New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

reply to post by JScytale


Yes, it is theorized that plasma is the most common state of matter because it is theorized that stars are pure plasma.

Try this experiment.

Go out on a clear night.

Look up into the sky.

See the little white dots up there in the sky.

Almost all of those are stars, theorized to be plasma.

The little dots in the tether video look like little stars when observed from a distance. Who knows what they might look like if captured in a well focused photo with the capability to capture a much broader range of frequency, as in those photos from the link I provided in the first place.

Thanks for the links guys, this is what makes ATS interesting.

Kandinsky, Thanks for this link

home.sandiego.edu...

Hmm, from what I was able to get from the article on the Bohm criterion, is that in order for a plasma sheath to form, which is something like the membrane of a cell, there must be ion flow that exceeds Mach 1, or the speed of sound. When analyzing plasma, scientist are applying fluid theory, which is applicable, but apparently there will have to be some changes made to the equations when looking at flow in plasma.

What I wondered while I read the article is if this Mach 1 flow speed for formation of a plasma sheath would be necessary in a low gravity environment.

This sentence in the article towards the end mentions the influence of gravity.

The spatial amount by which the speed changes depends only on the arbitrary choice of the vertical displacement, delta-y. The change
arises on account of the work done by gravity, say, or rather an electric field, over a given delta-y.

I have to wonder if the plasma sheath could form a great deal easier in a low gravity environment.

I also have to think that the barrier correlating to the speed of sound isn't related to the nature of Earths field of gravity.

Also near the end of the article he makes this statement in what I think is an excellent final paragraph.

Certainly many thorny issues have been overlooked and surprises
await when we apply the Bohm criterion to plasmas with more than one ion species.

Species? It seems unusual for scientists to use the term species when talking about inorganic matter. Is this an indication that the scientific community is embracing the concept that plasma is organic in nature?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Does a plasma sphere have a darker centre and the "notch"?

GIANT Plasma Thingy with Dark Center



Well in this case it's the plasma sphere around the Earth and the dark center (or nucleus) is the Earth, but it was a cool NASA plasma site I just had to add

www.nasaimages.org...:Tour-of-the-Plasmasphere-and-Plasma

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by ArMaP

Does a plasma sphere have a darker centre and the "notch"?

GIANT Plasma Thingy with Dark Center



Well in this case it's the plasma sphere around the Earth and the dark center (or nucleus) is the Earth, but it was a cool NASA plasma site I just had to add

www.nasaimages.org...:Tour-of-the-Plasmasphere-and-Plasma

One question remained unanswered for these alleged "plasma life forms" promoted by some guys here, is this:

Now, does a plasma critter/ sphere loose its dark center, loose it's false shape (or gain it's real shape!), become more bright, when lens is focused CLOSER on it?
Like here:

Originally posted by depthoffield
...... there is a brief focus action on the lens done probably from the guys on the ground controlling the shuttle camera, in order to be sure for the sharpest (best focused) image on the tether.

Here is an animation with this brief focus action:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/07dd320e9f21.gif[/atsimg]

I marked on the image different stages of the focusing action, in order to have a better correlation between focus plane and how object appear.

What's happening there?

Well............

extracted from here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

where i explained the basic phenomenon of focusing, from where result undeniable that at least one (representative) nothced centered hole-disk is acctually something close and small (a debris particle iluminated by the sun is something common near the shuttle) despite illusory appearing to go behind the very distant tether and "interacting" with it.

I think more and more that those "plasma critters" are so inteligent, and are capable to simulate a closer smaller particle of debris appearing unfocused as BOKEH just to obfuscate NASA and our minds.

Originally posted by depthoffield
Now, does a plasma critter/ sphere loose its dark center, loose it's false shape (or gain it's real shape!), become more bright, when lens is focused CLOSER on it?

Well when we catch one, we will be able to answer all that Not sure if that is possible

I think more and more that those "plasma critters" are so inteligent, and are capable to simulate a closer smaller particle of debris appearing unfocused as BOKEH just to obfuscate NASA and our minds.

No NASA is not obfuscated and only in your mind (and maybe a couple others) are they "unfocused BOKEH"... something you seem to have a fixation on

But I am glad to see you coming around...

"I think more and more that those "plasma critters" are so intelligent"

OH and I fixed 'inteligent'

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by JScytale
gee zorgon, who knew plasma would be present around objects traveling through the ionosphere?

Indeed.

Are you surprised by the presence of plasma in the ionosphere?

you should get your sarcasm detector fixed.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by ArMaP

Does a plasma sphere have a darker centre and the "notch"?

