More astronomy clarification, comets and meteors

In need some more clarification.
1.  How was it possible to view the comet Hale-Bopp in the north hemisphere and not the south.  The comet would for hit the north pole had it done that.  And according to wiki its still visible with telescopes.  How does that work?  The thing has lateral movement and the UA still affects it?  Also hale-Bopp will come back around 4,380,  that seems strange.  Almost like it orbits something then comes back to orbit our sun and leave again. Astronomers say the path the comet took did go around our sun.  There is also that comet that is predicted to pass closer to the earth then the moon.  Halley's comet will be back in 2061.  The FAQ does not have the word comet in it. 
 

2.  Meteor shower.   If anyone say it, there was one last night. It will last to around the 26th but was best viewed last night.   There is one around this time every year.  The Lyrids shower.  How does this work?  The earth orbiting into its path every year would explain it so how do fe'ers explain it?  Not to mention its only to northern hemisphere people. 

No fe'ers have clarification? 

I'm not a FE'er but I usually have something, although not this time.  Tom is probably consulting his FE possy atm, and will report soon.

woah.....i can't believe no FE'er has come with a response yet.

That's cos there is no reasonable FE explaination, apart from something to do with the conspiracy, maybe the government launch hundreds of flaming cows into lower atmosphere...

That's cos there is no reasonable FE explaination, apart from something to do with the conspiracy, maybe the government launch hundreds of flaming cows into lower atmosphere...

Bovine intervention.

Quote from: Chrissetti on April 23, 2007, 07:26:20 AM

That's cos there is no reasonable FE explaination, apart from something to do with the conspiracy, maybe the government launch hundreds of flaming cows into lower atmosphere...

Bovine intervention.

LMAO! someone buy this man/woman a pint!

Its cool they didn't reply.  Makes it easier for me to have to disprove there made up reasons to show how they are wrong.  With them not reply it just proves they are wrong, easy as that.

What do predictable, meaningless lights in the sky have to do with the shape of the Earth?

Those celestial bodies are circling above the hub of the Earth in various binary pattern, trapped in gravitational vectors, just as the sun is.

Good question.

I would ask, why do RE'ers always proclaim victory before their opponent steps into the ring? But I've asked that in lots of places and I've never had an answer.

Who said I was claiming it to be the proof of FE?
But as the engineer would say, way to avoid the question.

Those lights are actually objects that are traveling at high speeds.  Astronomers know they orbit the sun, what proof do you have that they circle a magical dot?

Those lights are actually objects that are traveling at high speeds.  Astronomers have then circling the sun, what proof do you have that they circle a magical dot?

What proof do you have that they are exhibiting gravity, in orbit around the sun, and it's not another mechanism you couldn't even dream of imagining? Just because classical Copernicus is "simple" for you to understand?

It's quite clear that even in the RE hypothesis, dark energy and a verity of other unexplained hypothetical forces and types of energy need to exist in abundence throughout the universe in order to keep a coherent model.

Even in a purely Newtonian model with gravity and all, Binary Star Systems are capable of moving around an imaginary dot.

Good question.

I would ask, why do RE'ers always proclaim victory before their opponent steps into the ring? But I've asked that in lots of places and I've never had an answer.

Because the thread was up for a day or so already and FE'ers ignored it.

Quote

Those lights are actually objects that are traveling at high speeds.  Astronomers have then circling the sun, what proof do you have that they circle a magical dot?

What proof do you have that they are exhibiting gravity, in orbit around the sun, and it's not another mechanism you couldn't even dream of imagining? Just because classical Copernicus is "simple" for you to understand?

It's quite clear that even in the RE hypothesis, dark energy and a verity of other unexplained hypothetical forces and types of energy need to exist in abundence throughout the universe in order to keep a coherent model.

Even in a purely Newtonian model with gravity and all, Binary Star Systems are capable of moving around an imaginary dot.

Predictability.  Astronomers can predict it.  They can predict when Halley's comet is coming back.  It says we understand whats happening.  They watch the comet get closer, then they watch it pass by and the come back some time later.  If it orbited some dot above the earth it would never leave.  Mean while the tail that forms always points away from he sun.  So whats more likely, a magical force or pure science?

They watch the comet get closer, then they watch it pass by and the come back some time later.

The sun  in the FE model also comes back some time later, if you haven't noticed.

