| |
|
Article: <5ennof$77r@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: Hale-Bopp THEN and NOW
Date: 22 Feb 1997 21:17:03 GMT
This debate has been cross-posted to sci.astro.amateur, sci.astro.planetarium, sci.space.news, and alt.paranormal as CNN did not choose to list sci.astro among the Usenet sites where information on Hale-Bopp could be located. Check
for the sci.astro debate thread history.
In article <5elc16$11fc@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim
Scotti writes:
>> However, the pattern IN ALL CASES is that the closer the
>> comet gets to the Sun, the more fragmentation occurs.
What
>> has been touted for Hale-Bopp is the extreme opposite of
that
>> scenario! Fragmentation out where the Sun does NOT warm
>> comets, with all this activity settling down to the
point of
>>disappearing as the so-called comet passes the Sun,
TWICE!
>> (End ZetaTalk[TM])
>
> Although there may be a tendency of seeing comets break up
> and be very active close to the sun, fragmentation and
breakup
> have been seen in comets much further out. For example the
> pair of comets Levy (1987 XXX) and Shoemake-Holt (1988 III)
> were found to be long period comets (with orbital periods
> around 12,500 years) which had broken up and separately
> approached perihelion about 75 days apart.
> jscotti@LPL.Arizona.EDU (Jim Scotti)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Please qualify statements that refer to long period returning
comets as being speculative. By your own admission, the
calculation of these return cycles is speculation laid upon
speculation, without ANY basis in fact other than the track the
comet displays as it moves through the Solar System. You have NO
evidence that these comet visited EVER in the past, to say
nothing of establishing the date!
Beyond that, you are avoiding the crux of our argument, which was that outgassing and fragmentation increase and continue apace, but in the case of your fraud, Hale-Bopp, it supposedly STOPPED outgassing and STOPPED fragmenting as it snugged up to the Sun! This behavior is illogical and in fact unknown. Please don't return with actually situations where episodes of outgassing or fragmenting took a breather of days, and then restarted. Hale-Bopp was supposedly shooting a monster cloud of debris into space, chunks of it in the midst of the cloud, yet stopped that activity after 1995 now all is quiet.
In fact, its behavior in 1995 was what one would expect from a
nova, and the lack of anything that looks to be anything but a
star in the mostly unmapped sky since then.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])
In article <5elc16$11fc@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim
Scotti writes:
> And as for your statement about HB demonstrating the
> complete opposite, you are simply wrong again. HB has
> shown steady increase in its activity.
> jscotti@LPL.Arizona.EDU (Jim Scotti)
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Anyone looking at the images taken of the nova you were pointing
to in 1995, and at the doctored pictures of star posted on the
web by NASA today, would take exception with this statement of
yours, Jim. How can you say that with a straight face? Are you
laughing at the readership or pulling their leg or taking them to
be fools? In any case, you're not treating them with respect.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])