Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About manxman2

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

manxman2's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Madonna has paid her respects to the Jackson family - and asked how much they want for the kids
  2. My point is debris was viewed as a serious problem for on board cameras. The movement is explained, as has been done to death, by the effect of the lense distortion or by the effect of the shuttle on the particles that surround it. The particle you see changing direction could be on an eliptical orbit around something, and when you see it stop, what's actually happening is it's coming towards the camera. There's stuff going on, there's boosters firing, there's venting, there's other particles, there's reflected light, there's movement. It could be anything. The guys there knew what it was, they explaind what it was, the explanation fits observations and that's the end of it. youve already been editing it china to siut your self centred smug bastard attitude and views .. and we wont mention the completely fabricated quotes either will we .. poxy behaviour from someone who considers himself an intellectual having to stoop so low to get the upper hand in a debate with a retard .. thats why i am referencing any on subjuct relevent points on the thread in general discussions .. looking the part or appearing to is far more important to you than substance .. you seem to think your opinion is all thats needed in any discussion .. you want to see evolution in progress survival of the fittest come on down to ballasalla and try your smug bastard attitude with me face to face and you will get to see raw animal instinct first hand.. shower of pricks.
  3. They are still trying to determine MJ's cause of death... They are currently blaming it on the Boogie... also they reckon Jackson hasn't been this stiff since McCauley Culkin came to stay over for the weekend.
  4. manxman2


    ofcourse my parabolic error slim .. and cheap shots wont work here your cheap trolling will just show you for what you are. and unless you have something on topic to say and have sourced it i will not be replying to you again.
  5. manxman2


    Must...resist....urge....to...correct! would you prefer i used a word processor first for this thread before posting slim. .. it will save any errors and stop you getting all exited over simple spelling errors that once posted and viewed i just cannot be bothered to correct whether they are accidental or not, plus that way there will be capitals in the right places etc.... we are just talking not writing a CV or a letter to the high bailiff.
  6. manxman2


    yes thanks i have seen that page before .. but it wasnt what i was really after .. i will pm someone to see if they can email me any hard copy.. and place a link here. also can we discuss one point at a time until you have finshed on that point and then move on .. and in the spirit that has now decended on the thread i will say please to this request .. any point will do but lets just do each one in a fullest way first please.
  7. manxman2


    this was the link to the tops camera specifications china i have just tried it for your benefit.. once again after pointing it out to oberg it no longer works .. that must be virtually every link gone now .. not to worry i will find them again. i believe in coincidence but its getting hard to swallow this lot now .. unless you have any idea and can logically tell me why about 9/10 links out of maybe a dozen would die in such a short time period after shooting down his assertions publically. http://www.nasa.gov/sts-75/tss-1r/exp/top.html notice it was a direct link to the tops camera.
  8. manxman2


    yes your missing a source and giving an opinion again.
  9. manxman2


    yes i comprende just fine thanks spent a fair few hours on the parrabolic arcs or as you described them eliptical arcs. explain this at 1minute 40 secs please bottom left hand corner of screen. theres a few more as well if you would like them referenced but that example will do for now.
  10. Not even near to being funny... it was more than near to being funny actually.. .. it was a cracker.. Michael Jackson said in his will that he wants to be melted down and turned into a playstation - so little kids can still play with him
  11. manxman2


    no parabolic arcs explain a 180 degree turn they only make the object appear stationary if viewed in a str8 line to the camera or eye..{ref1d}
  12. manxman2


