Did the Space Shuttle dock at the Secret Space Station tonight?

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by goosdawg
Oh please, don't whine for the proof, it's a DoD secret, don't you know?

But....you know it?

Your style is insufferable. More so than mine.....which is really bad.

I am not a one line post kind of guy....but i must say that this is the single funniest thing i have ever read on here.

Well done, Mr. Penny

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

buddha...we can all be friends here. You're intelligent, accomplished, and a good speller. However, you can seem a little caustic on occasion.

Just writing this to say, while I appreciate your erudite posts, IMHO sometimes your comments verge on vitriolic, and that kinda makes you seem a little petulant. I've seen enough petulance from our 'Idiot in Chief' for the last seven years, thank you very much.

I'm very much with the Swiss weedkiller here. I don't quite get the level of disgust you aim at Zorgon and John Lear, Buddha - I'm sceptical about a large portion of what they say. I follow what they write not out of blind belief but because I find what they write thought-provoking and interesting. I do find it a little tiresome that after every post they make Buddha is the first to respond apparently simply with the aim of bashing it.

It's obvious that quite a lot of ideas they come out with are unconventional, difficult to prove and occasionally even go in the face of what is generally accepted to be scientifically true. That point has been made, I think - I don't see the need to keep repeating it.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't question what John or Zorgon say, or argue against it if we think it is inaccurate. I've seen plenty of questions asked of John in the past - and have asked one or two myself - when the theories seemed to be flawed. He often says the questioners are wrong - sometimes he offers evidence of why, sometimes that's satisfactory, sometimes not - but I don't recall him ending any of his arguments by suggesting someone was ill-educated.

Believe what you want to believe, you've read enough threads to know what to expect from Lear and Zorgon - there doesn't seem to me to be any need to descend to lobbing personal grenades at them just because you think they're talking nonsense - I do too, but I'm still intrigued by the post Zorgon put up recently because I find the technology interesting. I don't need it spoiled by bitter rants every time they try to contribute something. If you're not interested in the theories, there's an easy way to avoid them. Don't read them. Let us all be misled in peace, please!

Thanks, and take it easy,

LW

I'm certain that I'll not be the only one who agrees with this.

Z, you hit the nail on the head. The Earth is nothing more than a leaky dipole, electrically speaking.

The question I have regarding the Tokamak design is how does it react in an environment without gravitational influence? if the ship is the object with the greatest gravitational influence for the next 3 million light years, what properties are exerted to induce propulsion?

It would seem to me that gravity behaves like the wind. It spirals towards areas of less resistence, in a low pressure vortex. Could you attach yourself to this gravitational influenced from across the expanse of time to create propulsion?

How would a spheromak design impact the classical saucer design? Could we include the spheromak concepts into a toriod shaped craft?

reply to post by Chemicalbrother


Thank you, 'brother'. You made me laugh out loud, it felt good.

Cheers!

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Hey, if the Earth is a leaky dipole, are any other planets? Just wondering...

I saw a History Channel show, the 'Universe', regarding Saturn. She has a magnetic field too, it seems. This is what makes ATS great, isn't it?

You mentioned saucers...I may be wrong, but my impression is the saucer shape is designed for planetary/atmospheric travel. In other words, they are the 'shuttlecraft' from another, larger vessel. (I refuse to write 'Mothership', it is stale and over-used). Just my humble opinion...

Oops, I said the 'M' word...how about, instead, 'Star Ship' ?

reply to post by undo


Dear Undo,

my knowledge of egyptology it rather poor, and I can't comment on the example that you provided. I would like to note, however, that there is a huge difference between "arts and sciences" and "natural sciences". In a study of ancient history, one can claim a thing based on, well, a certain feature in a bas-relief and not much else, and it will be largely unproven and oh well, so be it. You can't do same in natural sciences and engineering because if you do, the brakes in your car won't work or more likely, the engine won't start at all. Spaceships won't fly. Drugs won't work. There'll be no electricity.

You can't do an experiment on Seti and Osiris of ancient Egypt. You can, and you must, if that is your filed, do experiments and observations of the motion of celestial bodies, conductivity of metals and bazillion other things.

The whole thing is a popularity contest.

To a limited degree. If you make a prediction of the orbital motion of the Moon and what not, and it turned out wrong, your popularity will melt away faster than ice cream on planet Mercury.



