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.

 

What....Is This? Some Bizarre NASA Experiment in Space with Particles?

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JennaDarling


I can imagine it now, 2 ASStronauts, one holds up a lighter, the other farts.

All for science.



Now that was funny, and somehow I could see it as being plausible. But you would need to apply for a couple billion dollar grant before embarking on such escapades!!!! Star for you for bringing a laugh..




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Very well done sir. Thanks. Recommending you for applause, seeing as even Phage couldn't offer an explanation.




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
This was beautiful.

Thanks for the explanation, it had me stumped.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Nice thread TrueAmerican

I agree with Nat it looks like a fuel experiment in a gravity free area - as there is no oxygen in space for combustion of a fuel, it must be in a controlled environment in which oxygen is introduced - which kind of fits in with the droplet floating off in a state of flux and then igniting brighter / producing the bright halo

pretty cool though, would be a nice addition to anyone's home laboratory

and of course, if it can be weaponised, the good ol' boys in the pentagram will be loving it



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
It's a droplet of heptane ignited in the vacuum of space... there's a cool photo of it in Discover magazine's last issue.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
As much as I appreciate Phage (the old one) the new one has been wrong A LOT lately.


Hot pixels one minute, hoax the next...when all the time there's been a scientific answer after all.

edit on 18-8-2011 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by The GUT
 


Well I hate to put words in anybody’s mouth, but I think when Phage said “Hoax” he was not talking about the video itself, but rather the claim of “Water.” Or at least that is what I took away from this thread so far. It was implied it was water burning, then Phage says [I do not know what it is but I know it is not water burning.] We then start the debate of two images, and hot pixels etc. Then get an answer. So yes while Phage did not know what it was he was still correct in his first statement that it was most assuredly not water. So he may not have been all knowing but he was not wrong.

Like I said, I hate to put words in people mouth, but it seems we got two very different ideas about what was said, while reading the same bit of text. This is why “written” communication is so flawed. Without other information, and the benefit of question/answer in real-time the context of statements is too easy to confuse.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by byeluvolk
 

I can dig it, byeluvolk. I sorry. I really was just goofin'. Phage has certainly done as much or more to deny ignorance than anyone on these boards. When he was "on vacation" for awhile, things kind o' got out of hand.

Have to keep him on his toes though...for our own good. We'd be stuck with that DJ bore otherwise and wouldn't learn much.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by chanel
 


i think it just means your in it for the knowledge and not the glory. and possibly you dont know everything about every topic posted here. but soon you could as it seems others have.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I assume that this experiment causes a high level of light output. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that the window we are viewing through auto-darkens like a welding helmet and begins reflecting external light (in this case, stars)? The appearance that the lab tools disappear could easily be explained in this way. Or am I misunderstanding the video and/or thread?



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Dasher
 


Actually just a digital camera explains all this. As the light from the “Reaction” increases the digital camera will attempt to compensate by darkening the image. As the Brightness gets to extreme highs from the reaction the darkening will get to a maximum level as well. Now the difference between the reflected light and the emitted light to us seems like nothing but at the extreme range of image dimming the difference becomes magnified.

All the white “stars” are then just hot pixels which at the extreme levels of light being emitted will again magnify the hot pixel problem. As a hot pixel idea is not just a dead pixel but also one that increases the brightness compared to the surrounding image. Since this increase is not additive, but exponential the very high light levels will make pixels that do not appear hot in other images become very hot due to the magnification of this bright light.

Simply put, as the camera tries to dim the image the difference between reflected light at emitted light become very apparent at the extreme range of the dimming. And on top of this any pixels that tend to be brighter than they should, will now stand out even more as they have a very bright source that they try to magnify even more. They are then contrasted by the dimmed image so many more pixels will appear as hot.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join