New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by Balez
reply to post by JimOberg

 

#6 -- Heat does not involve chemical and nuclear reactions -- I know of no nuclear reactions induced by exposing matter to sunlight in space. Can anybody help, or is this more pure imagination at work?

Well, it's partly true.
The physics involved is quite difficult, but i'll do it as easy as possible.

Where is the chemical reaction, or the nuclear reaction, in the processes you described? Seems to me it's just material changing state.

reply to post by JimOberg


That was why i said "partly true"
There is a loss of energy because of the cold in space, this halts the sublimation process.

Originally posted by Balez
reply to post by JimOberg

 

That was why i said "partly true"
There is a loss of energy because of the cold in space, this halts the sublimation process.

... which the way I learned it, is neither a chemical nor a nuclear reaction.

Not partly.

Not no part at all.

.... if I understand it correctly.

But we're digressing....

reply to post by JimOberg

... which the way I learned it, is neither a chemical nor a nuclear reaction.

Not partly.

Not no part at all.

Well....
What happens on the atomic level?
In space where it is around absolute zero?
Something happens there.....

I am not like the skeptics, looking at which type of waste product was pulled from a toilet....Behavioral Analysis matters to me.. On the tether UFO swarm clip we hear, "We see a long line, a couple of star-like things swimming in the foreground. Can you describe what you are seeing?"

The answer is stupid, coming from astronaut & nuclear physicist, Franklin Chang-Diaz... "the long line is the tether. There's a lot of stray light & things getting washed out &...Claude is trying to adjust the camera....." David Sereda, asks "how does light go astray? Light is a constant. It cannot go astray. It follows the natural laws of physics. In space, because there is no moisture in a vacuum, light distortions would be impossible or minor at the very most. No light distortion could cause a full apparition as what NASA was alleging to what we were seeing. These objects had clear size, shape & architecture. There was no light distortion or "stray light" effect."

David was shocked at how NASA's explanations were completely amateur & he expressed to me his puzzlement at these explanations not even being "good" cover stories!..."only a grade 4 astronomy student in elementary school would believe what they were saying".

"...the shuttle camera now zoomed back away from the tethered satellite, now 100 nautical miles away, & we could see the swarm of these UFOs was even larger than 50. The objects were so astounding in their movement (they moved so freely) that one might suggest that they were "living beings" of enormous size flying through outer space. Maybe these are not spacecraft, but the extraterrestrial beings themselves."

We were amazed at the observation that none of the objects collide with each other... which you would expect to see, if the UFOs were space particles drifting about...."these objects were clearly breaking Galileo's & Newton's law of gravity because they were all moving through the same space at completely different rates of velocity..."

& I find that relevant because the Columbia crew did a science experiment...I uploaded this at ATS media & the secretnasaman You Tube Channel....in which they downloaded video showing that single cells at 1 G. all swim in the same direction, BUT at 0 G. they all move in separate directions, swimming freely...just like the tether UFOs!...Was NASA preparing for this event, suspecting some of the UFOs may be cellular?

...meanwhile the NASA control operator says "the tether seems to resemble a much wider strand than we'd expect." No one answered him.

As David writes "NASA knew that this event was broadcast to the world...no one was coming forward to question the event...no one was watching who had taped it except Martyn Stubbs."

I had taped the STS-75 mission from beginning to end. So I held it back for 4 years while I researched this discovery. (I had a lot of help from my friends, like David Sereda.) I released it on March 11,2000, by streaming it out of a U.K. web site. And NASA had a problem!...Jim Oberg attacked with his ice/camera distortion theories & this has never stopped. It's 2009 & here he & his followers are... still obsessed with this NASA video being described as UFOs! Why does he care if he does not believe in them?

David continues..."So far, the thoughts that came up in our investigation group
were that perhaps the energy produced in the tether radiated out into space like radio signals & attracted these mysterious UFOs....perhaps they sensed the energy radiating from the tether like a radio tower & all came to see what was causing the signals...we had to learn more"...

Going on to NASA's Website...the brief files only mentioned the potential dangers if the tether had broken any other place! The crew & shuttle Columbia could have been totally destroyed. So why we asked, did it break "in just the right place"?

