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.

 

NASA now believes comet Elenin to be a comet cluster

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
O noes!!! I've never heard anything like this before! Of course those are credible sources, why wouldn't they be? Before its news actually gets the news before it is news. A comet generating the gravitational field of a star you say? Since this is an idea none of us have ever heard of, I bet ya anything that the government has bought off all of the astronomers and physicists so that no one would spill the beans! This is such exciting news, I think I wet myself. /sarcasm.

Seriously, there are literally a ton of threads on this topic...Your thread added absolutely nothing new to the discussion...if you could call it that.




posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 

Here is the source image (from IRAS in the 60 micron band)


What is seen is two infrared sources. Their PSC designations are 13458-0823 and 13459-0812. All lot of what is seen seems be be internal reflections produced by the optics of the telescope.

I can find a reference to one of them here, where it was found not to be producing OH emissions.
adsabs.harvard.edu...
It is also listed as a star forming region here:
13458-0823

The other is cataloged here:
13459-0812

You do realize that the IRAS images were taken in 1983, right? At the time Elenin would have been found somewhere between Leo and Cancer.


edit on 7/30/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I hear a lot of people thinking that they are successfully debunking there is a dwarf star in our solar system. Yet not 1 person has explained away the timing of the major quakes in recent years when we are lined up with this orbiting body. I do not have any degrees in general relativity or astrophysics, but I do have a basic understanding. A comet cannot do this. I pray that I'm wrong. I'm certain I am not. The next 2 months will tell all.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Hillbilly123069
 

You're right, a comet cannot do this. Neither can a brown dwarf (unless you would like to explain how). The timing is a coincidence and the "alignments" are not really very close. Using the JPL app is a pretty crude estimate.

A brown dwarf is about the size of Jupiter and has the same reflective properties. If there were a brown dwarf inside the orbit of Jupiter it would be very visible in the night sky a couple of months ago.

edit on 7/30/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

I never said I knew what it was, just there is. I've read everything from annuki or whatever they call their lizard people to star of carbon which is basically a giant diamond and everything in between. I dont have a clue what it is out there, but it is affecting this planet. To not be prepared for something that data spawned predictions have validated is short-sighted. Time will show. Either way, a bunch of people will be patting themselves on the back for being right form the start. We just have to wait a couple more months to see which is which.
I would like to bring to the attention of those that would dub me 1 to incite fearmongering. I came to this site over a year ago. I was totally political in my membership. 1 of those pesky Ron Paul supporters. I read a post here about this incoming planet, possibly inhabited by giant lizards(
) coming back to enslave mankind.LMAO.
Now reading through this post, some things started to stick. Dates mostly. Now this is what started me pursuing this subject. What floored me, was with all the literature already out there for years about Nibiru, here comes the discovery of comet Elenin. This newfound comet was on the exact trajectory that this Nibiru was rumored to follow. I know there is no coincidences. Somebody is hiding something. I do not know what it is, but I know it is out there.
Ancient gliphs all over the world have the same drawings. No matter where you look from the mayan kachina drawings in central america to the red dragon drawings in China and everywhere in between. They said it happened before and they say it's about to happen again. God in Heaven could make a whole new world with what we do not know. I think it's unwise to dismiss this without good reason. I haven't seen a good reason yet but I'm hopeful.

edit on 31-7-2011 by Hillbilly123069 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Hillbilly123069
 

Do tell. What "trajectory" does Nibiru follow?



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Admin's plz forgive the 1 liner.

2009
www.youtube.com...

This year
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Hillbilly123069
 

Um. That's the same video.
By 2012 Elenin will be on it's way back to where it came from. But what can you tell me about Nibiru's "trajectory".

edit on 7/31/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by backinblack
 

Turning your steering wheel causes your car to yaw . That would be a turn. A roll is not a turn.



It's a good thing reality is not determined by the number of websites that post something in error. The majority of links have it wrong. If you look at the STEREO website it clearly says that a roll will be performed, just as it was on the 23rd. A roll is a particular maneuver. It is not a matter of semantics.
stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov...

Yes, images will be made because the comet will be between the Sun and the satellite. It is a target of opportunity. Nothing more.


edit on 7/30/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Oh the mighty phage. I get to face off with the legend.

You are arguing a point of semantics... and you are for once on the losing side.

