The Lucifer Project (Cassini impacts Saturn in July 2008)

Not One of you get it........
This is a bomb.....
It will go off......
It not the goal to use the light of the new sun.... but its gravity.....

This is a last ditch effort to help push or pull Planet X " Brown Dwarf"
to a new orbit.... before 2012...

IRAC 1983 Check it out..... IR telescope in space.... very large object detected...
edge of solar system.....

ok ok about this Lucifer Project is going way outta hand....Considering the fact where you make another "star" is way outta hand. there is one thing that people do not see. This can start up:
A: A major MAJOR Black Hole considering that Jupiter will gain more gravitational pull towards the sun and causes to form up.
B: Wipe out 3/4 of the Earth poputation no matter where life is at
C: Causing this can majorly backfire on us and who are we going to blame?
D: Yeah i might be a kid but im looking on todays facts and recent study and what these people are doing to us and its not fair that we the people do not have a say in it!

If you saw rings of a planet flying towards your planet.. or towards the same vicinity of your planet.. would you not see something slightly akin to the "Giant White Bowl" that the Sumerian tablets/cylinders describe coming from the sky slowly over several weeks? and destroying Babylon?


and this impact is postponed 2 years

if anyone hasn't added that. ..

2 more years.

guess they haven't fully finished the deep underground cities.




lastly... i'd like to add that ... besides all the things being argued about here.. in this thread..
I think the MAIN cause for concern..
would be the magnetic INTERACTION between the current sun Sol and the hypothetical new Lucifer.
not to mention gravitational .
you say saturn's ignited version Lucifer's gravity wouldn't affect us..
but it would affect Jupiter.. and could it say.. over a couple years at the right newly altered vector .. bring Jupiter into itself and swallow it? thusly becoming even MORE of a force to deal with?

I know all the eggheads are gonna jump on the line and say "well specifically the inverse square of..." yaaada yaada YADDa.
you GET THE POINT RIGHT?
you el-UNDERSTAND-o THE el-CONCEPT-o? no?

capishe?

.. aaaaaaaaaLRIGHTY then.



-

-

Originally posted by prevenge
you say saturn's ignited version Lucifer's gravity wouldn't affect us..
but it would affect Jupiter.. and could it say.. over a couple years at the right newly altered vector .. bring Jupiter into itself and swallow it? thusly becoming even MORE of a force to deal with?

You seem to have a funny understanding of how gravity works. The gravitational pull of an object is determined only by its mass, ie, the amount of matter it has, and by its distance. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether it's a star or a planet, it does not matter, except that planets are traditionally lower mass objects than stars.

Assuming for a moment that you're right and that somehow cassini's plutonium does to saturn what galileo's plutonium did not do to jupiter, assuming that saturn suddenly starts fusing its hydrogen in a runaway reaction and becomes a star, it will not suddenly gain more mass (except for the roughly 5,000kg spacecraft that collided with it, less fuel and huygen's mass). In fact, it will immediately begin converting its mass to energy. The sum total of the mass contained in the Saturnian system will not increase, so its gravitational influence on ANYTHING elsewhere in the solar system will not change at all.

[edit on 19-5-2008 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by prevenge
you say saturn's ignited version Lucifer's gravity wouldn't affect us..
but it would affect Jupiter.. and could it say.. over a couple years at the right newly altered vector .. bring Jupiter into itself and swallow it? thusly becoming even MORE of a force to deal with?

You seem to have a funny understanding of how gravity works. The gravitational pull of an object is determined only by its mass, ie, the amount of matter it has, and by its distance. Nothing more, nothing less. Whether it's a star or a planet, it does not matter, except that planets are traditionally lower mass objects than stars.
[edit on 19-5-2008 by ngchunter]

eeeeeeYawnage...

www.newscientist.com...

Newton's constant, which describes the strength of the gravitational pull that bodies exert on each other, is the most poorly determined of the constants of nature. The two most accurate measurements have experimental errors of 1 part in 10,000, yet their values differ by 10 times that amount. So physicists are left with no idea of its absolute value.

