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.

 

STS-75 Tether Incident - Mystery solved! Breaking News!

page: 12
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Armap, I actually got that quote from the google search I used to find the reference, sorry I should have looked for it on the page before posting!

I did find this on the page though, which essentially explains the same thing.


Water in it's pure form (with nothing in it, just H20) is not conductive at all, according to the source. Other matter must be introduced, air fits the bill, but particulate matter could also serve, especially something already alectrically conductive.

If that doesn't come through for you it's on the bottom right corner of the page on the original link.

To be honest with you, I'm not sure if a pure water ice particle could hold a static charge or not.

"Water is slightly diamagnetic, and in the pure state has no electrical conductivity" is what it says here, and it says the same on several other sources I found through google.

Thanks for answering the questions I had about the Tether.
There is never enough time in the week
I totally understand.

Hopefully, with teamwork, we can all get the answers we're looking for!


-WFA




posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Oh My, Once again we have newbies and low score members chiming in on this issues, like they have been issued talking points from someone!


I can't believe that the intelligence agencies waste their time on this website to disprove . . . ACTUAL VISUAL EVIDENCE!


Any how, check the newbies and disinformational member, click on their profiles and see what they post. You will get the picture! They are just part of the disinformation effort to discredit any evidence of UFO's!


This post needs to be moved to disinformation board! please!


[edit on 3/28/08 by mel1962]

[edit on 3/28/08 by mel1962]

[edit on 3/28/08 by mel1962]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that the angle between the tether and the xz plane (that I suppose would be the plane that we can approximate to the window from which this is being filmed) does not affect the perceived length of the tether?


Yes, rotation in the plane parallel with the window from which it is filmed does not affect the visible length, rotation in the y axis (tilting away or forward) does affect visible length.


Actually, that cannot be used to try to know the tether length because we are not seeing the stretched tether as it was while deployed and working. After the tether broke it returned to its previous shape (coiled inside the dispenser), and that is visible in this video.


Sure, of course it is not stretched -- I mean its width when not under stress. IF this is known, you have what you need.



b) the spots move in many different relative directions, which is incompatible with debris emanating from a given region in space and there is far far too much for it to be normal background (space is not so cluttered, remember debris can anihilate satelites)

This is the only real mistery to me, the reason why do those objects move like they do.


Well, fair enough, but there are numerous observations and, if not possible to explain them all, we don't have a full and proper explanation. Even just on the movement, there are several things that need to be explained. Objects in space don't suddenly change velocity or direction, but one of them turns almost at a right angle, as I pointed out. Several zig-zag if you watch carefully. Even IF in the near field and in space, there is no explanation at all for these features of motion. But many are clearly not in the near field, because they pass behind the tether.


Not really, as you can see in this photo.


The bottom part of the red circle may look like it is casting a shadow over the string, when in fact it was more or less one meter closer to the camera.

Sorry, I don't follow your point. The edge of the circle is not visible where the string is, but it is visible everywhere but where the string is. Where the string is, you see a line with edges perpendicular to the edge of circle. The edge of the circle is not sharply defined elswhere, so you may not like to use "edge" but the fading from red to black is evident elsewhere. Or looking at it the other (complementary) way, the edge of the string remains visible at the intersection of the string and the edge of the red circle.

These are both of the points I was making. The edge of the tether should not be visible if something is between it and the observer, and it's not in the footage at several points. I didn't mention shadows.


The edges of the tether are not really the edges of the tether if the tether was not extended, right? Also, the edges of an out of focus object are not the real edges either, they are only apparent edges.


The edges will remain edges when it returns to it's normal length. I am not sure why you think otherwise. In most of the footage, the tether is in focus, and has well-defined edges. Regarding focus, there is no reason for it to be out of focus. It is very distant. Unless the lens' focus is on a near object, the tether is in focus. Is there some other consideration?


The zoom reduces the apparent distance (it "compresses" the depth of field).


Yes, you are right, it was getting late, didn't express this point well :-) The point is that the objects do not suddenly change from being in, to out of, focus, and do not appear to 'move' rapidly compared with tether, as something in near field should, I would have thought.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by 987931]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 987931
1. A poster claimed it's not possible to estimate size. Actually it is possible. Let y be the axis from the observer to the tether. The angle in the xz plane makes no difference to size, the angle in the y-axis does. The ratio of width of tether to length is sufficient to determine the length of space spanned by what is seen, and certain pictures allow good estimates of this ratio. The size can be estimated given the ratio of the width to length of the tether. This point is actually made, in effect, in the question and statement in the footage: "how wide ... seems wider than expect" (this results from angle in y axis i.e. because titling away).




