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.

 

Did the Space Shuttle dock at the Secret Space Station tonight?

page: 31
39
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
If you want to do work against gravity, sure. But if you want to bend light with gravity you need a lot of mass! Translating the Earth's gravitational binding energy into measurable power is immense, and much more is needed to bend light, around say, a tin can large enough to hold you.

I can't quite parse phrase "Translating the Earth's gravitational binding energy into measurable power is immense"
, but anyway, if you want to say you need a lot of mass to gravitationally bend light, then you are obviously correct.

But then I never questioned that
! I only said that static electromagnetic fields can't bend light (quantum effects under really extreme conditions - so extreme that atoms can't exist - excluded).


Your E field is your electric component of the electromagnetic wave, and your B field is the magnetic component. Gamma, or the photon, is the actual radiation. In a transverse wave they occupy the x, y, and z axis.

Thought so. Wanted to tease a bit
- sorry!


My question to you, since you have advertised yourself an expert and as such could help me with this problem, is what would be the orientation or rotation of the fields for a compression wave, often referred to as a longitudinal wave? If the axis is rotated, would the propagation then be directly effected by a magnetic or electric field?

First, there is no such thing as a longitudinal electromagentic wave in a vacuum (or any homogenous material). So any light travelling through space (or air) is always a transversal e-m wave. That's how Maxwell's equations work.

Second, I think a sort of longitudinal e-m waves can exist at material boundaries or in plasmas. However, I don't recall the details at all, so I admit I must give this question a "pass". Sorry. However, given what I said above (no "longitudinal light"), I don't see how it is relevant to the topic at hand ("cloaking" of secret spacecraft).

Regards
yf




posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx...if you want to say you need a lot of mass to gravitationally bend light, then you are obviously correct.


Finally! Now we are kind of on the same page!


But then I never questioned that
! I only said that static electromagnetic fields can't bend light (quantum effects under really extreme conditions - so extreme that atoms can't exist - excluded).


Fine by me. I feel generous enough to give you the benefit of the doubt on it.


First, there is no such thing as a longitudinal electromagentic wave in a vacuum (or any homogenous material). So any light travelling through space (or air) is always a transversal e-m wave. That's how Maxwell's equations work.


Then how about this?

And don't criticize my link!



Second, I think a sort of longitudinal e-m waves can exist at material boundaries or in plasmas.


This must be your "disclaimer"



However, I don't recall the details at all, so I admit I must give this question a "pass". Sorry.


Well I can figger it out on my own, but I thought we could do some quasi-collaboration.


However, given what I said above (no "longitudinal light"), I don't see how it is relevant to the topic at hand ("cloaking" of secret spacecraft).


Boundary layers. I think that is where the answers are. Making the epsilon and mu values negative at the boundary layers. Of course they may or may not be in use on tin cans in space. Hard to say.

edit !@#$ quotes

[edit on 10/16/2007 by Matyas]



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Ah now we are getting somewhere... but I will let you two scientists work it out


Then I may or may not post the relevant patents


This thing was cute thought... Energia Mars Rocket with NASA Logo?

Hmmmmm





posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
Finally! Now we are kind of on the same page!

Fine
.


Then how about this?

And don't criticize my link!

I don't. I never criticize Wiki just because it's Wiki
.


Well I can figger it out on my own, but I thought we could do some quasi-collaboration.


However, given what I said above (no "longitudinal light"), I don't see how it is relevant to the topic at hand ("cloaking" of secret spacecraft).


Boundary layers. I think that is where the answers are. Making the epsilon and mu values negative at the boundary layers.


I admit it's beyond my capabilities
to find a solution to Maxwell's equations which (a) describes a "cloaking" device and (b) makes use of longitudinal waves at boundary layers. But of course my limited capabilities don't say anything about whether such a solution exists and/or is practical for actual physical engineering (and does not, say, prohibit the existence of normal matter within the "cloak"
). But if you have any suggestions, or can cite a relevant paper from a scientific publication, I'm all ears.

Regards
yf



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   
If the Secret Astronaut Core needed an excuse to launch into space and travel to their Station : The Regular Shuttle missions would be a perfect Cover Story for the public. That way if anybody Sights a strange 'Craft' in the sky - The Government could claim that what they saw was the Shuttle in orbit.

They could probably even go to the trouble of lining up their Launch & Re-Entry Trajectories with the same orbit as the Discovery or Endevour, so that even if Millions of people see it - They would just assume it was the same old NASA Shuttle, and when they were at a point where nobody could see them - Such as in the earths shadow or over the ocean - They could slip away into space without anybody noticing.

I suppose its hard to tell for certain, but We need disclosure on all of this very badly.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by Bradenbeattie]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by V Kaminski
 


Vic, I'm back!!
Missed my connecting flight. Damn!!

Ok, so I thought the discussion was gettin' a little too serious! Thought I'd chirp in with a li'l humor! Oh man! What happened to good natured banter on ATS??

