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.
So share your evidence rather than trying to discredit me with [expletive].
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...
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.
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.
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.
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))
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.
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.
And yea "THEY" tried to tell me that, but I proved my point.
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."
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.
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.
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.