New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

reply to post by JScytale


You continuously display misconceptions of what a theory is, and a complete lack of understanding of science. Try looking up the definition, and while you are at it, the scientific method as well.

The question is quite clear, what is the standard for determining instrumentation accuracy? Hint, it is based on one of the most important principles of science developed in the twentieth century.

Figures you dismiss these studies They are all ignorant, right?

I'll admit, the link to the India daily made some highly speculative claims, but I posted it anyway, because it reminds me of your claims about video anomalies.

Your complete dismissal without logic or reason of the ideas put out be the people, which includes numerous scientists and engineers, displays how unwilling you are to entertain any concept beyond what you have been conditioned to believe.

More from this website which provides a wealth of information.

www.plasmacosmology.net...

First of all, this guy isn't stating anything with certainty, he completely approaches the subject from a scientists perspectives.

The following introduction to some technical terms should provide a reasonable insight into Plasma Physics. An underlying simplicity seems to beckon, even while many questions remain, and a picture drastically different from the traditional view of the universe begins to emerge.

In 1984 Farhad Yusef-Azdeh, Don Chance, and Mark Morris discovered Birkeland currents on a galactic scale. Working with the Very Large Array radio telescope, they found an arc of radio emission some 120 light-years long near the centre of the Milky Way! The structure is made up of narrow filaments typically 3 light-years wide and running the full length of the arc. The strength of the associated magnetic field is 100 times greater than previously thought possible on such a large scale, but the field is nearly identical in geometry and strength to computer simulations of galaxy formation.

Plasma sheathes were discovered by Langmuir in his laboratory, and are now called double layers.

DLs refer to one of the most important properties of any electrical plasma -- its ability to form electrically isolated sections or cells. Because Plasma is an outstanding conductor and cannot sustain a high electric field, it self-organizes to form a protective sheath (Double Layer) across which most of the electric field is concentrated and where most of the electrical energy is stored (They can act very much like capacitors).

When a foreign object is inserted into a plasma, a DL will form around it, shielding it from the main plasma. This effect makes it difficult to insert voltage sensing probes into a plasma in order to measure any electric potential at a specific location.

Double layers may break down with an explosive release of electrical energy. Hannes Alfvén first suggested that billions of volts could exist across a typical solar flare DL.

If you are going to participate, at least you could try to learn something.

Oh, there is another hint in this post on what instrumentation accuracy is based.

reply to post by JScytale


Changing your story again, and trying to pass off exceptions as rules. Typically aperture adjustments are made to filter unwanted stray light, rather than use a filter, which creates problems.

Once again, where is your evidence that filters are used typically in shuttle operations, and why doesn't the NASA study mention anything about lens filters? If lens filters were being used regularly, there should be some mention of this.

Originally posted by poet1b

Camera lens filters are typically used specifically to create distortion for special effects. Why in the world would NASA be using such filters in typical operations? This is a ludicrous theory.

But hey, do you have any proof that such a lens filter is used on NASA cameras?

If lens filters were being used regularly, you would think there would be a NASA study on their effects, and the reasons for using them. There is no mention of them in the NASA study on objects observed in cameras recording space events that we have a link to, so no reason to believe they are being used.

Thanks for all that information about lens filters. Now could you kindly tell me what it has to do with light baffles.

This is a telescope light baffle. NASAs look pretty much the same. There are a bunch of different baffle designs though.



This is an example of the "toy" which the ufohunters used on the tether segment. Notice that it is somewhat "donut" shaped.

I can't say much more to you about this matter, it's up to you and your own interest in pursuing it. Good luck

[edit on 5-7-2009 by Lazyninja]

Originally posted by poet1b
You continuously display misconceptions of what a theory is, and a complete lack of understanding of science. Try looking up the definition, and while you are at it, the scientific method as well.

why don't you compare my brief explanation to wikipedia's definition?

Originally posted by JScytale
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.

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

The question is quite clear, what is the standard for determining instrumentation accuracy? Hint, it is based on one of the most important principles of science developed in the twentieth century.

No, you need to clarify what you are getting at. "standard for determining instrumentation accuracy" can mean a lot of things. I already told you how accuracy is measured - (true positives + true negatives) / (true positives + true negatives + false positives + false negatives). Are you referring to standards of accuracy? They vary from country to country. Are you referring to the informal rule of "always calibrate an instrument using another instrument at least 4 times as accurate"? Specify what you are getting at and I can answer your question.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by poet1b
Your complete dismissal without logic or reason of the ideas put out be the people, which includes numerous scientists and engineers, displays how unwilling you are to entertain any concept beyond what you have been conditioned to believe.

