New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

reply to post by JScytale

Originally posted by JScytale
you mean science and an open mind versus preconceived notions and circular logic?

So glad you mentioned science.

The field that throughout history has had to change its view,to fit with what were called out there theories, that have then been proven to be right.

[edit on 4/7/09 by gallifreyan medic]

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
reply to post by JScytale

 

So glad you mentioned science.

The field that throughout history has had to change its view,to fit with what were called out there theories, that have then been proven to be right.

you seem to operate under the hilarious misconception that science assumes anything is absolute truth.

let me explain what science is. science is an approach to understanding phenomenon, where repeatable, reliable evidence is required before something is accepted. in other words, something is not scientific unless it can be demonstrated reliably. like how the computer you are using relies on the understood properties of electrical circuits.

being able to demonstrate a principle does not mean you assume to know exactly what it is. scientific theories are always being refined and perfected. we understand gravity to an exceptional level of detail right now, to the point we are able to fling complex pieces of machinery accurately out to the outer planets based solely on our understanding. Do we pretend to know *exactly* what gravity is? No, we really only have good guesses based how we know it behaves. Can we predict the way it acts on an object? Yes, to a tremendous level of accuracy.

fields like quantum mechanics make it clear that our understanding of exactly how the universe really works is flawed - but that doesn't change one thing about our ability to reliably predict how things will behave, because the entire premise was based on reliable repeatable evidence. every single time you throw a ball with a specific force, its trajectory could be easily predicted by science. every single time human beings construct a building, they can count on the weight of the building being supported perfectly by the walls, pillars, arches etc. this is what science has achieved. science advances constantly, but it never takes a step back because of how it works. what changes are our explanations for things, and little tiny tweaks to the numbers involved occasionally follow.

thats the beauty of science. it doesnt pretend to know anything with certainty, it only demonstrates. the moment you stand up and firmly state "this is how this works and it cannot possibly be wrong" you have left the realm of science and entered the realm of wishful thinking and religion.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by JScytale


No response by me is needed.
Its there to see in that last post and your previous ones.

i do not once state "i cannot possibly be wrong". in fact at several points i take back previous comments. such as:





that's as early as *page 2*.

and now lets look at you, and your distrust of science. if thats really the case, stop being a hypocrite, stop eating food only made available to you by science, stop using your computer, stop living your life made entirely possible by science. move to alaska. live off the land. prove that you don't need science.

reply to post by JScytale

and now lets look at you, and your distrust of science. if thats really the case, stop being a hypocrite, stop eating food only made available to you by science, stop using your computer, stop living your life made entirely possible by science. move to alaska. live off the land. prove that you don't need science.

Gawd dear.
You certainly know how to go on.

You make that assumption on the little of what I have put.
Not very scientific is it.

And maybe you should try some research into what you have said.

You will find that many a man/woman tinkering in his/her shed or spare room has contributed greatly to making the things possible that you have mentioned.
Not for science but for everyday improvement in life.

Science gladly takes it under its umbrella but that's not science,its a normal part of being human to improve.
Don't get them mixed up.

Anyhow
Its the weekend,go and cuddle the other half or go find someone to help with relieving some of that tension.

Edit to add

Just gave you a star below for having a tension releaser.
We all need em.


[edit on 4/7/09 by gallifreyan medic]

heheh, i assure you this tension only exists in the parts of my day i decide to browse these forums and marvel at ignorance.

i'm quite good at getting rid of it when im done

Originally posted by JScytale
you mean science and an open mind versus preconceived notions and circular logic?

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
So glad you mentioned science.

The field that throughout history has had to change its view,to fit with what were called out there theories, that have then been proven to be right.

I am so glad someone opened this door... as they say"timing is everything"

Lets go have a look at NASA's own press release regarding the tether involved in this thread

NASA says...

EARLY FINDINGS FROM TETHERED SATELLITE MISSION POINT TO REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES

Well now how about that eh? What could have been so important about this piddly little broken satellite debris that was so earth shattering as to need REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES

For Release: May 23, 1996

Douglas Isbell
Headquarters, Washington, DC
(Phone: xxx/358-1547)

Jerry Berg
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
(Phone: xxx/544-0034)

RELEASE: 96-106

EARLY FINDINGS FROM TETHERED SATELLITE MISSION
POINT TO REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES

Numerous space physics and plasma theories are being revised or overturned by data gathered during the Tethered Satellite System Reflight (TSS-1R) experiments on Space Shuttle Columbia’s STS-75 mission last March.

Models, accepted by scientists for more than 30 years, are incorrect and must be rewritten. This assessment follows analysis by a joint U.S.-Italian Tethered Satellite investigating team of the information gathered during the mission.