The initial report also had no specifics as to why it broke. Why were all the other reports classified? I later found out all flight data was under 'embargo", including all video, film & still photos. They still are. Why?

David writes" Finally I found an open report...this report was made long after the mission was completed, giving NASA time to have explanations. After studying them, I could see that they spent a great deal of time preparing their theories. There were holes all over them, but holes amateurs would miss."

As David continued with the NASA report, (everything presented so far was of Saturday, Feb. 24th., 1996, the DAY BEFORE the alleged "tether UFO incident"), he noted it did discuss a small amount of what we might see during the Tethers deployment..."in particular, this experiment will examine the high voltage sheath of electrically charged or "ionized" gas that will surround the satellite as it flies through the Earth's ionosphere."

& "the heart of the TOP instrument is a hand-held low-light video camera with special filters whose primary purpose on TSS is to observe luminescence produced by electron beams & interaction of the electrically charged satellite with the local charged-particle & neutral atmosphere."

David noted that "luminescence produced by electron beams et al., does not mean in any way the subatomic particle like "electrons" can appear to be 2 miles wide. In fact, electrons are invisible to the human eye. They are chaotic.

...the next report David found on NASA's Website was from the "tether incident", revealing more info...From the STS-75 Day 4 Highlights, Sunday Feb. 25th., 1996, 6 a.m. CST, STS-75 Payload Status Report # 05:

"At this point... things are going really well"....
"last night... the STS-75 mission continued to take advantage of...opportunities afforded by the extra day of PREDEPLOYMENT operations as the crew performed extra science activities in preparation for this afternoon's deployment of the Tethered Satellite System"...in other words, THEY HAD A DELIBERATE (unscheduled) WATER DUMP!

"...science teams..used SETS instruments to give measurements ...related to the ionized gas as it interacted with the water cloud. The water molecules in this cloud exchanged electrical charges with the surrounding ionized oxygen & formed a ring shape which could be easily distinguished from the ionized gas background around Columbia. This gave crew members an idea of how the shuttle's environment might react to water dumps released while the tethered sat. is deployed."

They had a water dump because NO dump was scheduled during deployment of the satellite...to be con'd...

Originally posted by secretnasaman

We were amazed at the observation that none of the objects collide with each other... which you would expect to see, if the UFOs were space particles drifting about...."these objects were clearly breaking Galileo's & Newton's law of gravity because they were all moving through the same space at completely different rates of velocity..."

And which law is it exactly that says different objects can't move through the same space at different velocities? I've summarized the laws I know about here, is it any of these? Or did I miss one?

galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu...

Laws of motion:
Law 1 Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

Law 2 The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.

Law 3 To every action there is always opposed an equal and opposite reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

Laws of gravitational force:

1. The gravitational force on a body (its weight, at the Earth’s surface) is proportional to its mass.

2. If a body A attracts a body B with a gravitational force of a given strength, then B attracts A with a force of equal strength in the opposite direction.

3. The gravitational attraction between two bodies decreases with distance, being proportional to the inverse square of the distance between them.

Originally posted by Balez
reply to post by JimOberg

 

... which the way I learned it, is neither a chemical nor a nuclear reaction.

Not partly.

Not no part at all.

Well....
What happens on the atomic level?
In space where it is around absolute zero?
Something happens there.....

www.differencebetween.net...

One of the main differences between nuclear reaction and chemical reaction is related to how the reaction takes place in the atom. While nuclear reaction takes place in the atom’s nucleus, the electrons in the atom are responsible for Chemical reactions.

The chemical reactions involve the transfer, loss, gain and sharing of electrons and nothing takes place in the nucleus. Nuclear reactions involve the decomposition of the nucleus and have nothing to do with the electrons. When the nucleus decomposes, it may change to another atom because of the loss of neutrons or protons. In a nuclear reaction, the protons and neutrons react inside the nucleus and in chemical reactions the electrons react outside the nucleus.

So Jim Oberg is right, it's not chemical because electrons aren't involved and it's not nuclear because the nucleus isn't involved. It's a phase change involving principles of thermodynamics.

I suppose a some point the sublimated gas could become ionized but the ionization is a separate process from the sublimation.

