Long period comets

For a finite flat Earth, what is the mechanism behind long period comets? Such as Halley's comet which has a period of 75 years. Surely it's path around a FE sun takes it beyond the influence of the UA? Ditto with even longer period comets.

An interesting question.  I wonder what the FE answer will be?

Probably "comets don't exist, it's a conspiracy".

I live in a bad generation

Halley visited 1986, I was born in 1991 and I'll be 70 years old when it comes by again :/

Here is my guess as to there response...

You don't have any proof that the comet observed by Halley and subsequent astronomers is the same comet reappearing over and over on a highly predictable schedule mandated by the laws of gravitation as defined by Newton and quantified by Keppler.

As more interesting question, I would like to know what the mechanism for comets are in flat Earth physics.  I would question how a small sun would have enough energy to give the observable effects to comets.

Don't forget Shoemaker-Levi 9.  That was the comet that broke up and collided with Jupiter.  There were some really good ground-based observations of that phenomenon.

Awaiting FE response

Bumping this because I was wondering about comets as well and did a search figuring someone else must have asked already.

Yup...asked and for the most part have been ignored.  Although there was some attempt.  Something about the electromagnetic thingy that keeps all the stars, and suns, and moons, and comets, and meteors, and asteroids, aloft by the universal accelerator, sometimes wears out, or gets turned off or something causing them to stop being accelerated and then the earth comes to meet them.  The problem with that is the impact speed.  The math doesn't come out right. 

Yeah I was mainly wondering about a comet like Halley's, which can be seen over more than 1 night by people all around the world. What is it's trajectory in the FE model?

I think we're still waiting for a FE response here, or do the FE'ers just respond selectively 

Might be another RE wins again thread.

i've been wondering about this one too...

Good question!! I'd like to hear the answer from FE as well!

They'll most likely answer:

I haven't seen a comet yet, the pictures and video's are all fake and part of the conspiracy.

Deep in the lollipop forest, they get a lollipop and put it in a huge tube (a hollowed out candy cane) filled with the fruit of hte poprock tree.  This then fires the lollipop into the sky, where it explodes into flame, with a trail of sherbert out hte back.  This is done 30 times every second, thus making a smoothly moving image like on a TV set.  Luckily, there are plenty of lollys in the forest and they regrow quickly, so they can sustain an image for a long time. 

Comets orbit the centre of mass at the North Celestial Pole, just like the rest of the cosmos. They just happen to have a much longer orbital period, and when they approach the North Celestial Pole the sun's mass warps their path so they appear to be orbiting the sun.

Comets orbit the centre of mass at the North Celestial Pole, just like the rest of the cosmos. They just happen to have a much longer orbital period, and when they approach the North Celestial Pole the sun's mass warps their path so they appear to be orbiting the sun.

And why do they appear closer at this time if they are only 30000 miles away?

And why do they appear closer at this time if they are only 30000 miles away?

Learn to articulate yourself in a less ambiguous way if you expect me to answer your questions.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 11:52:24 AM

And why do they appear closer at this time if they are only 30000 miles away?

Learn to articulate yourself in a less ambiguous way if you expect me to answer your questions.

In a helicentric model they move from up to 50,000 AU away to less that 1 AU, this is why they cannot be seen for hundreds or thousands of years, then appear huge in hte sky, so how does a model with a tiny sun and all stars just 30 000 miles up explain this appearance? 

In a helicentric model they move from up to 50,000 AU away to less that 1 AU, this is why they cannot be seen for hundreds or thousands of years, then appear huge in hte sky, so how does a model with a tiny sun and all stars just 30 000 miles up explain this appearance?

The orbit of long period comets extends far out over the icy plain beyond the ice wall, at which point they become invisible to us.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 01:09:43 PM

In a helicentric model they move from up to 50,000 AU away to less that 1 AU, this is why they cannot be seen for hundreds or thousands of years, then appear huge in hte sky, so how does a model with a tiny sun and all stars just 30 000 miles up explain this appearance?

The orbit of long period comets extends far out over the icy plain beyond the ice wall, at which point they become invisible to us.

and to have the gradual appearance and increase is size we see uniformly, what path do they take?  Why don't they always appear in the south first? 

and to have the gradual appearance and increase is size we see uniformly, what path do they take?  Why don't they always appear in the south first? 

