NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes

Okay, I wasn't supposed to tell anyone but the anomalies are all a part of Cris Angel's newest illusion. Man, is he good or what?!

reply to post by pavil


It was ad hoc. I was looking around the college museum, and he and some other long haired guy came out walking by on the upper tier, where we could see the apatosaur at nearly eye level. Someone in the group knew him and stopped him for a moment, at which point he spent a few minutes discussing the environment of Wyoming in the days when the apatosaur walked the Earth.

Considering the way it looks now, it was a very interesting oration. Lasted about 10 minutes, and meant a lot to me because of who he is, and the way he speaks.

[edit on 1-3-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

ok, enough if this senseless bull crap talking. WHAT IS GOING ON IN SPACE?? I thought you nerds knew about stuff like this. I rely on you nerds to give me a 100% explanation to what problems are going on, so I can rest assured that I can go out to parties and get laid with out something disastrous happening to earth. Come on nerds and geeks, do what ever it is that you do and GIVE ME AN EXPLANATION!!

Edit: Insult removed.

[edit on 1-3-2008 by intrepid]

They fail to find an answer because they are not accounting for the electrical interactions within the solar system, the Pioneer anomaly and the local satellites are related, one on a solar scale the other a planetary one.
We now know that birkeland currents pump current into the poles of planets, we also know that the planets have a ring of plasma at the equator that constitutes an electric current, the earth has positive ions flowing west and electrons flowing east. this would explain the anomaly appearing only at certain inclinations. Surely this would effect a negatively charged spacecraft?

reply to post by notme11


Ok, I see you're new here. We don't do that here. I recommend you read the T&C.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by notme11

 

Ok, I see you're new here. We don't do that here. I recommend you read the T&C.

Sorry, I just want some answers. if NASA doesn't know what's going on, you know there's something to be worried about

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


"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? "

I believe that it has been established that the earth's atmosphere was much richer in oxygen at the time of the dinosaurs. This was also a contributing factor in the giant size of insects at that time. Insects of today cannot grow to that size because they cannot extract enough oxygen from the atmosphere. I can't find the info to back this up, but I know it has been hashed over on the Discovery Channel a few times.

A richer mix of oxygen would mean more efficient food processing, more energy supplied to muscles by richer oxygenated blood, etc.

Hopup

Originally posted by notme11
ok, enough if this senseless bull crap talking. WHAT IS GOING ON IN SPACE?? I thought you nerds knew about stuff like this. I rely on you nerds to give me a 100% explanation to what problems are going on, so I can rest assured that I can go out to parties and get laid with out something disastrous happening to earth. Come on nerds and geeks, do what ever it is that you do and GIVE ME AN EXPLANATION!!

Sure, as soon as you get us laid in return.

Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours...

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I think that the 'atrium theory' might just be a very good description of the antediluvian world, and an explanation for the differences between now and then. Here's a question for you, if such a large amount of water was suspended in the atmosphere, would that reduce the gravitational effects for creatures living on the surface? Perhaps expansion of the Earth isn't required, only reconfiguration.

Also, I too think our system may have once been binary. The 'star of Saturn' symbolism had to come from somewhere.

As to the main topic of discussion, I’m afraid I don’t have a lot to contribute, but I find the ideas of EM/gravitation fluctuations or solar wind the most interesting. Wouldn’t it be funny if it was just a math error?

Wouldn't accretion have the opposite dated core samples than what is currently taken. Meaning I would think the sea-floor would have an older stamp than dry land?

I think the satellite is slowing down because it's now going uphill.

b

here's a predestrian thought, one of youse number crunchers can compute it for us...

thought: all spacecraft had to have achieved orbit to begin with,
which i believe is +17,000 MPH.
now that speed is infantesimal in ratio to the speed of light,
but scientists have measured time differences between static earth bound
clocks an atomic clocks in aircraft and satellites... wee differences were found...

now let's extrapolate a satellite that is rotating at a higher rate around another rotating body...would there be time anomalies created?
and would those anomalies show up as deviations in trajectory/flight path/orbit.

as for the Pioneer(s) exiting the solar system & it's 'membrane' (if one does exist).. the anomaly would be based mostly on the faster speed factor as opposed to the time anomaly created by the 'spins' differences between two bodies .. both of which could become recognized as distortions in celestial mechanics, newtonian physics, = angular momentum/ orbits/ trajectories

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



for anyone's quest for a better understanding of Physics- Electricity & magnetism (which a lot of posts in this thread lean towards)

there's a home study course from MIT available, it's free (among many other courses)

ocw.mit.edu...