By the way deep space is about 3 degrees above absolute zero but it's at least 30 degrees warmer than that inside the orbit of Pluto, and it's even further from absolute zero at the level where the shuttle orbits, though it's still cold enough to very quickly turn the water dump into ice. www.wisegeek.com...

And I think Jim is right that you're digressing a little too far from the tether video topic with the basic physics questions.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

So Jim Oberg is right, it's not chemical because electrons aren't involved and it's not nuclear because the nucleus isn't involved. It's a phase change involving principles of thermodynamics.

I'm Sorry! What are you talking about?
Thermodynamics does not only conssit of two things you know, and i suspect that you are hinting at 'cold' and 'heat' .
What is the Atom made up Of? Any idea? Guesses anyone?
There are Two sub-atomic parts of an Atom, now what are they?
They are called 'Protons and Neutrons', Commonly called Nucleus.

Now search on google what happens with atoms when it get's really really cold.

By the way deep space is about 3 degrees above absolute zero but it's at least 30 degrees warmer than that inside the orbit of Pluto, and it's even further from absolute zero at the level where the shuttle orbits, though it's still cold enough to very quickly turn the water dump into ice.

Ofcourse it does!
My point was WHY it turns to ice, Why the ice does not sublimate straight away.
I've explained that once... I'll only say this 'COLD' as in ICE cold.
And i am even going to give you a hint, 'atom' .

And I think Jim is right that you're digressing a little too far from the tether video topic with the basic physics questions.

As wrong as you are, there is nothing 'basic' about physics which you have proven.
And now this part about 'digressing' Ofcourse i am, it's the ice that makes his 'story' hold water, sorry about the pun, could not help myself.
He does not want his 'ice' to be gone.... You see where that leads, right?

Originally posted by Balez
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

So Jim Oberg is right, it's not chemical because electrons aren't involved and it's not nuclear because the nucleus isn't involved. It's a phase change involving principles of thermodynamics.

I'm Sorry! What are you talking about?
Thermodynamics does not only conssit of two things you know, and i suspect that you are hinting at 'cold' and 'heat' .
What is the Atom made up Of? Any idea? Guesses anyone?
There are Two sub-atomic parts of an Atom, now what are they?
They are called 'Protons and Neutrons', Commonly called Nucleus.

Now search on google what happens with atoms when it get's really really cold.

Sorry can you just tell us instead of playing guessing games? I've already said it's not close to absolute zero so it's not cold enough to form a Bose-Einstein condensate, so if that's what you're driving at, I don't expect that to happen in Earth orbit.

At least you steered the question a little more on topic to the sublimation of the water in the water dump, so here's what I'm referring to by thermodynamics:

www.math.niu.edu...

Classical thermodynamics, heat transfer: study of the flow of heat through matter, including phase change

Specifically relevant to this thread and topic of the water dump sublimation, is the heat transfer and phase change, so we can look at a phase diagram of water showing the relationship of phase to temperature and pressure:

www1.lsbu.ac.uk...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e19932c3ce6d.gif[/atsimg]

That's the phase diagram for water, and the waste water curves would be a little different but since waste water is mostly water and we don't have the curves for waste water this will suffice for a rough approximation. The pressure in orbit is pretty low, below where water can stably exist as a liquid, so that's why in orbit, we're operating near the bottom of that graph where it sublimates directly from ice to water vapor. Note that it only does so at 200K or hotter. The sublimation rate will be a function of temperature and pressure. Other factors will come into play, like particle size, time, and even the color of the particle and how effectively it reflects sunlight, the shape of the particle and its surface area to mass ratio, etc.

But when transitioning from solid to vapor near the bottom of this diagram, I'm not aware of any nuclear or chemical reactions taking place during the phase change so if there are any please spell out what they are, and provide a source, thanks. And if you can explain how this is relevant to what we see in the STS-75 video, even better.

I've already learned a lot in this thread and maybe I can still learn some more.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Balez
reply to post by Balez

 

Something else i am curious about is this.....
Let's say we have a object (small object) close to the camera that is moving.
When we zoom in on that object, will it's actual speed look different from the unzoomed view?
If that is 'so' what would be the difference with a far away object that is moving and being zoomed in on?
If you noticed... I am not very good when it comes to cameras and their inner workings
Jim and all the other camera experts, please chime in on this

I'll be waiting

well, there are two different things

1) The speed of an object relative to a reference system. It is meassured on distance gone by the object divided by time lasted. Let's say it has 5 meters/second. This is a property of the object, doesn't depend on the observer's (camera) position.