Exactly what I'm having trouble with in this case. Although to be fair to some of the posters in this thread, the width of these objects might not be as it appears, due to abberations in the cameras ability to resolve.

Still, I feel the width and distance values must be achievable, and I thank you for describing in Math what I was attempting to explain using language alone.



I am no expert on the ability of the camera to resolve detail, but there will be a level of uncertainty. The measurement will have some error, but that's always the case. I find it difficult to see how the error could be very large because the edges are often quite sharply defined. There would have to be some kind of effect, say due to the coiled nature of the tether or its material. It is not a source of light though, which is important.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Can you estimate the speed of these?Some of the obiects go really fast , much much more then the shuttle , have these ice particles some sorts of atomic propulsion attached to their back?

Really fast? Much faster than the shuttle? Only if you consider them to be very far away (without any way of proving it) can you attribute to them high speeds. If they are near the shuttle then they are moving at almost the same speed and that is why they look like they move slowly.


There are (i) numerous indications they are far away and (ii) no indications they are in the near field.

It is possible to see detail of the edge of the tether when its path crosses that of many of the lights in many cases. Simultaneously, in these cases, it is not possible to see the edges of the lights when they cross the path of the tether. I struggle to see any explanation for this other than the most parsimonious: the relevant lights are behind the tether.

The most parsimonious explanation of the observations is that the lights are mostly very far from the observer. As a consequence, to demonstrate they are actually in the near field, an explanation is needed that explains all of the observations.

Also, can you explain how the lights change velocity and direction in space? Whether or near of far, I fail to see what explanation there is if they are debris.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by 987931]

[edit on 28-3-2008 by 987931]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by waveguide3

Originally posted by 987931
The ratio of width of tether to length is sufficient to determine the length of space spanned by what is seen, and certain pictures allow good estimates of this ratio. The size can be estimated given the ratio of the width to length of the tether. This point is actually made, in effect, in the question and statement in the footage: "how wide ... seems wider than expect" (this results from angle in y axis i.e. because titling away).


The tether cable was 2mm (1/10") in diameter. Even Mr Sereda acknowledges that, but he accounts for its optical enlargement by invoking some mystical fluorescence phenomenon which only the camera can see. Had the tether fluoresced, I think NASA would have referred to it. The camera used was a visible light tv camera with image intensification. The UV sensitivity is a complete red herring. The camera was producing a grossly abberated image of the highly sunlit cable. It was after all, visible from Earth. Had they used a modern CCD camera it would have looked entirely different and the myth wouldn't have evolved.
How does the actual tether width of 2mm enable anyone to calculate the true diameter of the floaters? How can Mr Serada say the tether length, as observed, is twelve miles when he doesn't know its orientation to the viewer? It only equates to twelve miles when viewed at right angles to the cable. The tether became orientated radially to the Earth due to gravity and orbital forces on a non-rigid body. The camera is arguably seeing it forshortened. I think this investigation is simply going over old ground.

WG3


Thanks WG3. OK, first, are you able to point me to where Serada invokes "some mystical fluorescence phenomenon"? In relation to the tether, that is, not the discs (the latter is clearly theory and hypothesis but a different matter). Not saying I am sure he didn't invoke in relation to the tether, just don't recall it at all. I must say I don't recall him acknowledging it is 2mm wide either, and I can't seem to find any verfiable sources regarding its dimensions under stress and not under stress (anyone?).

Also, I don't recall Serada saying the length *as observed* is twelve miles. I recall him noting it IS twelve miles (in its own inertial fame obviously


Second, there are two points in the xz plane, namely the ends of the tether. Then, the ratio of the width to length of the tether would be determined by the angle in the y axis (tilting away) assuming the observed width corresponds with the actual width (I see there is doubt about this and I'm looking into it). For example, take a pen and rotate it away. The visible length gets smaller compared with the visible width as you rotate it away. However, this is moot, as far as Serada's comment is concerned, if Serada actually does invoke 'flourescence'.

You say "The camera was producing a grossly abberated image of the highly sunlit cable." What phenomenon makes it "grossly abberated" exactly? Your claim seems similar to what you say Serada's is.

In any case, most importantly, I don't care all that much about the size other than as part of establishing credibility of Serada's analysis. I am more concerned about all of the other data, some of which Serada observes some of which he doesn't. There is no parsimonious explanation of all specific features of the observations -- without any explantion they are by definition ufos.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by 987931]

[edit on 28-3-2008 by 987931]



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mel1962
I can't believe that the intelligence agencies waste their time on this website to disprove . . . ACTUAL VISUAL EVIDENCE!