During STS-75, a tether system was being unreeled to nearly 13 miles above Columbia’s payload bay. Just short of the full distance, its tether broke. Nevertheless, the science instruments on the satellite and Shuttle, which had been operating during the five hours of deployment

operations, sent a flood of readings that were received and recorded by scientists on the ground. "Even the quick-look made to date reveals that this data harvest is rich in content," said Dr. Nobie Stone, NASA TSS-1R mission scientist at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.

"Perhaps the most significant finding," Stone said, "is that tether currents proved to be up to three times greater than existing theoretical models predicted prior to the mission. With the amount of power generated being directly proportional to the current, this bodes well for technological applications.

"Reversing the direction of current flow puts the system into an electric-motor mode," Stone explained. This harnessed energy could furnish thrust for reboosting a space station, satellite or Shuttle in a decaying orbit.

"Traditionally, the primary source of power for long-term space platforms has been solar arrays," Stone said. "Those cells can only produce power when exposed to sunlight during the two-thirds of each 90-minute orbit when a space station, for instance, is not on Earth’s dark side. However, a tether system might provide a constant source of energy," he noted. "It is very efficient and might serve as an effective backup power system."

Other important revelations from the STS-75 mission include observations of the satellite’s thrusters interacting with the ionosphere while moving rapidly in Earth orbit. Stone said that, when the thrusters were fired to adjust the satellite’s spin rate, the neutral gas emitted became ionized.

The tethered satellite researchers noted that, at that point, "a sudden jump" took place in the level of current flow, while the satellite’s potential (voltage) dropped several hundred volts. They traced this effect to the small amount of gas, released from the thrusters, becoming ionized in the vicinity of the satellite. A greater, more efficient current flow was observed. "The effect of neutral-gas ionization is not taken into consideration by existing theoretical models of current collection in the ionosphere," Stone said.

Also, for the first time ever, the high-voltage plasma sheath and wake of a high-voltage satellite moving rapidly in the ionosphere was measured. "This is virtually impossible to study in a laboratory and is difficult to model mathematically," Stone said.

Tethered Satellite System investigators have just begun to scrutinize the data from STS-75. They expect that it will reveal more answers to questions about the workings of the Earth’s upper atmosphere, its physics and the electrodynamic applications of tethered systems in space.

NASA Press release 96-106

These releases are via email subscription. NASA releases also are available via CompuServe using the command GO NASA. I haven't had a need to find it online but I am sure its out there somewhere


Hehehe Was saving this for when things got ugly


[edit on 4-7-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by Lazyninja


Don't tell me, you are relying on information from a video where they use a toy to fake the image in the tether incident? Oh, real solid evidence.

So where is your evidence of this?

reply to post by JScytale




Oh, I am the ignorant one?

Something tells me that you come to this conclusion often when others disagree with you.

Do you know what a theory is? Because your explanation of what science is leaves a whole lot to be told.

We also have astronauts who have actually been in space who say that UFOs exist? Who has a better perspective, someone watching videos on the ground, or someone in space looking at the real thing?

I have over twenty-five years experience in instrumentation, over five years working directly in aerospace, designing, setting up, testing, and analyzing systems. What do you bring to the table?

Edit, forgot to add:

Do you even know what standard instrumentation accuracy is measured?

Gee, what odds are there that there are things in outerspace that we don't understand? What are the odds that there are life forms that we have never conceived of before just outside of our atmosphere?

What we have are people who refuse to consider theories that might suggest that they are not the center of the universe, verses people who see whole vast ranges of possibilities about life outside of the mankinds current knowledge.

Not to mention a bunch of amateur videos created by people who have no concept whatsoever of how to conduct a proper experiment, verses a well developed NASA study on objects seen in the cameras during space missions.

Who ya gonna believe?



[edit on 4-7-2009 by poet1b]

[edit on 5-7-2009 by poet1b]

Originally posted by zorgon
Lets go have a look at NASA's own press release regarding the tether involved in this thread

NASA says...

EARLY FINDINGS FROM TETHERED SATELLITE MISSION POINT TO REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES

Well now how about that eh? What could have been so important about this piddly little broken satellite debris that was so earth shattering as to need REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES

[snip]

Why am I not surprised that a scientific study led to scientific discoveries? They were studying something they knew little about. Guess what, they learned things (which they were spending millions of dollars to hopefully do in the first place).

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JScytale

 

Oh, I am the ignorant one?

Something tells me that you come to this conclusion often when others disagree with you.

I come to this conclusion when a person ignores 40+ pages of high quality evidence due to the quality of the video in favor of a fantasy without an ounce of scientific evidence, yes.

Do you know what a theory is? Because your explanation of what science is leaves a whole lot to be told.

Of course I understand scientific theories. If you read my post I allude to them several times.

We also have astronauts who have actually been in space who say that UFOs exist? Who has a better perspective, someone watching videos on the ground, or someone in space looking at the real thing?