2) the angular speed relative to the observer. It is the distance gone by the object as seen from the observer (which is itself at some distance away) divided by time lasted. THIS IS THE SPEED WE, THE OBSERVERS, SEE OR RECORD. That's way a fly can appear to have a greater speed when flying 1 meter in front of the observer, comparing with an airjet flying 10 km up...or the ISS going with 8km/sec somewhere at 300 km up and appearing to move SLOW. One distance divided to other distance means it is AN ANGLE. So, this angular speed, can be measured as angle units/ time...let's say 8 degree / minute as an example.

Now, this angular speed is the one we, the observers, are aware. Only this.

Answering to your question... this angular speed DOENSN'T DEPEND ON THE ZOOM CAPACITIES OF THE OBSERVER.

Therefore, let's say that, relative to the observer (shuttle's camera), the tether has an angular velocity of 5 degree/minute, for example purposes, (and we know is at 100 miles distant) and one particle of debris has also 7 degree/minute (and it is only 10 meters away for example purposes). Because their angular speed doesn't depend on the observer's seeing abilities, their angular speed is the same no matter the zoom.
The only difference, is that when unzoomed, the observer see a slow moving accros the field of view, and when zoomd, it will see a fast movement accros the field. That's why, when you film a star/planet/moon unzoomed, you are aware to see a static scene, but when using a big zoom, a telescope for example, without tracking capabilites, the sky objects go away fast in the FOV (due earth rotation), and you see this. You can also judge the shaking of a camera holded on hands: bigger the zooms, easy to be aware of the shakings.

The zoom, is only a power of magnification of the angles (or angular velocities).
This are basics in my opinion!

And this confusion goes to much many people..for example those, when seeing a bug/bird streaking fast on a camera, without enough resolution to understant what it is, they say "it is too fast to be a bird/bug, look how fast is going in the image... it must be supersonic or something".

Or here, with some debris only meters away from the camera, and having speed in the centimeter/meter/second (slow) relative to the shuttle, will make David Sereda to promote in his documentary "look they must have tremenduos speeds".




[edit on 7/11/09 by depthoffield]

I thought Jim & friends were going over to his sensible site where Jim says he is taking his debate too..& even starting his own, newer STS-75 analysis...but ??? (I like ATS, where gray area analysis is discussed & dedated, with the good, the bad & the ugly...just like real life.) ...but Jim is bluffing, as is usual...

if Jim Oberg has not heard of something, then it can't be true. He knows it all! Thus Jim is conducting his whole rap, without any STS-75 NASA flight day video...none.(except my posted videos) He has no idea what is on the hundreds of hrs. I have...NASA won't show him. I have every day, every word, every video download & every real time moment in this amazing drama...which Jim is saying he knows all about... from after the fact paper work, ...as well as framing this "Tether" mission as a non event? ...

My research groups original analysis, written by David Sereda, (along with my comments,) who also teamed with me to produce "Evidence: a case for NASA UFOs", on video & in book form re: the "Tether incident...is continued now...from my earlier post...

to recap...taking advantage of the extra day of predeployment operations, the STS-75 NASA crew performed an unscheduled water dump ("science activities") to give measurements which related to the ionized gas as it interacted with the water cloud. They did this to give themselves an idea of how the Shuttle's environment might react to water dumps if they were released while the tethered satellite is deployed. (...because no "dumps" were going to take play once it was deployed.)

These pre-deployment experiments were to study electron beams fired from the SETS experiment's electronic gun. Experiments indicated that a thin electronic beam emitted from the orbiter quickly expands in width to form a cylinder. The effectiveness of these emissions...depends on the beams direction, the local ionosphere's density, & the orbiter's electric potential compared with that of the ionosphere.

As David points out..."first, it should be noted that all this data comes on Sunday, Feb. 25, between 6:00 a.m. & 8:00 a.m....long before the "tether incident". I call NASA's fancy physics here the "black hole" because it will do the same thing to most people's minds that black holes do to light: absorb them all into their false presentation."