8.02 Physics II....to help students develop a better intuition about, and conceptual models of, physical phenomena


cheers,


[edit on 2-3-2008 by St Udio]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
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?

yes, I was thinking the exact same thing......these effects are more recent so it goes to follow that these Haarp , etc experiments are affecting the total earth. I don't think it is a bad idea......cause effect....there must be some link. Pretty obvious to me. Good thoght

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
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.

Thanks. I just thought I would give a little example of what I meant. Our sun is quite large and is extremely massive. It's gravitational force is responsible for the existence of our solar system itself. If you were to take the sun and compress it down to a few miles across, it would then be much more massive and have considerably more gravitational attraction. What we would have is a neutron star of extreme density and gravity. One teaspoon of a neutron star would equal around 5,000,000,000,000 kg.

Although the earth could never turn into a neutron star, the general concept still applies. If you have a specific amount of mass and compress it into a smaller size, the resulting object will be smaller and more massive than the one before it. This would result in more gravity in ancient times (counter to the idea of the expanding earth theory others have mentioned here)

The mass would never remain the same in both models. Especially since you are dealing with cramming that much more matter into a smaller area, which always results in more mass and more gravity.

A singularity within a black hole may be smaller than my thumb or larger than our planet. The point is that the more matter and energy are compressed, the more massive the object.

-ChriS

[edit on 2-3-2008 by BlasteR]

reply to post by BlasteR


I don't think you get more mass by compressing more mass into a smaller area. you get a mass that is more dense, but it is the number of protons and electrons. The same as if i am 6'0" or 5'0", if i weigh 225 i weigh 225. Same amount of mass, just distributed differently.

I wonder if the suns overall relative mass is affected by how intensely it glows? If you consider the concept of "Birkeland Currents", would the relative mass of our sun increase due to its overall energy level?

Is there a greater relationship between gravity and electricity than currently considered? Might the overall gravitational influence within our solar system depend on the energy level of our sun?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by BlasteR

 

I don't think you get more mass by compressing more mass into a smaller area. you get a mass that is more dense, but it is the number of protons and electrons. The same as if i am 6'0" or 5'0", if i weigh 225 i weigh 225. Same amount of mass, just distributed differently.

But this is exactly what creates a neutron star.. Mass being compressed into a smaller area that is.. Not to mention black holes.

If a star has enough mass when it dies, it will collapse until it creates a black hole (the fate of all stars with mass 5 times that of our own sun). With a neutron star, similar events are occuring. With neutron stars, the star's nuclear fuel runs out and no longer prevents the star (it's mass) from collapsing onto itself under it's own gravity which creates a supernova. Some material becomes expelled outward, some material (towards the center of the star) becomes compressed extremely tightly. So tightly that what is left are neutrons compacted together and the occasional electron.

The key factor that determines what actually occurs when a star dies is mass and what happens gravitationally later on after this compression takes place. The entire reason a black hole has gravity enough to pierce the 3-dimensional universe as we know it is because of compression of mass into such a small area.

I know that the earth is not a star, but the earth is not exempt from these same laws of physics. How the earth could somehow expand and become larger than it was during the dinosaurs and have more gravity now is completely contrary to what scientists observe in astrophysics and astronomy. That's really my argument.

-ChriS

OK, moving on...what about the increased cumulative gravitational effect from the infusion of greater levels of energy to our solar systems power plant?

Don't know exactly if it's related but, in some circles, it is known that there is an outflow and inflow from the sun. IE currents the go out from the sun circle back. Not unlike a magnet. A magnetic force must crawl itself to build the magnetic field in a piece of iron. A current doesn't just go out and hope to find it's way back. From the center, currents, say north and south, crawl each other and gradually expand outward.

reply to post by Guzzeppi


The unexplained force acting on the spacecraft is indeed the Red Dwarf star "Nemesis", formerly called by the Mayans "Murduk".
This huge star is on its way and with it comes several planets. One of which actually elongates its way into our solar system. This particular planet is called by the Mayans "Nibiru", today's name is "Eris", also formally known as "Planet X". The effects of Nibiru have been seen for over 130 years. Pluto was the first to change orbit. If I were you, I would look into it, very interesting stuff. There are going to be many many changes due to these foreign visits.

Originally posted by Aaron_Justin
Perhaps there are electro-magnetic gulf streams in space that we are not aware of that cause these anomolies. Obviously, I have no proof or facts to back up this claim, it is just an idea.

I like your idea, but we need to get proof to back up your hypothesis. Please do some research if you have time.

Electromagnetism is in our galaxy as gravity is on earth.