Now Jean-Paul Mbelek and Marc Lachieze-Ray of the French Atomic Energy Commission near Paris say they can resolve the contradiction by taking into account the location of the labs where the experiments were carried out.

The pair suggest that electromagnetism and gravity influence one another enough for gravity's pull to be noticeably affected by the Earth's magnetic field.

//shrug///

some disagree.


-


[edit on 20-5-2008 by prevenge]

[edit on 20-5-2008 by prevenge]

Originally posted by prevenge

The two most accurate measurements have experimental errors of 1 part in 10,000, yet their values differ by 10 times that amount. So physicists are left with no idea of its absolute value.

//shrug///

some disagree.

LMAO! You're talking about a SUGGESTED unproven effect that is only increasing the uncertainty in the results to the tune of a mere 10 parts in 10,000! That's pathetically minor. Even these physicists are NOT suggesting that magnetism is more important in determing gravitational pull than mass and distance. No sane person disagrees with this. This proposed hypothesis is going out on a very thin limb; the gravitational constant in notoriously difficult to measure because the force is much weaker than other fundamental forces. Other objects in the area of the experimental apparatus affect the results, and it's MUCH more likely that the differences between experimenters are due to terrain/local building differences. Even if gravitation had the effect suggested, there is no way it could affect gravitation enough to produce the kind of affect you're talking about, the difference between predicted and observed gravitation would be a mere tenth of a percent!

This might be a little off topic but it is interesting. My friend who studies astronomy worked out the pressure it would take to turn the Earth into a black hole. You'd have to place a Hiroshima bomb in every 10 square feet and set them off at exactly the same time. They would also have to be exactly the same blast force and positioned at precise intervals or else everything would blow out in one direction. But if you got all that set up, you could have a black hole the size of a quarter where the earth used to be. Unfortunately, because the gravitational mass of the Earth is so little, I bet the tiny black hole would get sucked into the supermassive at the center of the galaxy long before it got to destroy very much of the solar system.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Unfortunately, because the gravitational mass of the Earth is so little, I bet the tiny black hole would get sucked into the supermassive at the center of the galaxy long before it got to destroy very much of the solar system.

Very interesting, but creating a black hole does not affect the total gravitational attraction of an object. The rest of the solar system would not feel any change coming from the earth's "tug," only an object closer to earth's center of gravity than the present location of its surface would feel gravity greater than 1g, and only an object that allowed itself to get within an inch or so of the center of gravity would be sucked in. Meanwhile, the new black hole would continue to orbit the sun as the earth always has. That means it excludes the possibility of sucking in anything in the solar system, except for the occasional micrometeorite.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by ngchunter]

You guys are dancing around this subject and not confronting the real "idea" of why to explode plutonium inside the atmosphere/pole of a gas giant.


Other than creating a star, why would there be a need to rid a gas giant of its hydrogen concentration?

This is the real question.

well, if it happeds, it will be tomorrow as stated by the conspiracist.( 07/07/2008). and it's right the time of G8 summit in japan(tomorrow). all prime ministers will be there. i'm wondering abou this timeline. is this just a coincident>?

The only thing this "Lucifer" idea is good for is some interesting possibilities for science fiction stories, this has no basis in reality and is almost as dumb as Michio Kaku's complaints about RTGs

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Turiddu]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
You guys are dancing around this subject and not confronting the real "idea" of why to explode plutonium inside the atmosphere/pole of a gas giant.


Other than creating a star, why would there be a need to rid a gas giant of its hydrogen concentration?

This is the real question.

You have yet to establish that "exploding plutonium" of the type found in Cassini will rid a gas giant of its hydrogen concentration. In fact, Galileo had the exact same type of plutonium powering its RTGs and guess what happened when they crashed it into Jupiter? Absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by iori_komeiDouble growing time of crops, produce more solar energy.

You do realise that most plants are specialised to work under the amount of sunlight there is in their area? Try moving a northern plant to the equator, it'll die pretty quickly.