Sometimes i think the same thing.
It's so sad seeing people clutching at straws in order to deny a possible uncomfortable truth.
It's moreover strange the obstinacy proved by some in this thread.
Never tought that we couldn't be alone in this universe , and maybe even here on earth , guys?



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jabbah

Originally posted by mel1962
I can't believe that the intelligence agencies waste their time on this website to disprove . . . ACTUAL VISUAL EVIDENCE!



Sometimes i think the same thing.
It's so sad seeing people clutching at straws in order to deny a possible uncomfortable truth.
It's moreover strange the obstinacy proved by some in this thread.
Never tought that we couldn't be alone in this universe , and maybe even here on earth , guys?


Hey Jabba and mel. Well, I must say I can understand it. I am an academic and researcher. The kind of person who can't possibly pronounce he believes in such silly things. And, indeed, until the last few months, I have really been agnostic. Then, I had a friend of about 18 years, who is an engineer, give me a detailed account of an observation of a source of light that he watched for approximately 45 minutes (significant to me, shouldn't be to any readers because you don't know the person). Another friend told me of the disclosure project, which I looked into.

It has taken me a little bit to get my head around the weight of evidence. If it were any other area of science, and I'm pretty familiar with a lot of science, there wouldn't be debate about whether these data indicate ufos, it would have moved far far beyond that to detailed analysis of the data and attempts to understand the pheneomena involved.

However, there are no standard, known resources for scientists and researchers like me when it comes to this. I have to scrutinize sources for evidence of knowledge and consistency before I can trust them.

This takes time, and life is busy.

So sadly, I must admit that if someone were pushing misinformation, but embedded in some proper information, particularly technical, then it does become harder to ascertain what has been established. In other words, sadly it would work to some extent.

It is very tricky when mainstream science does not publish anything, for the most part, and you have to look at each source and its trustworthiness almost anew. You can't pick up texts with analyses of typical ufo data, in the way you can pick up a text on quantum mechanics, electromagetism, or whatever, where you just take it for granted that the results are generally as reported.

This seems to me to be the whole challenge now, to push through the "credibility barrier" that has somehow been maintained in mainstream science. And it's not easy. FWIW.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 987931
So sadly, I must admit that if someone were pushing misinformation, but embedded in some proper information, particularly technical, then it does become harder to ascertain what has been established. In other words, sadly it would work to some extent.

Thats's exactly what we see here , people trying to misinform through "stupid" techical quirks , in order to puzzle and expel you to the main theme.
They want you to see these things throught their eyes , they tell you what you're seeing , and that the only possible explanation is THEIR explanation , introduced with profunds disorientating theories .
They demand with video proofs , photos , drawns , diagrams , mathematical formulas and what have you, even if they don't know if what they're saying is true (right).
Nothing more far from truth-seeking to me , and undeniably fascist.
It's important to note that the most of the times, these people present themself as paladins of truth.




[edit on 29-3-2008 by Jabbah]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by redshirt0202
That proves even more that it's just DUST that is out of focus or light on the lense!


Hmmm well I posted this in answer to ArMaP... but I will post it here as well... I am curious just how many people actually take the time to really study the footage...

Okay I have a few questions...

Before I go into the STS 75 footage I want you all to look at THIS ONE




Observe the first one that comes in from the right... As it gets over the Thunderstorm it suddenly BRIGHTENS.... then it STOPS and remains stationary above the storm...


The NASA infrared camera is watching it....
Then a second one APPEARS out of the storm, also suddenly bright....

Meanwhile the first one is STILL stationary above the storm, and stays with the storms as the Earth rotates away from the shuttle....

The NASA camera man has not forgotten the first one and at the end of the clip zooms in on the first one STILL over the storm.... but near the horizon now...

So Please answer me this...

How does a 'speck of dust' suddenly get brighter?
How does a 'speck of dust' STOP in space?
How does a 'speck of dust' suddenly appear from a cloud bank and move away?
Why does the NASA photographer zoom in on a 'speck of dust'

Now then before I comment on some really interesting observations in the Tether Incident I want you to watch THIS version... (don't know how many have seen this higher quality complete version
)


Google Video Link


Okay now then...
at exactly 4:22 into the video a very large, bright and clear object enters from the left, moving in an arch across the top of the screen...