If it orbited some dot above the earth it would never leave.  Mean while the tail that forms always points away from he sun.

 

Comet tales in the RE model don't always point away from the sun. 

They only point away on approach.

So whats more likely, a magical force or pure science?

Science is hardly pure if it cannot give a mechanism for the bending of space-time or even unite its hypothetical models. Science makes stuff up to explain observations all the time!

Binary stars orbits in the Newtonian model that move around a common imaginary barycenter is hardly a magical force. It's your own model.

The sun  in the FE model also comes back some time later, if you haven't noticed.

O man how did I miss that.  Ok heres what I meant, the comet leaves the solar system then comes back. 

Comet tales in the RE model don't always point away from the sun. 

They only point away on approach.

Not even close. 

Comet tails point away from the sun. 

Science is hardly pure if it cannot give a mechanism for the bending of space-time or even unite its hypothetical models. Science makes stuff up to explain observations all the time!

Binary stars orbits in the Newtonian model that move around a common imaginary barycenter is hardly a magical force. It's your own model.

Those stars are still orbiting each other.  You say the sun orbits a dot that is imaginary.
Science does make up stuff to explain observations.  Then unlike this site, they make experiments to prove or disprove it.  Its not that hard.  Get over the spacetime bending.  Someone knows why it does.  Orbit exists, thus some force has to exist.  Gravitation is that force until someone prove it wrong through experiments not YOUR or THEENGINEER's opinion. 

I don't understand why a comet would circle (ellispse, whatever) a flat, ethereal spotlight sun? By your own reasoning (especially you Tom, pay attention here) the universal Accelerator affects denser objects more, so unless those little balls of ice are astronomically dense (thereby about equal to the sun, so there'd be no reason to circle it) the Earth would fly into the comets. I know some fall into the atmosphere, but this would happen to ALL comets.

This isn't stupid made up laws of science here, this is pure logic

Quote from: Agent_0042 on April 23, 2007, 07:43:06 AM

Quote from: Chrissetti on April 23, 2007, 07:26:20 AM

That's cos there is no reasonable FE explaination, apart from something to do with the conspiracy, maybe the government launch hundreds of flaming cows into lower atmosphere...

Bovine intervention.

LMAO! someone buy this man/woman a pint!

Man. I promise.

Tom don't edit my posts. 

Don't think that's a worry anymore, bud.

haha yeah no more worries about that

Bump for the Engineer. 

Bump again.  I wonder if I should pull an fe and say the silence proves my point. 

Honestly, sokarul, I've seen REers make that claim a lot more than FEers...

Honestly, sokarul, I've seen REers make that claim a lot more than FEers...

Im just making it because its been pulled on me twice in two days. 

Sokarul,

Can you quantify in algebraic equations the exact effects of Newtonian physics in three dimensions on the Haley Bop comet? Please include vector and scalar notations in your equations, along with calculations for direction and magnitude. Also include an analysis of the exact forces involved along with a brief description of the acceleration vectors due to circular motion and the attraction of mass.

Unless you can do this, I will take your silence as a defeat of your antiquated and outdated model of the cosmos.

Sokarul,

Can you quantify in algebraic equations the exact effects of Newtonian physics in three dimensions on the Haley Bop comet? Please include vector and scalar notations in your equations, along with calculations for direction and magnitude. Also include an analysis of the exact forces involved along with a brief description of the acceleration vectors due to circular motion and the attraction of mass.

Unless you can do this, I will take your silence as a defeat.

You're going out of character.

Sokarul,

Can you quantify in algebraic equations the exact effects of Newtonian physics in three dimensions on the Haley Bop comet? Please include vector and scalar notations in your equations, along with calculations for direction and magnitude. Also include an analysis of the exact forces involved along with a brief description of the acceleration vectors due to circular motion and the attraction of mass.

Unless you can do this, I will take your silence as a defeat of your antiquated and outdated model of the cosmos.

I cant because I'm not an astronomer.  But you can since you have your doctorate in astronomy, physics, and chemistry. 

But now according to you only things that use simple physics exist.  And BTW the comet uses general relativity, not Newtonian physics.

I'd still like to know exactly how this Universal Accelerator works.  And I'd like some of those specifics for the Shadow Object, too, Tom.

Unless you can provide a detailed analysis of both I will take your idiocy as an admission of defeat.

I will just tag this in my thread because i know the only fe response is that they are photoshoped. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6955261/