Most of their orbit is beyond the plane of stars, where the effect of the EA reduces the intensity of the light to a degree that makes them almost invisible to even our most powerful telescopes. As they approach the centre of mass over the North Celestial Pole, the Sun's gravitation causes them to swing recklessly off their orbital path and pass through the plane of stars, where they reach their largest size as they loop around the Sun itself. By now they have enough momentum to carry them back upwards through the plane of stars, away from the Sun's gravitational influence, and back out over the icy plain.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 01:30:52 PM

and to have the gradual appearance and increase is size we see uniformly, what path do they take?  Why don't they always appear in the south first? 

Most of their orbit is beyond the plane of stars, where the effect of the EA reduces the intensity of the light to a degree that makes them almost invisible to even our most powerful telescopes. As they approach the centre of mass over the North Celestial Pole, the Sun's gravitation causes them to swing recklessly off their orbital path and pass through the plane of stars, where they reach their largest size as they loop around the Sun itself. By now they have enough momentum to carry them back upwards through the plane of stars, away from the Sun's gravitational influence, and back out over the icy plain.

That does not work.

That does not work.

Prove it.

Quote from: lolz at trollz on August 13, 2008, 01:53:22 PM

That does not work.

Prove it.

it would still appear larger in the south first.  it would need to decend verticly to appear at hte same time in the north. 

And I want to know how everyone in the South can see it, if we cannot view the same stars because we are on the opposite side of the earth?

And while I'm thinking about it, is it vital to the FE model that the earth disc does not rotate? Wouldn't that help explain a lot with regards to the movements/observations of objects in space?

And I want to know how everyone in the South can see it, if we cannot view the same stars because we are on the opposite side of the earth?

And while I'm thinking about it, is it vital to the FE model that the earth disc does not rotate? Wouldn't that help explain a lot with regards to the movements/observations of objects in space?

If the disc rotated at a fast enough rate to explain star movements, then the centripedal force could be measured and the ocean surface would be concave. 

Most of their orbit is beyond the plane of stars, where the effect of the EA reduces the intensity of the light to a degree that makes them almost invisible to even our most powerful telescopes. As they approach the centre of mass over the North Celestial Pole, the Sun's gravitation causes them to swing recklessly off their orbital path and pass through the plane of stars, where they reach their largest size as they loop around the Sun itself. By now they have enough momentum to carry them back upwards through the plane of stars, away from the Sun's gravitational influence, and back out over the icy plain.

Are you saying that comets have their own ability to generate their own light (star-like)?  What is the cause of their tail then?  Why does every other body stay on a level plane over the surface of the Earth, but comets are free to move over and under this plane?  Just trying to clarify what you are suggesting.

Are you saying that comets have their own ability to generate their own light (star-like)?  What is the cause of their tail then?  Why does every other body stay on a level plane over the surface of the Earth, but comets are free to move over and under this plane?  Just trying to clarify what you are suggesting.

No, they reflect sunlight, as in RET. Here is a depiction of what I am talking about:

Most of their orbit is beyond the plane of stars, where the effect of the EA reduces the intensity of the light to a degree that makes them almost invisible to even our most powerful telescopes. As they approach the centre of mass over the North Celestial Pole, the Sun's gravitation causes them to swing recklessly off their orbital path and pass through the plane of stars, where they reach their largest size as they loop around the Sun itself. By now they have enough momentum to carry them back upwards through the plane of stars, away from the Sun's gravitational influence, and back out over the icy plain.

OK, if there is a "centre of mass" that provides the gravitational point of orbit for the sun and moon, why aren't comets orbiting that "centre of mass" rather than the much less massive sun?  The comet should orbit this "centre of mass" in a similar fashion to all of the other celestial bodies.  The sun might be able to deflect a body away from the straight line path, but that would probably just change its impact point on the Earth rather than completely change it's direction of travel.

This model doesn't fit with the observed behavior of comets in comparison to other celestial bodies. 

How is the sun able to affect this change on a comet at a much greater distance than it does the moon?

Why doesn't the sun effect the stars or planets in a similar fashion?

Why are comets the only bodies that violates the vertical plane of celestial bodies?  What prevents stars from being at this greater vertical height?