Part of me REALLY, REALLY hopes that you realize the "dark center" in those pics is an electrode. The plasma in the image is only the filaments of illuminated gas.

Originally posted by zorgon
Well when we catch one, we will be able to answer all that

Not sure if that is possible

About as likely as catching a fairy or a liger.

No NASA is not obfuscated and only in your mind (and maybe a couple others) are they "unfocused BOKEH"... something you seem to have a fixation on

The only fixation I see is you and your baseless critter claim. There is zero evidence that the objects are plasma, MUCH less life forms, but you stand by your "explanation" like gospel. Meanwhile heaps of evidence have shown the startling similarities between the images and lens artifacts.

I'm also surprised you have such difficulty noticing when people are actually making fun of you.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by poet1b

Certainly many thorny issues have been overlooked and surprises
await when we apply the Bohm criterion to plasmas with more than one ion species.

Species? It seems unusual for scientists to use the term species when talking about inorganic matter. Is this an indication that the scientific community is embracing the concept that plasma is organic in nature?

You should read more.
Species can refer to a vast multitude of things. In the context of physical science it means "a kind, variety, or type".
For example:

www3.interscience.wiley.com...

www.iop.org...

books.google.com... 5KESqWvOI3IMdyQkOsE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=photon%20species&f=false

You should also definitely look up the scientific definition for organic. Organic does NOT mean alive. Organic means carbon compounds, period. Most comets are organic. Pencils are organic.

your post simply serves, to me at least, as a beautiful example of how quickly people like you are to jump to conclusions after misinterpreting evidence categorically. It's quite impressive how poorly you understood that article and how quickly you linked it to your half-baked ideas.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JScytale

 

Yes, it is theorized that plasma is the most common state of matter because it is theorized that stars are pure plasma.

Try this experiment.

Go out on a clear night.

Look up into the sky.

See the little white dots up there in the sky.

Almost all of those are stars, theorized to be plasma.

The little dots in the tether video look like little stars when observed from a distance. Who knows what they might look like if captured in a well focused photo with the capability to capture a much broader range of frequency, as in those photos from the link I provided in the first place.

See those little white dots up there in the sky?
We have millions to billions of dollars worth of high-tech equipment studying them on a daily basis and so much information about their composition that you probably couldn't read it all in a lifetime.

See those little dots in the footage? They look just like mundane lens artifacts.

Originally posted by JScytale
About as likely as catching a fairy or a liger.

Do you mean a liger like this one?


I wouldn't try to catch it, but it looks like a nice "kitten".

reply to post by zorgon


I guess that is a "no", then, unless they fly around connected to the mains power line.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by JScytale
About as likely as catching a fairy or a liger.

Do you mean a liger like this one?


I wouldn't try to catch it, but it looks like a nice "kitten".

fair enough. was referring mostly to how ridiculous napoleon dynamite sounded talking about them. point still stands, though.

Originally posted by JScytale
fair enough. was referring mostly to how ridiculous napoleon dynamite sounded talking about them.

What's a "napoleon dynamite"?

reply to post by ArMaP


it was a movie.
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by JScytale




And when you figure out why carbon compounds are referred to as organic matter, you can get back to me.

You might work on figuring out what a theory is first, in comparison with a law, or a principle. You should try getting a better grasp on science before you go lecturing others, and spouting off all the time that concepts are facts. Metal species is a growing concept, mainly involved with the effect of metal compounds on organic matter and living creatures, although it is branching out.

Unlike you, I left the question open because I didn't know, while you have a bad habit of insisting that your are right even after you have been proven completely wrong.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JScytale

 

And when you figure out why carbon compounds are referred to as organic matter, you can get back to me.

Because all known life relies on carbon. You are aware that organic in no way, shape or form implies alive or once alive, right?

reply to post by JScytale


Being that I never came close to saying that, why would you come to such a conclusion.

It is considered Organic because it is considered to be a building block of life. Don't know how you got out into left field on this one, but that is nothing new.

It might indeed be very logical to consider plasma forms as building blocks of life.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by JScytale

 

Being that I never came close to saying that, why would you come to such a conclusion.

It is considered Organic because it is considered to be a building block of life. Don't know how you got out into left field on this one, but that is nothing new.

It might indeed be very logical to consider plasma forms as building blocks of life.

plasma. is. not. an. element.
it is a state of matter.
CARBON is an element. it is a building block of life because it is necessary for the chemical reactions that we call life.

reply to post by ArMaP

Yeah its a no until I can find some pictures of free floating plasma balls... but I LOVE that KITTY... I am almost tempted to post my picture of Faeries caught by accident just to mess with JScytale

But nah... would be wasted





[edit on 14-8-2009 by zorgon]