reply to post by Erno86
That's an interesting point, but the system I proposed enables triangulation. So distance from any of the three cameras, as well as altitude and
geographic location, could be calculated with reasonable accuracy from the tracking data generated by the software and used to aim the cameras,
effectively imitating the function of theodolites. And in the case of a daylight disc (the target of most interest) size could be estimated with
reasonable accuracy from the photographs and data.
In the case of UFOs, we not only don't know the standard brightness of any particular model but brightness has been reported to change before such an
object makes a high-speed jump. Even for secret craft in development, ball lightning, etc. we don’t know normal brightness.
About expansion of the universe, accelerating or otherwise, that was called into question in 1999, and the scientific community still hasn't
addressed the issue properly. E. A. Valentijn and P. P. van der Werf detected very large amounts of H2 in a galaxy in Andromeda called NGC 891, using
the European Space Agency's Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) and published a report in September 1999. And P. Richter, et al. (Nature, November 25,
1999) followed up by reporting discovery of absorption lines of H2 in a high-velocity cloud of the Milky Way halo. When astronomers/ astrophysicists
calculate distances in space they use Doppler redshift and compensate by taking into account H1in space, the density of which is known and is readily
detectable with radioastronomy, but they don't take H2 into account at all, the density of which is not known but could be 5-15 times greater than
that of H1. Cold H2 in space can't be detected with conventional technology, although hot H2 has been in the two cases I cited above. This means that
the figures that lead to all this talk about expansion of the universe and many other widely accepted claims were derived from an equation with a
missing variable.
The spin structure of H1 makes it easily detectable, using a high-frequency radio signal at 21-cm wavelength, but in H2 that spin is canceled out by
the tight coupling of the two electrons. Since we only have technology to detect H2, as in the case I cited above, where it is hot, not where it is
cold, the amount is not known and not accounted for in calculating distances of celestial objects. Various astrophysicists have commented that if H2
were taken into account it would change those calculations enough to throw cold water on the notion of the Big Bang, expansion of the universe, etc.
Valentijn and van der Werf estimated the amount of H2 in space to be in the range of 5 to 15 times that of H1. But mainstream simply ignores it
altogether, and it may be a long time before accurate measurements of cold H2 in space can be made, at which time new calculations might just make a
mockery of what is widely believed today.
So on the one hand, scientists can say that there is no proof that there is any H2 in space, despite those observations, but on the other hand the
claims they make are based on calculations that assume no H2 in space at all, instead of saying, "We're not sure." And scientists who have pointed
this out have probably unfairly been subjected to
ad hominem attacks by the scientific community, even though there's a good chance the story
will change in the future.
