DART Mission

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: DART Mission

Re: DART Mission

by Cargo » Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:29 am

oh my dear god, Canon.. /faceplant

They raise a few good points though. maybe :D
"After around 2,000 years, the particle hits the sun" we measured it... lol
"The sun's gravity is stronger than the component of the force trying to repel the dust" but they already said:
"The force can be quite significant. The radiation pressure of sunlight on one square meter of the earth is as strong as that from accelerating a one-gram object at seven millimeters per second."

Can you stand it? Let's me Summarize haha
A Comet Has Two Types of Tail
Light Exerts Pressure
The Sun Pulls Space Dust
Our Sense of Light Direction Changes

haahhaa

Re: DART Mission

by jacmac » Sun Jan 15, 2023 1:44 pm

Slightly off topic:
comets might have two tails.
One plasma, one dust

Re: DART Mission

by Cargo » Sat Jan 14, 2023 1:22 am

Slightly on-topic, get a glorious look at these photos. Some of the text contains rich data as well. Although you'll have to mindful on the ice and gas. Haha.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/comet-set ... 74690.html

Re: DART Mission

by nick c » Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:57 pm

Open Mind wrote:
nick c wrote: "The term "radiation pressure" while correct; is nevertheless vague, and is a euphemism for a current of moving charged particles which are radiating from the Sun and electrically interacting with the comet. "
I think I have a growing understanding of the EU explanations. That's what you were explaining in that statement as opposed to the mainstream's right?
Yes.

Re: DART Mission

by Aardwolf » Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:49 pm

Open Mind wrote: Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:53 pmDo we have confirmation of that source point of the tail at least? Even if we don't have 'data' as a follow up, certainly civilian telescopes are capable of that observation for confirmation? Or maybe its too far away.
They use bait and switch tactics. All the images are labelled Didymos-Dimorphos System. They even state;
NASA wrote: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-hub ... rt-impact/
In this image, DART impacted the Didymos-Dimorphos system from the 10 o’clock direction.
No it didn't. It just impacted Diimorphos, but the tail is clearly from from the main body, so they pretend it's from both combined.

The other point is that Dimorphos is orbiting Didymos so surely the expectation is that the so called "debri" tail would have some orbiting artifact, not be a dead straight line.

Re: DART Mission

by Open Mind » Wed Jan 11, 2023 3:09 pm

nick C wrote: "The term "radiation pressure" while correct; is nevertheless vague, and is a euphemism for a current of moving charged particles which are radiating from the Sun and electrically interacting with the comet. "

I think I have a growing understanding of the EU explanations. That's what you were explaining in that statement as opposed to the mainstream's right?

So is it safe to say that this idea that mainstream's solar 'radiation pressure' has enough force to blow this 'debris gas and water' literally away from its source, that this 'force' is exactly how the theory of solar sails came about, implying that its magically enough mechanical pressure that it should actually be able to be harnessed? Did I just understand that 'solar sails' was always wrong with this comet tail explanation as the primary foundation of it? I mean considering their 'solar sails' were a tiny fraction as thick as a piece of paper, and requrie 10,000 sqr meters of area to push 1 gm of mass, it DOES feel like they BARELY believe it themselves.

Re: DART Mission

by Open Mind » Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:53 pm

Aardworlf wrote: "Bear in mind that this 3 month old tail isn't even emanating from the moonlet it hit, Dimorphos, but from the main body, Didymos. How does that make any logical sense within mainstream theory?"

Had to look up 'moonlet' . Right, I do recall we hit the much smaller rock that was following the bigger one. Good point. If we can see this tail emanating from the bigger comet, then the only explanation becomes debris particles from the impactor probe traveling like the magic bullet from JFK, right, (not to mention the flaws about that debris supposedly popping holes and releasing gas and water)? And since all potential events 'could' happen, how do you contradict a 'theory' of even a seemingly highly improbable event?

Yes, that's how I get lost. When out of desperation, they invent nonsensical or at least highly improbable explanations to defend themselves. I can accept that, but its when these nonsensical explanations transition into 'accepted science' and are now delivered in a tone of certainty, that I begin to doubt science. Frustrating.

Do we have confirmation of that source point of the tail at least? Even if we don't have 'data' as a follow up, certainly civilian telescopes are capable of that observation for confirmation? Or maybe its too far away.

Re: DART Mission

by Aardwolf » Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:16 pm

Open Mind wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:47 pm And typically, when I feel like I understand something about mainstream cosmology that seems easy to challenge, I usually find out I'm don't really understand that mainstream idea.
That's because the mainstream ideas don't hold up against even the slightest scrutiny, often contradicting itself and just bolting on ad-hoc explanations when necessary. There's no inherent logic because they are already falsified theories. Bear in mind that this 3 month old tail isn't even emanating from the moonlet it hit, Dimorphos, but from the main body, Didymos. How does that make any logical sense within mainstream theory?

