manxman2

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.

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.

In other words, you can't. Thanks for clearing that up. im happy your happy..

this is you accusing them of underhand argument tactics, you are maligning their character by claiming to be the victim of having them put words in your mouth and you then went on to say this: i actually thought china had some character .. slim is just a troll. bit of rightous indignation on your part followed by: i have since pointed out to you that your post does claim that there is no ice in space. when can the charity expect your kind donation? loa try putting your reading glasses on m8 .. and actually go and read the original posts ffs. we all know that you believe that the objects on the video are something other than ice, but at this time we are prepared to believe that it is ice. and you all still will no matter whose words and studies i produce to the contrary even the shuttle logs will not shift them i know thats why i am going to state my whole case in one post .. then the reader can judge for himself the quality of the data and linked sources for themselves these people dont want to discuss any theories they just want to dominate and smother any rational discussion. also is it so hard to get my name right? its 3 letters! Lao that its, its written beside every post i make.

I do think that and and I didn't go to university, I left school at 16 to work in the same factory that my father still works in after 40+ years. Hardly 'middle class'. I still gleefully await the explanation of sublimation in your own words that you're so inexplicably avoiding giving. For someone so insistent that other people back up their own statements with demonstrations of their own understanding, I'm puzzled why you would be so reluctant to comply with such a simple request. I imagine the Hospice are rubbing their hands at their impending donation. Will you get a picture of you handing over the cheque please, that would be super. im sure you would have included a quote in your post had you been able to .. and relished my having to keep my word with the hospice another £1000 ontop of what i have already donated would have meant nothing.

I do think that and and I didn't go to university, I left school at 16 to work in the same factory that my father still works in after 40+ years. Hardly 'middle class'. I still gleefully await the explanation of sublimation in your own words that you're so inexplicably avoiding giving. For someone so insistent that other people back up their own statements with demonstrations of their own understanding, I'm puzzled why you would be so reluctant to comply with such a simple request. I imagine the Hospice are rubbing their hands at their impending donation. Will you get a picture of you handing over the cheque please, that would be super. well dont hold your breathe is all i can say.. .. im not your nodding dog.

no i fail to see how there was any genuine mis-understanding .. it was simply a piece of flotsam for the drowning men to latch onto .. as indeed i knew slim would hence my !!here another big numbers etc etc.. and i didnt milk you melting quote at all loa .. i added to it nice and simple that water is only in 2 states in space .. slim seized on the super freezing part as a knit picking exercise .. he obviously hasnt seen ice steam when taken from a freezer for example .. never mind the extreme temperatures in deep space where the same process takes place as it vapourises/sublimates to gas along with many other elements combined in a comet .. but thats just a solid fact .. slim doesnt like proven fact. he was royally fucked with solid data and links to his basic unsourced rubbish thats why he dissapeared up his own ass for 6 hours on this thread .. until china came along with his nausea. the only bit of chinas posting that wasnt either a direct insult or a thinly disguised one consisted of some words he selected out of the 3 links he put up .. he edited it very carefully as when you read the links .. what he states as fact the writers term as !!possible!! !maybe!! !!could if!! etc but i will take that arrogant twat to task later.

Manxman2 here is your comment that has prompted the last few posts from slim and chinahand, i can only assume from the complete reversal of direction in your argument that this quote is a mistake, perhaps a typo. but it does prove that neither slim nor chinahand are being underhand in their arguments, they are simply adressing this statement. and the hospice will be very grateful for your donation. you mean my honest men quote after the fabricated quotes of mine loa..? the quote below not was not a mistake .. i said it was made by a world renowned astro physicist as i said when i posted it .. i also said i would post a link to it at a later date on the shuttle thread i will post .. but that has been conveniently skipped over as per. .. and it is just being used now as a distraction tactic by the straw graspers because they see bit by bit their ice particle theorie disintegrate before them.. 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 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 someone had better explain singular ice crystal to them .. alone solo by itself one only etc.

You didn't do science at School or Uni then , Ohh Im so disapointed expected better from the Mod who is ermm so at the "cutting edge" of everything I'm not asking him to explain it because I don't understand it myself, but because I don't believe he does. He's incapable of putting anything in his own words, it's all copy and paste from YouTube comments. this is about your sixth post on this along with run of the mill taunts and insults .. par for the course really . i did think the irony in your postings was intentional .. do you really believe that i cannot read and store that knowledge for future utilisation just because i dont type my posting out first into a word proccessor and spell check it etc. if you think i am some hick yokel then your as thick as horseshit and it was a waste of a university course that someone else would have put to better use you middle class arrogant tosser.