    reply to china. MM2 - I've said before I will say it again - I believe this video is showing ice particles and similar debris in a micro-gravity environment orbiting the shuttle.{ref 1a1b1c} unproven unsourced and just opinion. The objects are tumbling with multiple faceted surfaces which reflect light from different points on the ice crystals{yet to be established} into the camera. They have irregular shapes meaning their centre of gravity isn't symetrically positioned, they will have angular momentum as well as linear momentum. unproven unsourced and just opinion. Given these cateats which will vastly complicate how they move the objects are in orbit in eliptical orbits around the centre of gravity of the shuttle which will also not be in a constant place as fuel, astronauts etc move around within it unproven unsourced and just opinion. and they are most certainly not a GIVEN yet.. The eliptical orbits will, when turned into tracks on a video, show themselves as arcs, the tumbling and angular momentum will add sine waves of various frequencies to this first order arc to create an overall complicated movement path. unproven unsourced and just opinion. That is what I believe the pictures are showing, that is what the astronaut who took the pictures believes they are showing.[ref5a} incorrect the tops camera was a remote camera operated from houston .. one astronaut had a hand held camera.. source and link to follow {ref5a} i believe that is what the astronaut is seeing aswell .. i also believe the astronauts are impervious to what houston is viewing as the astronauts are viewing using the naked eye .. whereas the camera especially made for that launch is filming in the UV spectrum that is invisible to the naked eye .. also as the astronaut says a few bits of debris that follow in their wake .. those pictures show much more than a few bits of debris dont you think.{ref5a} as slim says when talking previously .. Your video didn't have a singular object, it had hundreds. .{ref5a} On these forums I try to use primary sources to explain where people have misconstrued information - that is what I am attempting to do now, but I have to admit this is one of the most pointless examples of this exercise. I trust and believe in my sources, and am reasonably sceptical of sources with links to sites like ufo-truth or whatever. then dont let this thread be any different if your sources are good then link them .. without it is no more than opinion. People who work for NASA or whatever may believe unusual things, but the organization itself is pretty rigourous in only putting up papers and evidence which is scientifically respectable - that is the information I use and link to. again feel free to share your sources or your replies go un referenced as personal opinion. I've said it multiple times before I'll say it again - when the evidence is good enough to get into Nature Magazine I'll believe it, til then all we've got is hearsay on Youtube which is a very very poor source. I am totally unconvinced by what you are putting up here. You can continue to waste everyone's time if you like, its a free country, but I don't think it is a very worthwhile use of your time. again opinion .. i will decide how to spend my time myself. when all the talk and opinion are left out and only reliable data used a very different picture becomes clear as will become crystal.. .. and please stop forming your sentences as FACT when they ARE NO MORE than your opinion.
  13. manxman2


    interesting that slim. but i dont get your point .. unless you are saying its some of the particulate that is being viewed doing 180 degree turns, aswell as coming to a full stop and then moving of again in a different direction after several seconds or even a minute or more... i agree in the sense that some appear to be micro meteorites and go str8 in one direction at a steady volocity.but i have no data to support that fact.
  14. manxman2


