It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Two Flashes, And A Bigger Bang Than 'Expected'...

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
I am still working on the numbers to make sure e=mv2 on this impact event- until I have enough data to rule out an antimatter-spiked impactor, for me it is an open question.


Are you for real? Okay, presuming we used antimatter, how would you calculate this? you cant because you have no idea how much would have to be used. Unless you understand physics like a Stephen Hawking, I dont see how you could see this as an open question.

You are the only one trying to tie antimatter in with all this. I want to see some numbers too! I want to see your data. I think your on to something, and it might win you a nobel prize.




posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I believe I will qoute a bit for you before you start doing calculations you might want to consider this?



During the late 1800's, researchers noted the similarities between comet behavior and electrical phenomena in mainstream magazines such as Nature, Scientific American and English Mechanic and World of Science. But in the early 1900's, astronomers backed away from those ideas because they imply electric currents between the comet and the sun, something 20th century astronomers were not willing to consider. They instead developed the "dirty snowball" theory of comets, which says that comet displays can be explained by ice and volatiles (compounds with low melting points) evaporating under the heat of the Sun.



Electricity, not heat, is at work on the surface of Wild 2. If this is true, then a second problem is solved. We don't have to wait for the rare impact to form the cratered landscape. The craters we see are being carved by electric arcs. These arcs also cause the (surprising) dark color of every comet we've seen up close. They produce the (surprising) x- rays that the ROSAT x-ray observatory discovered. And they create the (surprising) streams of rocky particles that pummeled the spacecraft, Stardust.



It is no longer important that comets be composed of mostly ice and volatiles. Electric arcs are strong enough to strip away rock. We use similar processes in industry here on Earth, both to remove material and to deposit it.


www.thunderbolts.info...

So you can calculate a lot of ice in but there is no need for it. Just a plain rocky comet will do all your tricks and by being immersed in a plasma filled heliosphere. Where does that plasma originate? Remember solar wind and CME's ? Or as the authers at that site put it:




Plasma is any substance that contains charged particles: negatively charged electrons, positively charged ions, or dust particles that have an excess of either electrons or ions. Fluorescent and neon lights are plasma. Lightning is plasma. Earth’s magnetosphere, the solar wind, and the sun itself are plasma. The glowing nebulas in space, often called gas clouds by mistake, are plasma. So are the dark clouds, composed mostly of molecules of hydrogen, but revealing themselves to be plasma by their magnetic fields and radio emissions. Back on Earth, the familiar world dissolves in the realization that power lines are plasma; molten rock is plasma; even raindrops may be plasma.

www.thunderbolts.info...


Now what might be important to your snowball theorie is this:



One of the observations leading to the dirty snowball theory of comets was that most of the periodic comets begin to grow tails at about the same distance from the Sun: between Jupiter and Mars. The determining factor was thought to be the distance at which the comet became hot enough for water and other volatile substances to evaporate into space, creating the coma, or "head," and tail of the comet. But not every comet obeys even this tenuous "dirty snowball" criterion. Hale-Bopp in particular broke many of the rules. In the photo seen here, it is still too far from the sun for a "snowball" to melt, but it already displays seven jets. Four years after Hale-Bopp left the inner solar system, it was still active. It displayed a coma, a fan-shaped dust tail, and an ion tail -- even though it was farther from the Sun than Jupiter, Saturn or even Uranus. The comet's tail was shrinking, but it was still about five times longer than the distance between the Earth and the Moon. At this distance, the Sun's heat will not melt ice. If it could, the icy moons of Saturn and Jupiter would be as dry as our own scorched Moon. From an Electric Universe point of view, a comet's tail arises from the INTERACTION between the electric charge of the comet and the solar discharge plasma. The comet spends most of its time far from the Sun, where the plasma charge density is low. The comet moves slowly and its charge easily comes into balance with that region. On the other hand, as the comet approaches the Sun, the nucleus moves at a furious speed through regions of increasing charge density and varying electrical characteristics. The comet's surface charge and internal polarization, developed in deep space, responds to the new environment by forming cathode jets and a visible plasma sheath, or coma. The jets flare up and move over the nucleus irregularly, and the comet may shed and grow anew several tails. Or the comet may explode like an overstressed capacitor, breaking into separate fragments or simply giving up the ghost and disappearing. The dirty snowball model was never tenable and has been discredited. This has profound implications for theories of the origin of the solar system.

www.thunderbolts.info...

I would like to commend to you to read some from this site because then we will maybe discuss this on another level.

