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.

 

New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

page: 47
77
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
By the way, I noticed that in order to get to this:

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.



You had to scroll past all of this.

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




posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale


Of course I scrolled past that... I just needed the excerpt relevant to my post.
Anyway hate to run but there are other threads that are calling... this thread is not about the state of the art of Plasma Physics...

Got some new CRITTERS to play with in a very hot thread that has the regular debunkers stumped


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by JScytale
Of course I scrolled past that... I just needed the excerpt relevant to my post.


thanks for that line.

see, if i disagreed with something and found evidence proving me wrong, i would change my opinion as opposed to digging through an article that conflicts with my opinion for vague language that would mislead someone without an understanding of the topic.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
There are many reports of findings of non organic dust forming helical structures that mimic DNA, as well:

www.monstersandcritics.com...

Not only the rudimentary life form type shapes seen in the aforementioned instances.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
RE: a question by Mr. Oberg on what John Lenard Walson was photographing.

The following is from Gerry Gilmore, an astronomer from Cambridge University.



Re: photo
From: Gerry Gilmore(gil@ast.cam.ac.uk)
Sent: Thu 1/18/07 3:37 AM
To: john lenard (santamonicajohn@hotmail.com)

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


as well, Henry Klein from JPL has spoken favorably of the Walson images.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   

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.


Furry, the most you can say is that these are allegedly from those people. So to test a crackpot theory, you let the crackpot give you raw testimonials that you trust? But weren't you STARTING from a position of having to TEST his credibility? How can you TEST it my ASSUMING it's good?



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Furry, this is exactly what I was talking about. Walsxxx is the one assuming that his target audience consists of credulous cretins, and you are providing him with a confirmatory data point. Sigh...

======

Re the Professor Gilmore "endorsement":

From: "Gerry Gilmore"
To: "James Oberg"
Subject: Re: Humouring John Lenard - Walson's Mystery Space Machines ! (fwd)
Date: Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:26 AM

Dear Mr Oberg,

I attach below a message I sent recently to some other people who had seen similar references to those you have noted

regards

Gerry Gilmore

********************************************************
Gerry Gilmore FInstP ScD
Professor of Experimental Philosophy
Institute of Astronomy direct phone +44 (0)1223 337506
Cambridge University PA: Suzanne Howard
Madingley Road +44 (0)1223 766097
Cambridge CB3 0HA showard@ast.cam.ac.uk
UK
fax +44(0)1223 339910/7523
mobile +44 (0)771 2774522
e-mail: gil@ast.cam.ac.uk;
www.ast.cam.ac.uk...
*******************************************************

Thanks for your information.

I was told recently that some of my private emails, related entirely to
general principles of short-exposure astrophotography, had been used
publicly and out of context, on a different web site than that you
mention (I apologise that I am unfamiliar with any of these sites - I
don't have a lot of spare time for such reading).

In consequence, I told John Lenard/Walson I was, and remain, utterly
opposed to any such abuse of privacy.

I shall remind him again that such behaviour is unacceptable and
dishonest.

I very much regret if this is continuing. It is entirely without my
permission, and indeed is expressly in violation of my specific
statements.

You may be assured I am also quite certain there are no `alien' craft in
space, artefacts on the moon, etc, etc, a point I in fact have made to
Lenard/Walson.

I thank you for the information.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg


So in a PRIVATE communication he supported JLW but when that PRIVATE message was displayed to the public, and he was questioned on it... he RETRACTED

Very interesting... Why would someone of that status 'humor' someone he doesn't know would not use that 'humor' as support?

Smells like fish in here...

But it serves one purpose... Next time a skeptics demands I reveal a private source I can just point to this post


Rule Number One... ask permission to quote them and have it in writing... like this one



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.


The etc. is not relevant to the Critters


Now then How did JLW creep into this thread? Did he photograph the Tether?



