"The 2015 return is important as the Rosetta spacecraft is orbiting the comet, however it is not a particularly good one as the comet is an early morning object.  If it behaves as at previous apparitions it will be brightest some 40 days after perihelion, when it might reach 9th magnitude.  The comet was observed by Juan Jose Gonzalez on August 19 from a high mountain site, when he estimated it at 12.2 in his 20cm Schmidt-Cassegrain.  This is fainter than expected, which may have implications for the in situ science.
The visual and electronic observations received so far (68) give an uncorrected preliminary light curve for the 2015 apparition of 10.0 + 5 log d + 7.7 log r, though a linear curve peaking 40 days after perihelion fits the data better."
https://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~jds/per0010.htm#67P


It came to perihelion on 13 August 2015.^[10][11] From December 2014 until September 2015, it has an elongation less than 45 degrees from the Sun.^[30] On 10 February 2015, it went through solar conjunction when it was 5 degrees from the Sun and was 3.3 AU (490,000,000 km) from Earth.^[30] I

If your a scientist you want to see the data and how they arrived at those conclusions. They are using tax payer dollars to do what they are doing. There is a double reason to hand over the data and the methods...

It already has been shown that the models are broken, there has never been an accurate climate change prediction, and yes, NOAA has filled in data where it is missing. Their methods can be shown to make the over all trend greater in amplitude without know exactly what they did. Show us what you did if you are so confident in your results.

Dont be a fkn sissy when it comes to defending your thesis...

Maybe Congress is a little harsh but this all could have been avoided if they had just produced their data and methods...

and they would have done so for debate if they are doing good science instead of political science....

The earth is an open system... Mans CO2 energy contribution(.0012%) is in the noise of the rest of the energy flows of the system....

They still have not addressed in any papers that I have read that “Cold comes from space above the poles down the magnetospgheric footprint to the polar vortex”.

The oceans are heated by geologic heat and that all the sun does is heat the surface.

You are implying that I am not using logic?? And I have provided sources from scientists much greater than I.

E=mc2 obviously is broken...

And kinetic energy/motion/momentum is part of everything whereas charge is not(neutrino?)... Pure logic...

Wave synthesis particle construction. Not my idea but it has won out over all of the ideas that I have read about. Logic.

All particle interactions are "field interactions" no matter what you want to name them. Logic.

Mass cant go faster than light. So remove the mass or inertia leaving behind the matter. 

But EU says it cant be done. I am trying to provide a method to fit observations. Logic? 

</tinfoil hat>If even one of the UFO videos out of the thousands is real(the military and FAA ones) and objects actually move like that, then we got some splainin to do Lucy, they have no inertia!</tinfoil hat>

Its a shame that EU does not see that charge and kinetic energy are what make up electricity. 

It is the basis for electricity, not my idea but James Clerk Maxwell's. Maxwell's charge momentum field.. 

And there is a "mechanical" component to electricity if by that you mean motion...

I've just taken it a step further and tried to show how kinetic energy/motion/momentum is primary based on ancient knowledge taking a clue from EU mythology studies....

You guys accuse me of using modern physics when I am showing you clearly that is not the case...

Electricity is not this mysterious thing. Its can be fleshed out using common physical principals(waves, particles and momentum/(electric) "fields").... As well as observations of non accepted physical experiments...

I have watched all the EU videos and I have watched very carefully.... I respect his ideas a lot and have provided a lot of papers to back up EU over the years. I am not badgering him. 

That why I feel I can have a pointed discussion with people on their ideas.... I guess thats not the case, at least in public.

Sorry,

Brant

The thruster does what? It moves.
How does it move? By microwaves imparting momentum to the thrusters internal walls…
The microwaves in this experiment carry the greatest amount of momentum to the walls of the chamber when the frequency of the microwaves are at the chamber resonance...… That is their purpose…

Wal says "dipole electric force".

What is that made of?? How is that transmitted...
If it uses massive matter to transmit energy - do work...it still goes slower than light. Inertialess matter can go faster than light...

