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.
Originally posted by zorgon
And even your favorite source WikedPedia says...
Fluid model
Fluid models describe plasmas in terms of smoothed quantities like density and averaged velocity around each position (see Plasma parameters). One simple fluid model, magnetohydrodynamics, treats the plasma as a single fluid governed by a combination of Maxwell's equations and the Navier–Stokes equations. A more general description is the two-fluid plasma picture, where the ions and electrons are described separately. Fluid models are often accurate when collisionality is sufficiently high to keep the plasma velocity distribution close to a Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution. Because fluid models usually describe the plasma in terms of a single flow at a certain temperature at each spatial location, they can neither capture velocity space structures like beams or double layers nor resolve wave-particle effects.
In physics and chemistry, plasma is a partially ionized gas, in which a certain proportion of electrons are free rather than being bound to an atom or molecule. The ability of the positive and negative charges to move somewhat independently makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. Plasma therefore has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids or gases and is considered to be a distinct state of matter. Plasma typically takes the form of neutral gas-like clouds, as seen, for example, in the case of stars.
Plasmas are by far the most common phase of matter in the universe, both by mass and by volume.[5] All the stars are made of plasma, and even the space between the stars is filled with a plasma, albeit a very sparse one (See astrophysical plasma, interstellar medium and intergalactic space).
Comparison of plasma and gas phases
Plasma is often called the fourth state of matter. It is distinct from other lower-energy states of matter; most commonly solid, liquid, and gas. Although it is closely related to the gas phase in that it also has no definite form or volume, it differs in a number of ways, including the following:
*Electrical Conductivity
*Independently acting species
*Velocity distribution
*Interactions
Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by JScytale
Of course I scrolled past that... I just needed the excerpt relevant to my post.
Re: photo
From: Gerry Gilmore([email protected])
Sent: Thu 1/18/07 3:37 AM
To: john lenard ([email protected])
Hello again,
and again my congratulations on your superb astrophotography
You are clearly getting some images at almost the diffraction limit of
your telescope. In the very more...sharpest images there are hints of diffraction
rings visible on the edges of the satellites. That is of course the
absolute limit of optical performance, and is only rarely attained.
Interestingly, the process you have, of using a high-quality imaging
system, with fast read-out, and then selecting the rare `perfect' images
is something which has been developed and applied somewhat by one of my
colleagues here. You might like to look at our local web page presenting
some of this:
[link to www.ast.cam.ac.uk]
You might also be interested in a journal produced by the
MIT Lincoln Laboratory - which is the group which has built some of the
things you are seeing. Much of what they do is what used to be the
Star wars project, which no doubt involves some of your objects. They
don't talk about the military satellites,
of course, but there are many dicussions of earth surveillance, and
related issues. It is distributed only to academic organisations, so
you may need to get your local library to borrow it, but you
may be able to get this (for free) from
Subscription Coordinator
Room Lincoln Laboratory
best regards
Gerry
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
RE: a question by Mr. Oberg on what John Lenard Walson was photographing.
The following is from Gerry Gilmore, an astronomer from Cambridge University.
...as well, Henry Klein from JPL has spoken favorably of the Walson images.
Yes, I do believe at least 50% or greater of these recent sightings (past 15 yrs perhaps) are life forms of some kind. I wish I could recall the paperwork on a case I had that involved an abduction where the individual never saw an entity such as the "Grays". He felt the whole works of the craft was a living, breathing entity in itself. Sightings now include so many balls of light that appear to be glass like on the outside with some sort of swirling living being on the inside. This "Shape Shifting" going on is perhaps the workings of the plasma or whatever these beings are made up of as they enter our earth.
Ron: You may quote me on the statement regarding my thoughts on the plasma, critters, etc. These are my thoughts and not those of MUFON.
Originally posted by zorgon
Yes, I do believe at least 50% or greater of these recent sightings (past 15 yrs perhaps) are life forms of some kind. I wish I could recall the paperwork on a case I had that involved an abduction where the individual never saw an entity such as the "Grays". He felt the whole works of the craft was a living, breathing entity in itself. Sightings now include so many balls of light that appear to be glass like on the outside with some sort of swirling living being on the inside. This "Shape Shifting" going on is perhaps the workings of the plasma or whatever these beings are made up of as they enter our earth.
Ron: You may quote me on the statement regarding my thoughts on the plasma, critters, etc. These are my thoughts and not those of MUFON.
Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JScytale
your speculating on something that is a unknown and your speaking in factual terms as if you have all the answers about something unknown.
sorry but you have no way to judge something you know nothing about. if a plasma critter of life form is caught or found then you can start theorizing this and that. until that happens your argument is based on ignorance.
i'm basing my argument on the following facts:
Originally posted by easynow
once again, *sigh* your argument is based on what you know now (or think you know)
what you know now may not pertain to a lifeform that is unknown to mainstream science. science is all made up of theory's and many many times science has been proven wrong.
so yea your argument is justified on things we know about NOT on things we don't.
Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by JScytale
here you go...
dictionary.reference.com...
keep reading it until it sinks in, you'll feel better then