    500 particles observed per orbit, fast moving bright clouds - fascinating stuff - MM2 if you were being objective you'd have to be considering these papers in any analysis of the tether video etc - a comprehensive analysis would take years, but then again that's what the scientists publishing in Nature are doing - spending years of their lives, billions of pounds in telescope, and satellite time patiently looking for evidence of alien life. Of course these people would naturally be totally uninterested in solid evidence of mile wide space ships in low earth orbit - totally, not relevent at all to their years of patient work - and of course the pay offs from the CIA help. you just cannot help yourself can you. with the conspiracy nut jibes yet quote me saying anything conspiritorial no chance. all beautifully crafted accussations .. nothing more than wind and piss. i do however have no problem in coming to terms with intelligent extraterrestrial life either existing now or in the last few billions of years .. i also have no qualms accepting that said intelligences would wonder about their origins and their environs just as we here on earth do .. and like us here on earth sent out probes of far superior technology to ours to wander the galaxies so that they could wonder at and look in awe at their spacial surroundings for as long as they existed or their future existance. i also feel that stephen hawking thoughts on specie survival makes it imperitive that any race of intelligent beings would look at colonisation of nearby planets as indeed humans have cast an eye upon. if that makes me a retard in your book then thats fine by me .. only i would appreciate it if the next time you feel the urge to call me a retard you do so to my face. lets start here then. 2 clips of the same event an event i have never claimed anywhere at any time are little green men visiting earth or its spacial borders. the solid static light sources are obviously stars .. what i would like you to do with as little personal insults and dripping sarcasm is explain what you think is going on in those clips as they do interest me now and indeed when i first saw them. it would help if you catalogued your reply in such a way. the light sources .. point one plus sub catagory 1a ice crystals 2a meteorites 3a space debri etc so that the thread does not turn to shit once slim starts the normal trashing proceedures. i see 6 points of contention with the assimilation of the clips below the history of the clips is well established. point 1 the objects point 2 the camera the footage was shot with. point 3 the platform the camera was mounted on i.e. shuttle. point 4 the focal point i.e. the tether. point 5 the observations of the flight crew and their control centre. point 6 the proffesional points of view by various astro- physicists etc. these simple objectives will help with informed comment to come to a rational and informed opinion between us all .. as the amount of data avaliable to us interested bodies is enormous. i have an open mind on this subject however i have strong opinions on what i am not watching.
  15. Loa said. a more pertinant question might be what would cause ice to melt in space at all, if it does not meet with the friction of an atmoshere or collide with an object travelling at speed? i dont claim to be an expert on the subject, and the above might be better explained by someone with more up to date knowledge on the subject i said. ice doesnt melt in space .. it either super heats or super freezes .. which is for all intents and purposes the same thing. it sublimates. and i do not claim to be an expert either .. but i now know some people who are .. thanks for the advice .. atleast now someone is making an effort. Slim said. Can you explain how super heating is the same as super freezing? What has 'super freezing' got to do with melting? I said. super freezing and heating have virtually the same effect slim gasation i.e. sublimation. basic school boy physics slim thought you may have knew that. Slim said. If it's basic school boy physics, why don't you explain to me how ice sublimates in space due to low temperatures like I asked? If ice sublimates at both high and low temperatures, are you saying there is no ice in space? Why is it more pertinent to ask what would cause ice to melt in space? What are you trying to say? I said. if you wanbt to know slim research it yourself as i have .. i will decide what and when i post thanks. Slim said Why would you need to research basic schoolboy physics manxman2? Do you know what this is? Do you know why a comet only has a tail when it gets near the sun? Do you know you're talking out of your hoop? I said. i know fullwell slim .. your determined to split hairs on anything. see slim no liquid water in space .. all water molecules are either ice or vapour. Design Reference Mission Case Study Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy Science Steering Committee. SOFIA and the Formation of Water in the Cold Interstellar Medium Fig. 1 shows a schematic of the oxygen chemistry that is believed to power water formation in interstellar space. Chemical models (see Elitzur & de Jong 1978, Neufeld et al. 1995) show that for T >300 K, water vapor will account for most of the gas-phase oxygen that is not bound as CO, as a result of the neutral-neutral reactions: H2 + O ! OH + H and H2 + OH ! H2O + H. At temperatures less than 300 K, however, these reactions are negligibly slow because they possess significant activation energy barriers. Gas-phase water is then produced either by means of reactions of atomic oxygen with hydrogen on grain surfaces with subsequent sublimation or via cosmic-ray driven ion-neutral chemistry, as shown in Fig. 1. Water formed on grains will remain frozen on the grain until either the grain temperature exceeds 110 K or the water molecule is photodesorbed by a UV photon. SWAS and Odin observations have determined that the water vapor abundance in cold gas is several orders of magnitude below theoretical expectations (see, e.g. Bergin et al. 2001). The primary solution provided as an answer to this question is that the formation of water ice on grains results in a depletion of atomic oxygen from the gas. In this model the fuel for the chemistry, oxygen atoms, is frozen onto grains in the form of water ice. This ice will not evaporate unless temperatures exceed 110 K (Fraser et al. 2001) and hence most oxygen is essentially unavailable to make water vapor or molecular oxygen in the gas. Thus the low abundance of water vapor hints at a lack of gaseous atomic oxygen in the densest regions of molecular cloud cores. Even a little amount of oxygen in the gas would create water vapor that could be detected by SWAS and ODIN. Herschel has a key program that focuses exclusively on water, Water in Star-Forming Regions with Herschel (WISH; PI: E. van Dishoeck). This program will survey the spectrum of activity in both low and high mass star forming regions. With access to multiple transi- tions of both ortho and para forms of water, and higher angular resolution than SWAS/Odin, Herschel will determine accurate water vapor abundances and thereby challenge these theo- ries. full evaluation here. http://www.sofia.usra.edu/Science/science_.../Bergin2008.pdf comets. "The surface is about 5 percent ice, and the rest is just dark dirt. So it's like a very dirty skating rink." source. national geographic. why not try sourcing your data slim. Slim said. I didn't say there was liquid in space. I'm