NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes

Originally posted by Beachcoma
The first half of that video is very interesting. But I'm left with the feeling that the narrator failed to get to the point of the second half. What's the connection with the wheel?

Well, the general idea is that the mainstream scientific establishment is suffering from a severe case of hypocrisy and delusion.

Consider that the use of literary metaphors do not show up in the written record of humanity until about 1500 BC in Egypt. Yet we are told that all these cave drawings of stick figures and wheels are all simply metaphors, despite the fact that they do not relate a moral narrative that should be followed or anything other than just simple descriptions of events.

So here we have these so-called metaphorical representations found all over the world, created by people who were unable to express themselves metaphorically. Really?

Ancient Egypt was essentially the same for hundreds and hundreds of years. Yet the minds of ancient people were apparently at the height of postmodernist metaphorical expression?

I don't think so.

Good to see this being talked about on here! I happen across yahoo last night and saw this artical about this! I was wondering who would be the first to pick up this story and run with it here..

I dont have enough exp. with this kind of stuff to make any kind of guess.
But I will be reading and looking over what you all have to say about this.
Its fairly strange for NASA to come right out and publicly state, "we dont know whats going on here".
Most the time those guys always have some kind of answer to dole out to the peasents. But I dont think we would buy into something like swamp gas this time.. Good looking out.. I will flag this thread so I can keep tabs on it

However I will be urged to talk about Velikovsky’s theories here..
Seems to be alot of talk about what is debunked and what isnt..

The truth of the matter is we dont know much about our own universe..
So I will keep an open mind to all this.. And then agin it could be a math issue with the numbers being rounded incorrectly..
It could be alot of things..
But what I do know is.. That we dont know all that much to begin with..
And I can leave it at that..

[edit on 1-3-2008 by zysin5]

Surprised no one has looked at the obvious chance it could be solar winds?

* don't you see??????? NIBIRU IS CAUSING THIS!!! Nasa doesn't even know whats going on.

Moderator edit.
Courtesy Is Mandatory

[edit on 1-3-2008 by dbates]

I think that a large Black Body is nearing our solor system...

jUst mabye this is causeing many diffrent things...

Ok here is my theory, call it what you want, but what if there are "cloaked" spacecraft that are causing this? We don't have any idea what effects an actual gravitational propulsion system would have on nearby orbital spacecraft. Just thought I'd throw that in the mix. I keep picturing that scene in "Signs" where the tv was showing the bird flying into the alien's cloaked craft and falling dead, lol. Could be, you never know...Also reminds me of the videos recently where people have been using their IR filters during daylight hours to record craft that can't be seen with the naked eye. That is all. Carry on.

Originally posted by Guzzeppi
Originally posted by rizla
reply to post by Guzzeppi

Thanks for the heads-up. It looks like our model of gravity is incomplete.

I took that as being sarcastic. That's all righty with me though because I do not proclaim to know a whole lot about gravity. I did read into the posters links and.. there is no correlation.

Guz

Sarcastic? Urr, no. I gave you a star.

Reading the article you linked, it got me thinking. We now have two categories of evidence that the theory of gravity is incomplete.

1. Pioneer moving oddly as it leaves Solar system.
2. Local satellites moving oddly around Earth.

This suggests to me that the anamoly is not caused by unknown large objects (Eek! not Nbiru?), but is actually that we are reading gravity wrong. This could be big.

reply to post by pavil


I would hardly call it a "contention". It is a thought, a concept, the result of intellectual meandering.

I suppose the easiest thing to do is say "you should just Google the term 'dinosaurs too heavy to support their weight". There is a lot of links provided that have to do with this being an erroneous thought.

www.google.com...

Why did you need me to do that for you?

I can't say i disagree with the analysis in most links provided, overall. I mean, they DID have to move to survive. So the fact that they existed as a species is "proof" that it is an erroneous suggestion.

I will tell you that the concern has little to do with the ability of the legs to support the creature. I would not consider this to be a problem, based on strength and power seen in other animals.

What i do question is the ability of the stomache to withstand the weight of the animal above it without severe damage being done. Bumping up against rocks could create tears and bleeding that are unimaginable. Laying down would induce necrosis similar to bedsores seen in the infirm.