NASA saying in the report that this (unscheduled water dump) gave scientists & crew members an idea of how the Shuttle's environment might react to water dumps released while the tethered satellite is deployed was especially illogical to David!..."This is to suggest that the shuttle will release water dumps while the satellite is deployed. The report then suggests, "the water molecules in this cloud exchanged electrical charges with the surrounding ionized oxygen & formed a ring shape that could easily be distinguished from the ionized gas background around Columbia,"

...at 1st. glance, this sounds like a plausible explanation by NASA for the "ring shapes" we witnessed during the "tether event," but it is illogical. When the "tether event" happened, the shuttle Columbia was 77 & drifting to 100 nautical miles away. How could a "water dump" ionize to form a "ring shape," ...travel 100 miles away in seconds (an impossible speed for water) & then pass "behind" the tethered satellite revealing itself to be 2-3 miles in diameter. The amount of water needed to form a ring 2 miles in diameter, (the 12 mile long tether acted as a 'Cosmic Ruler') let alone 50 of them would overburden the shuttle...but that is not all that is terribly wrong with NASA's new reasoning.

Nasa also suggests in this report that, "previous measurements indicated that a thin electron beam emitted from the orbiter quickly expands in width to form a cylinder."
Since there were no cylinder's (only circles) in the "tether incident," one can safely assume that the cylinder shape must have something to do with the ionized gas around the tether itself, giving off a glow (making the tether more visible).

If NASA was suggesting that the alleged UFOs in the "tether incident" were ionized gas balls, "surrounding ionized oxygen & formed a ring shape," such as plasma, the largest "black hole" in their reasoning would emerge. Ionized gases are like neon gas in neon tube lights or florescent light tubes which become luminous when electrically particles activate the gas. For a gas to become ionized & illuminate, energy & gas would be needed.

First, the gas in the satellite was nitrogen. We do know from the article in the United Press International, the gas that leaked from the satellite was nitrogen. It was a small satellite so the amount of nitrogen it had on board couldn't have been enough to form a single, 2-3 mile wide circle, let alone 50 of them, as witnessed in the video of the incident.

The balls of light with clear architecture...did not suddenly form as the alleged gas leaked from the satellite & then fly away, rather they came from afar & then gathered around the satellite (suggesting their origin was not relative to the satellite), as the report states that "a thin electron beam emitted from the orbiter quickly expands in width to form a cylinder."

If NASA is suggesting in this report that the balls of light witnessed during the "tether incident" were merely "ionized plasma," (gas) & we let NASA try & tell us they had enough gas to fill 50, 2-3 mile wide balls of light with gas (impossible), we are still left with the real "black hole."

That is, plasma cannot form a perfect, angular architecture, cannot bend in sharp distinct angles...& cannot hold any real shape (even a perfect circle) when it is not confined in a containment system...if the gas was free (in space) it would form an amorphous cloud...

so how could NASA say it was able to create a multi-billion dollar confined...plasma that had clear shape, control & architecture in space, let alone 50 of them? If they could, how did they ship the 2-3 mile-wide containers into space & then fill them with gas (plasma) & then ionize them?"

RE: such a container... it would have to be some kind of space craft or living entity's (living plasma) phenomenal membrane.

reply to post by secretnasaman


Could you please post a link to that NASA report you (directly or through David Sereda's quotes) talk about?

Thanks in advance (in case you answer my post this time ).

reply to post by secretnasaman


Wow Martyn,

Those last couple of posts were awesome - they could easily be made into articles for future presentation. You are thorough and I'm glad you're here.

You have really done a great job in this thread, I really appreciate your sticking around and helping us to solve this puzzle. Great Job Mate!

Give yourself a pat on the back from me.

*And just ignore the repetitious naysayers that hang around this place; they have added little to this investigation. Don't let 'em monopolize your time or get you wound up or sent off on a wild goose chase. I suppose you already know the score anyways..



[edit on 7-11-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Sorry can you just tell us instead of playing guessing games? I've already said it's not close to absolute zero so it's not cold enough to form a Bose-Einstein condensate, so if that's what you're driving at, I don't expect that to happen in Earth orbit.