A "turn" does not equate to "yaw," cars don't "yaw" at all. "Yaw" is strictly an aviation/nautical term used to describe the motion of a "moving vessel/ship" or "aircraft" that twists or oscillates fixed on a vertical axis. (Surely I don't have to explain why this cannot apply to automobiles.)

I.E.

Only space crafts, aviation vehicles, or submersible vehicles can "yaw."

Back to the word "turn" again. Turn is not fixed to ANY axis at all.... and in fact can be used to describe a rotating on ANY axis as per definition.

In short, space has no orientation, and turns are applicable to any axis. Meaning no matter the rotation of any particular axis on the stereo satellite it can and will always be referred to as a "turn."

Also the words "roll" and "turn" are nearly identical. In this case, however... The difference between the world "roll" and "turn" actually has the counter argument to the one you are making...


roll/rōl/
Verb: Move or cause to move in a particular direction by turning over and over on an axis.


As you can see.. a "roll" is more severe than a "turn." For a roll equates to a complete 360º rotation on any specific axis. This literally means the stereo will be 180º to the sun at some given point in the maneuver. (No matter the axis that it "rolls" on, the camera will always 100% of the time be 180º to the sun at some given point during the maneuver, unless the satellite has a rotating mount, and is mounted perpendicular to the axis of rotation.



turn/tərn/
Verb: Move or cause to move in a circular direction wholly or partly around an axis or point



yaw/yô/
Verb: (of a moving ship or aircraft) Twist or oscillate about a vertical axis.
Noun: A twisting or oscillation of a moving ship or aircraft around a vertical axis.


Also, another point of semantics... none of those articles are "wrong" for using the word turn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-not to phage.
The point the other guy was making was Nasa is still doing a maneuver it otherwise wouldn't need to do as a result of Elenin. This proves Elenin is in fact a point of interest and as such -- other astronomers would ALSO have interest in it...

Refuting the claim made that it's not all that important to professional astronomers because it's "just" another comet.

That is all....



P.S.


It's nothing to be alarmed about (the rotating of the stereo) -- it really isn't anything special... Phage is right about that... like usual...


+Respect Phage
edit on 31-7-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

It is a similar video. It was put out over a year before the Elenin discovery. I wouldnt have to answer that had you watched them in their entirety. I just posted that 5 minutes ago. Everyone can look over the links I've posted for themselves. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. You have some info to examine and come to your own conclusion. 2 people can witness the same event and see 2 different things. I only offer a possible explanation. From my perspective, I'm attempting to convince someone that water is wet and the sky is blue at this moment. Have a good day folks.

edit on 31-7-2011 by Hillbilly123069 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-7-2011 by Hillbilly123069 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 

You are using lay definitions. In the technical definition of movement about three axes, roll has a specific and singular meaning.

STEREO B will not be turned away from the Sun. The sensors will remain aimed directly at the Sun. That is what I am talking about. The spacecraft will roll (rotate around the axis of the sensor) in order for the sensors to view the comet and its forward scattering effects with slightly different aspects. A test of the maneuver was performed on July 23rd. The sensors remained aimed at the Sun while the spacecraft rolled 135º.
edit on 7/31/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
This thread cracks me up.

It is turning in circles. I swear I read most of these points on the first few phages (lol)....Good job on the information presented so far.

I personally just wanted to add, that I honestly do not give a darn at the moment what this "comet" is....I for one will be glad when it is over with.

Not trying to be a party pooper. I am just saying..........

Sorry to interupt,... carry on.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Laokin
 

You are using lay definitions. In the technical definition of movement about three axes, roll has a specific and singular meaning.

STEREO B will not be turned away from the Sun. The sensors will remain aimed directly at the Sun. That is what I am talking about. The spacecraft will roll (rotate around the axis of the sensor) in order for the sensors to view the comet with slightly different aspects. A test of the maneuver was performed on July 23rd. The sensors remained aimed at the Sun.

edit on 7/31/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Semantics. And you are wrong, they aren't "Lay" terms. They are verbs.

Wow. Just lost all my respect for you... you are just arrogant.


Show me the definition in print of this "technological" or "advanced" or "scientific" or "professional" or "expert" term. Also, you fail to cite the degree of the "roll" and since it's absent, one can only conclude it's a full roll. A full roll is end over end on any specified axis.

