Comet C/2012 S1 - ISON

[Gawain]

Exactly correct Strawman :D

It's my ADD that has me wanting to run back and edit posts I think.

I apologize to you all. I enjoy conversations like these and I believe we all learn a little something. I am learning here. And, if I don't ask questions and employ a little Socratic method, boundaries are not stretched. But, I am a little out of my league right now and I need to study a bit before I can contribute within the boundaries of this forum (and there is nothing wrong with these boundaries). I'm now worried that I am just contributing "noise" which was never my intention. I actually thought I had something interesting to contribute with that video and I had searched and read this entire thread before posting the link.

Everyone has been very nice. Thanks for helping me get acclimated to the rarefied air in this environment. I love having my mind stretched in such a fashion. And I don't believe in the "dirty snowball" theory... LOL :P

Oh, those are all rhetoric questions. (can't wait to get to 50 posts)

Not sure I understand why you 'can't wait to get to 50 posts'.

I think it might have something to do with Gawan being able to modify his posts and in particular delete or change his rhetorical questions. If I'm wrong please excuse me.

 

[Cosmos]

Hi Pashalis,

As a scientist, BSc, Geology, 1981, I've discovered that science does not have all the answers. (Actually, does not have many answers at all).

Heck, if those three images are not craft, then what are they? Have you taken the time to load the images on the Hubble viewer yourself?

And I'm not trying to prove anything here. I've come looking for answers and to have some fun along the way. I think this is a very neat place, but please don't throw objective evidence in my face when you and I both realize that truth will not be found among most of the vast amounts of facts of this world, regardless of objective evidence. Objective evidence tends to be more misleading than gut intuition IMHO.

Anyway, what appears to be objective evidence is that I should back off and allow the experts have sway. I know nothing of space photography and astronomy and that video was something I just happened upon and thought was interesting.I'll enjoy reading your posts Pashalis. Have a great day!

Peace,
Gawain

"Anyway, what appears to be objective evidence is that I should back off and allow the experts have sway."

No need to throw the baby out with the bath water Gawain ;)

I was talking about people like Hoaxland and the like who again and again throw out disinformation regarding comets (doesn't necessarily mean that this has to be a conscious effort on their side) and persuade gullible people into believing lies that can be dangerous. Hoaxland for example, as Laura said, was pushing that "Hale Bopp is a UFO" disinformation back in the ninetees, which resulted in the suicide of a number of gullible cult followers who believed that Hoaxland nonsense. And he actually managed to pull the same thing up again regarding comet Elenin recently!

Clearly if one makes or is thinking about spreading such information, without the proper research about comets and the electrical solar system/universe at hand, they can easily further spread disinformation/noise similar to what Hoaxland is doing without even being aware of it.

I think this is a very neat place, but please don't throw objective evidence in my face when you and I both realize that truth will not be found among most of the vast amounts of facts of this world, regardless of objective evidence. Objective evidence tends to be more misleading than gut intuition IMHO.

There is an objective reality and the main thing that "The Powers To Be" are wanting us to believe is that there is no such thing and that there are just subjective realities. That is a lie and a pretty effective one. You might enjoy reading this SOTT Focus article which further explores this misunderstanding/believe: The Necessity of Disillusionment.

Objective evidence tends to be more misleading than gut intuition IMHO.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It has been proven, without a shadow of a doubt that we can't trust our gut intuitions, feelings or thoughts as long as we don't start to truly "Know Thyself". That is actually one of the biggest lessons/truths Gurdjieff, Boris Mouravieff, Don Juan (Carlos Castaneda's books) and other "esoteric teachings" are trying to convey and which has been proven to be correct by modern science in books like "Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious" and others. You can read more about it here.

http://<iframe width="560" height="..._w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Gawain]

In my opinion (in this realm there are very few statement I will ever make as "facts") it is the gut instinct or intuition that has been misaligned. This "gut" instinct may be the super conscious connection with the collective conscious, or a channeling of a former self, or a "remembering" of something important or not important (there are no new things in heaven and earth) from beyond the 3D "reality".

Figures lie and lairs figure.

Why should I take what you tell me as more "real" or "factual" than what my own instincts tell me? You have researched and studied, I have researched and studied. Why are you right and I am wrong?

I'll wade through all the links and reading material assigned to me this day. Presently, I have 5 books I'm reading (not including Comets and the Horns of Moses) but I'll get to it all.

Thanks for your comments and opinions.

 

[Vic]

Exactly correct Strawman :D

It's my ADD that has me wanting to run back and edit posts I think.

