Tracking the Interstellar Comet

They all come from the same source, did ya know?

Is it large the comet and debree ?

one moon impact ,

My theory that last one was the India attempt, lost.

Spaceman Spiff

Most are, some don't. And most things the guy says rings true too me, based on my research.
My take.

I've only ever been transparent. I wasn't a shill before, for years I had no connections to NASA, now I am and I admit it. See, it takes away your grounds to attack me when I'm nothing but honest...

This is the WW3 comet Nostradamus refers to when WW3 starts/ends. The war will only last 3 months!

So are you allowed to talk about that tracking software?
How big is the packet?
Could it be run real fast?

ISON?

Well if your plan is to divert this comet, it's not really within our current capabilities to do so. It has an excess velocity on the order of about 30 km/s, and that's just the excess velocity of its hyperbolic trajectory. It's booking it, we can't influence the trajectory of an object that large traveling that fast in any significant way with our current tech. Tracking is not the limitation there.

Last Edited by Astromut on 09/17/2019 11:01 AM

Well I processed the image data from this morning using a new program I just created (more like cobbled together from a couple of my previous programs) and while I still don't see the comet in the stacked images, I did find something very near the comet's expected position. It's a background star, but it's only visible for two frames, it brightens and dims VERY suddenly. I think I discovered a flare star, that or the star's brightness was momentarily enhanced somehow by forward scattering in the comet's tail, or aliens were sending a brief laser pulse in our general direction...

Very cool. Can you get it registered?

It might already be classified as such, but if it is it must be in an obscure catalog. I still need to do a more thorough search of the various star catalogs.

Here's the flare star. It only appears in 2 consecutive frames, then it apparently dimmed below the detection threshold of my camera. It's the faint little light in the center of this gif:
[link to drive.google.com (secure)]
It was just a few arcseconds from the expected position of the comet, and you might think it's just random noise, but there is a background star at that precise location. Here's an overlay of the two frames stacked compared to a digitized sky survey plate of the same coordinates:
[link to drive.google.com (secure)]
The star in question is circled in red. Clearly it's a real star, but the question is why it only appeared in two frames right when the comet was passing by that location? Was its meager light "enhanced" just enough to be visible to my camera by forward scattering through the comet's tail? Or did the star coincidentally experience a bright, short flare lasting 4 minutes, allowing it to appear in just 2 of my 2 minute long exposures? It's a real mystery.

I think it's real, man.

Dim object close to the horizon: atmospheric extinction?

Sure, if it just appeared that would be it. That it only appeared in 2 frames suggests something else, I kept taking frames after that as it continued to rise. The appearance and disappearance was very sudden. Hence my flare star hypothesis.

Your camera has been photo-impacted during 2x2m by an object close to the horizon. What are the odds of a real "flare" event (below 10º, i.e. extinction)?

Atmospheric extinction does not follow a linear eq. in conditions close to the horizon: the photometric calibration of your ccd (instrumental uncertainty) is not enough to resolve the uncertainty of the "ugly" environmental parameters (experimentals uncertainties).

If you want to discard the effects of errors produced from the "ambient" (you cannot!) try to put at a little exposition, but more shoots (i.e. 1m 40s, 40 shoots; 1m 30s, 100 shoots), to gauge the "brightness" at that conditions of humidity, air mass, etc...

Then, make a photo-metry counting the no artificial pixels due to the "close to horizon extinction", and subtrate them from the series of photos, in the proper channel. If you find a dim peak in the red channel (the errors will be instrumental... you can gauge them...), you will have a potential brigthness anomaly...

My best regards.

A salute.

Is this another Elenin or just a boring block of ice passing by in the distant yonder.

Probably better than a random object being exactly over a known background star for 4 minutes across two pictures. Also, it was 20 degrees and climbing at that time, not below 10 degrees.

I know that. I also know that I pointed east and the altitude was rising, not dropping.

You know your stuff but you obviously aren't familiar with me and didn't watch my webcast. I recorded 40 images at 2 minutes a piece. I did exactly the thing you just asked for.

Last Edited by Astromut on 09/18/2019 05:21 PM

Elenin WAS just a boring block of ice passing by in the distant yonder.

or was it ?

Anyways ...



Last Edited by Big Duke6 on 09/18/2019 06:32 PM

You want to know if this is this or that: Photo-metry is the method. You have got a dim brightness. Quantified it. Get the 17 dim mag and take the flare...

Be a right human: choose the same "flare" star and do not get out until the star flare again..

Good luck

well, read the Hopi prophecy

what do you think the Christmas star was...when Jesus was born...which star was it that appeared?

The damnsurechanged our dna with future knowledge star. Made us 40% stardust, gave men the ability to see the future.

Now that we have established that every element in the periodic table aside from hydrogen is essentially stardust, we have to determine how much of our body is made up of this stardust. If we know how many hydrogen atoms are in our body, then we can say that the rest is stardust. Our body is composed of roughly 7x1027 atoms. That is a lot of atoms! Try writing that number out on a piece of paper: 7 with 27 zeros behind it. We say roughly because if you pluck a hair or pick your nose there might be slightly less. Now it turns out that of those billion billion billion atoms, 4.2x1027 of them are hydrogen. Remember that hydrogen is bigbang dust and not stardust. This leaves 2.8x1027 atoms of stardust. Thus the amount of stardust atoms in our body is 40%[/i]

[link to www.physicscentral.com (secure)]

the zoroastrians were amazing astronomers
would love to hear their take on the Christmas star...the star of Bethleham

yes we are the stars wrapped up in flesh and when we die . we walk through them

also, was doing some research on the 5 pointed star...its original routs are paleo hebraic

not the six pointed star

Very cool. How about some more info, that's interesting.

When I was a wee tike, my poem to the stars was, "I wish for all my days to be, bound each to each by natural piety." Might have been my 40% reaching back to dna origins, or Wordsworth's. LOL

My Heart Leaps Up When I Behold by William Wordsworth

[link to www.shmoop.com (secure)]