Theres a difference between saying I agree with E= Mc^2, and saying that the experimental evidence indicates that we wont be able to put enough energy into this particle to accelerate it past the speed of light.
I dont agree with the equation E=Mc^2. Why? Because historically the kinetic energy component got thrown away…
I am pretty old school when it comes to science and drawing conclusions from observations.
The tossing of the kinetic energy component of E = Mc^2 in 1909?
The Origin of the Equation E = mc2
“As for the origin of the formula, it wasn’t until five years before his death (1955) that Einstein publicly attributed the basis of E = mc2 to the 1862 charge-momentum field equations of James Clerk Maxwell[2] “
<snip>
“A curious twist in this saga occurs in 1881 with J. J. Thomson in his work with charged spherical conductors in motion, since he derived a slightly higher coefficient, E = 4/3mc2 [8] The same E = 4/3mc2 was found by F. Hasenöhrl in 1904 when he published the first explicit statement that the heat energy of a body increases its “mechanical” mass[9] The 1905 Nobel Prize winner, Philipp Lenard, a staunch opponent of Einstein, was one of the first to reveal this fact in his 1921 book Ether and Para-ether.[10] “
<snip>
Max Von Laue demonstrated that to obtain the final formula E = mc2 “one type of energy…the new physics must eliminate from its list…is kinetic energy.”[13] The reason is that if mass is based on energy, as E = mc2 shows, then there cannot be a kinetic energy, K = ½mv2, which, in turn, depends on the mass.
In other words, to obtain E = mc2 one must abandon the most obvious and primary form of energy, kinetic energy.[14]
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/23/the-origin-of-the-equation-e-mc2/

At the end of the day its all motion. The “subtrons” inside the particle are made of planck length waves which make up the particle itself… I’m pretty sure neutrinos are bigger than subtrons…And they move based on the movement of the gross particle, from beta decay, pp fusion etc., the atom.
I believe that makes them an unlikely candidate for an aether.. Motion comes from the aether. There is no way to interact with neutrinos but there is a way to interact with an aether lattice that makes up everything…

Particles (inside an electron, proton) are not heavier, they just have a greater binding energy, right?
Particles; their properties are a function of the state of the aether that makes them up.
If you change the aether in such away that now the particle express that change as reduced mass, then is it a property of the particle or the aether?
Motion is a property of the aether because particles get everything they are from the aether… Particles dont carry their accelerated energy when they are at rest, motion comes from outside the particle, the accelerated energy comes from outside the particle.
There is no solid shell. Particles have a radius beyond which you can't penetrate because the (electric) force is so strong.  Particles interact by fields, electric and magnetic. Photons emanate from electrons but are packets of kinetic energy. They do not rest outside an electron. Rest mass is a mathematical tool when photons are concerned....
Motion is imparted to mass. Mass gains energy when it is in motion from its rest state. To get charge separation you need to add momentum/kinetic energy to a system of charges.
Mass is built from wave resonances in the aether. There are no lossless processes. There is only energy flow, energy transfer, work done whatever the carrier.
Its not magic.
If mass is made of waves in the aether then mass is made out of energy(motion) . Not only that, Tesla thought the same thing. That motion is primary.
Motion is life.
The East Indians did as well.

EU never talks about the kinetic energy component of electricity. Like I said before, what happens when you remove all motion from electricity or the universe? You just have charges. You cannot do any work.
Experiments indicate that you cant accelerate a particle past light speed.
Nobody has been able to do it at this point. Based on that information I would have to say that massive objects cant go FTL..
If I was to do a hierarchy I would say Aether, Matter, mass, inertia.
You would have to discover some new principle right now to make faster than light possible, like suppressing inertia or energy loss…

Podkletnov made a beam that is best explained by propagating kinetic energy....

Brant


"Returning to the more ‘comfortable’ arena of physical matter, Kozyrev’s work showed that torsion fields can be absorbed, shielded or sometimes reflected. For example, sugar can absorb, polyethylene film and aluminum can shield, and other forms of aluminum or mirrors can reflect.

Kozyrev found that in the presence of this energy flow, objects that are rigid and inelastic will show weight changes, whereas flexible, elastic objects will show changes in their elasticity and / or viscosity.

Kozyrev also showed that the weight of a spinning top will change if it is vibrated, heated or cooled or if it has an electric current passed through it. As we can see, all of the above behaviors fit in quite nicely with our analogy of the “sponge” of matter absorbing or releasing small amounts of energetic “water”.

Hidden momentum, field momentum, and electromagnetic impulse.
http://gr.physics.ncsu.edu/files/babson_ajp_77_826_09.pdf

When I was working at Burst Labs one of the projects involved ultrasonics and changing the viscosity of fluids because its cheaper to ship low viscosity fluids by “pipeline” hint, hint.
We had barrels of the stuff...
I saw a number of interesting things that I cant find a standard explanation for, that fit with some of the things mentioned in the above paragraphs...