Re: DART Mission

by nick c » Wed Jan 11, 2023 4:09 am

Open Mind wrote:But as far as mainstream understanding, is the mechanism that pushes the tail away from the sun a literal mechanical force only, and is it the same force they demonstrate by virtue of the scale and durability of the 'solar sail', a force that has very little power? Because that seems like a glaring vulnerabilty of Comet science that seem pretty easy to challenge.
from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ea ... 0the%20sun.
Comet tails will always point away from the sun because of the radiation pressure of sunlight.
The term "radiation pressure" while correct; is nevertheless vague, and is a euphemism for a current of moving charged particles which are radiating from the Sun and electrically interacting with the comet.

Note that comet tails are not formed because of the material composition of the comet, but rather it is the high eccentricity elliptical orbit that exposes the comet to a changing electrical environment. In the Electric Universe any celestial object (regardless of composition or size) that is exposed to a changing electrical environment can develop a tail. Planets can have tails, stars can have tails, and galaxies can have tails.

Re: DART Mission

by Open Mind » Wed Jan 11, 2023 12:24 am

jackokie wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:32 pm @Ardwolf When you say "I don't really understand" do you mean "I might understand it if I studied it some more"? Or do you mean "What crazy gnome have they come up with this time"?

Here is a link to a popsci article in today's UK Daily Mail that's a threefer for mainstream assertions:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... ekend.html

What's wrong with this headline:
"Last year was Earth's fifth hottest on record: Average temperatures across the globe were 2.16°F higher than the pre-Industrial Revolution average, data shows"
I meant I might if I studied it some more. But here's the conundrum. I'm endeavoring to comprehend the EU perspective on cosmology, which is hard enough without spending time on the mainstream explanations that the authors of this primary focus are reminding me, makes no sense. So I'm here to hopefully take advantage of your traumatic experience of having gone through all that, only to discover that it was a big waste of time, so that I might become a purist of the new generation of EU proponents, unsoiled by the madness of invoked magic and dark variables. I appreciate your contribution to that experience. lol

Re: DART Mission

by jackokie » Tue Jan 10, 2023 8:32 pm

@Ardwolf When you say "I don't really understand" do you mean "I might understand it if I studied it some more"? Or do you mean "What crazy gnome have they come up with this time"?

Here is a link to a popsci article in today's UK Daily Mail that's a threefer for mainstream assertions:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... ekend.html

What's wrong with this headline:
"Last year was Earth's fifth hottest on record: Average temperatures across the globe were 2.16°F higher than the pre-Industrial Revolution average, data shows"

Re: DART Mission

by Open Mind » Tue Jan 10, 2023 5:47 pm

nick c wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:30 pm
comet tails are always shooting off away from the sun, meaning they aren't demonstrating the direction of the path of the comet.
Yes, the tail streams away from the Sun even if the comet is also moving away from the Sun; but there is such a thing as an "anti tail", which is a spike that points toward the Sun:
https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1977ApL....18...61S
Right. But as far as mainstream understanding, is the mechanism that pushes the tail away from the sun a literal mechanical force only, and is it the same force they demonstrate by virtue of the scale and durability of the 'solar sail', a force that has very little power? Because that seems like a glaring vulnerabilty of Comet science that seem pretty easy to challenge.

And typically, when I feel like I understand something about mainstream cosmology that seems easy to challenge, I usually find out I'm don't really understand that mainstream idea.

Re: DART Mission

by nick c » Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:30 pm

comet tails are always shooting off away from the sun, meaning they aren't demonstrating the direction of the path of the comet.
Yes, the tail streams away from the Sun even if the comet is also moving away from the Sun; but there is such a thing as an "anti tail", which is a spike that points toward the Sun:
https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1977ApL....18...61S

Re: DART Mission

by Open Mind » Tue Jan 10, 2023 3:51 pm

thx Aardwolf.

Speaking of that, can I run some logical presumptions by you about that? Although, logical to me, but I might be geting it all wrong still though..

comet tails are always shooting off away from the sun, meaning they aren't demonstrating the direction of the path of the comet.

That implies that the solar wind must be strong enough to push actual matter like 'water droplets' that are off gassing.

Solar sails are designed in theory to harness that force from solar winds. But they are 40 to 100 times thinner than a piece of paper. Also, to have enough force to handle a spacecraft payload of just 10 grams, the sail needs an area of 100,000 square meters.

Doesn't that imply that solar wind as a force is very very light and weak if a sail that thin and likely theoretically massive implies that solar wind doesn't have anywhere near enough force to push those gasses and water consistantly DIRECTLY past a comet going in some orthoganal direction?

Wouldn't we expect to at least see the off gassing direction at the source and maybe the tail blurring and turning in the direction away from the sun at least some distance past that initial off gassing vector direction?

Re: DART Mission

by Aardwolf » Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:34 pm

According to the most recent info I can find, one amateur astronomer confirmed the tail was still there on 17 Dec, nearly 3 months after impact. I suspect the orthodoxy is praying it disappears soon so they can talk about it again and don't want any officially recoded news about its prolonged existence. Too inconvenient.

Top