You claim to be using logic here. Show me the scientific evidence that plasma life forms exist in our upper atmosphere. I don't want you to copy past links and rehash theories on the possibility that it exists - that is not the question. What is your basis for the assumption that it does exist in our upper atmosphere, which makes it a likely candidate for identifying the objects seen in the STS-75 footage in your eyes?

this is logical (if you have scientific evidence to support it):

strange phenomenon --> potentially intelligent behavior --> plasma life is known to exist at that altitude --> it is possible that these objects are plasma beings

this is not logical:

strange phenomenon --> potentially intelligent behavior --> they look unusual --> plasma beings might exist --> it is possible these objects are plasma beings

[edit on 5-7-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by poet1b
In 1984 Farhad Yusef-Azdeh, Don Chance, and Mark Morris discovered Birkeland currents on a galactic scale. Working with the Very Large Array radio telescope, they found an arc of radio emission some 120 light-years long near the centre of the Milky Way! The structure is made up of narrow filaments typically 3 light-years wide and running the full length of the arc. The strength of the associated magnetic field is 100 times greater than previously thought possible on such a large scale, but the field is nearly identical in geometry and strength to computer simulations of galaxy formation.

Plasma sheathes were discovered by Langmuir in his laboratory, and are now called double layers.

DLs refer to one of the most important properties of any electrical plasma -- its ability to form electrically isolated sections or cells. Because Plasma is an outstanding conductor and cannot sustain a high electric field, it self-organizes to form a protective sheath (Double Layer) across which most of the electric field is concentrated and where most of the electrical energy is stored (They can act very much like capacitors).

When a foreign object is inserted into a plasma, a DL will form around it, shielding it from the main plasma. This effect makes it difficult to insert voltage sensing probes into a plasma in order to measure any electric potential at a specific location.

Double layers may break down with an explosive release of electrical energy. Hannes Alfvén first suggested that billions of volts could exist across a typical solar flare DL.

I genuinely do not understand your reasoning in quoting this. How does interesting properties of plasma and the discovery of a large formation of plasma in any way, shape or form relate to the possible existence of plasma life forms in low earth orbit?

that is like me describing how comets contain organic materials (carbon molecules), and using that as evidence for carbon-based life on the sun, in order to support my theory that sun spots are cities. and no, i don't believe sun spots are cities.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by Lazyninja


You are the one who came up with the theory, where is your proof that these baffles were used in the tether video, and create the effects that you claim they produce? All you are doing is throwing things up against the wall and hoping they stick. None of this is backed by any evidence, just your claims.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Lazyninja

 

You are the one who came up with the theory, where is your proof that these baffles were used in the tether video, and create the effects that you claim they produce? All you are doing is throwing things up against the wall and hoping they stick. None of this is backed by any evidence, just your claims.

I am dumbfounded that you can make this accusation and then move on to proposing that the objects in question are plasma-based life forms.

Originally posted by zorgon
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

Are you sure that the "REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES" was related to the "piddly little broken satellite debris"?

They only talk about the experiments made during the time the tether was being deployed and the telemetry data received during the several passes of the tether over the ground stations, during which they could communicate with the still working satellite.

At the time this video was made (if my understanding of the time is correct) they had already lost the capability of communicating with the satellite.

PS: That press release is available at least here, if anyone is interested.

reply to post by JScytale


Wiki? Try looking for a source that isn't made up nonsense from some poster. There are a number online dictionaries, you could start there. The Wiki definition isn't even close. Did you post that yourself?

Hint, the scientific method starts by developing a theory, which is a guess about how things work. How many times did I ask you what a theory is that you could not answer?

Standards for determining accuracy are, STANDARDS, and everyone uses them, or they have no credibility. They don't vary from country to country. A world body exists to make sure this doesn't happen. You are so in over your head it is ridiculous.

Ok, let me spell this out for you.

Plasma exists in the Earths outer atmosphere, links have already been provided proving this.

Plasma exhibits characteristics of life forms, links have already been provided proving this.

We have NASA cited evidence that there are Objects seen in video footage taken in space that can not be explained (UFOs), links have already been provided proving this.

Theory - Maybe these UFOs are plasma life forms that exist in space.

Do you know what comes next in the scientific method?

What does the other information prove?

First, that plasma has been observed throughout known space. That enormous plasma forms have been discovered. The double layers are what makes plasma look and act like a living cell, which is scientific proof that plasma acts like a life form.

If you can't see how logic applies here, well, that matches your inability to understand what a theory is.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Lazyninja

 

You are the one who came up with the theory, where is your proof that these baffles were used in the tether video, and create the effects that you claim they produce? All you are doing is throwing things up against the wall and hoping they stick. None of this is backed by any evidence, just your claims.

Proof that baffles were used in the tether video? I'm under the impression that all cameras in the world use a baffle. Home use cameras have weak ring baffles. Some of the more expensive ones use tube baffles. Telescopes and NASA scopes and cameras use powerful disc and tube baffles.