OK, apologies, if you took it the other way!
Didn't mean to detract from the serious nature of this thread!

Cheers!



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


I agree Mike, this thread has been WAY too serious at times.

I don't enjoy getting caught up in the pissing matches that arise as egos and agendas square off.

And, yeah, I'm guilty.


The speculative nature of the "what ifs" and the presentation of the supporting "could bes" are what I savor.

And good-natured banter just makes for a better experience all around.

Perhaps, in the case of this thread, and the possible "national security" issues involved, it's difficult for those with perhaps a vested interest in keeping these "issues" out of the public eye, it's difficult at times to keep things light-hearted.

More's the pity.

So Mike, you got any actual pics of a secret space station?



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by goosdawg
 


I am willing to bet that it is in a polar orbit or something. It just doesn't seem feasible that they would want to allow it to orbit over western nations where people sit in their backyards with 16" scopes, looking for just such anomolies.

Know anyone from southern Chile?



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Good point.


[begin speculation]


Of course if the SSS(s?) is/are cloaked somehow, IMHO, the orbit(s?) probably wouldn't need to be hidden.

Seems like it would be more efficient to just have it (them?) follow along in the same path as the ISS, to allow easier servicing by the shuttles.

I believe John suggested this scenario waaay back on an earlier page of this thread, sounds plausible to me.


I would humbly suggest that our backyard astronomers keep a close eye on Discovery starting this Tuesday, post-launch until the shuttle officially docks with the ISS.

Perhaps maybe they can can shed some light on these "missing" hours.

However, if the shuttles only interact with some type of smaller transfer vehicle, and don't actually dock with the SSS(s?), then the odds would be even greater against our witnessing any anomalous behavior.

Perhaps our observers could keep watch for open cargo bay doors at the "wrong" time or something?


[/speculation]


Now that would be a discovery!


[edit on 21-10-2007 by goosdawg]



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Excellent idea, Goosdawg.

How hard it is to resolve the space shuttle while in orbit?


jra

posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I am willing to bet that it is in a polar orbit or something. It just doesn't seem feasible that they would want to allow it to orbit over western nations where people sit in their backyards with 16" scopes, looking for just such anomolies.


A polar orbit wouldn't prevent it from flying over other Countries to be observed. A polar orbit is an orbit that goes from one pole to the other and flies over everything in between.



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   
O.K. I have seriously looked into this whole secret space station stuff, using any and all contacts I have in the aerospace industry (including two very close friends that are very involved with major components for the ISS).

This is one of those juicy conspiracies where it is completely and totally technically feasible to be true. There is no technology that is "super secret" that would prevent anyone from believing that, physically, there could be more than one space station up there. There is also the technology to orbit such a platform without it being visible to ground based visual observance. That needs to be put out there. So, in order to consider this possibility, one needs to look further into the manufacture of such a device, the logistics and management of such a project (note I did not say "program", if you know anything about the military industrial complex I do no need to explain the difference), the managerial aspects of the project, the contract management side of it....and all of this before the thing even lifts off the ground.

There have been a few that have dealt with the absurdity of the operational aspects of such a program (note, I said "program" not "project" here, if you don't know the difference, then don't bother posting your opinion, as it would be based in ignorance and not add to the legitimate discussion of this conspiracy) Its gotten to the point where people are using other things that are also questionable to try to prove their point. Like for example.....the reason there are not a lot of noticeable rocket launches associated with such a program is that they are using their secret astronaut force and their anti gravity ships to ferry supplies and personal to the station) Well, the minute you try to prove some conspiratorial secret with another conspiratorial secret you loose the ability to even discuss it rationally. I mean, there are things you could do to prove your point before falling back on unprovable fantasy, right? Or do people like that think that once they invoke other fanciful things into the discussion, those of us reasonable folk will concede? Zorgon and my big fat furry Texas friend have reasonable minds when it comes down to it, so I assume they get my point here.

So, I propose an in depth discussion about the necessities involved in the planning, management, and execution of such a clandestine undertaking.....before even bothering to talk about it being up there. I believe, firmly, that once this line of thought has been fleshed out...reasonably and without illogical fancy, that most will see why there can't be a secret space station...currently.

Although.....there is one in production



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   
This thread is a hoot!

Polar Orbit... shmolar orbit.... there is a reason manned space flight can't do polar orbits. It is also why the ISS has such a low inclination and never orbits anywhere near the poles. Max is a little over 50 degress latitude.

Any half wit including Lear can monitor the shuttle and ISS 24/7... hundreds of civilian mere mortal earthings do it 24/7 on radio and TV frequencies. Amateur astonomers do it too.

Comments about restricted access to Space-Track... ha! thousands of civilians are register there including me to get keplerian elements to track earth orbiting objects. Any nob can get an account there.

Sorry to intrude into your virtual reality.... .



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Enron Mining the moon from an email....


Originally posted by zorgon

David Minns
05/09/2000 08:29 AM
To: Sara Shackleton/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Raymond Yeow/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT

Sara, further to my email. Has the confirmation for the Melbourne HDD swap
with Aquila been signed yet. If it has we need to do the "back to back"
confirmation with EAF.

