – goes “poof” in video, then comes back to life » :
“Now that this big lump of rock has emerged on the other side with a fantastic gravity assist and a speed still in excess of 600,000 mph, the charge difference will once again increase very rapidly, the arc-mode discharge phenomenon will probably resume even more powerfully and we are likely to see a truly Great Comet over the coming weeks. But NOT for the “reasons” put forward by mainstream astronomy….
The observational evidence being provided by ISON (along with other comets) is to mainstream astronomy what the 17 year-long Pause is to mainstream CAGW. It’s called falsifying a theory.”
having just before thrown out the challenge; “So can we get some of the EU folks to explain how their prediction utterly failed?”
Sorry for not picking up on this earlier, I’ve just got back from a day out.
Max, I fully assume what I said and must express some surprise about your assertion that my “prediction utterly failed”.
You apparently know very little about the more recent history of cometary observations, which has provided numerous examples of unexplained and inexplicable cometary behavior in terms of MS astrophysical theory. Otherwise, you would not make such a rash statement so early in the day….
Your crowing seems even more surprising given the utter confusion being manifested in your own, MS ranks at the behavior of ISON. Karl Battams, leading investigator at NASA’s Comet ISON Observing Campaign said only a little more than 24 hours ago:
“Matthew Knight and I are ripping our hair out right now as we know that so many people in the public, the media and in science teams want to know what’s happened. We’d love to know that too! […] We have a whole new set of unknowns, and this ridiculous, crazy, dynamic and unpredictable object continues to amaze, astound and confuse us to no end.”
Doesn’t sound to me exactly like someone who’s completely happy with his (MS) theoretical basis to explain comets…
So what is your take on this, precisely, Max? “We are completely wrong for sure, but so are you”? Is that it?
I think not. For sure, YOUR side is necessarily wrong again about this one since your top experts are (again) self-confessedly groping in the dark as they always have done to explain to observed cometary behavior.
EU proponents, on the other hand, have absolutely no problem accounting for ISON’s ISON ISOFF ISON ISOFF behavior, since the question of whether any comet is ON or OFF at any given point of its trajectory (note the electrical image which everyone seems to have happily espoused…) is simply a matter of the difference in charge at that particular point between the negatively charged rocky nucleus of the comet and the positively charged sun. The electromagnetic exchanges which occurred between ISON and the sun as ISON made its closest approach to the sun visibly produced a reduction and perhaps even a complete leveling of charge difference between the two, such that ISON became invisible to all instruments, having reverted to being a mere electrically neutral (with respect to the sun), and probably quite small, asteroid for a few hours. The reason why ISON briefly switched back ON again just after perihelion is understandably inexplicable for MS astrophysicists, who had logically (according to THEIR logic) given it up for dead. In reality, it was simply due to renewed build-up of charge difference.
The reason why ISON has now apparently switched OFF again cannot YET be known. I indeed stated that:
“the arc-mode discharge phenomenon will probably resume even more powerfully and we are likely to see a truly Great Comet over the coming weeks. But NOT for the “reasons” put forward by mainstream astronomy….”
Maybe I overstated the “Great Comet” case, but it’s still too early to say. It remains the case though, admitted even by the MS, that a substantive body (maybe reduced in size) re-emerged after perihelion and again briefly grew a coma. Its second demise (!) is again being pronounced, without any reason being given for it than a presumed, mysterious, “disintegration” or “evaporation”.
In EU terms, the case is much simpler: the nucleus is still probably intact and may begin discharging electrically again at any time over the coming days, weeks or months, depending on charge difference parameters which, in the present state of our knowledge, we are unable to estimate with any semblance of precision. What is sure, however, is that if ISON does indeed come back ON again, to whatever degree, it could ONLY be as an electrically charged lump of rock: MS astrophysicists wouldn’t have a snowball in hell’s chance of convincing anyone who prefers observational evidence to theoretical dogma that ISON, after all it has gone through and the panic it has caused in MS circles, is still to be considered as a phantom or zombie “dirty iceball” which is “outgassing” or “boiling off” its melted ice content.
ISON’s behaviour over the past 48 hours has already falsified MS comet theory (again) and may still provide much more evidence to that end in the near future.
meemoe_uk says:
December 1, 2013 at 2:57 pm
Conventional theory is flawed. This explains why I can use a single simple geometric principle when analysing Ison ( a line radially directed to a point, points to the point from any perspective ) to disprove convention
Convention is not ‘convention’ but the result of careful reduction of hundreds of observations of real comets. You still don’t get the thing about the non-rigid line. You reminds me of the story of two little boys discussing where babies come from. One has learned something and began to explain about eggs, DNS, birth, etc. The other one listened for a while, then categorically declaimed: “I don’t understand any of this, I think the theory that the stork brings them makes a lot more sense”. You are believing in that stork.