What is the direct electric force and how does the “direct electric force” do work. Thats what a force does, is transfer energy from one place to another. The electric force acts “instantly” across distance and does work(transfers energy). In a recent EU article “A recent press release ignores the primary electrical aspect of the Sun, preferring to focus on kinetic effects in an attempt to explain the solar wind anomalies:” I am not backing them up but kinetic energy is a big part of this... So I say this… What would happen if you took all the motion(kinetic energy) away from the universe?? You would have a sea of charged particles probably pretty equally spaced.... You only have what we call electricity when you add motion(kinetic energy). Otherwise its just charged particles. The energy travels in the “electric” field that surrounds the particle, and the wire if thats the case. The motion is in the field with a little bit causing the electrons to drift... This goes back to my elucidation of the energy path from a hydroelectric dam. The water falls and turns the turbine attached to the generator. The generator rotors magnetic field transfers kinetic energy from the falling water across the gap to the stator to electrons and causes kinetic energy to move down the field as what we call electricity. Its really just a microscopic way of transferring kinetic energy. Then at the other end the electricity(transferred kinetic energy) is turned into heat which is kinetic energy as well… People get caught up in the conversions and conservation when its all kinetic energy, motion, momentum, acceleration, force that does the work. You can use the same units for everything... Looking at a hydrogen atom, if perform a charge separation on the atom, you have the electric force acting on the proton and the electron with the corresponding “electric field” in between. If you want to maintain that field last for longer than the recombination time, you need to add an opposing force to the test particles(electron, proton). This opposing force could be thought of as the opposite of the kinetic energy generated by letting the test particles recombine… So what is the field or the structure in between the test particles that allows the properties that we observe to manifest?... Thinking about Subtrons. If you have Planck length waves you can perform additive synthesis... Technically a particle is composed of a wave resonance in a sea of particles….. It is the waves from extending out from the particle that we think of as the field and carry the energy shape the we think of as a particle.… But it is the aether particles that actually make up the particle….The aether is stationary as the wave forms move through the particle sea… The wave form is composed of kinetic energy which interacts with another particle. So technically the particles are made up of fields(wave forms carrying energy). If you look at wave in an additive manner then you could make a particle by resonance. Inside the particle you would a series of smaller waves that make up the larger wave resonance of the particle. These smaller resonances inside the particle would be moving. This wave structure would extend out from the particle effectively forming the field… The charge would be the modulated resonance(the field) structure(particles, subtrons) of the aether. After looking at many models of an aether I settled on a model that uses massless chargeless fine particles. Without motion the fine particles would be packed and wouldnt allow wave motion; i.e. provide a restoring force. It would effectively be rigid. To solve that problem, I assumed that every massless aether particle in the universe has a small random 360 degree oscillation, providing a restoring force and the properties required to carry a wave, being able to move a very tiny bit in any spherical direction… Now we have a medium capable of carrying a faster than light wave motion without requiring the exponential increase in energy observed with the acceleration of mass. The explanation I have put forth doesn't explain where the aether came from, but the aether at this level explains everything we observe in this universe plus things we dont believe in. It has room for growth as we discover new things. Tom VFlandfren posits that gravity has no inertia. Does Gravity Have Inertia? Inertia: the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest and the tendency of a body in motion to remain in motion. Tom Van Flandern / Meta Research <tomvf@metaresearch.org> Abstract. » Gravity makes heavy and light bodies fall at the same rate. Gravity obeys the “equivalence principle”, and is just "curved space-time geometry" in geometric general relativity. But space-time curvature alone cannot initiate motion, and changes in momentum still require a force acting. Moreover, gravity can deviate slightly from the “equivalence principle”, and “space-time” is really just proper time and does not involve any curvature of space. The Le Sage “pushing gravity” concept is a better way to explain the physics of gravity. For forces other than gravity, the momentum transferred must be shared by all particles in the target body, producing what we call “inertia” -- a simple dilution of momentum. Gravity obeys the “transparency principle”, allowing momentum to be transferred directly to each particle. Without need for dilution of momentum, gravity has no inertia. « http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/Does%20Gravity%20Have%20Inertia.asp

I had the same problem David and my solution was to analyze as much of the universe as possible at once and look for commonalities...   Motion seems to be the most basic "thing" in the universe. Everything has some of it... The following was not developed in a vacuum. I read a lot of other great peoples work...

So what makes motion? Kinetic energy is the energy of motion. Which lead to the idea that kinetic energy has no mass in order to support the FTL phenomena like entanglement and tunneling, then it was more like an aether and it seemed to work as an effect source for fields, which are massless anyway if you really look at them. You cant have mass in part of your universe model if you want FTL effects.