Again NASA photographer is following it... as it moves of the screen on the right, he zooms out to keep it in the screen...

Now explain to me HOW does this 'speck of dust' CHANGE DIRECTION?

When we first see it it is moving across the screen in an arc from left to right... as he zooms out the object now moves DOWN the screen

DUST AND DEBRIS CANNOT CHANGE DIRECTION NOR COME TO A STOP

And as was mentioned...

STS- 80 Formation over Africa


Google Video Link


I too would like an explanation of this one...




posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 02:21 AM
link   
THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN AS DEBRIS NOT UFO

NUMBER 1

I have carefully measured observations in two sections of the footage. I will refer to the time in mins and seconds in this footage used by Serada, though the analysis has *nothing to do with his* (as far as I know).

video.aol.com...

1. At 5:16 a visible object enters on the lower left of viewable area, approx. 0.17 of the distance from bottom to top. It is pulsating in appearance, and its apparent movement is quick relative to other objects, particuarly of similar size and luminance. This object moves almost directly across the screen, then between 5:30 and 5:38 it turns so that its direction as it leaves the screen is almost exactly at right angles to its direction before turning. Its brightness is lessened by the brightness in the lower right of the screen but it remains clearly visible.

During this period THE TETHER'S POSTION IS ALMOST TOTALLY STATIC. Precisely speaking, the tether moves marginally right and down (about 2-3% of screen in both directions) and it orientation is almost perfectly constant.

In the few seconds after 5:05, two different objects move, one up and left, the other down and to the right, in the area of the screen in which the turn occurs. Both objects travel in a straight line, indicating no optical distorition. This is during a period, that extends to 5:38, in which the tether's internal (to viewable area) coordinates remain fixed and no changes in the appearance of the tether occur.

Space debris should not change velocity in space, let alone do a right turn, if it is "debris that uh kind of flies with us and ah ... illuminated by the sun ..." as stated in the footage. If the illusion of a change of direction were created by an optical distortion, then it should be consistent and should affect the two objects described in the previous paragraph.

In short, there is an object that does a right turn on the screen, and this turn cannot be explained by movement of the camera, zooming, or optical distortion. To do a right turn, its flight is necessarily controlled.

It is, by definition, a UFO according to this evidence.

Second instance to come.

[edit on 29-3-2008 by 987931]

[edit on 29-3-2008 by 987931]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   
SECOND THING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE EXPLAINED

NUMBER 2

Amazing Zorgon. I agree -- how many people actully carefully look at what is happening. Well, I have taken an hour or so doing a series of measurement and charting them out. It is exactly the same point as yours -- changes in velocity and direction. Here's my second. Reference to same url as above.

2. An object, again pulsating in appearance, enters the screen on left at 4:55 and then a change in zoom finishes at approx 4:56. It's approx one quarter of distance from bottom to top and near the left edge.

It travels at an "on-screen" speed of 2.14 mm/sec between 4:57 and 5:19. It then travels at an average speed of 0.69 mm/sec on screen between 5:36 and 5:49 (on my screen of course). The on-screen speed tells us nothing about its actual speed without knowing how far away it is and direction in y-axis (between observer and the object). However, the RATIO of the speeds does mean a great deal, and the average/mean velocity in second period is one third that of first period. This ratio would be independent of distance and direction if it were actually debris in space travalling at constant velocity and in a single direction. This RATIO of velocities defies explanation if it is space debris or dust. The ratio will be the same for anyone doing the measurements and calculations. Further, at the end of that second period, it has stopped and turned, yet its luminance does not change when it stops and turns. The tether's position and orientation on screen remains perfectly CONSTANT within the (negligible) limits of the measurements of screen coordinates.

Then there is zoom change. The object remains visible. Its path continues down, greater than a 90 degree turn relative to its direction before the turn. This occurs near the center of the screen where many objects have straight paths and there is no evidence of optical distortions creating illusions of changes in the paths of objects.

Again, this object is clearly demonstrating controlled flight. It is by definition a UFO.


[edit on 29-3-2008 by 987931]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Okay now then...
at exactly 4:22 into the video a very large, bright and clear object enters from the left, moving in an arch across the top of the screen...

Again NASA photographer is following it... as it moves of the screen on the right, he zooms out to keep it in the screen...



