MIKE BARA.com: August 2013

Friday, August 23, 2013

Is Comet Ison a Spaceship? Who am I to Say No?

UPDATE UPDATE: Ok, here's the latest from Richard Hoagland. It has mow morphed into 5 different geometrically arranged light bars.

http://hla.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/display?image=hlsp_ison_hst_wfc3_130430_f606w-f814w_v1&autoscale=&title=Ison+130430+WFC3+F814W

Stuff like this freaks me out.

A couple days ago I saw some YouTube videos claiming that the "Comet of the Century," comet Ison, was a "spaceship." The evidence presented a Hubble telescope image of the head of the comet that when darkened, showed that the nucleus seemed to be made up of 3 precisely spaced and geometrically arranged light bars.

Normally, I'd put something like this into the same category as videos of Nibiru supposedly setting next to the Sun, but something about it bugged me. It reminded me a bit of an X-shaped asteroid that Hubble captured a couple years ago that looked eerily like an image of the Silver Surfer from the 2nd Fantastic Four movie.

Real

Hollywood?

Now, according to Dr. Tom van Flandern's Exploded Planet Hypothesis (EPH), most if not all comets should have multiple bodies in their nucleus, because they are remnants of a couple of planets that exploded in the solar system eons ago. So one possibility that crossed my mind immediately was that the images were actually 3 separate bodies, smeared by the motion of the comet into looking like they were part of a single craft. But several points about this don't add up:

First, if the light bar effect was caused by image smear, as I'm sure will be the eventual explanation emanating from NASA, how could it smear in 2 different directions, exactly 120 degrees from each other? And how come the bars are so sharp and clear?

So I finally decided to see for myself. I went to the Hubble page in question, zoomed out a couple of times until I found the comet, and then hit the "darken" button a few times. What do you know? Thar she blows!

Try it for yourself. Just follow the link below, zoom out a bit and then darken. Then freak out a little bit.

http://hla.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/display?image=hlsp_ison_hst_wfc3_130430_f606w_v1&autoscale=&title=Ison+130430+WFC3+F606W

So is it a spaceship? I have no idea. But I've certainly never seen anything like it. So who am I to say no?

UPDATE: Here's a video that purports to explain the image: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbLe6kEd6mE

But how come no other comet photographed by Hubble ever looked like this? Maybe it did...

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

New Image of Extrasolar Planet Confirms Van Flandern and The Choice

Infrared images from NASA’s Subaru Telescope in Hawaii released today have confirmed the existence of the smallest exoplanet ever discovered. This newly discovered world, dubbed GJ 504b, have driven a further nail in the coffin of NASA’s shopworn accretion model of planetary formation and give a substantial boost the late Dr. Tom Van Flandern’s solar fission theory of planetary formation. I covered this theory extensively in my 2^nd book, The Choice., and the discovery, like the discovery of a large exoplanet orbiting more than 330 Astronomical Unit’s from its parent star a few years ago, pretty much blows up the core assumptions (pun intended) of the accretion model.

“This is among the hardest planets to explain in a traditional planet-formation framework,” study researcher Markus Janson, a Hubble postdoctoral fellow at Princeton University in New Jersey, said in a statement. “Its discovery implies that we need to seriously consider alternative formation theories, or perhaps to reassess some of the basic assumptions in the core-accretion theory.”
Gee, do ‘ya think?

With the late Dr. Tom Van Flandern in 2008

According to the accretion model, a gas giant planet of this type (it’s 4 times Jupiter’s size) cannot form so far from its parent star (which is similar to our own sun, but only 160 million years old). That’s because the accretion model requires asteroids to crash into each other, magically glue themselves together instead of shattering, and then collect the massive gasses needed for their atmospheres from the gas rich environment closer to the parent star. The accretion model was already in considerable trouble because of the discovery of so-called “Hot Jupiter’s”, hot, massive Jupiter-sized planets very close to their parent stars which also contradict the accretion model.

The solar fission model, by contrast, assumes that the rapidly spinning young star is the source of the planet forming material and that it is flung off from the star and slowly spirals away until it achieves a stable orbit. It then cools over time and becomes a familiar looking planet of the type we see in our own solar system (Full details of the solar fission model of planetary formation can be found in Dr. Van Flandern’s book DarkMatter, Missing Planets and New Comets: Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated).

In contrast to the accretion model, this fits the observations of GJ504b exactly, as well as the “Hot Jupiter” observations.

Of course, the usual village idiots have attacked the solar fission theory on the basis that it requires the planets to be spun off in roughly twin pairs, with one planet slightly larger than the other. So far, in the 2 cases here, only one planet has been observed. But that’s easily explainable.

Because of the intense light coming from any given star and the enormous distances at which the observations are taking place, most planets are obscured by the light of their own suns. Indeed, most exoplanets have only been discovered by either their gravitational effect on the parent star or by chance passing between (transiting) the star and the telescope.

The only reason GJ 504b was even visible was because its orbit was some 44 Astronomical Units (93 million miles – the distance from Earth to the Sun), or 4,090,055,520 (4.1 billion) miles from the parent star. It would be beyond the orbits of both Neptune and sometimes Pluto if it were in our own solar system. This means that it orbits outside the residual scattered starlight of GJ 504, its parent star. GJ 504b is also very faint because it has cooled considerably from its previous “Hot Jupiter” status. If there is a second companion planet that spun off with GJ 504b, it would be masked within the residual scattered starlight because it probably lies within the Neptune orbit distance (30 AU’s), right around 22 AU’s if the Titius-Bode law of planetary spacing applies. Presumably, it would also have cooled just as GJ 504b has, making it even harder to find. The leader of the study that found GJ 504b, Masayuki Kuzuhara of the Tokyo Institute of Technology, said the task is “like trying to take a picture of a firefly near a searchlight.”

Does that mean that it’s impossible to confirm to accuracy of the solar fission model? Not at all. If GJ 504b is still receding from its parent star, and the hypothetical GJ 504c along with it, it is possible that someday the 2^nd planet in the twin pair may be imaged. That depends on a number of factors, including the speed of recession, the luminosity or GJ 504c, and the capabilities of the instruments human beings can create. But the chance to fulfill the prediction is there.

In the meantime, the fact that we can’t yet see GJ 504c does nothing to change the fact that this new observation fits the solar fission theory perfectly, and directly contradicts the increasingly discredited accretion model.