Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Heavy Mass Object In-Coming?

page: 43
77
<< 40  41  42    44 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I wonder if Terral made up an excuse for his event not happening.

If a freakin planet or w/e you guys wanna call it, was coming our way, SOMEONE WOULD SEE IT. Either professional, or amateur astronomers would. Infact such a large object would be viewable to normal people. Let's stop dealing in way out there theories, and deal with facts.

These theories that you cannot see "nibiru" or w/e are total BS. just like Elinin was BS




posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 



So share your evidence rather than trying to discredit me with {expletive}.

Here is your reading assignment. Project Pan-STARRS has an enormous camera that can detect objects out to great distances. It can detect a Mars sized object our 320AU and an Earth sized object out 340AU and a Jupiter sized object out 2100AU. And that was based on 2004 capabilities. Any upgrades push detection out even farther.
pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu...



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by reitze
 



So share your evidence rather than trying to discredit me with {expletive}.

Here is your reading assignment. Project Pan-STARRS has an enormous camera that can detect objects out to great distances. It can detect a Mars sized object our 320AU and an Earth sized object out 340AU and a Jupiter sized object out 2100AU. And that was based on 2004 capabilities. Any upgrades push detection out even farther.
pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu...


Thanks. That sounds like it "covers" the visible spectrum as long as its not maked/manipulated (like some of the sun observation reports claim).

In other words, I find your assertion 99% likely but not 100% due to the POSSIBILITIES of manipulation, or other forms of matter (eg: dark matter object?). That's persuasive, but not like seeing/touching ourselves. Especially after the evidence of the OP. What's your take on the OP observations?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by reitze
My wife thought they were mars and Venus. Jupiter makes sense, but the identification of those particular objects wasn't my point - and yours seems to be being a jerk about knowing something someone else doesn't. And THAT WAS my point - what I didn't know or see discussed. No stars for you even if you did illuminate something.

Correcting myself after the edit-time-window:
Actually my wife pointed out Mars and Venus and said she's followed them since she was a kid, and we both wondered what the other brighter object was and find the post above that indicates its Jupiter to be very interesting. There was another object about a month ago nearly as bright... another planet?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 


All objects reflect light. There are no known materials that are not reflective. Even the Moon is bright which is interesting since it is a poor reflector. The albedo of the Moon is around 0.14. Dark bodies are down to 0.05 and these are the sorts of things that can be detected from far away.

The original claims by Terral are rubbish.

Any planet sized object would be detected by its gravity along if it were with 70AU. That calculation was published by an Italian astrophysicist. That's 2x the distance to Pluto.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 


Depending on when you were looking it might have been Saturn. Check out www.astronomy.com to see the location of Saturn in the night sky.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

I for one have had many technology concepts accelerate form 1 to 3 bypassing most of the violence via "getting the word out"... that takes "Jesus balls" and well articulated information.

Please provide one example.


OK, here's a propeller I invented that can make wind turbines a better return on investment than gas turbines:

US 8,133,023 Wind Turbine With Variable Area Propeller Blades (Issued Mar 13, 2012))



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by reitze
 

All objects reflect light. There are no known materials that are not reflective. Even the Moon is bright which is interesting since it is a poor reflector. The albedo of the Moon is around 0.14. Dark bodies are down to 0.05 and these are the sorts of things that can be detected from far away.
The original claims by Terral are rubbish.
Any planet sized object would be detected by its gravity along if it were with 70AU. That calculation was published by an Italian astrophysicist. That's 2x the distance to Pluto.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by reitze
 

Depending on when you were looking it might have been Saturn. Check out www.astronomy.com to see the location of Saturn in the night sky.


Thanks for the informative info on those bright objects (planets Jupiter and Saturn).

On the OP's "rubbish" -- I have the impression thats because it would obscure visibility of the rest of the sky from multiple observations, especially as the year progressed such that any obscured-view past the sun would be 'cleared up'. and yea even if it were something incredibly small/dark/dense the light bending around it wouldn't be perfectly re-aligned and thus there would be observable distortions to back up the OP's assertions (which nobody has shown any as far as I know).