[edit on 21-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Buddhasystem

and it turned out wrong,

Precisely my point. This does happen. Problem is, if the scientist in question is exceedingly popular, proving him wrong is like being a female archaeologist in 1903 and expecting your peer group (other archaeologists) to believe you have enough info to prove the mainstream belief, incorrect. You see, alot was riding on the outcome of their decision. For example, it was built with similar architectural design and stone as the temple complex at Giza. Consider the implications, and you can see yet another reason why they wouldn't consider her evidence. Not only was she a female, but the implications of her findings would be highly unpopular and fly in the face of accepted archaeology. Science is no different. One heavy weight scientist runs with the ball and his team mates help him win the game, over and over again. And if the day should arise where he must face an opponent who he knows he can't win against, he simply refuses to play the game with that individual at all. Kinda like a bully meeting his match and refusing to fight on the grounds that the other person couldn't beat him anyway (this usually manifests as referring to said opponent as delving in "Fringe science", a catch phrase meant to silence opposing theories, hypotheses and evidences).

Human nature. Science facts are just as much a victim of human nature, as any other human concept.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Hey, if the Earth is a leaky dipole, are any other planets? Just wondering...

Jupiter for one...

As to 'Zero Point' and 'free energy' That is a very huge topic. Pegasus has a a whole team looking at 'alternate energy'

The biggest problem is people get confused with the terms...

For example what do you mean by 'free energy'? I can drag a copper wire through the dipole that is Earth's magnetosphere and pull out "free energy'

Very basic really take a 12 mile copper wire... stretch it out and drag it through the ionosphere at orbital speeds of 17,000 mph or so... and what happens? You 'collect' electricity...

So much so that even those great scientists at NASA were caught with their pants down because they were POSITIVE that the amount of energy available would be very small...

So they decided to save 10 bucks and not put a circuit breaker in line or an off switch... Well when they deployed it and turned it on... in just a few minutes it started producing upwards of 10 times what they expected... with the result being a plasma arc to the shuttle that fried the cable and they lost a 100 million dollar satellite.

I am sure even our resident physicist will agree on this one...

I have documents... one is 380 pages that I ordered from NASA and its filed with citations against NASA and 'suggestions' to put in the 'fuse' next time

They also neglected to show the public arcing damage that occurs on several spacecraft from the plasma generated while speeding a metal hull through a magnetic field...

Here is one of the plates in the shuttle bay after the incident...



Here are a couple more arcing damage to other spacecraft Lots of Zapping going on up there...








Skeptics argue the 'free energy' concepts yet science is only beginning to unravel this...

Zero Point energy comes from the idea that at absolute zero their should be no energy... everything should stop... it appears that this is not the case

Free Energy is also a bad name... the above incident I described is not 'free" That satellite cost 100 million plus getting it up there... Okay initial cost of creating the device...

However once deployed there is NO LIMIT on the amout of energy that can be collected from the magnetoshpere... Imagine putting a tether in Jupiter's field

So effectively once you have built the thing you do indeed have a free energy source

The Universe has billions of Stars and other energy sources pouring out an unconceivable amount of electromagnetic energy... surely no sane person doubts this Light Heat Cosmic Ray etc are all EM radiation... what happens to the energy once it leaves its source?

Does it vanish? If it did Hubble would not be able to see those star millions of light years away and billions of years in the past. All the energy produced by all those stars etc is STILL OUT THERE... all through the Universe...

All you need is a way to 'collect' it or tap into it... I would call this free energy

The other description involving over unity is a different matter... in that model you are trying to build a machine that puts out more energy than you put in. TH Moray did that at the turn of the century... I suspect that Tesla had similar knowledge.. (I have over 150 of his patents to look at)

So far though many are close... we have as John said not produced any provable results...

But zero point, over unity and free energy are bantered about with no real understanding... and this is just a small part of the puzzle...

Using HE3 in fusion reactors... since there is enough of that on the surface of the moon to power the entire planet for over 1000 years.... once you subtract the extraction and shipping costs... its like oil FREE ENERGY provided by nature...

Problem is you and I have to pay for it... they won't let you create an over unity device you can plug your house into. Or run your car on water



[edit on 21-11-2007 by zorgon]

Greetings Mr.Undo,

Problem is, if the scientist in question is exceedingly popular, proving him wrong is like being a female archaeologist in 1903 and expecting your peer group (other archaeologists) to believe you have enough info to prove the mainstream belief, incorrect.

Respectfully, I motion that such assertion is incorrect. There are few "beliefs" -- instead, there are theories. Theories typically deal with a particular set oh phyisical phenomena and are different from hypitheses in that they can be/are tested via already observed data or specially designed experiment. Theories have limitations (cf.classical mechanics vs special relativity) however in general they work well within the realm for which they were designed.