Hmmmm, I will be an open minded skeptic here and wait and see what happens. If the govt did want to try something silly like making a new star, wow never thought I would say that, then I would assume they would have astrophysicists up the wazoo telling them exactly how to do it and what they could use, on hand ie: thermo nukes, in order to do something crazy like blowing up a planet. Seems to me anyways, thats what I would do, not just say "Hey fellas, why dont we load a nuke on this here rocketship and turn Saturn into a star!" Nasa: "Okey dokey, that sounds Great!"

Nah, seems that there would be some kind of serious thinking, planning, and good math involved. It is now July 15th and I havent seen or heard anything so I would say it's a bust.

From what I've been reading here, it would take a whole helluva lot more than some lil baby nuke on a space probe to do anything to a gas planet. Someone earlier noted that Shoemaker/Levy had gigatons of punch when it hit Jupiter and it didnt ignite the planet...so I would say anything bomb wise we could throw at Saturn would be diddly squat...Poof...bye-bye probe.

Hell, I would totally buy merchandise if NASA said "We're gonna blow up
Saturn into a star!" Heck yeah I would be shellin out the dough for Tshirts,ball caps bumper stickers, one of those lil bobble head dolls. I could see the Tshirt logo now "Blew up a planet, and all I got was this lousy Tshirt."

I would like to say we could do it but I am 98% sure we cant at our level of tech.

reply to post by 2ndSEED


You have smoked yourself retarded.

conspiracyvid.abovetopsecret.com...

Did that say 07/07/2008 ???

Did it say 28 days later ???

well ???

de-bunk or ...


Hi I'm new but gullible ... oh and I eat balance 4 times a day. (not a food group)

...peace (

reply to post by Kriskaos


You're implying that Saturn would somehow get more gravity because it's now received a "field promotion" to star status. That's not how it works at all.

If a proto-star has sufficient gravity it will keep (slowly) getting more mass by the in-falling objects. Even if you throw in a huge chunk of plutonium in a spacecraft and detonated it, you're only going to add a miniscule amount of mass to Saturn. It would be like thumping a matchstick into a tub of gasoline the size of Texas in comparison. The gasoline can be ignited or not but the point here is that the weight of the matchstick doesn't significantly change the weight of the gasoline + matchstick. And lighting the whole system doesn't significantly change the weight of the system either.

Gravity is based on mass not temperature. Size is based on temperature, however. Saturn would become larger than it currently is.

----------------

Not to add fuel to this fire (humor intended) but perhaps the intent would be to terraform Earth into a hotter planet, suitable for habitation by an alien race that is more comfy when the thermometer is pegging at around 140 degrees.

Maybe those lizard aliens on Fox News are behind this. I never did trust them.

The distance of jupiter and saturn is actually farther than the distance of the earth to the sun and with that small of a star and no actual change in it's garavitational pull "lucifer" would not affect the earth at all.

It would however heat up moons such as Titan and Europa allowing them to support life.

however a small probe could not cause a star to be created yuo would need at least two thermonuclear bombs to detonate at least 80 miles down in the atmos of jupiter beneath the poles to cause such an event to occur

reply to post by 2ndSEED


This is amazing because of what William Milton Cooper wrote in his book, "Behold a Pale Horse". Jason Group, Bilderberg Group, Illuminati, Masons, the Black Nobility... It runs as deep as Hell.

There is so much to this and they slap us in the face by revealing their plan as it happens, using books, movies, media, tv... The plan is thousands of years old. Tell your friends not to accept the National ID Card or the Verichip. It is going to be another Nazi Germany, or a Fourth Reich, but on a world wide level.

Time is running out. If they do succeed in creating a new star or black hole using anti-matter, then all but the elite who have a base, under an enormous rock formation, about 100 miles from Washington D.C. will rise up after the radiation showers and form work brigades of civilians world wide for their conquests.

Executive Order #10999 allows the government to take over all modes of public transportation.

Executive Order #11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

Executive Order #11921 Provides that the President can declare a state of emergency the action for six months.