And then maybe yes, for all you conspiritors there might be a conspiracy.
Because what they are telling us ( www.thunderbolts.info... )
is that electricity might be a more important force than is now being acknowledged by mainstream astronomy. Where they are still hanging on to neutral gasclouds, neutral empty space and gravity driven stars.



In the Electric Universe vision, these electrical behaviors explain straightforwardly the many phenomena that have appeared curious and enigmatic to space-age explorers: radio and x-ray emissions from planets and comets , polar jets of braided plasma filaments and hourglass-shaped nebulosities of stars (such as the Herbig-Haro objects imaged above), beams of energetic particles along the spin axes of galaxies, and everywhere glowing filaments and magnetic fields. The existence of plasma circuits underlies the contradiction between the isolated bodies of the gravity universe and the connected components of the Electric Universe.


So why does mainstream astronomy bet all their money on the wrong horse?
Why not bet on two?

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Stefan]

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Stefan]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
You might also want to try

www.holoscience.com...

and

www.electric-cosmos.org...

and

www.electric-universe.info...

Promis from my side is that the information will at least make you think!



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stefan

Promis from my side is that the information will at least make you think!


Thanks for the links with some VALID ideas. By the way, have you run across any values to calculate explosive potential of antimatter? I cant find anything.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
So the comet origin theory may need to be re-written...... again. Whats the big deal. It's not like its the first time. Why would NASA cover up "new" science. Thats what they get the big bucks for.
There is gigabytes of data still being evaluated from Deep Impact. NASA will check it and then check it again before releasing a press statement.
Actually it is the University of Maryland thats running the science. Get onto them if you want answers. NASA just got it there for them. And where did this conspiracy thing come from? Really people.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   
The conspiracy thing came from someone insisting the usage of antimatter weapons.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Why would one like to use antimatter? Ever heard of Occam's Razor?
Why think difficult when things are simple?
X-ray radiation/radio-waves/other 'anomalous' radiation from comets is readily explainable with plasma-physics. So why anti-matter? Because in your dirty-snowball theory these types of radiation should not occur and one has to invent all those silly things like snow and ice because one detects a water signature in the comet coma and your incomprehensible anti-matter because there is more energetic radiation then you can account of or maybe a thick layer of dust on top of the comet surface because there is the detection of a double flash.




Most of the voltage difference between the comet and the solar plasma is taken up in a double layer of charge, called a plasma sheath, that surrounds the comet. When the electrical stress is great enough, the sheath glows and appears as the typical comet coma and tail. Diffuse electrical discharges occur in the sheath and at the nucleus, radiating a variety of frequencies, including x-rays. The highest voltage differences occur at the comet nucleus and across the plasma sheath. So where the sheath is most compressed, in the sunward direction, the electric field is strong enough to accelerate charged particles to x-ray energies. That explains the crescent-shaped x-ray image in relation to the comet nucleus and the Sun. Flickering and occasional flare-ups are expected because plasma discharges behave in a non-linear manner.


www.thunderbolts.info...




We will be following with great interest the published spectra, light and X-ray curves and spectroscopic analysis of the ejecta from the impact. No one knows yet whether NASA will find the subsurface water that is required for the dirty snowball theory. Of course water in the coma is expected in the electric model due to negative oxygen from the nucleus exchanging charge with positive ions from the Sun. Most electrical theorists doubt the existence of extensive subsurface water. The bone-dry surface of Borrelly was a pretty good clue as to what may be most likely


The Block>>> Of course you have point. But maybe what I mean is not a malicious conspiracy but an aquired one for it is possible for what once was a theory/hypotheses to become a dogma in time. And when one's career and funding is dependent on that dogma will you not defend that dogma even when it's no longer tenable.
And therefore there's no need for re-writing comet-theories. There is only the need to widen your field of vision and be open-minded about other possibilities. The darnest thing about this electric point of view is that it ask of you to work with a new paradigm. And that is always hard.

But tell me is science better when it produces results which are testable in a lab or when it's producing results which are non-sensible?



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
From a member of the Science Team recording data with Keck 1 -- Anita Cochran, Assistant Director of the McDonald Observatory and Senior Research Scientist, University of Texas:



"But as far as the Keck spectra are concerned, we still haven't identified what feature it is we were seeing. We did see it go away the next night. So, we are seeing a very short-lived 'something' that came about because of the impact. But I can't give you any more definitive answer of what it is, because WE haven't figured it out yet ..."


A short-lived radionuclide signature.

And STILL no JPL spectra.



Take a good look at that picture. What you are seeing is the exhaust plume from an antimatter pulse unit.

[edit on 14-7-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
an antimatter pulse unit


Give an example of another antimatter pulse unit, please?
Why would there be antimatter involved?
why why why why?