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.

its a sad day when both the towering intellectual giants of the manx forums have to make long posts about no ice in space etc .. and attatch those comments to me .. just total and utter lies. you consider yourselves intellectuals yet you have to stoop to the lowest of the low. .. shabby shabby conduct even by your standards slim .. but i never thought china would stoop so low.. i will donate £1000 to the local hospice if either of you respectable honest men can quote me as saying anywhere on any forum in the world that theres no ice in space etc etc.. i really just dont believe china could stoop so low. shameful shameful behavior .. i mix with some down to earth gritty people but i know none of them would stoop that low just to save face when they have been proved wrong by solid well sourced data.. no ice in space you say i said china ffs unreal i thought you had a bit of class about you .. its too be expected of slim grabbing at anything to save face he is a forum chameleon and has absolutely no pride in his words its all about appearances with him FACTS/TRUTH are only secondary considerations but you china i just really dont believe it.. shame on the pair of you stooping so low to save face against someone you both consider a retard.. you may not like the way i sourced and presented my data and it tore your theories to bits .. you may take pleasure in constructing your posts absolutely bleeding with pomposity .. you are without doubt one of the most arrogant people i have come across ever. but total and utter fabrication to appear to have not lost face is absolutely fucking shameful. i will post the reciept from the hospice to this thread if you manage to quote me on the alledged quotes .. i have at least got enough integrity too do that .. infact i may be a rough diamond but i have more integrity in my little finger than both of you have between you in your whole bodies .. shameful shameful conduct.

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 didnt say it slim loa did so ask him .. but you already knew that just more slim bullshit .. slim..?? you there slimbo ?? like a morgue in here son .. no more smart answers .. not even a piss-take slimbo .. sllllliiiiiiiimmmmmbbbbbbbbo. ans you should have read my last 3 posts before you started asking your schoolboy question/bait. its quite nice to see the neanderthal gene line hasnt truly died out but your ancestors were an exception to the rule obviously.. slimbo im looking forward to your solidly presented .. fully sourced .. scientifically shattering replies. ssssssllllllllllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmbbbbbbbo

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? what was this bullshit about if you acknowledge now after having it pointed out too you that there is no liquid water in space.. 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! 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.

must be true ans especially when you highlight a word in bold. 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.

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.

if you wanbt to know slim research it yourself as i have .. i will decide what and when i post thanks.

a more pertinant question might be what would cause ice to melt in space at all. in bold hence my reply. 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.

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 .. but i now know some people who are .. thanks for the advice .. atleast now someone is making an effort.

I'm not talking about anything else other than the line I quoted. You discount what they are not, and conclude that they must be technology. That's the kind of leap of faith a conspiracy theorist makes, it shows, in my view, a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Personally, if I discounted what something is not, I simply know what it isn't. I still don't know what it is. i disagree slim. the character flaw is prejudging a situation before anything has been presented .. which part of i will put up a thread when i am confident that my replies will stand up to scrutiny rather than going of 6 or 7 year old memories are you struggling to comprehend. Of course you are, and am I not entitled to disagree with it without being called names, accused of derails, and otherwise analysed and slagged off? ofcourse your fully aware of the irony in your words here are you not.?? I don't need to. I think that what you're seeing in those videos is lens artifacts, and I provided a video that demonstrates it, which means it doesn't matter if it's ice or dust or reflected light or fart vapors escaping the astronauts space suit or something else. They're not technology, there's a number of things that point to what they are, and nothing that points to them being technology. Have you got any evidence that says what you're seeing is alien technology? just about sums up your debating style.. no research needed when all wind and piss will suffice .. physicists scientists who are they compared to you after all.

if labelling me a conspiracy nut because i made a few posts on the 911 thread about the whole truth of the day not being told to the general public then fine .. however i would like to see you quote me saying anywhere that it was other than a terrorist attack. .. infact if you can i will donate £100 to the hospice and post a photo copy of the reciept here. i have an open opinion on the tether footage. am i not entitled to an opinion after doing my own research and discounting others thoeries on what i think is solidly presented data to the contrary. have you discovered yet the life span of an ice molecule in the vacume of space either in the shadow of earth or in direct sunlight . have you tried to find out when the shuttle last discharged its waste water before the footage took place. have you even tried to get any technical data on the camera used. have you read any official nasa documents on the data recieved from the satelite. have you done any research on the tether components .. sheath etc and the effects of trapped oxygen in said tether as it turned to plasma and destroyed the experiment. do the above and you may make a good case .. if not i will piss all over your guestimates and chinas school boy basic physics that was so oft quoted at me as i have/am doing/done.

fantasise away loa knock yourself out son.. but why not see if any of what i have to say on the subject when its threaded up and chinas slims and dr daves questions/assumed guesses have been answered by direct quotes etc from people far more qualified than them to assess the footage before dismissing the footage out of hand .. you have nothing to lose .. there is an abundance of data there to be examined .. and the job would be alot easier if nasa did not keep on retagging alot of the links all the time .. i have said all thru the thread i dont know what they are only that i know for sure what they are not. after discounting what they are not leaves me no option to my mind that i am seeing some technology utilised in space .. whose tech is anybodies guess.