Was not driving at that at all....
But what i was driving at was: Atoms slow down in extreme cold temperatures.
That means there is a loss of energy.
And... Even in a low orbit you can not escape the background radiation.
And as i tried to explain earlier, the loss of energy stops the sublimation process partly.
And this is because of the extreme temperature that is in a low orbit.
This very low temperature slows the atoms down and makes the water able to boil to ice fragments.

If you remove the extreme cold temperature (background radiation) that is in space, what would happen with the dumped water?
It would vaporize totally.
That is what happens when the suns radiation hits these ice particles.
The sublimation process starts over again and the interaction of the nucleus in the atom produces energy (simplified expl.).

Specifically relevant to this thread and topic of the water dump sublimation, is the heat transfer and phase change, so we can look at a phase diagram of water showing the relationship of phase to temperature and pressure:

Yepp looks right alright.
Note that the diagram do not have below zero temperatures where the atom is affected.
Otherwise it shows exactly what i have been saying.
When the ice is hit by sun radiation the ice will vaporize.
This has been denied.

But when transitioning from solid to vapor near the bottom of this diagram, I'm not aware of any nuclear or chemical reactions taking place during the phase change so if there are any please spell out what they are, and provide a source, thanks. And if you can explain how this is relevant to what we see in the STS-75 video, even better.

The relevance was that the ice will vaporize when hit by sun radiation.
Which... Was denied.

Now there is allot of things here to take in to get the whole picture.
There is a constant background radiation in space.
You can have one side of an object hit by sun radiation and have a temperature close to 200c.
While the side that is not hit by this radiation will still be cooled down by the background radiation.
So there will be an atomic change when the particle is going from absolute cold to extreme heat.

As our original STS-75 research group's investigation (including David Sereda's great work) had revealed...& as David writes, "...it was all impossible what NASA was saying. The very fact that NASA pretended to know so much about what they were doing with the STS-75 tether experiment "after the fact" contradicts how little the Columbia crew knew about the amazing alleged UFOs when the NASA, Huntsville operator asked them, "We see a long light & a lot of objects swimming in the foreground. Can YOU describe what we are seeing?"

The response was "stray light getting washed out." They didn't say, "Yes, this is the Tether Optical Phenomenon caused by ionized gas & water dumps" did they?

That's because NASA made up all that fancy, inaccurate physics "after the fact" to have an answer for the public. So what caused the sudden appearance of over 50, fast & moving mysterious objects?

The STS-75 Day 4 report continues with Sunday, Feb. 25th., 1996, 6:00 p.m. STS-75 Payload Status Report #6:..."today marked a major milestone as...Columbia began deploying the...TSS on schedule at 2:45 p.m. CST,...the world watched as the satellite gently lifted from it's cradle...the satellite is rock solid..."

On Sunday, Feb. 25th., 1996, 9:30 p.m. STS-75 MCC Status Report #08 reports:..."The tether on the Italian Tethered satellite broke about 7:30 p.m. CST Sunday..."

As David sums up... Based on "the size, energy & magnitude of the UFOs witnessed in the "tether incident"...it clearly appeared that NASA was encountering a genuine extraterrestrial contact phenomenon. These craft or living entities were too enormous, inter-dimensional & beyond current physics to be man-made....For all the incidents I (David Sereda) had seen on Martyn Stubbs NASA video, our research group always found NASA's obvious lies to cover up what was really happening. Because they lied so often, their credibility was waning....

"Martyn had still not shown me ...most (of his) footage...the tether was still just the beginning of the best footage."

& thanks David,all these years later for the You Tube "secretnasaman channel", plug...where there now is a place to see that NASA UFO footage!

Martyn, can you respond to these issues of fact in your claims, please? Or must I taunt you further?

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by secretnasaman

[1]..."...We are told by NASA control in Huntsville, Alabama that, "there seems to be a lot of moonlight reflecting off the water. Is that a real picture, or are we getting some video fuzz?"

[2]...judging by the enormity of ice that NASA allegedly says was "dumped out earlier," one would have to question where the space shuttle produces so much ice.