I have already posted the UFO hunters segment, where they used a disc baffle and a camera, and exactly replicated the pulsing donut artifacts. You decided this was all NASA lies, and have retreated to the safety of the flying omeba theory.

It is not up to me to prove anything to you. Since you are in the position of disproving, and I am only in the position of sharing information. Some like yourself are not interested in researching this information for yourself. That's totally fine



[edit on 5-7-2009 by Lazyninja]

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JScytale

 

Hint, the scientific method starts by developing a theory, which is a guess about how things work. How many times did I ask you what a theory is that you could not answer?

HAHAHAHAHA! WOW.
You are SO amazingly wrong here.
You *NEVER* start from scratch with a theory. That is the exact opposite of science. You begin with a hypothesis, which is a rudimentary guess (as opposed to a theory, which is a detailed explanation with specific claims). You plan your procedure to evaluate your hypothesis, preform it, collect data, analyze your data, and come to a conclusion.

When a lot of experiments start displaying a significant trend that you notice, you can build a theory attempting to describe the trend using existing data. this theory can be further tested and proven or disproven.

en.wikipedia.org...

Essential criteria

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is inapplicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:

* It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
* It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

Standards for determining accuracy are, STANDARDS, and everyone uses them, or they have no credibility. They don't vary from country to country. A world body exists to make sure this doesn't happen. You are so in over your head it is ridiculous.

international? every country uses its own standards on accuracy. This information does not have to be perfectly consistent - what has to be consistent is the units for measuring data. 1 kilogram in india has to be the same as 1 kilogram in england, and it is. What is different is what either country's scientific community considers scientifically accurate - data from an experiment in china could be rejected by english peers because the instruments used were not accurate enough to produce what they would consider scientifically valid results.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by poet1b
Plasma exists in the Earths outer atmosphere, links have already been provided proving this.

Plasma exhibits characteristics of life forms, links have already been provided proving this.

did you just make the assumption that all plasma (a state of matter) demonstrates the characteristics of life forms? What part of the sun's functioning makes you believe it is alive?

Originally posted by poet1b
Wiki? Try looking for a source that isn't made up nonsense from some poster. There are a number online dictionaries, you could start there. The Wiki definition isn't even close. Did you post that yourself?

You are MORE than welcome to check the wiki history log for that page. In fact, here, I'll link it.

en.wikipedia.org...

bear in mind Wikipedia has a staff dedicated to fact checking edits and stopping vandalism. they are very active on important pages. that information has been unchanged for at least 2 months.

feel free to edit a high traffic page and put false information in the first paragraph. watch how long it takes to get corrected. I actually preformed that experiment once, took all of 4 minutes.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by JScytale

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).

You just don't get it do you? We are not talking a new discovery but REVAMPING OF SPACE PHYSICS THEORIES over the plasma issues. I am also sure you didn't even bother to read the whole press release nor follow up on it.

two pages since I posted that yesterday

[edit on 5-7-2009 by zorgon]

Jeez, it took me about thirty seconds to find this.

chemistry.about.com...

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

These is a starting point. Just about any science course will teach you this.

Originally posted by poet1b
Did you post that yourself?

Originally posted by JScytale

feel free to edit a high traffic page and put false information in the first paragraph. watch how long it takes to get corrected. I actually preformed that experiment once, took all of 4 minutes.

Its no wonder Wiki isn't allowed as a source in schools and college.

Back on our Stargate thread we actually had someone go and delete an entry on Wki that was relevant... happened two days after we posted it at ATS Fortunately the same entry was still at the original source.. and was real as it involved a court case... but it never got back into Wiki

But seriously JScytale, why don't you expand your knowledge base. There are many more scientific sources out there and you can always get info right from NASA

A skeptic attempting to edit Wiki to add false info Now doesn't that take the cake...

Originally posted by poet1b

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

These is a starting point. Just about any science course will teach you this.

i can google too.

www.wilstar.com...

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:
* Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
* Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
* Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
* Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
* Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
* Theory: All swans are white.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by zorgon
A skeptic attempting to edit Wiki to add false info

Now doesn't that take the cake...

that was an experiment to see how reliable wikipedia was. my method was: insert subtly false information, monitor for 1 day, revert if 24 hours passed with no fix.

the topic was actually a very small-traffic one. the definition of a schwarma.
it took 4 minutes for someone to notice that no, schwarmas were not a saudi delicacy, and revert the information.

Yes, I should have said that it is my, and many other's, hypothesis, that what we often see in these NASA video's as UFOs are plasma, and possibly plasma life forms. This concept is backed by scientific evidence which I have provided.

While these theories/hypothesises on plasma life forms in space have not been proven, they have not been disproven. This would radically alter the current scientific theories on life, and the nature of the Universe,and mess up a great many careers, so there is considerable opposition to the ideas, but that opposition is slowly losing the battle.