Where have I treated you anything with the equivalence of 'lycra clad wanker'? I'm not belittling, I'm disagreeing. I don't think I'm more intelligent than anyone, I do find it difficult to let posts slide that I disagree with. Ans, for example, thinks you're talking bollocks, but he won't compose a reply to say why he thinks you're talking bollocks, he'll just say that you are. I take the time to reply, to engage a discussion, and you see that as belittling because I've a tendency to disagree with you. But that's why I'm posting! If I agreed with you, I wouldn't bother posting at all. I don't understand your point about narrative, and it seems odd coming from someone who quotes examples and then rejects them a few posts later, like the whole Roswell thing. Can you give me an example of where I've struggled with narrative? Your not, I just disagreed with your conclusion that spots around a tether were evidence of extra terrestrial technology. I'm just disagreeing with you! It's an important point of scale, it's vital to this discussion. You've demonstrated a misunderstanding of it, and that's important. It's not arrogance, I just disagree! Right. So you can't make things up to fit the conclusion you're after, which is what, in my opinion, you have done with the tether video. Yes, they took it seriously, lots of people did, and then it was discounted. There's no evidence, there's nothing to work with, move on and deal with the things you can actually do something about. Some things remain unexplained, if new evidence occurs they should be re-examined, until then, shelve it. you purposely make your posts provocative slim .. to activily encourage a bite .. just like the hook in the tail of the last post above.. but ofcourse i am too stupid too re-alise your intent. .. i only answer half your rubbish to do the same back .. you liked the lycra clad wanker quote didnt you really eh .. made you smile..

see post above china. and i will make a seperate thread on that one peice of shuttle footage on which we can debate its merits. but i am not going into it half cocked and letting you towering intellects make unsubstantiated claims and assumptions without being in full knowledge of my sourced and personally well considered replys .. its not happening again i am not going to argue a case on 6 or 7 year old memories.

I've no problem with you posting your beliefs, but why do you get so upset when they're challenged? Why do you maintain that these things you're challenged on aren't actually your opinions, you post them as backup but then dismiss them immediately afterwards. Then you accuse of googling and points scoring, when that's all you seem to be up to yourself, more obsessed with the posters than what they're actually posting. It's quite bizarre. i dont get upset slim with anything anywhere on the net. i treat as i am treated .. and love nothing more than for people both on the net and in life to under-estimate me .. infact i actively encourage it. thats a weakness in other people that can be exploited especially on the net as you cannot see the body language and i never use emoticons to portray my intent. you have been getting it large because you gave it large simple as .. you get pleasure out of belittling those you think you are more intelligent than .. however most of your arguements fall apart if kept to a narritive .. you dont like narritive .. slims worst nightmare is narrative. mock rage / etc is just an angle against thoroughbred piss-takers. .. the proof of the pudding as they say of whether its effective is your thinly disguised !!why are you picking on me quote above!!. .. if you dont like it back then dont give it. I believe there's life elsewhere in the universe, there almost has to be and there's absolutely no way anyone can prove their isn't. But like Lau I don't think we've seen any of it, there's certainly no evidence of it and there's a good chance given the size of the universe that we never will. exactly its incalculable odds against there not being. .. am i still an asshole/retard etc for being open minded to alternate technologies being out there in space then..?? I think you're lacking some fundamentals, which is why picking you up on the grains of sand thing is important. Those basics are vital in this kind of discussion, the difference between the universe, a galaxy and the scale of things are central to the issue of extraterrestrial life in my opinion. there you go again with the arrogance. Of course, our understanding of physics could be way out, and our understanding of life could be too, but you've got to go with what you know rather than what you don't while remaining open minded to new ideas as they arise. theres no ofcourse about it. we dont know what we dont know its that simple. and as for all those documented foia documents which we ordinary joes were never ever supposed to see where highly trained pilots/astronauts and various other highly trained observers with the armed forces talk in detail about crafts a mile in diameter etc with strobing lights etc that they flew within meters of in broad daylight in earths atmosphere i find them intriguing and if that makes me an uneducated retard then so be it. .. its not paedophilia or something grubby .. its a subject that our and many other armed forces and governments took extremely serious hence the incredible amount of detail in the debriefing documents..

i am open minded lau on contact or live visitations .. however i have absolutely no qualms in believing just like humans other civilisations have been sending probes into space for centuaries if not millenia .. unlike human technology those probes are self sustained in powering themselves and will wander the galaxies for eternity just like ours will .. and if you or anyone else thinks i have mentioned aliens/ little green men in this thread as a personal belief or i think we have been visited etc i think you should read what i have said and not just take the sneering bullshit talk of the strawmen that have only replied to take the piss .. especially the lycra clad wanker. all i have done is quote people who do believe we have been visited .. and some of those individuals are beyond reproach in their personal achievements in life .