Amazing, I started to do measurements and analysis of exactly this also. I chose not to use it simply because the tether is moving in the screen, which makes careful analysis of its path much more complex. However, it is clear that it does arc, particularly when it passes the top of the tether, as visible from the camera. Because it remains almost continuously observable, it is quite cler that it arcs. As you point out, it is almost continously observable only due to two zooms. Don't wish to speculate on why they zoomed. I imagine there a numerous other instances in which such turns are occurring. Space debris or dust that can stop and turn. Not plausible, not even remotely. Given the lack of distortion of various other visible objects, I can't even imagine what kind of scenario could explain these observations -- i.e. other than the obvious, they have controlled flight through the space we are seeing.

On another point, if anyone is interested I did an analysis of the ratio of length to width of tether, as it appears. The ratio is around 30:1 to 35:1 when the tether is bright. When the tether has a dark center, the ratio is closest to the dark internal region of area in which tether appears. Specifically, the dark region has a ratio, length to width, of about 40:1 at one point, though it is not all that consistent (and quite difficult to measure). This implies to me that when there is a dark region, the brighter light surrounds the tether rather than being the tether. Does any of this mean anything to people with relevant expertise?

[edit on 29-3-2008 by 987931]



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


OK, I understand it now.

And the fact that water is not a conductor (that is why with old car batteries we had to keep track of the amount of H2SO4 mixed with the distilled water to make it a conductor) does not mean that it is immune to static electricity charges.

In fact, if it behaves like an insulator then it is easily affected by static electricity, like a plastic pen.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 987931
Thanks WG3. OK, first, are you able to point me to where Serada invokes "some mystical fluorescence phenomenon"? In relation to the tether, that is, not the discs (the latter is clearly theory and hypothesis but a different matter). Not saying I am sure he didn't invoke in relation to the tether, just don't recall it at all.


The term 'fluorescence' is mine. I have to assume that if the tether could be seen in the Ultra Violet, as Mr Sereda implies, it must have exhibited UV fluorescence. He clearly implies that the camera was seeing 'more' than the human eye because of the camera's UV sensitivity. He doesn't refer to the known reason for the abberant width of the tether image, which was visual image enhancement. Sereda spends 30 seconds describing the UV properties of the camera at around the 3 minute mark in the video below. He re-emphsises the UV properties camera again at about 8 minutes. This is followed by a load of quantum mechanical gobbledegook

Remember we are listening to a self-taught 'quantum physicist' who spent the first 20 years of his adult life planting trees. During that period he had 'lots of time to think' I believe is the expression he used (in another video). A 'crash course' in Einstein and Newtonian physics that got him where he is today. The guy doesn't even know how to spell Max Planck's name, 'the father' of quantum physics! That's in the video too.


I must say I don't recall him acknowledging it is 2mm wide either, and I can't seem to find any verfiable sources regarding its dimensions under stress and not under stress (anyone?).


At around 4m50s, the video below has Sereda confirming the tether as 'very very thin, one tenth inch thickness cable'. The cable was never under much stress at any time. I believe the tension as the satellite was paying out was only a few kilograms. At only 2mm diameter it wasn't intended to get very tight, it was just insulated electric wire.


Also, I don't recall Serada saying the length *as observed* is twelve miles. I recall him noting it IS twelve miles (in its own inertial fame obviously


At 5m55s the video shows Mr Sereda with his diagrams. The tether is clearly dimensioned '12 miles' while demonstrating the passage of the 'UFOs'. He clearly uses the 12 miles as the basis to calculate their size. I don't think that the observed and the actual length is even considered.


Second, there are two points in the xz plane, namely the ends of the tether. Then, the ratio of the width to length of the tether would be determined by the angle in the y axis (tilting away) assuming the observed width corresponds with the actual width (I see there is doubt about this and I'm looking into it). For example, take a pen and rotate it away. The visible length gets smaller compared with the visible width as you rotate it away. However, this is moot, as far as Serada's comment is concerned, if Serada actually does invoke 'flourescence'.


That was somone else's comment. I don't think one can calculate anything from these images, let alone the apparent length of the cable.


You say "The camera was producing a grossly abberated image of the highly sunlit cable." What phenomenon makes it "grossly abberated" exactly? Your claim seems similar to what you say Serada's is.


From my readings, the camera was a SIT tv/video with image enhancement. The image was clearly abberated on the screen since Huston actually commented on it around 2m45s and asked what the astronauts could see. Unfortunately they didn't answer that particular question.


In any case, most importantly, I don't care all that much about the size other than as part of establishing credibility of Serada's analysis. I am more concerned about all of the other data, some of which Serada observes some of which he doesn't. There is no parsimonious explanation of all specific features of the observations -- without any explantion they are by definition ufos.