ENRON????

...

So is Enron mining Helium 3 on the Moon? No idea but if they are... we in big trouble...



David Minns
Company Secretary
Enron Australia Finance Pty Ltd and Enron Australia Energy Pty Ltd



Aquila, Enron and Koch are generally recognized as the first parties to
arrange and issue weather-related risk products into the U.S. starting in late 1996 and 1997. In 1999, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) launched the first public exchange-traded, temperature-related weather derivatives. Winter season heating degree-day (HDD) and summer season cooling degree-day (CDD) futures are traded on the CME for ten U.S. cities


Someone talking to the home office about heating degree day trading.



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Hello John:
I just sent this to an ATS issue concerning odd shapes on the moon.
I am not certain it reached ATS.
Someone or something is blocking me out of ATS.
Clark

I worked at Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center from 1958 to 1992.
There are many mysteries that have been discovered during the years that we have been exploring the moon, sun and planets.
The former CEO of the Lockheed Skunk Works, (SR-71, Stealth Fighter, etc.,) was visiting the Cape many years ago. I asked him a question. Ben Rich said, Clark, Black Budget $$ has taken the USA Military at least 50+ years beyond the present understanding of the general public and how far we are technologically advanced. You have no idea where we have gone out there. I said, "Mars, Sir?" He looked at me and his head movement said yes.
Are there monuments on the moon, Mars, etc., bet on it.
Note to all ATS members.
I have received ONLY three emails from members in the last week. My emails in and out are being blocked. So, if you send one, mark it ATS Member in the email title.
Clark C. McClelland, former ScO, Space Shuttle Fleet, KSC, Florida
clark0003@gmail.com
clark0003@hotmail.com
realxfiles433@yahoo.com
Website: www.stargate-chronicles.com



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by KSCVeteran

Hello Clark I just sent you email

I also sent you email several months ago to ask permission to use some material from your site on ours but never heard back It never occurred to me that you didn't get it at the time



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
Someone talking to the home office about heating degree day trading.


It was the Aquila that caught my eye LOL... and what are the chances someone named 'Shackleton' just happens to work there?


Too many weird coincidences
WTC 7 held all the Enron case files... building goes "poof" so does the case...
Missing three trillion dollars records and investigating team just happened to be in the area of the Pentagon that was hit...

Shackleton crater is where the 100 kilometer sqaure ice 'lake' is reported by the DoD

Aquila is the liquid cargo transport mentioned earlier

Aquila version made by Amroc (American Rocket) New concept... Founder dies at 44 being in a car accident on a deserted road...

SpaceDev takes over Amroc... SpaceDev tied into SpaceShipOne Branson Virgin Galactic... Steve Fossett tied to Branson

Fossett goes missing (Still no word as of Oct 15))


LAS VEGAS (AP) — British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson said Monday he had all but given up hope that explorer Steve Fossett would be found alive.

Speaking on NBC's Today show, Branson described his friend Fossett as a remarkable individual who touched the lives of those he knew.

Fossett, 63, disappeared Sept. 3 after he took off from a western Nevada ranch in a single-engine plane on a search for suitable sites to attempt a new land-speed record.

"I think the chances are that he's no longer with us," Branson said. "I think everybody involved has pretty well given up hope, sadly."


www.usatoday.com...

Ben Rich retires from Lockheed Skunkworks dies of Cancer a few years after
Von Braun quits NASA dies a few years after of cancer at 66



Now I see a law suit accepted by the courts that says WTC was beam weapons and the case seems vilid enough not to have been thrown out... just when we were about to cover those beam weapons and how they are deployed.....

The 'rabbit hole' is getting very deep... anyone got some more rope?


Okay now I go find my Tin Foil Hat and go to the Beach for some rays....



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
You stumbled upon


n October 2003 the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission placed 200,000 of Enron's internal emails from 1999-2002 into the public domain as part of its ongoing investigations. The archive offers an extraordinary window into the lives and preoccupations of Enron's top executives during a turbulent period


Shackleton was a VP at Enron. There is a conspiracy there, it deals with manipulating the energy markets though.

It would be a hoot to find one of those leaning Es on the moon.

Edit: sp


[edit on 10/22/2007 by roadgravel]



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I don't get where this thread has gone. And to think I got busted for being off topic....in this very forum no less.....



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx...or can cite a relevant paper from a scientific publication, I'm all ears.


Sorry to take so long. My crew has been out sick and I have been playing keepup.

Along those lines, but still not immediately tied to invisible space platforms, is this.

I am sure there are more if I had time to look for them, but as you can see, or not see, whichever the case is, it exists.

Or, "It lives! It lives!" *flashing lightning, peeling thunder in the background, maniacal laughter*...sorry, couldn't resist


I surmise you have a solid scientific background. I always enjoy dialog with people like that, it keeps me sharp. Thank you for making an effort to put your time in here.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join