All you are saying is "Nasa" specified an axis. Also, failing to provide this chosen axis, refering to the axis as "The axis of the censor" -- but, it's me... who is using lay terms? What axis happens to be the one "around" a physical censor? X,Y, or Z? What is the degree of rotation? Sub 360º? Sub 180º? Sub 80º?

If under 360º Nasa is using the word roll incorrectly. What they would be doing is specifying the axis by assigning the word "roll" to a particular axis. This doesn't make their definition of roll more advanced than what you deem "lay" terms... It makes their definition wrong.... and one made out of logistics to avoid confusion. Again, it's semantics... yes, but -- you.... are wrong.

Period.

You are full of it if and on top of that you are falsely using the word "lay term" which is obviously short of "layman's terms" I guess I have to give an example.

Lay Term
Avian Flu.

Scientific Term
Orthomyxoviridae, Influenza Type A, subtype H5N1

Roll is roll, yaw is yaw, pitch is pitch, turn is turn.... These aren't "layman's terms." These are verbs... which have their origin in Aviation. Space vocabulary is by extension based on aviation... since it still is by definition... aviation.

Furthermore... I was denied the ability to be a commercial airline pilot due to poor vision. I fly privately -- I'm not what you would called a "non-expert" when it comes to words that get their origin from the field in which I'm extensively knowledgeable.

You were wrong and you can't admit it... You say I use layman's terms when I didn't, but, proceed to do so yourself in trying to refute my very nice correction of the all mighty and wise never wrong Mr. Phage.

You're a chump.

At this point I have to wonder how often you are wrong... It's very easy to convince people who aren't knowledgeable in a specific subject by speaking in an arrogant nature about things your audience doesn't understand.

This time... You happened to pick a fight with some one more knowledgeable in a particular field than yourself... and you got called on it. Your credibility is officially in the toilet.
edit on 31-7-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


Sorry to be blunt but your arguing nonsense.

The yaw axis translates into left or right in regards to an automobile travelling on a two dimensional road.

Pitch and roll are axis of motion that do not apply to automobile.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 

Here you go.
www.agi.com...

edit on 7/31/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Laokin
 

Here you go.
www.agi.com...


Thanks for proving my point.

That article clearly states in the opening paragraph that my definitions are the true definitions and they use different models to better avoid confusion so people can understand rotation.


The Yaw-Pitch-Roll (YPR) method of specifying orientation is one of the most difficult methods to understand. This difficulty is due to two factors: the similarity to the Euler angle method and use of a local frame on which the rotations are applied. All rotations in the YPR sequence are applied relative to the original local axes. This is different than the easier to visualize Euler sequence where each rotation occurs about the axes as defined by the prior rotation.


Again, the point was semantics. Do you need to see the definition of the word semantics now to understand the argument?

Nasa chose the YPR method. This doesn't change the definition of the words... it changes the context. Again. SEMANTICS, but you are wrong.

Yaw to Nasa's stereo would be the X axis by YPR method. However, if it's to the X axis of the censor, than the axis may not be the X axis of the satellite. Since by YPR method it's based on the objects perceived axis as they lie standalone in earth's atmosphere.

I.E.

The censor may be rotated before it is mounted and as such... you claiming the "X" axis of the censor could really be the "Z" axis after mounting.

Again... Semantics, but you just 100% proved me correct.
edit on 31-7-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 

You said it yourself.



Roll is roll, yaw is yaw, pitch is pitch, turn is turn....

The spacecraft will roll. It will roll 135º. It will not turn.
edit on 7/31/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Laokin
 

You said it yourself.



Roll is roll, yaw is yaw, pitch is pitch, turn is turn....

The spacecraft will roll. It will not turn.


LOL.

A "turn" is not designated to the Z axis or "Yaw" in aviation. The word Turn means Turn. The word Roll means Roll. The word Turn APPLIES to the word roll. They are not mutually exclusive.

^nice ninja edit... however, it will still turn 130º even if the turn is in fact a "roll" which is a turn on the X axis.

How much sillier can you get?

Semantics:
a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development.

Or do you not understand yet?


edit on 31-7-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


The implication is that the spacecraft will be diverted from it's usual observations in order to observe the comet. It will not.

The implication is that it will be "turned" from the Sun. It will not.




top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join