Observations [in space and in the laboratory] show that Alfven was correct about that after all. Besides, he suggested the frozen-in magnetic field in the 1940s, long before there was any EU theory. Are you saying that this was the only blunder? Are there none other?
No frozen-in fields, no Alfven waves, no magnetic field in the solar wind, etc.
Max, I’ve just done a little more research to understand more about the sort of person you are:
I note that in your post on the parallel thread:
“Max™ says:
November 29, 2013 at 5:35 pm”
you “wish” EU proponents could be “electrocuted” like one of the “poor animals” Thomas Edison used in his experiments to demonstrate the power of electricity (horses, weren’t they?)…
I didn’t pick up on it at the time, thinking it was just one more moronic rant from a crazy non-entity. I’ve only just realized you were apparently talking about ME and I don’t particularly appreciate it….
Thus resorting to so violent an image clearly denotes how disturbed you are by the idea that a theory might be confirmed by actually bothering to address “things from the real world” (Quelle horreur!), i.e. observational evidence, thus daring to question “WHAT WE KNOW” through your so perfect mathematical/computer models. I assume you are also an unrepentant warmist (except, of course, if you are happy with accepting “real-world” observational evidence in the field of “climate science” while at the same time ardently defending gas-light era theories in the field of astrophysics…) I believe it’s a condition known as schizophrenia (or perhaps it’s just simple contortionism…). For my part, I am utterly skeptical about the MS theories in both fields of so-called “science”, which would seem to be a rather more coherent approach. Particularly since I adopt a holistic approach in which it is precisely the electromagnetic properties of the sun which account for the natural variability of the Earth’s climate.
Whatever…. If you prefer to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, that is YOUR PERSONAL problem, it has nothing to do with CONSISTENTLY applying correct scientific method, which seems to be precisely what is throwing you into such a fury.
By the way, I assume that most of your MS buddies would dissociate themselves from your so charmingly expressed electric chair fantasy wish…. (Any takers from the rest of the field?)
So, I take it you don’t have anything to say about your prediction?
Ignoring the rest because it doesn’t matter.
Ok, ignoring all the squabbling type posts – I’ d be interested to hear some reasons for the observed appearance of the ‘comet’ after perihelion as shown in the images.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/current_c3.gif
In particular, I would like to know why the ‘tail’ seemingly moves/spreads in two directions both away and kind of the sun – at one point it looks rather like the tail has spread out to an almost 180 degree ‘front’? (see around 30/11 at 1900hrs in the gif movie link) and the apparent fact that the sunside ‘arm’ takes longer to form than the farside ‘arm’?
I am postulating to myself (bad thing to do – I know – but I can’t help it) that this may be a visual artifact of post perihelion dispersal/disruption or indeed ‘explosion’ of the comet nucleus.
I am thinking that if the comet ‘exploded’ shortly after passing perihelion – the visual effects of that disruption might give us the ‘spread’ of apparent tail that we see in the images? In my mind, I am visualising some kind of ‘moving’ shockwave of dust and debris creating the tail spread we have observed?
any comments?
French_Atkins says:
December 1, 2013 at 3:18 pm
The reason why ISON has now apparently switched OFF again cannot YET be known.
Hi French
We don’t know for sure. But from observations, comet ion jets prefer to stay on one side of the comet ( wrt the sun ). Given that, at perihelion, Ison’s jets spun out of alignment with the sun, it was expected to fizzle out. I don’t think Ison will spin much on its return path so new jets can form in positions that will stay aligned with the sun. Hence I think it’ll get bright again. The only unknown for me is if it gets zapped by a CME, which will discharge it again.
Tom in Florida says:
December 1, 2013 at 3:17 pm
No, I do not want a site you read from and repeat here. I want the site which shows the list of published papers on the subject that you have written that shows the scientific reasons you believe Dr S is wrong.
The CAGW group have papers enough to sink an oil tanker, yet still I don’t believe their hypothesis. Published papers mean nothing.
Strikes me you require consensus from experts as a substitute for confidence in your own ability to reason. Don’t let the emperors cloths intimidate you. Ask a straight, sensible question like why is the comet’s tail pointing the wrong way, and don’t cave in to any authority until you have a satisfactory explanation that _YOU_ understand. One day you might find your explanation to be wrong, but you can always discard it for another.