I apologize to you all. I enjoy conversations like these and I believe we all learn a little something. I am learning here. And, if I don't ask questions and employ a little Socratic method, boundaries are not stretched. But, I am a little out of my league right now and I need to study a bit before I can contribute within the boundaries of this forum (and there is nothing wrong with these boundaries). I'm now worried that I am just contributing "noise" which was never my intention. I actually thought I had something interesting to contribute with that video and I had searched and read this entire thread before posting the link.

Everyone has been very nice. Thanks for helping me get acclimated to the rarefied air in this environment. I love having my mind stretched in such a fashion. And I don't believe in the "dirty snowball" theory... LOL :P

Oh, those are all rhetoric questions. (can't wait to get to 50 posts)

Not sure I understand why you 'can't wait to get to 50 posts'.

I think it might have something to do with Gawan being able to modify his posts and in particular delete or change his rhetorical questions. If I'm wrong please excuse me.

I don't think you have anything to apologise for, Gawain. I do - sorry for spelling your user name incorrectly above :)

Rest assured that nobody here 'expects' you to believe what they say. For me, whilst not knowing exactly what 'instinct' is, I still feel that objective truth and instinct go hand in hand. But if a fellow forum member produces evidence that they don't, or that instinct doesn't actually have any validity, then I'll be open to that.

I hope you stick around.

 

[Laura]

Laura, you seem to come to the same conclusion as I do about "truth" when you talk of the PTB and cult members both not understanding reality.

Laura says (PTB quote), "...biggest misunderstanding is caused by the PTB's failure to take onboard the Electric Universe reality."
and (cult quote) ".....group of gullible people who believed the Hoaxland nonsense."

May there not be other misinformed or "wrong-thinking" groups out there?

Lots of them. We try to avoid it, though, by avoiding "intuitional" thinking and sticking to facts and forensic data. Plus, networking so that we can have help avoiding emotional thinking which is a killer.

Who has all the keys to knowledge?

The Universe. Is that a "who" or a "what"? Maybe both.

Who can I believe without question?

No one, ever. ALWAYS question and do research.

When does information become knowledge?

Knowledge probably should be always qualified as a probability. You might say that knowledge is a geometrical configuration of information but that configuration can change with the addition of another bit of information and then the knowledge changes.

Who can I believe? and more to the point, who can I believe in?

Don't "believe" anybody, least of all your own emotion driven thinking. Research, network, get feedback, but keep everything in a probabilistic state because tomorrow, new information comes...

"Believe IN"??? Nothing on the outside, for sure. And nobody, for sure. Just assign probabilities of confidence based on observational history.

 

[Laura]

Rest assured that nobody here 'expects' you to believe what they say. For me, whilst not knowing exactly what 'instinct' is, I still feel that objective truth and instinct go hand in hand. But if a fellow forum member produces evidence that they don't, or that instinct doesn't actually have any validity, then I'll be open to that.

The problem is that people confuse instinct with emotion-based "intuition" which is most often conditioned by social and familial programming. We've got a couple of threads in the psychology section that talk about the adaptive unconscious and the pretty-good experimental work in that direction over the past dozen years or so. The go-to books for the lay-person are "Strangers to Ourselves" and "Thinking: Fast and Slow..."

Then, there is Porges Polyvagal theory which explains a LOT about how our instinctive substratum works. The point being to learn first how your machine/reading instrument functions by gathering data and consistent observations, and then you are in a position to begin calibration with robust feedback. Only then will you be able to tell the difference between instinct and emotional thinking.

Obviously, in some situations, instinct screams loud and clear such as in situations of grave danger. But, on the other hand, as we've learned, the "Normalcy Bias" can shut down instincts completely.

 

[Vic]

Rest assured that nobody here 'expects' you to believe what they say. For me, whilst not knowing exactly what 'instinct' is, I still feel that objective truth and instinct go hand in hand. But if a fellow forum member produces evidence that they don't, or that instinct doesn't actually have any validity, then I'll be open to that.

The problem is that people confuse instinct with emotion-based "intuition" which is most often conditioned by social and familial programming. We've got a couple of threads in the psychology section that talk about the adaptive unconscious and the pretty-good experimental work in that direction over the past dozen years or so. The go-to books for the lay-person are "Strangers to Ourselves" and "Thinking: Fast and Slow..."

Then, there is Porges Polyvagal theory which explains a LOT about how our instinctive substratum works. The point being to learn first how your machine/reading instrument functions by gathering data and consistent observations, and then you are in a position to begin calibration with robust feedback. Only then will you be able to tell the difference between instinct and emotional thinking.