[3] Is it a giant snow cone machine in space that dumps huge ice crystals several times each day? You need water to make ice. Where did the shuttle carry so much water (weight) & why does it make ice out of its water supply (presumably for drinking, bathing & experiments) & dump it all out?...it seemed like an awful waste of water considering how much energy it takes for the space shuttle to carry all this water out into space just so that the astronauts can make snow cones & then throw them out the window.

[4] ... So we know that hydrogen gas can get dumped overboard. Hydrogen gas is very volatile & must dissolve or burn up very quickly under the influence of intense radiation from the sun...

[5] ...water is only dumped in case of an emergency as the manual further states, "The EMU dump will be used only if an EVA is required". Of course the astronauts on the shuttle don't make a habit of dumping out water just for fun. If they did, they would be out of their own water supply very quickly.

[6] ...space is a dichotomy with regards to its temperature. Space is cold, but as soon as any gas, liquid or solid object is exposed to bare space, the intense radiation from the sun quickly causes heat to be formed & very fast nuclear & chemical reactions take place.

[7] ...The question about alleged "ice crystals" is that we know that pieces of ice (even a few meters in diameter) could not survive the intense radiation from the sun & stars in space for very long. In fact what we were told by the astronauts on these missions was that the alleged ice crystals we were seeing were being dumped out of the shuttle when in truth, they rarely dump out water. Water is not ice. If the ice or water were dumped from the shuttle in an emergency water release situation, it should dissolve very quickly, yet these alleged ice crystals did not."

[8] ...I'm certain Rev. Jim will keep us entertained in the meantime ...

Discussing #8 first, I find the only reason to read Martyn's stuff is for pure entertainment purposes, and the items 1-7 provide evidence for that.

#1 -- When I worked there, Mission Control was in Houston, Texas, and by all credible accounts, it still is. There's a payloads office in Huntsville (formerly known, in dubious honor of all the German scientists there, as 'Hunsville') but they have nothing to do with the operational aspects of the shuttle (or its payload bay cameras).

#2 -- The majority of the water dumped is a waste product of the fuel cells, which 'burn' o2 and h2 to create the electrical power that feeds the shuttle. That has been explained in many places including the Weekly Reader. When docked to a space station, that water is bagged and then transferred into the station for long-term use, which is why such dumps aren't needed as often during docked operations.

#3 -- Didn't Martyn understand the explanation in the Weekly Reader?

#4 -- "Gas", already being a gas, can't be "volatile" -- eager to convert itself into a gas. And hydrogen can't burn in the vacuum of space -- no oxygen. Probably another missed issue of the Weekly Reader.

#5 -- The water dump referred to here as an 'emergency' involves an 'EMU', the backpack used during spacewalks. It has nothing to do with water dumps from the space shuttle itself. Water is slowly expended during spacewalks from a flash evaporator in the backpacks, to cool the suit.

#6 -- Heat does not involve chemical and nuclear reactions -- I know of no nuclear reactions induced by exposing matter to sunlight in space. Can anybody help, or is this more pure imagination at work?

#7 -- Here's where it all adds up. Shuttles "rarely" dump water, Martyn claims -- overlooking all of the scheduled water dumps on all of the regular missions. Ice dissolves quickly, he says, overlooking videotaped evidence of hunks of ice persisting on the shuttle's exterior for days -- and once, even through reentry and landing. And when astronauts say otherwise, Martyn warns us, they are lying -- it's that simple.

As I said, read his stuff for entertainment purposes only, certainly not in expectation of learning anything about reality.

Originally posted by Balez
If you remove the extreme cold temperature (background radiation) that is in space, what would happen with the dumped water?
It would vaporize totally.
That is what happens when the suns radiation hits these ice particles.

Apparently you've never studied classical thermodynamics, or if you have, you forgot it. If you remove the background radiation, then it would get colder, not warmer. If you add sunlight radiation, it gets warmer. Yet you seem to equate them, using a concept of "removing cold". There is no "cold" to remove in classical thermodynamics, there are only different levels of heat, and they are all above absolute zero (0 degrees K) which you also don't understand:

Note that the diagram do not have below zero temperatures where the atom is affected.

Below zero temperatures on a scale of degrees Kelvin? Please provide evidence that such a thing exists, but I already know you can't, so you can stop pretending that you understand this subject when it's apparent you don't.