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Why antimatter Stefan? Simple launch economy and radiological cleanliness. Conventional nukes would dirty up cometary debris on an impact trajectory for Earth, and they lack sufficient 'punch' to deal with very large, very fast impactors detected very late. In addition, they are quite unsafe in the event of launch failure; an antimatter impactor would be quite safe on abort. Antimatter is the newest pulse unit technology, and if safed inside a conductive 'bus' such as this copper slug, it can be launched by electromagnetic rail guns instead of chemical boosters. By using a stream of small antimatter-enhanced impactors, a comet could be 'steered' into a harmless orbit, or even be directed into the Sun for permanent disposal. A crystalline penning trap could have been incorporated into the impactor without even the mission scientists knowledge. The beauty of the system is, pulse units are not weapons and so do not violate the treaties; the impactor digs its own directional 'thrust chamber' so no human or robotic drilling is needed; no unreliable detonation circuitry is needed either as hypervelocity kinetic impact alone will rupture the antimatter containment. Little flash, pause, bright jet. Short-term radionuclide decay. Directional delta-vee. Small pulse units ensure the comet will not be broken up into multiple impactors (like Shoemaker-Levy).

Its a beautiful system.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Here's a pic of Tempel1 taken shortly before the impact. The centre of the image is where it will hit.


And another from just after the probes impact.


From here. antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

There is also an animated movie made up of photos taken on the approach here....... photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

[edit on 15-7-2005 by Irma]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I would like to contribute a few thoughts, if I may:

Chakotay: First, your comment that implyed you're an above average intellect simply because you have a doctorate is somewhat insulting. I have no college degree, and frankly, your technical speak has not yet been over my head. Most of the giant leaps forward in theoretical mathematics and physics have come from those outside of the formal education circuit (think Einstein, Lynd, Etc.) So please try to cut back on the condescending commentary.


Now there are several assumptions that I think are faulty. Could the the comet house life? Most certainly it could, especially with all the discoveries of life we've found on the bottom of our own oceans, and the ability for life to thrive without sunlight. They have defied most of our understanding of what life is, and how life can survive. However, I do find the idea of the comet being an alien spaceship in disguise a bit dubius. What evidence is there to suppor this theory? I tend to work under assumptions that unless there is some sort of evidence to suggest a theory, I don't simply grab them out of thin air.

As far as top secret NASA anti-matter weaponry, whcih has some how stayed out of the international communities eye while the U.S> has secretly developed these weapons, which as you describe are more powerful than conventional nuclear weapnry, well, the idea seems a bit ludicrus, and historically ignorant, and allow me to explain why with an example.

When the U.S. was developing Nuclear Weaponry during the cold war era, the scientists working on this project saw the potential for abuse that the U.S. alone becoming the only nuclear power, which is why at least five scientists, not working in tandem, but seperately, approached the U.S.S.R. and leaked our nuclear secrets to them (the most infamous being the Rosenburgs). One scientist even basically walked into a Soviet Embassy and said "Hey, want me to spy for you?". Their idea was that two countries threatening eachother with Nuclear annihalation would serve as a kind of deterent from their use. And whether you agree with the ethics of their decision or not, the historical facts are there. So what would make the development of Anti-Matter weaponry, as you claim, different? Do you really believe that the sceintists developing this technology, are so unethical and easily purchased, that they would make no mention of this in the media, or that other major powers in the world, China, Russia, England, France, Germany, etc. would make a big deal out of the fact that we are trying to develop weaponry more powerful than our sizeable nuclear arsonal?

While I do believe that the two flashes are interesting, and bear further scrutiny and analasys, the idea that some sort of new massive weaponry was used, or that there are a bunch of space aliens hiding out inside the comet seem a little silly, and completely unfounded in any sort of science, pseudo or otherwise.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garden Spider
Chakotay: First, your comment that implyed you're an above average intellect simply because you have a doctorate is somewhat insulting... So please try to cut back on the condescending commentary.


Gee, spidy I'm glad you found it insulting. It was in response to an insulting comment. Cut back? No way. If you don't like heat, stay out of the frying pan. And go back to school- its free if you look hard enough.


As far as top secret NASA anti-matter weaponry...


Who said NASA weaponry? Pulse units are not weaponry, and any antimatter device would have been built and deployed by Another Agency- possibly without NASA's knowledge.


When the U.S. was developing Nuclear Weaponry during the cold war era, the scientists working on this project saw the potential for abuse that the U.S. alone becoming the only nuclear power, which is why at least five scientists, not working in tandem, but seperately, approached the U.S.S.R. and leaked our nuclear secrets to them (the most infamous being the Rosenburgs).