To give you an example, even if the highest authority in astronomy claimed that the mass of the Moon is three or four times of what we assumed so far, a burden of proof would be on them to demonstrate how this squares with observables. And since natural sciences are a wildly competetive field, others would likely do independent measurements as well.

Consider the implications, and you can see yet another reason why they wouldn't consider her evidence. Not only was she a female, but the implications of her findings would be highly unpopular and fly in the face of accepted archaeology. Science is no different.

Look, I'm not going to tell you how things are in egyptology, but you are wrong, by and large, in stating that science is no different. It is. That's one of the reasons I like it.

Again, there is little pragmatic difference in determination of a fact pertaning to the ancient history. Science, however, is the lifeblood of todays' civilization and so much is riding on it.

Look at this: none of the makers of revolution in XX century physics were "heavyweights" when they started. Einstein was a clerk in a patent office, for gossake. And yet they won!



[edit on 21-11-2007 by buddhasystem]

Nice post, Zorgon.

Originally posted by zorgon
Zero Point energy comes from the idea that at absolute zero their should be no energy...

You think so? What's your source?

However once deployed there is NO LIMIT on the amout of energy that can be collected from the magnetoshpere... Imagine putting a tether in Jupiter's field

would you have to drag such tether?

But zero point, over unity and free energy are bantered about with no real understanding... and this is just a small part of the puzzle...

Verily, verily thou hast spoken.

they won't let you create an over unity device you can plug your house into.

They won't?

Here is a photo of the arcing in progress



Tether still attached to the shuttle... starting to glow and undulate as it builds up..



Tether just before breaking... the satellite is really glowing now



Tether after it broke free... NASA reports it as 'glowing like a fluorescent bulb' as it moves out of range and the 'critters' swarm around it... but that is another story



Tether in use near Saturn capturesd by Casinni



And another one from Casinni...




Seems Cassini is good at catching the stars... and so is the NAVY




[edit on 21-11-2007 by zorgon]

Einstein was a clerk in a patent office, for gossake. And yet they won!

Sure, and Princess Diana was just a humble girl from the backwoods of England. It's a carefully designed facade. You are expected to believe that science is the most righteous and noble institution on the planet, and that requires a humble yet brilliantly intellectual reputation, adamantly supported with the same religious fervor of any other human institution. Face it, you're dealing with human beings, no matter how they spin it, it's still going to contain all the same human social dysfunctions of any other human institution. In its current configuration it's a veritiable tyranny

Originally posted by buddhasystem
They won't?

Nope they won't Tesla tryed to give us transmitted power... Westinghouse says "Where can I put the meter on that?" and that was the end of that...

Bob Lazar of United Nuclear tried to give us a hydrogen cell... It requires chemical in the process The government stormed his house because they used the excuse that he was selling restricted chemicals across state lines... It was the branch of the government that checks if your toaster is safe... They brought the ATF the excuse was 'those chemicals could be used foe illegal fireworks'

You know sulfur is now illegal in many states? Try to have a chemistry lab in your garage... I had my setup from college days as I still use it for minerals... A cop was searching fro a crook in the area and saw the setup through the window... Well I had to prove I wasn't running a meth lab...

As an update I see Bob has found away out of the mess...

September 12th, 2007:

We have found a possible way around using the restricted chemicals & Lithium isotope that formed the basis of our Hydrogen storage material. We are currently working on a new Plasma Hydrogen Generator to produce Hydrogen gas at a much higher rate than our prototype generator did. Work on our system has been on hold since 2003 and has finally resumed today.
Thank you for all the offers, but we do not accept donations and we are self-funded. United Nuclear is privately owned and has no plans to go public and offer stock. As each prototype component is refined and deemed sufficiently reliable to release for sale, it will be announced here and listed on our 'Products' page.

www.switch2hydrogen.com...

www.unitednuclear.com...

Try to buy your kid a GOOD chemistry set these days... in some states you need to have a permit to own retorts etc...

This trend ought to be a wakeup call to all American... but I doubt they will set down their beers long enough to even understand what it means...

There are those working in the hopes something will break and it will happen

Originally posted by buddhasystem Einstein was a clerk in a patent office, for gossake. And yet they won!

He was also a high school drop out... I guess he didn't go for all that main stream nonsense they were peddling in class and went with his own wild and crazy ideas...

He had a couple of quotes I really like...

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

"The only real valuable thing is intuition."

"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."



"Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it."

Originally posted by zorgon

LOL! I just noticed the chalkboard.
I don't know much about Lazar, it just aggravates me that mainstream science is so adamant about the veracity of stuff they may very well disagree with 10 years from now. And the really irritating thing is, they won't acknowledge those they've since referred to as fringers, who maintained the same idea, and had it essentially stolen from them by some bigwig who originally called it pseudoscience but is now its champion and sole proprietor.

Bleh.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by undo]

Have been reading this thread with interest and I would like to point out an observation I have made over the last few weeks.

I am fairly experienced in watching the night sky for various objects that tend to float around in it and I have recently been seeing two satellites of some description orbiting Earth in a fashion I've never seen before.

Currently I'm located in the Philippines and have some free time, so I tend to spend a lot of the night observing the sky when there is no, or partial, cloud cover.

There are two oddities about these satellites. Firstly, they both fly from North to South, and secondly, as the first one passes over and is about to be lost from view, the second one comes into view. So they are quite close together.

I have witnessed them on 3 occasions now at approximately 3.30am Philippines time. (give or take half hour or so, I'm yet to establish exact times)

I can't understand why there would be a need for two satellites to be in such close proximity to each other and why they would both follow the same flight path.

Presumably they are global mapping or some form of spy satellites. Yes they could be for communications, but I doubt that they would be for public use due to their North/South trajectories and their close proximity unless they are just relays of some description.

If anyone could shed any light on what these two sats are doing would be greatly appreciated as they have been quite an interesting subject as of late.
I've just never seen sats fly like that before.

As I look due south, these fly over at between the 1 o'clock and 2 o'clock position. They do appear to fly at a very slight NNE by SSW direction but only fractionally.

If it's a clear night tonight then I'll try to catch them again and get a better time frame for them.

Could be the missing the space station(s) !!!

reply to post by zorgon


Reply to the tether pics (great photos).

I remember that mission...no C/B?!? That's a 'D'oh!' Homer SImpson moment if I ever heard of one.

Of COURSE electricity will be generated when you move a wire thru a magnetic field. How could the geniuses not realize that? Maybe they were the ones saying a pen dropped on the Moon would be attracted by the Earth's gravitational pull...

Originally posted by undo

Einstein was a clerk in a patent office, for gossake. And yet they won!

Sure, and Princess Diana was just a humble girl from the backwoods of England. It's a carefully designed facade.

Designed facade?? Einstein created a cover story for himself?? Jesus, that's more radical than oxygen on the moon. And Diana was from a very old aristocratic family, tracing their ancestry back to Stuarts. Care to check the facts?

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm sorry but you got your facts on both occasions completely wrong hence your argument doesn't hold.

You are expected to believe that science is the most righteous and noble institution on the planet, and that requires a humble yet brilliantly intellectual reputation, adamantly supported with the same religious fervor of any other human institution. Face it, you're dealing with human beings, no matter how they spin it, it's still going to contain all the same human social dysfunctions of any other human institution. In its current configuration it's a veritiable tyranny

Oh, I see, you are simply a modern day luddite. Fine.

It's quite funny when you say that the size of Betelgeuse, gravity constant and other such stuff are products of "human social dysfunctions" and essentially arbitrary numbers. Again, I can't say how dysfunctional the field of egyptology is (about which you seem to know much), but we a re doing fine in the field of physics, thank you.

Let me give you a straightforward example: implications of a name of an ancient pharaoh being misspelt are quite different from the implications of a nuclear warhead spontaneously exploding in its silo. We in physics don't have the luxury of doing research according to our "religious fervor". We prefer facts. It may be different in egyptology.

reply to post by undo


Dear Mr.Undo, I'm not sure how familiar you are with modern natural sciences. If you were somewhat familiar with those, you would know that there is not one but a few theories being developed in the field of particle physics. Not one is being proclaimed as ultimate truth, as you like to state -- as you like to oversimplify. Which one is a better model? We'll see in experiment! (google up the LHC).

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Dear Mr.Undo, I'm not sure how familiar you are with modern natural sciences. If you were somewhat familiar with those, you would know that there is not one but a few theories being developed in the field of particle physics. Not one is being proclaimed as ultimate truth, as you like to state -- as you like to oversimplify. Which one is a better model? We'll see in experiment! (google up the LHC).

Listen up BS! Its Thanksgiving Day over here in the land of the free. Would it be asking too much for you to take that giant chip off your shoulder just for today? Just one day. Thats all I ask. Thanks.

And thanks for the post.