If you stick with this method you can still be wrong, but never fooled.
Just repeating what is on the thunderbolts website because you think it is correct is not good enough. Where is your research that causes you to have these opinions?
Knowledge and understanding tends to involve repetition of ideas from one human to another. The location of my research is the internet. I’ve linked to vital sources in these WUWT comments and given the essential rational for my predictions in the comments. I’ve given you every bit of rational and info you need right here on this thread and the previous ison thread.
As I say to my students, understanding is DIY, and it isn’t observing and trying to weight up a stack of papers from a safe distance.
should have said ‘kind of toward the sun’ (sorry – it’s late here!)
You guys are big on Newton aren’t you?
http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/collections/newton
What about… ugh, I hate to link this EU nonsense, but here’s papers I bet you wouldn’t dismiss offhand, right?
http://www.electricuniverse.info/Peer_reviewed_papers *
*Note, I would never, EVER link this nonsense if it wasn’t to show how foolish someone is for decrying published papers.
Hi Kev, Leif would roughly agree with your take on what is seen. According to him the odd angles of the comet are a visual trick which you won’t understand, and the tail dynamics are a mix of blown off dust and ion dynamics.
If you want a different take, just search this page for meemoe and read all my comments
… how foolish someone is for decrying published papers.
If a hypothesis is wrong and you publish a paper on that hypothesis then it is still wrong.
A problem often abused today is that folk often think a published paper is a magic wand that qualifies a theory. It doesn’t.
meemoe_uk says:
December 1, 2013 at 4:12 pm
“The CAGW group have papers enough to sink an oil tanker, yet still I don’t believe their hypothesis. Published papers mean nothing.”
Neither do I but the purpose of my asking for your published papers is so that we all can see the how and why you believe what you do based on your research. Then, and only then, can your methods and research be subject to scrutiny by others. It is that scrutiny that will unveil the truth, much as we can finally unveil the truth about the CAGW scam they have been hiding from us.
“Strikes me you require consensus from experts as a substitute for confidence in your own ability to reason. Don’t let the emperors cloths intimidate you. ”
That is not true. I do, however, respect and give great weight to the opinions of those who have studied science that I have not AND published those studies AND have had them put to the test by others. I do not give much credence to the expression of personal beliefs simply because they are posted as supposed facts on blogs. One cannot claim the ability to “reason” correctly when one is limited in the details of a field of science. In most cases, the inferior knowledge will lead to simplistic, incorrect conclusions that may sound plausible to the untrained but fall apart when the details of the actual processes become evident.
So, unless you can link me to one of your research papers on comets that has been published, I will simply read your comments as from someone who has a belief that they are willing to express but cannot substantiate. It’s the same reason I do not discuss religion with those who believe in god (and that doesn’t mean I am right and they are wrong, it is just futile to discuss opposite points of view that are based solely on personal beliefs that cannot be proved or disproved)
So, I’m gonna take this as an admission that the EU hypothesis is wrong.
Max says:
It does not matter two hoots whether the EU hypothesis is wrong, as long as it motivates people to seek and find faults in the presently dominant hypothesis that is taught at school as a fact. Give them credit for pointing out the facts that falsify the orthodoxy.
Independently, credit is due to people at NASA, astronomers, and everybody who helped make these discoveries, whatever their motivations are, and however right or wrong are their favourite hypotheses. They are all awesome.
French_Atkins says:
December 1, 2013 at 3:18 pm
What is sure, however, is that if ISON does indeed come back ON again, to whatever degree, it could ONLY be as an electrically charged lump of rock
Apart from the ‘reasons’ you give [which are nonsense], that statement is just silly. There could be many other reasons for ISON reviving, e.g. a vent opening due to heating and a sudden expulsion of gas, which when ionized will glow, etc. ‘to whatever degree’: even if it brightens 0.00000001%? can’t you see how utterly dumb you pretend to be?
I agree with most of what your trying to say Tom. But the seed of blind faith in your mind is entwined and betrayed in your writing.
e.g. here.
I will simply read your comments as from someone
You don’t need to identify the someone who wrote a sentence in order to judge its validity.
Instead use reason, deduction and logic on the theory, and wait for the test results on the predictions.
I don’t have a stack of EU papers and I don’t think a stack of my EU papers would convince you of EU. EU people ( other meemoes ) published their astrophysics work in electric engineering journals for decades. And I bet you haven’t read a single one.
All those other meemoes went and did exactly what you said would convince you, but it hasn’t.