As you said, during the Cold War. Many of those scientists were expat socialists or communists. The Rosenbergs were executed (a major deterrent to a repeat show). America is different today, and scientists working in special compartmentalized projects do not talk. If they do, they have speedy accidents. And most don't want to talk: patriotism is 'in', in today's America.


Do you really believe that the sceintists developing this technology, are so unethical and easily purchased, that they would make no mention of this in the media, or that other major powers in the world, China, Russia, England, France, Germany, etc. would make a big deal out of the fact that we are trying to develop weaponry more powerful than our sizeable nuclear arsonal?


Read the link above regarding the Air Force antimatter weapons project. I believe that they are so ethical and easily purchased that they are saying absolutely nothing under the current gag order. The other powers have their own projects- with the exception of Germany, unless you count its participation in CERN.


While I do believe that the two flashes are interesting, and bear further scrutiny and analasys...


Thank you.


...the idea that some sort of new massive weaponry was used...


One was, for sure: a hypervelocity deep space kinetic impactor. Never been done before, and man, one could ruin Osama's whole day...


or that there are a bunch of space aliens hiding out inside the comet seem a little silly, and completely unfounded in any sort of science, pseudo or otherwise.


Agreed.

[edit on 15-7-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
Take a good look at that picture. What you are seeing is the exhaust plume from an antimatter pulse unit.


Well obviously it's not very efficient, since it's blown out like that and not focused at all.

Why is it so hard for people to think of it like this... We have NEVER witnessed an impact of this magnitude in space. No one knew exactly what would happen. Something that was less than likely happened, such as the second burp from the comet.


Originally posted by Chakotay
Small pulse units ensure the comet will not be broken up into multiple impactors (like Shoemaker-Levy).


I won't even touch the rest of that post because it's just so preposturous, but are you implying there that something manmade broke up Shoemaker-Levy 9? Because if so, I'd really like to know what that was too.

And saying that your sources on all this antimatter stuff are "confidential" REALLY ruins your credibility. You may as well have said, "Hey guys! I'm pulling all of this out my behind!" Why don't you do yourself, and us, a favor and cough up some credible sources (ie not Hoagland.)



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Though I have yet to see any proof that this was an antimatter 'bomb' of some sort, I also don't think it's too far fetched to imagine that this was a test (at least a proof of concept one) of a device that, in the future, could be used to deflect asteroids and comets. We have to remember that, in a few months, the ESA will be launching a very similar mission that's aimed at an asteroid. Why all the interest in impactors? It seems, to me, that such missions have two benefits: They provide real scientific data about the make-up of celestial objects AND they serve as practice for hitting such objects at high closing speeds.

Now, as for the antimatter bomb thing:
Chakotay will have to state what the after effects of an a-m bomb would look like and then prove that those effects can be seen on Tempel 1. So far he hasn't done this.

He has, however, pointed out that this explosion was much greater than had been expected (some scientists, before the hit, were openly wondering if it could even be detected). He's also not so far fetched, I believe, when it comes to the idea that the military has probably developed an anti-matter weapon of some sort. After all, the ability to create antimatter has been around for many years (though, as far as we know, it has always been unstorable)... and i can't imagine the military passing on what could be the ultimate weapon.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Well well , now it gets interesting.
- a subject matter expert and a ats counsel staff.

And what does cmdrkeenkid say:


Why is it so hard for people to think of it like this... We have NEVER witnessed an impact of this magnitude in space. No one knew exactly what would happen. Something that was less than likely happened, such as the second burp from the comet.


So you have never seen the Shoemaker-Levy Comet impact on Jupiter?What shame, you really missed out on that one

You say no one knew exactly what would happen?
Of course not, but did you ever heared of predictions of what might happen and why that may happen? I think it's called hypothesis. Usually one makes such a prediction to see if ones theory about something is right or wrong.
So mr. cmdrkeenkid I must take it your an expert in matter-antimatter science or an expert in conspiracies.
It must be why you state that the second burp was less than likely, because if you were an expert in space science you ought not have ruled out the possibility of two flashes. Even better you should have anticipated
that possibility.

and what does onlyinmydreams say:



We have to remember that, in a few months, the ESA will be launching a very similar mission that's aimed at an asteroid.

Maybe ESA and contractors want there own data?
Maybe it's scientific to duplicate an experiment?
Maybe ESA was just making sure, in case a wrong metric system was used by NASA?



He has, however, pointed out that this explosion was much greater than had been expected (some scientists, before the hit, were openly wondering if it could even be detected).