questioning your statement regarding super freezing: "ice doesnt melt in space .. it either super heats or super freezes .. which is for all intents and purposes the same thing." Why not try understanding the question manxman2, why doesn't the ice on the comet sublimate, if freezing and heating have the same effect? Why is it that the ice stays ice when it's further from the suns radiation but when it nears the sun, the ice turns into vapor forming the tail? Heating and cooling: not the same thing. The opposite in fact, a fairly basic principle of physics! I said. slim what part of i will post what i like when i like did you not understand ..?? lmao as slim realises the fundermental basis of his shuttle footage arguement is disintergrating in front of him lol. hard for non existant ice crystals to go out of focus isnt it slim. debunkers have been falsely peddling that shit for years .. like i have said first we will eliminate what the footage doesnt show .. then speculate as to what it does depict. i dont know who you think you are slim demanding answers .. ive told you do your research or i will fuuk you in the arse. The opposite in fact, a fairly basic principle of physics. i am going to use that line to whip you with whipping boy .. your a joke. your just repeating questions already answered on previous page .. and i am not supplying the other link to the virtually the same thing quote until i put up the shuttle footage thread then you can read it. .. until then do your own research .. and for the record i dont give a flying fuuk about comets and your efforts to diversify the discussion. and if you think comet ice is chemically identical to shuttle ice then feel free to prove it. i will bet you cannot.. chubby brown wrote a great song for you slim m8 .. it was called the back scuttle. and heres another big numbers throw away line from the same world renowned physicist .. you have more chance of entering and winning every lottery in the would on the same weekend as you have of seeing a singular ice crystal in space. ................................................................................ .................................................................... Do you know why a comet only has a tail when it gets near the sun? Do you know you're talking out of your hoop? what was this bullshit about if you acknowledge now after having it pointed out too you that there is no liquid water in space.. how do you know ice doesnt vapourise/sublimate from a comet in deep space when super freezing anyway ..?? .. link to anything relevent to your unconfirmed/guess/assertion please .. again i will wager you cannot. .. ice does sublimate in deep space .. it just does it much more slowly.. try sticking your fingers onto some dry ice slim .. you will get them burned worse than here. comets are also depleted by sublimation each time they come near the Sun. Ultimately, old comets may break into several pieces or even completely disintegrate. In some cases, the comet may have a solid rocky core that is then left to travel around the comet's orbit as a dark barren asteroid. Slim says. You think there's no ice in space? Read up on the Kupier Belt for example, and come back with that statement again. I'm asking you questions to back up what your saying, that's all. Why are you getting so upset about it? I've never claimed there was liquid water in space. What I'm questioning is your understanding of what happens to ice in a vaccum at both high and low temperatures. You said it was the same thing, and it isn't. You're wrong, sorry. Because it's tail dissapears. It's explained in very simple language here: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/com...ublimation.html Right, well done, the suns radiation causes the ice to sublimate. The temperature rises. This doesn't happen when its away from the sun, because what happens to the comet when it's hot is different from what happens when it's cold. I say. A comets tail disappears you say .. more incorrect assumption slim. A comets tail does not disappear it mre becomes invisible in our norml light spectrum .. its has a clear tail in the infra red spectrum .. as it sublimates/vaporises its various components no matter what the temperature depending on how old the comet is and how well insulted the various materials are. A comet like halle bop has an estimated 2000 star passes before extinction or if it has a solid rock core becomes an asteroid. The diagram you posted above clearly shows your intent on showing the different transitional stages of a water molecule in space .. that was before i made it abundantly clear to you that water in space only exists in solid or gaseous form. Keep digging your own verbal grave .. twisting other peoples words or plain fabricating them to look and sound the part .. i will just keep posting solid indisputable fact and links to that fact ..you will notice the links were from pretty indisputable sources so keep guessing slim and i will just keep shooting your guesses down with true facts not guestimates .. everything i put here is linkable to its source. Slim says That's simply incorrect. I'm talking about the tail formed from the sublimation effect you raised as the comet gets close to the sun, that dissapears when it goes away from the sun. This is because it's the suns radiation that causes the sublimation that creates the tail. I'm using that example to demonstrate that sublimation of a solid (the ice of the comet) to a gas (the tail) only happens when it's heated, not cooled. How is anything that's visible in the infra red spectrum applicable to a discussion about ice sublimation? Does the vapour suddenly become invisible only in infra red at certain temperatures? I say Thats exactly what we were talking about slim. .. we all know what happens to a comet passing a heat source. However you didn’t know that a comet sublimates its components from the second its created until it dies. Feel free to prove me wrong ive had enough of you demanding i prove you unfounded garbage incorrect .. you wont ofcourse because if you could emphatically show it you would.. Until then its take slims unfounded word on it eh. Slim says Yes, passes. It gets smaller as it passes a heat source. It doesn't get smaller out in deeper space away from the star. That's the point I'm trying to get you to understand, the effect of heating and cooling on ice in a vacuum isn't the same, as demonstrated by a comet. I say. Just a rehash repeated Q. Slim its no good you guessing .. read the sofia report and shut the fuckup about something you know sweet f.a. about in any detail. Slim says. Where's your linkable source that says heating and cooling have the same effect on ice in space? I say. The data is available from many sources im not your lacky slim .. you either look or wait until i am finished compiling my thread opener. Slim says Your video didn't have a singular object, it had hundreds. What's the relevance of the quote? I say. If you cannot see the relevance of the throw away quote then i am not leading you to water You will however re-alise too late at a later point in time. Slim says Ice warms up when you take it from the freezer you nut job. Does ice steam when you put it from the warm into the freezer? No! I say Well done for quoting the obvious .. and a sealed freezer has a drain on it just for cosmetic value i suppose. .. anyway it was an example of water going from stage 1 directly to stage 3 bypassing the liquid phase but thats too complicated i suppose.
  • Create New...