As a science graduate, I think Mr Serada talks in gobbledegook and flim-flam. He couples pseudo-scientific words which seem to make sense to a lot of people. I think this is where he does genuine UFO research a great disservice. Nothing about his 'theories' is based on the scientific method. He bases his theories on his personal inspiration and little else. He is a skilled orator, for the right audience. He takes money for his productions and should really be placed at the Holliwood end of the debate.

Tether Video

WG3



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by 987931
These are both of the points I was making. The edge of the tether should not be visible if something is between it and the observer, and it's not in the footage at several points. I didn't mention shadows.

I think I understand it now.

I mentioned the "shadow" because I think that "shadow" is an artificial edge of the tether created by the way the camera works.

Also, cameras have a limit to their ability to show light, sometimes they show unreal images because of their lack of capacity to show what they are really "seeing", like in the following images taken from the video you posted.

This is frame 492 (at 19.686 seconds), and if you follow the object that I marked with the green arrow you will see how it changes when it appears to pass over the tether.



In this image you can see that the object appears as a negative of itself, probably because the camera reached its maximum light level when registering the image of the object over the tether.



This is consistent with the transparency of the object, because the camera can "see" both objects and one is translucent, the final image will have the luminance of both objects added, and in this case it is reaching the limits of the camera.

In this image you can also see that the object "bends" slightly the edge of the tether when it passes over it, and that is something that also makes me think that this object is much closer to the camera than the tether.




The edges will remain edges when it returns to it's normal length. I am not sure why you think otherwise.
I was thinking that when the tether returned to its previous shape, if it turned into a coil like object, then the edges we see on the video are not the real edges of the tether but the outer limits of the coil, making it shorter and wider than in its extended shape.

If I had the a camera I could try to post a photo of what I am trying to say, but I had to gave it back to its owner, it was only borrowed.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


As I said in the other thread (and I mixed these two threads, silly me
), I think that those things on the first video are not the same type of things we see on the tether video.

I think those are very large objects (I don't have any idea of what they are) that were attracted by the thunderstorm and got "glued" to the spot, maybe because of the electrical charge, but they did not entered the atmosphere, in fact I think we can see it expanding a little when it was "squashed" against the upper atmosphere.

That video, in my opinion, should be discussed in a different thread (and it probably was), because if they are different things, when (if) we find an explanation for the objects on this thread we may erroneously attribute the same characteristics to those other objects and may fail to identify something completely different.

I hope I made it clearer to you than to me, sometimes my explanations make things more complicated.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 




I suggest you brush up (but you care, to avoid static charges ) your knowledge about electricity, I think that you have some misconceptions that should be ironed out.

I am not avoiding anything, but you need to differenciate the ice if you know what you are talking about.
Ice in space is something completely different than the ice we have here on earth.
If you dont, it would like saying that plastics and metals react in same way to static electricity, which they dont.
Or that water and ice reacts the same way to it...

Even static electricity needs conductiveness to work (dont confuse that whit the electrical conductivity).
And it all depends on the material how that works, there you can see the difference between how metal reacts compared to plastics, and water compared to ice.
When it comes to plastic the static charge sticks on the surface, does not go into the material, with water there is another process, it enters the materials and react with the ions in the water.
Almost the same happens with ice.

Water in space however boils, and any inpuritys out of it, and the little that is still left over after that process do not contain enough ions to interact with.



The problem is that he was not talking about the conductivity of ice, he was talking (if I understood it right) about the reaction to static electricity, and an object that is not a conductor can have an electrical charge, so an ice particle, with or without air bubbles, can have an electrical charge.

A none conductive material or not does not matter when it comes to electrostatic behaviour.
It is the process of interaction with the material and the static charge that decides what will happen next.
When you have a static charge in a material, you also have conductivity on that material for the static, for plastic it is the change of polarisation on the surface, in water you have the interaction with ions....
Electrically conductive or not.

So you can not compare plastic with water, nor water with ice, nor usual ice with ice made in space.

The physics in this is a bit complicated, and i have a language barrier, sorry



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Balez
The physics in this is a bit complicated, and i have a language barrier, sorry
Well, I also have a language barrier, so I think it's best for this if I leave this discussion about static electricity and space ice to other people.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Balez
The physics in this is a bit complicated, and i have a language barrier, sorry
Well, I also have a language barrier, so I think it's best for this if I leave this discussion about static electricity and space ice to other people.


Agreed, we leave that discussion for those who knows and understand it better than you and me


You get a star though



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join