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

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.



a plasma life form couldn't exist inside the atmosphere because wind would dissipate it. if it had sufficient electrical charge inside it to create its own magnetic field, it couldn't come anywhere near the ground or it would ground itself (lightning) and "die". that's assuming it could even possible create a magnetic field strong enough to keep some form of consistency in an atmosphere - and no matter what, it would be severely diluted. the electrical charge would have to be several magnitudes more powerful than the kind of charge a cloud will have at the moment before lightning strikes, it couldn't come anywhere near the cloud layer.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


Isn't it funny how those glowing jelly type creatures live way way way down deep in the ocean.And don't splooge implode/apart.



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



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

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:

plasmas are ionized gasses.

a negatively charged ionized gas could have a strong enough magnetic field to hold itself together consistently. see electromagnets and how electrical charge can create magnetic fields.

an extremely strong negative or positive charge will cause a "short circuit" if you will after a certain point, and the charge will pass to the earth and ground itself. case: lightning.

two gases are not going to separate themselves in a way that allows one to maintain a consistent shape (in the case of one heavy, one light), let alone when wind is involved. in order to be able to, and this is speculation on my part, i imagine an *extremely* strong electrical charge (and thus magnetic field) would be necessary. it could not come anywhere near the earth or an object in contact with it, or it would lose its charge in the form of lightning, lose the force holding it together, and dissipate very quickly.

i wish i could find the documentary i saw ages ago talking about how all sorts of hell would break loose if the ionosphere, which is a very strongly charged part of our upper atmosphere (an ionized gas, also known as plasma) somehow equalized its charge with the earth.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 



i'm basing my argument on the following facts:


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.


can we please get back to the topic of this thread ?









posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

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.


I assure you, the properties of plasma are well understood. It simply isn't feasible to assume that a plasma could maintain itself without dissipating when in another gas.

its essentially the same thing as pumping a box full of any arbitrary gas, opening the box, and expecting the gas to stay consistent. even a gas significantly heavier than air would over time, dissipate, and wind makes that process almost instantaneous.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


here you go...


dictionary.reference.com...

keep reading it until it sinks in, you'll feel better then



anybody else notice all the obfustication in this video ?


this is just one example...



obfustication or is NASA the worst camera operators ever ?









[edit on 7-7-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   

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



physics.about.com...

en.wikipedia.org...(physics)#Comparison_of_plasma_and_gas_phases

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...(physics)#Electric_fields_and_circuits

www.eas.asu.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

you done yet? thats just basic sources.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   




you mean obfuscation?
if you are referring to the light overexposing the film, that is because this was filmed in space while in sunlight, and light reflecting off of everything (especially the earth) cannot be avoided. (guess what they use in cameras to minimize it though?) If you are referring to the bokeh appearing to pass behind the tether, that is explained in the *first reply of this entire thread*.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by JScytale]



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 



obfustication



you didn't even mention the obvious shake of the camera ? why ?

and your links to your plasma physics do not apply to an unknown.

try again



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   



the camera shakes in a rhythmic way and slowly returns to stability. its pretty obviously an unavoidable by product of whatever mechanical means they were using to pan and zoom. faulting them for it is silly.

and you can't simply say "science doesn't apply to an unknown". science understands the principles of the behavior of plasma rather well. it is simply a state of matter. this is like imagining an entirely liquid life form, claiming it could exist in the ocean and not dissipate, and saying that because we know that to be impossible with liquids doesn't apply because it is an unknown imaginary creature. that is completely ignoring that it is made up of liquid. we understand liquid very, very well. regardless of its formation, elemental composition, behavior, etc - we *know* that it couldnt exist as a unit for very long in an entirely liquid environment because of how liquids *behave*.

a plasma creature in space is feasible. a plasma creature existing in an atmosphere would only be feasible if it wasn't entirely made of plasma - in which case it couldn't survive in space realistically. no remotely reliable source of solid matter with which to feed and "grow" its solid parts. maybe in the rings of saturn, but absolutely not anywhere near earth.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by JScytale]



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join