You need to be able to transfer energy as in gravity, electric fields, nuclear bonds, phase information between waves. The list goes on of phenomena that could be considered massless if you know what to look for..

It makes up 1/2 of mass @ .87 light speed... If you remove the velocity component you are left with the original mass with no change...

When gravitational acceleration of an object stops, gravity doesnt stop.

Kinetic energy or the energy of motion seems to fit all of this and more. STRUCTURED kinetic energy(massless and FTL information transfer) can explain telepathy, Morphogenic fields, even consciousness, which exists in the structured kinetic field surrounding the body, and the brain is actually just an controllable interface through modulation of phase differences between London Paired electrons in proteins.

  

Kinetic energy is what is transferred in current flow in the flow of electricity because its what causes electrons to move. It also works for the accumulation of forces similar to Ralph Sansburys ideas.. 

Photons are kinetic energy packets... They have mass when they move but no rest mass....

Miles Mathis is close but didnt ever suggest what photons actually are...

I use these words loosely. Everything is just different "vector" of the same energy.

I think the kinetic aether is the lowest level. The turtles stop there....

I think that there is a kinetic "dimension" or part of the universe where "structured kinetic" life exists... 

I have yet to find something that you add to the list of phenomena that it explains(code base) and not break the rest of the system... Its almost like coding.....

Brant

http://www.umsl.edu/~fraundorfp/p001htw/KEvsMomentum.html 

This plot of kinetic energy versus momentum has a place for most moving objects that folks encounter in everyday life. It shows objects with the same kinetic energy (horizontally related) that carry different amounts of momentum, as well as how the speed of a low-mass object compares (by vertical extrapolation) to the speed after perfectly inelastic collision with a larger object at rest. Highly sloped lines (rise/run = 2) mark contours of constant mass, while lines of unit slope mark contours of constant speed. Parallel contours are separated by intervals of three orders of magnitude, so objects from small (radio frequency photons) to large (the observable universe) are included. The top and right axes are labeled in practical units, while the bottom and left axes show SI unit values of the quantities being graphed. The plot further illustrates where lightspeed, Planck's constant, and kT figure in.
Use this graph to quickly estimate the kinetic energy needed to accelerate an object to a given velocity (like a person to earth escape velocity), as well as the kinetic energy transferred in a momentum exchange between two objects of differing mass (like when you hit the planet after falling off the roof). It's also easy to see, for example, that laser weapons with many times the kinetic energy of a speeding automobile have much less recoil e.g. than that of a rifle.
The centered diagonal-line running from lower left to upper right is a "curtain of finite lightspeed c" that Newton had no reason to expect. When the curtain is in place redirecting lines of constant mass asymptotically onto v=c, only the lower right half of the plot is accessible. For most of that accessible area Newton's approximations work pretty darn well. Although coordinate velocity v=dx/dt is a dead-end variable near its upper limit, proper velocity w=dx/dτ andmomentum p=mw as well as relativistic energy γmc² remain useful on both sides of w=c. The resulting slope-change in energy versus momentum is in practice verified every time someone examines electron-wavelength as a function of energy, e.g. using the transmission electron microscope at your neighborhood hospital. Note that the location of thatelectron elbow is determined by the metric conversion factor c between meters and seconds, which also limits the rate at which photons can move.
Planck's constant h determines the deBroglie wavelength (useful for objects of low momentum), and kT yields thethermal energy: per nat of state uncertainty as well as per pair of quadratic modes for distributing heat. Thermal kinetic energy of translational motion in 3D is therefore about (3/2)kT per particle. Note that the relationship between the energy and momentum (also frequency and wavenumber) of an object is called its dispersion relation. Such relations can be plotted for non-vacuum media on this graph, thus illustrating for example the concepts of medium-conferred effective mass and frequency-dependent refractive index. For ring rotators of given density one can also superpose in the lower left corner of this plot the freeze-out zone due to angular momentum quantization, which requires that the rotator's deBroglie wavelength span the ring's circumference an integral number of times.
What are some other things that might be fun to plot on such a graph? A partial list begins here...

• A moving snail.
• Myosin molecule moving along an actin muscle fibril.
• 300 keV microscope electron.
• 1/refractive index dispersion profile for light in glass.
• A line for the mass of the observable universe.
• Recoil energy of the earth when you fall off the roof (down near kT).

What else?