Tom in Florida says:
December 1, 2013 at 5:40 pm
So, unless you can link me to one of your research papers on comets that has been published
Or for that matter ANY paper published on the EU theory for comets.
meemoe_uk says:
December 1, 2013 at 5:17 pm
A problem often abused today is that folk often think a published paper is a magic wand that qualifies a theory. It doesn’t.
It allows the theory to be openly discussed and reviewed [e.g. by peers]. If there are NO papers, that disqualifies a theory.
And you [understandably enough] evades to answer:
“Observations [in space and in the laboratory] show that Alfven was correct about that after all. Besides, he suggested the frozen-in magnetic field in the 1940s, long before there was any EU theory. Are you saying that this was the only blunder? Are there none other?”
Leif wrote can’t you see how utterly ***** you pretend to be?
If little meemoe can manage not to use direct insults then surely the great Leif can too
Isn’t there an upwind/downwind and inward/outward thing happening.
Like it’s now travelling with the solar wind?
=======================================================================
At times I begin a comment reminding people that I am a layman. Here, I am an extreme layman but perhaps there was a solid chunk in the middle that produced what appeared to be the split tail?
Shouldn’t we be seeing some comet ISON images and movies from some of the other solar observatories soon..?
meemoe_uk says:
December 1, 2013 at 6:57 pm
Leif wrote can’t you see how utterly DUMB you pretend to be?
If little meemoe can manage not to use direct insults then surely the great Leif can too
Well, you place yourself squarely in that same category by your willful inability to see that too.
==================================================================
I’m late to this party. I haven’t read all of the post or the comments. I might be inserting my foot in my mouth. (It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve tasted my toes.) But maybe “little meemoe” might actually provide an answer to whatever question Leif asked?
Or is that asking to much?
meemoe_uk says:
December 1, 2013 at 6:46 pm
“Instead use reason, deduction and logic on the theory, and wait for the test results on the predictions.”
Again, if you do not know the underlying science behind the theory you are in no position to use what you believe to be reason and logic. What may look like reason and logic to the untrained is not necessarily reasonable and logical to the trained. It’s why most people don’t know a golf cart will not protect you in from a lightning strike.
“I don’t have a stack of EU papers and I don’t think a stack of my EU papers would convince you of EU. ”
Any stack of EU papers you would have written may or may not convince me of the correctness of EU but that is not the point. It would allow me to (as you say) use reason, deduction and logic in my trust in what YOU say here on this blog.
“EU people ( other meemoes ) published their astrophysics work in electric engineering journals for decades. And I bet you haven’t read a single one. All those other meemoes went and did exactly what you said would convince you, but it hasn’t.”
Nor have I read all the astrophysics and solar journals. However, since it is YOU that are posting here it is up to YOU to provide the rest of us with YOUR published research and data if you are going to call out someone who DOES have a stack of publications outlining his opinions based on the data he has researched and studied. So using logic and reason based on both of your publications on the matter (or lack thereof), who’s comments shall I tend to put more trust in at this time?
And you [understandably enough] evades to answer:
You can have my answer to that Leif, but we both know it won’t change things between us. The fun part of this thread was making predictions based off EU.
Are there none other?”
Sure there’s others blunders. Like at the start of this thread, I mistook a NASA model for an exciting and crucial bit of evidence.
When I audit EU papers I sometimes find errors.
There’s stuff I think our main media guys have got wrong. At the mo they are pushing for electric landscaping of planets and moons, and while I think it does play a part, they seem too eager to say assert too many features are due to electric arcing.
If you want more testable predictions from EU so we can be falsified by the evidence you have to give us more funding to do experiments. Since EU hasn’t had much funding over the last century we haven’t been able to do what we need – craft fine quantitative computer models or do space experiments. Thus we have to make mostly qualitative predictions on observations, which weakens the ability to falsify.
But our tied hands ( for lack of funds ) over 100 years, preventing us from falsifying EU won’t stop us in the 21st century. I’m happy with the current progress of EU in academia. We are allied to strong communities in plasma lab and electric research. The internet has strengthened us.
And even the conventional space establishment are sowing the seeds of the falsification of the 20th century gravity dominated view of the cosmos – Better space probes can only help the situation.
I think the study of Ison will convert a few more young minds over to EU, and i hope they can think of more ways to falsify EU, cos if done properly thats what will make it strong. Unlike conventional cosmology which has been botched and made un-falsifiable with its dark matter and energy. What a shambles and eternal stain on the history of science.
there. You happy you got my answer?