Otherwise it shows exactly what i have been saying.
When the ice is hit by sun radiation the ice will vaporize.
This has been denied.

Nobody denied it will vaporize, what is denied is that the vaporization will be instantaneous. Let me provide an example closer to home that can help you and others understand, in fact it's an experiment you can conduct at home to prove the facts about phase change.

Put a 4 quart pot on the stove, and turn the burner to heat up the pot to 250 degrees F or 121 degrees C (above the 100C boiling point of water).

Now get a stopwatch, and then time how long it takes 1 tablespoon of water to boil away when you add it to the pot. Not long, but even that didn't happen instantaneously right?

Now time how long it takes 3 quarts of water to boil away. It takes a lot longer right?

So nobody is denying that water will boil at over 100 degrees, it will. But the larger the amount of water, the longer it takes to boil away.

Now carry this analogy to the STS-75 video, the ice particles are different sizes and the smaller ones will sublimate more quickly and the large ones will take longer, but they will all sublimate just like all the water will boil away eventually on your stove, but in both examples, the heat transfer process takes time, and the larger the mass is, the more time it will take.

While the side that is not hit by this radiation will still be cooled down by the background radiation.
So there will be an atomic change when the particle is going from absolute cold to extreme heat.

I already asked you to provide a source to back up your claim of a nuclear reaction in my first request and you didn't provide one, so I guess there's not much point in asking you to provide a source documenting that a change in the speed or heat energy of an atom is considered an "atomic change". It's a change in the velocity of the atom, not a change in the atom, just like throwing a baseball moves the baseball faster but it doesn't change the baseball into something else.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by secretnasaman
We were amazed at the observation that none of the objects collide with each other... which you would expect to see, if the UFOs were space particles drifting about...."these objects were clearly breaking Galileo's & Newton's law of gravity because they were all moving through the same space at completely different rates of velocity..."

well..in this simple experiment with dust particles in front of my camera... focused or out of focus.... SHOW ME TWO OF THEM COLLIDING...



my dust particles for sure break laws of physics...

(by the way, i now realise that the finger gesture may be seen as an obscene gesture... i assure you that i didn't do it in purpose, but instead at the moment of filming, i was trying to put a bigger object in front of camera, very close, to see how will appear unfocused.)


Here is the rough explanation of why it is hard to see particles colliding:
Let's say, that you have N particles in the volume of space called V. And each particle has a D diameter. And each particle has a v velocity.
According to this site: www.silcom.com...
the formula for the time spent until a collision occurs, is this:

the expected value of time for a collision is found to be:
t=V / ( N * PI * D * D * v )

for these values:
V = 1 cubic meter
N = 100 particles
D = 1 mm = 0.001 m
v = 1 meter/second

then time for a collision to occur is: 3183 seconds !!! (about 50 minutes)

so you see, in order to see collisions, you must have many particles in volume unit, bigger sizes, bigger speeds...or big time to spend trying to catch one collision!!

breaking law of physics? No, breaking only too simple judgement. (it is about understanding probabilities)

Tell David Sereda to not be amazed anymore when seeing particles which doesn't collide.





[edit on 8/11/09 by depthoffield]

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by secretnasaman

 

Wow Martyn,

Those last couple of posts were awesome - they could easily be made into articles for future presentation. You are thorough and I'm glad you're here.

You have really done a great job in this thread, I really appreciate your sticking around and helping us to solve this puzzle. Great Job Mate!

Give yourself a pat on the back from me.

*And just ignore the repetitious naysayers that hang around this place; they have added little to this investigation. Don't let 'em monopolize your time or get you wound up or sent off on a wild goose chase. I suppose you already know the score anyways..

i second that....... well said

thanks guys.... keep it up..... infinite blessings..... booooooom

[edit on 8/11/09 by mcrom901]

Google Video Link

[edit on 8/11/09 by mcrom901]

Originally posted by secretnasaman
"Martyn had still not shown me ...most (of his) footage...the tether was still just the beginning of the best footage."

& thanks David,all these years later for the You Tube "secretnasaman channel", plug...where there now is a place to see that NASA UFO footage!

could somebody please point me to these clips......