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
If the object is observable by conventional means then its properties can be measured, and its trajectory plotted. NASA can "hide" it if they want, but there are loads of amateur astronomers who can provide this information.

Where is the objective evidence, sans mystical interpolation?
edit on 10-4-2012 by Smack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by reitze

Originally posted by DJW001

I for one have had many technology concepts accelerate form 1 to 3 bypassing most of the violence via "getting the word out"... that takes "Jesus balls" and well articulated information.

Please provide one example.


OK, here's a propeller I invented that can make wind turbines a better return on investment than gas turbines:

US 8,133,023 Wind Turbine With Variable Area Propeller Blades (Issued Mar 13, 2012))



Congratulations on your patent. I'm pretty sure that no-one told you that a more efficient wind turbine design violated the basic laws of physics.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Originally posted by reitze

Originally posted by DJW001

I for one have had many technology concepts accelerate form 1 to 3 bypassing most of the violence via "getting the word out"... that takes "Jesus balls" and well articulated information.

Please provide one example.

OK, here's a propeller I invented that can make wind turbines a better return on investment than gas turbines:
US 8,133,023 Wind Turbine With Variable Area Propeller Blades (Issued Mar 13, 2012))

Congratulations on your patent. I'm pretty sure that no-one told you that a more efficient wind turbine design violated the basic laws of physics.

Thanks.

And yea "THEY" tried to tell me that, but I proved my point. "THEY" were persuaded by my home-built-prototypes with volt-meeter proof, and the graphs from my Matlab model. Enough to "sponsor" the patent filing at an average of $80K per filing. I actually made a crude version of my propeller mounted to a dc motor-generator mounted to the front of a box-fan for a demonstration. Oh and here's the graphs:

Reitze's simulation graphs of the Variable Are Propeller

Recently I've been seeing my patent referenced by follow-on patents. The most recent was for a water impeller. My original disclosure had a water-version too, but the sponsor only wanted the wind-turbine application. I also provided disclosures for barge-mounted "power boats" and various other versions... but that wasn't their primary business - they were more of a war-company.
edit on 4/11/2012 by reitze because: sp
edit on 4/11/2012 by reitze because: link change to slideshow



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by reitze
 


All objects reflect light. There are no known materials that are not reflective. Even the Moon is bright which is interesting since it is a poor reflector. The albedo of the Moon is around 0.14. Dark bodies are down to 0.05 and these are the sorts of things that can be detected from far away.

The original claims by Terral are rubbish.

Any planet sized object would be detected by its gravity along if it were with 70AU. That calculation was published by an Italian astrophysicist. That's 2x the distance to Pluto.


Have you done any observations in the area mentioned in the OP? One thing I can say about light is that its possible that it can be deflected rather than reflected... eg: stealth shapes, mass, and even exotic things like elector-magnetics a la "The Philadelphia Experiment".




posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 


Even if a body reflects or deflects or absorbs or whatever almost all of the light it is still detectable. The albedo for the Moon is like 0.14. Darker objects in the solar system are around 0.05. Such objects can be detected far away. Pluto has an albedo of 0.49. Sedna has an albedo as low as 0.16. These are solid bodies. They are less reflective than a gas giant. They get detected very far away.

You can dream up all sorts of exotic objects with all sorts of odd properties trying to hide something, but it simply can't hide an object. Gravity would give it away at 2x the distance to Pluto. Light would easily give the object away if it were as close as say Pluto. At that distance it would still be very far away.

There simply is no way to have a planet sized object sneak up on us due to the whole sky survey instruments in use.

The Kuiper belt has been carefully surveyed and nothing large turned up there except Pluto sized objects which are small compared to our Moon.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 



And yea "THEY" tried to tell me that, but I proved my point.