Obviously, in some situations, instinct screams loud and clear such as in situations of grave danger. But, on the other hand, as we've learned, the "Normalcy Bias" can shut down instincts completely.

Yes. That emotion-based intuition can easily be mistaken for instinct. I remember when I first came here and was quite loud in defending my 'truth in resonance' belief :) in terms of my vegetarianism at that time. That was the same as the instinct question here. Lack of knowledge is key. As I read Laura's post above I realised I wasn't sure what the difference between instinct and intuition is, so I'll check out those psychology threads she mentions above.

 

[Anthony]

Saw this today. Mars interacts with ISON.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_on3eDmFRY

 

[Laura]

Saw this today. Mars interacts with ISON.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_on3eDmFRY

I wonder about the validity of that.

I did a little search and found the following items:

Comet ISON and Mars Imaged Together During Close Approach
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/105199/comet-ison-and-mars-imaged-together-during-close-approach/#ixzz2gwtdoyh7


Potentially Dazzling Comet ISON Spotted from Mars by Spacecraft (Photo)
http://www.universetoday.com/105199/comet-ison-and-mars-imaged-together-during-close-approach/

Comet ISON zips past Mars on journey to the sun
http://www.space.com/23057-comet-ison-mars-spacecraft-photos.html

Comet ISON surprises skywatchers as NASA tries to photograph it from Mars
http://www.catholic.org/technology/story.php?id=52571

5 Sky Events This Week: Comet Buzzes Mars, False Dawn, Green Giant
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/30/5-sky-events-this-week-comet-buzzes-mars-false-dawn-green-giant/

Admittedly, these are all pretty mainstream. Anybody have links to amateur astronomy BBs and discussions?

 

[mkrnhr]

The original of that video on the exploding Mars apparently comes from here: _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY7yRxjVrxc&feature=c4-overview&list=UUvQhV0impINSA08m-Dv_l-g
and here _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybg2SVSF1h0&list=UUvQhV0impINSA08m-Dv_l-g
No information on how the images have been taken (which instrument, which filters, etc.) so they have no value. People can take images of Mars anywhere (in the morning, before sunrise).

A discharge between Mars and the comet will show mostly in the comet IMHO, and so far, it doesn't show up in its magnitude (we have to wait for more data in the next weeks though). A possible sign would be the slight misalignment in the sunward discharge relatively to the tail (on the comet) but it could be due to something else as well.

 

[mkrnhr]

An update on the disappointing (so far) brightness of the comet relatively to its earliest behaviour:
_http://www.isoncampaign.org/files/images/ison_lc_oct02.jpg

Apparently, it is not brightening intrinsically as it gets closer to the Sun, it is only brightening in appearance because it gets closer to us (the Earth):
_http://www.brucegary.net/ISON/Oct%2006%20ReducedMag%28date%29.jpg

Also, according to Ignacio Ferrin, using a classification that he developed (which probably inspired the plot just above), "Comet ISON is not brightening at all". He also compares its behaviour to two other comets (C/2002 O4 Hönig and C/1996 Q1 Tabur) which disintegrated.
_http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1310/1310.0552.pdf

There are always surprises with comets, and since it is expected that we pass through its debris next January, if it disintegrates before it reaches perihelion, the might be some other surprises to account for. As usual, wait and see.

 

[dredger]

Hello all,

http://www.blueman.name/Des_Videos_Remarquables.php?NumVideo=6361#NAVIGATION - the big grey video below.

French website, explanation :
Taken from a chinese observatory, 2 strange and unidentified objects are orbiting around ISON

Fake or not ?

Note about the author of the site : he does not anymore give its sources because he's fed up with websites taking his information and provide the primary source of information and never his site - it's up to anyone to find the source channel. He's used to make deep search on the net since 4y and collected many interesting videos.

 

[mkrnhr]

Hi dredger,
Is there a link to the source (this Chinese radar observatory) ? That would be the first thing to check.

 

[dredger]

I searched, and searched again.
I only found the video also posted here : _http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/151788/Comet_Ison_with_2_objects_new_feed_this_time_from_the_Chinese_Space_Radar/

I just wanted to bring this information here and, helped with the community, sort this information out (fake or not)

 

[mkrnhr]

I just wanted to bring this information here and, helped with the community, sort this information out (fake or not)

Yes, and tracing the source of a document helps a lot. For me it's fake but an opinion doesn't count without proof to support it :)