Yeah, and some predicted exactly what happened !!!
Predictions on “Deep Impact”



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stefan
So you have never seen the Shoemaker-Levy Comet impact on Jupiter?What shame, you really missed out on that one


I was asking Chakotay if he was implying that some sort of antimatter device broke up SL-9, that's all. The way it is worded makes it seem like that is what did it. Actually though, it was the gravitational forces of Jupiter.



You say no one knew exactly what would happen?
Of course not, but did you ever heared of predictions of what might happen and why that may happen? I think it's called hypothesis. Usually one makes such a prediction to see if ones theory about something is right or wrong.


Actually, in order of the Scientific Method at its basics you have...

1.) A problem; not knowing much about comets.
2.) An observation; studying the comet so you can prepare to hit it with a 300 pound copper impactor.
3.) A hypothesis; making an educated guess as to what will happen when the comet gets hit by the impactor.
4.) An experiment; hit the comet with the copper impactor.
5.) A conclusion; examining the data from the experiment to see if the hypothesis is proven right or wrong.
6a.) If the hypothesis is wrong, repeat the experiment and make adjustments to the hypothesis
6b.) If the hypothesis is right, present the hypothesis as theory.

A theory is something that has been tested and proven to be right consistantly. For example: gravity is just a theory. So there were no theories being tested at the time of the experiment.




So mr. cmdrkeenkid I must take it your an expert in matter-antimatter science or an expert in conspiracies. It must be why you state that the second burp was less than likely, because if you were an expert in space science you ought not have ruled out the possibility of two flashes. Even better you should have anticipated that possibility.


Actually, I'm the Space Exploration FSME.

Maybe if you read through the entire thread and saw my other posts, you would have seen my own hypotheses for the second explosion from the comet. The only thing that I disagree with is that it came from some sort of antimatter device.



Maybe ESA and contractors want there own data?
Maybe it's scientific to duplicate an experiment?
Maybe ESA was just making sure, in case a wrong metric system was used by NASA?


Answered in order of asking...

1.) Yes, they probably do.
2.) They're not duplicating it. NASA's probe hit a comet, ESA's will hit an asteroid. They're different things.
3.) What do you mean by that? It makes no sense at all.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
I was asking Chakotay if he was implying that some sort of antimatter device broke up SL-9, that's all.



Hi Commander. Preposterous is too strong a spinword. I agree that my hypothesis is far fetched. But it is within the envelope of possibility. It is therefore not 'preposterous'.

I used to be rangemaster at a rifle range many years ago. Gene Shoemaker used to bring out a 30-06 to take high-speed films while he shot copper-jacketed boat-tail bullets at rocks. We thought him to be preposterous at the time. He wasn't.

The July 16-22, 1994, collision of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter may have been entirely natural. But if a thermonuclear weapon had been used in deep space to steer it on a Jupiter intercept- and it broke up- I would not be surprised.

The Deep Impact impactor may have been purely kinetic. A subcritical core of conventional special materials would also produce the 'double whammy' observed, and would require no detonation mechanism as the core would be compressed to supercritical density by impact forces alone.

I want to make very clear that when I criticize NASA it is with the best intentions for the good of the enterprise. And I do not intend this thread as criticism; if my hypothesis is in error this time, I know that we will have to create and use similar devices in the near future- for the survival of all mankind.

Not too many people know that the Saturn V booster was designed as a comet-buster for delivering one heck of a big H-bomb to any incoming impactor. You can find info on that over at Encyclopedia Astronautica.




[edit on 17-7-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Stefan,

I didn't say that there was any conspiracy behind the ESA mission. I just mentioned that the ESA was about to launch a similar experiment... and that this was part of a 'trend'. You, yourself, pointed out that they want their own data.

That's it. You can't read posts on here too absolutely. In other words, I think that if you read the posts closely there isn't much for you to get excited/amgry about in terms of assertions.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
ehm..since when is ESA going to launch a "copy" of deep impact ?

perhaps you are talking about "Rosetta" ? it's already on the way and it will not impact anywhere ( i hope... ). Rosetta consists of a orbiter and a lander, nothing will impact if everything works out as it should.



Rosetta at a glance

ESA's Rosetta spacecraft will be the first to undertake the long-term exploration of a comet at close quarters. It comprises a large orbiter, which is designed to operate for a decade at large distances from the Sun, and a small lander. Each of these carries a large complement of scientific experiments designed to complete the most detailed study of a comet ever attempted.

After entering orbit around Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko in 2014, the spacecraft will release a small lander onto the icy nucleus, then spend the next two years orbiting the comet as it heads towards the Sun. On the way to Comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko, Rosetta will receive gravity assists from Earth and Mars, and fly past main belt asteroids.
...


www.esa.int...




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join