You seem to be an honorable man. Please provide me to a link where one of your critics claimed that your turbine design "violated the laws of physics."



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by reitze
 



And yea "THEY" tried to tell me that, but I proved my point.


You seem to be an honorable man. Please provide me to a link where one of your critics claimed that your turbine design "violated the laws of physics."


I was referring to my critics when I disclosed it as a patent and gained approval of a review board. The Director of Strategic Technology and Development was especially critical... but like I said I proved my point. The primary evidence I used to prove it is what I posted above. The charts and talk I gave about it are basically represented in the patent. Note that the technique also includes a method to change the radius too... The key is that on a same size/strength tower its possible to get way-more power out of it over much wider variations in wind conditions.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by reitze
 


Even if a body reflects or deflects or absorbs or whatever almost all of the light it is still detectable. The albedo for the Moon is like 0.14. Darker objects in the solar system are around 0.05. Such objects can be detected far away. Pluto has an albedo of 0.49. Sedna has an albedo as low as 0.16. These are solid bodies. They are less reflective than a gas giant. They get detected very far away.

You can dream up all sorts of exotic objects with all sorts of odd properties trying to hide something, but it simply can't hide an object. Gravity would give it away at 2x the distance to Pluto. Light would easily give the object away if it were as close as say Pluto. At that distance it would still be very far away.

There simply is no way to have a planet sized object sneak up on us due to the whole sky survey instruments in use.

The Kuiper belt has been carefully surveyed and nothing large turned up there except Pluto sized objects which are small compared to our Moon.


An object shaped like a bullet and heading toward us could in theory deflect the light from the sun away from it rather than toward us. and the equivlent of scales on the shape could prevent 99% of the ambient light from other stars from shining off of it. Of course I'm not saying its a bullet or even a space ship nor a black hole. Just that I reserve my 1% of doubt in favor of the OP.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 


No planet sized object could be shaped like a bullet. A planet sized object is one that is large enough to reshape itself into a sphere. From the wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

A planet's defining physical characteristic is that it is massive enough for the force of its own gravity to dominate over the electromagnetic forces binding its physical structure, leading to a state of hydrostatic equilibrium. This effectively means that all planets are spherical or spheroidal. Up to a certain mass, an object can be irregular in shape, but beyond that point, which varies depending on the chemical makeup of the object, gravity begins to pull an object towards its own centre of mass until the object collapses into a sphere.


Furthermore, any object smaller than a planet would not be able to continue to "point" at us since we are in motion around the Sun. The whole sky surveys would still detect the object.

The gravity of the object would reveal itself by the changes in motion of the outer objects in the solar system.

Nothing can be out there, not even a 1% chance as you suggest.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by reitze
 



I was referring to my critics when I disclosed it as a patent and gained approval of a review board. The Director of Strategic Technology and Development was especially critical... but like I said I proved my point. The primary evidence I used to prove it is what I posted above. The charts and talk I gave about it are basically represented in the patent. Note that the technique also includes a method to change the radius too... The key is that on a same size/strength tower its possible to get way-more power out of it over much wider variations in wind conditions.


Did anyone actually say that it defies the laws of physics or not? Do you understand the difference between being skeptical of a new design's efficiency and the objective knowledge that something would defy the laws of physics?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I have been watching this star for the past few nights get brighter and brighter. its up in the northern sky I'm in Tasmania, northwest. And I'm positive its not Saturn or Venus. Because they have been together lately.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by amraks
 


Get yourself a copy of Stellarium. It's free. Download it and run it. You can enter your location and then get sky views showing you what you are viewing. Remember that the direction you give is time dependent. If this object is getting brighter it is not a star. It's a planet.

Interested in hearing what you saw after you figure it out with Stellarium.

Here is the link to the main page. I checked the download for Windows and it is 52M.
stellarium.org...
edit on 12-4-2012 by stereologist because: Added link





new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 40  41  42    44 >>

log in

join