The guts of most of these animals, further, were believed to be full of stones. They had gizzards. This makes their immensely heavy midsection just that much heavier.

Granted, many of them had abdominal bones (from what i recall). But the concern lies more in the ability of the animal to function in an environment similar to our own. So, what was different then?

Some simpler explanations:

1) there are various dark bodies at the edge of the solar system that pull the spacecraft back.

2) there is a halo of matter and cosmic dust around the solar system that slows down the spacecraft.

all i'm saying is that predictions from ancient history are folding RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR VERY EYES!! Just stop and look. We are living in a VERY important time. And this gravity thing happened yesterday...WHAT COULD HAPPEN A FEW WEEKS OR MONTHS FROM NOW?? I have a bad feeling about this...

Originally posted by masterp
Some simpler explanations:

1) there are various dark bodies at the edge of the solar system that pull the spacecraft back.

2) there is a halo of matter and cosmic dust around the solar system that slows down the spacecraft.

Did you read the news-story? These satellites were observed moving round Earth. Whatever effected them is local to Earth.

So we have objects leaving the solar-system (Pioneer) and satellites going round Earth, and both are exhibiting behavior counter to our understanding of gravity.

Two sets of evidence is widely different places and situations. Sounds like the theory's wrong to me.

An interesting thing is that when a satellite left Earth orbit at the same inclination it entered it (they were sling-shotting), the anomaly was not detected. This suggests some kind of symmetry, and anyone who has read much about modern physics will recognize that as potentially having big consequences.

reply to post by rizla


Another idea (albeit, a bad one):

How much gravitational influence does energy have in lieu of matter? could some of the new supercollider experiments, HAARP, or the Z machine at Sandia by causing the near Earth effect?

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

never seen the expanding earth theory? a guy did a great job of showing that ALL the continents fit together, if you shrink the sphere. probably find it on youtube or something.
earth used to be smaller with no oceans. that's why there was less gravity.

gravity is directly associated with mass, not size. If the earth were smaller then, wouldn't the mass be greater than it is now (henceforth, making the gravitational force greater back then than it is now). Let's not confuse overall size vs. mass itself. Mass is essentially what creates gravity in the first place is it not?

-ChriS

reply to post by BlasteR



I content that mass is what determines gravity, actually. But i am not going to further argue it here, as i really don't know what i am talking about.

It does seem that a smaller Earth, regardless of where the water is placed, would not yield a higher mass. Most likely it would yield a lower mass. At the very least it would be the same mass at a higher density. Regardless, it is the same mass no matter how dense it is.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I think it's density rather than mass or size which determines the strength of gravity. Think about black holes, which are basically super-dense matter.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


bigfatfurrytexan,

Any chance you could post some links/background pertaining to the image you posted: www.thunderbolts.info... ?

You've perked my curiosity with that, and I'd like to learn more about it

By the way, this topic has been covered here on ATS before:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan



The reason I asked you to provide links was that you made the statement not me. I would expect someone here to back up their points, not go after the person pointing out the lack thereof. I had "googled" info and I am a longtime Dino fan so I wanted to see what you had for support. Not much, it seem to support your idea of gravity being less in the past.

You offer conjecture without much in the way of real paleo study to back it up. Yes some Dinosaurs were huge. Bone studies seem to point in the direction of them being at least partially able to self regulate their body temperature and some having bird-like hollow bones. Maybe not fully warm blooded, but not cold blooded either. Being a hybrid between the two could very well be one of the main reasons they grew so large.

reply to post by pavil


yes sir, i most certainly did offer a lot of conjecture without any back up. that is why i kept saying thinks like:

i really don't know what i am talking about.

and

Another idea (albeit, a bad one):

and

Consider the following musing (no, i don't know this to be true....it is just a path my mind wandered down a few days ago, and i have been thinking about it ever since:

I don't "know" any of this stuff. Much of what i have posted in this thread is my own mental meanderings that are somewhat related.

part of it was related to a little minispeech given by Bakker discussing an apatosaur at the Univ of Wyo school of paleontology. It is famous for "Allie" the Allosaur.

I am sorry you were mislead, somehow. I will see if i can do anything to make it more clear in the future that i am just postulating things in an open forum of ideas....brainstorming.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


No Problem. I will leave it at that.

What was the speech about? I find his theories very impressive.