Slim Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Could you read this for me Manxman, and let me know what you think? http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1989006427.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 26, 2009 Author Share Posted June 26, 2009 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. The objects are tumbling with multiple faceted surfaces which reflect light from different points on the ice crystals 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. 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. 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. That is what I believe the pictures are showing, that is what the astronaut who took the pictures believes they are showing. I don't believe for one second that the video is showing mile wide space ships, or any technology or anything like that. I have been saying this with various permutations and combinations of sarcasm, exasperation, additional detail and sources since I first saw it. Very little has made me rethink my beliefs - I firmly believe people see UFOs and honestly report what they have seen - but almost nothing makes me believe these Unidentified objects are anything other than mundane. 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. 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Could you read this for me Manxman, and let me know what you think? http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1989006427.pdf 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 26, 2009 Author Share Posted June 26, 2009 MM2 - do you get the point that if the particles were orbiting the shuttle's centre of gravity they'd appear to move in arcs, and if their orbit transected the camera they'd seem to come to a total stop and then turn 180 degrees and move off again - all that is happening is that they are orbiting in ellipses and when the orbit is that part of the orbit tangential to the camera they seem to stop - in actual fact they've not, they're just moving towards the camera. The video you've posted above seems to me entirely consistent with that. I presume you disagree - but do you get the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 MM2 - do you get the point that if the particles were orbiting the shuttle's centre of gravity they'd appear to move in arcs, and if their orbit transected the camera they'd seem to come to a total stop and then turn 180 degrees and move off again - all that is happening is that they are orbiting in ellipses and when the orbit is that part of the orbit tangential to the camera they seem to stop - in actual fact they've not, they're just moving towards the camera.{ref1d] The video you've posted above seems to me entirely consistent with that. I presume you disagree - but do you get the point? 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} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 26, 2009 Author Share Posted June 26, 2009 Assume the particle is orbiting clockwise. In A the particle will seem effectively stationary. In B it is moving down In C it is slowly moving up In D it is quickly moving up. If you start at D it will seem to move quickly up, become stationary and then start to quickly move down. Comprende? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 26, 2009 Author Share Posted June 26, 2009 Calling Dr Dave to the thread - as far as I am aware when illuminating an object with a broad spectrum light source (like the sun) it is basically impossible for it to be visible when viewed with a camera sensitive to one part of that spectrum and invisible when viewed with a camera sensitive to a different part of that spectrum. The only objection to this might be an absorbsion line in the spectra - but that is for such a tiny portion of the spectrum it can be entirely discounted in this case - the cameras will not be sensitive to one specific frequency, rather a range orders of magnitude wider than an absorbsion line. Correct? Or am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Assume the particle is orbiting clockwise. In A the particle will seem effectively stationary. In B it is moving down In C it is slowly moving up In D it is quickly moving up. If you start at D it will seem to move quickly up, become stationary and then start to quickly move down. Comprende? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Calling Dr Dave to the thread - as far as I am aware when illuminating an object with a broad spectrum light source (like the sun) it is basically impossible for it to be visible when viewed with a camera sensitive to one part of that spectrum and invisible when viewed with a camera sensitive to a different part of that spectrum. The only objection to this might be an absorbsion line in the spectra - but that is for such a tiny portion of the spectrum it can be entirely discounted in this case - the cameras will not be sensitive to one specific frequency, rather a range orders of magnitude wider than an absorbsion line. Correct? Or am I missing something? yes your missing a source and giving an opinion again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 26, 2009 Author Share Posted June 26, 2009 Will this make you feel better? http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/spectrum.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Calling Dr Dave to the thread Dave's on his hollies. He'll be back in a week or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 yes i comprende just fine thanks spent a fair few hours on the parrabolic arcs or as you described them eliptical arcs. Must...resist....urge....to...correct! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.