I have seen UFOs with my own eyes, too. But what does this argument have to do with STS 75? People who have seen UFOs exist. I am one of them. People who believe in UFOs exist. I am one of them. No one involved in this event went and thought "Gee that's strange..." All we get is "There's the tether, and a whole lot of debris"

I have over twenty-five years experience in instrumentation, over five years working directly in aerospace, designing, setting up, testing, and analyzing systems. What do you bring to the table?

Insight and a differing perspective? The kinds of things that make intelligent debate possible?

Gee, what odds are there that there are things in outerspace that we don't understand? What are the odds that there are life forms that we have never conceived of before just outside of our atmosphere?

For your first question, 100%. For your second question, show me one iota of evidence. Scientific evidence that plasma life forms live in earth orbit. Then I will consider your fantasy.

What we have are people who refuse to consider theories that might suggest that they are not the center of the universe, verses people who see whole vast ranges of possibilities about life outside of the mankinds current knowledge.

Your first statement alludes to science versus religion. science was on the side of "evidence shows the earth is not the center of the universe". Anyone, I repeat, *anyone* can see vast ranges of possibilities outside man's current knowledge. It's called imagination, everyone has one. Now, when you start to address things from your imagination as real, that's when things get problematic. They could be true, sure, but you have no evidence whatsoever.

Not to mention a bunch of amateur videos created by people who have no concept whatsoever of how to conduct a proper experiment, verses a well developed NASA study on objects seen in the cameras during space missions.

Who ya gonna believe?

I'm not sure what you mean. They aim to prove individual phenomenon with camera optics, which they do. You then discount them because of X or Y unrelated reason. I fail to see your logic.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by JScytale
No one involved in this event went and thought "Gee that's strange..." All we get is "There's the tether, and a whole lot of debris"

So now you can read people's thoughts?

You continue to amaze me. You are a wonderful specimen.



....However, Like Poet, NASA, zorgon and Jim Oberg - I do not agree with your interpretation of the evidence. You are a proponent of the now disproven 'bokeh hypothesis' - are you not?

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
So now you can read people's thoughts?

You continue to amaze me. You are a wonderful specimen.

you could try listening to the conversation being had in the footage. the conversation that was supposedly not released to the public and took place on a secret channel.



[edit on 5-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by Exuberant1

When was the bokeh hypothesis disproven?

How can you say that?

Originally posted by Sam60
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

When was the bokeh hypothesis disproven?

During the motion study done on this thread.

-You have reviewed the motion study right?

Edit:

From the motion analysis: an animation of one area of the video...
CLICK THIS LINK







[edit on 5-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
During the motion study done on this thread.

-You have reviewed the motion study right?

whaaaaaat? the way the objects move has nothing at all to do with the overwhelming evidence that they are small objects filmed out of focus, which is what the bokeh hypothesis addresses. movement is a separate matter.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by JScytale
as for the military deeming it a matter of national security to keep things under wraps...

NASA as an agency hiding that kind of knowledge sounds preposterous to me.

Apparently you aren't aware that NASA is under military jurisdiction.

www.space.com...

When it says "Partnership", it must be understood that one of the partners has guns and the other one doesn't. So guess who's autonomy disappears in the mix? Surveillance systems are frequently mentioned, with the "Covert" adjective conspicuously missing, but obviously implied.

What it boils down to is that no one at NASA will be able to wipe their ass without military approval henceforth.

reply to post by Exuberant1

At the risk of sounding like JScytale & I are ganging up on you, the bokeh effect has nothing to do with the movement of the objects.

Originally posted by JScytale
movement is a separate matter.

You are wrong.

You want it to be separate matter - but it is not.

Bokeh artifacts all move simultaneously at exactly the same rate and remain in a fixed position relative to each other - this is clearly not the case with the STS-75 objects that are the subject of our analysis on this thread. The objects in the animation from my last post are not 'bokeh'.

Anyone who continues to use the bokeh hypothesis to account for these objects is being deceptive.



[edit on 5-7-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by Raybo58

Originally posted by JScytale
as for the military deeming it a matter of national security to keep things under wraps...

NASA as an agency hiding that kind of knowledge sounds preposterous to me.

Apparently you aren't aware that NASA is under military jurisdiction.

www.space.com...

When it says "Partnership", it must be understood that one of the partners has guns and the other one doesn't. So guess who's autonomy disappears in the mix? Surveillance systems are frequently mentioned, with the "Covert" adjective conspicuously missing, but obviously implied.

What it boils down to is that no one at NASA will be able to wipe their ass without military approval henceforth.

if you carefully read my post im aware of that. I mention how if NASA *did* get their hands on evidence the military would promptly remove it. They can only do that when they have authority over the organization in question. My point was scientists would NEVER willfully hold back data of that magnitude (once it could be published). You cannot fault NASA, you should fault the military.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by JScytale]