New Analysis Video of the STS-75 Tether Incident

Originally posted by ArMaP

Then, why doesn't the shuttle fall?

PS: sorry everybody for the short post.

see my previous post, or this for a simple example.
spaceplace.nasa.gov...

reply to post by JScytale


But the momentum for their previous trajectory would appear to slow due to gravity and so their trajectory would gently arc, not instantly change, right? And this still doesn't answer why the objects would take different directions to each other after the momentum of their previous trajectories had stopped. They would all appear to take the same new trajectory - not different ones - in accord with the gravity from a specific source - earth - in a specific location - er....here LOL


[edit on 8-6-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by JScytale

 

But the momentum for their previous trajectory would appear to slow due to gravity and so their trajectory would gently arc, not instantly change, right? And this still doesn't answer why the objects would take different directions to each other after the momentum of their previous trajectories had stopped. They would all appear to take the same new trajectory - not different ones - in accord with the gravity from a specific source - earth - in a specific location - er....here LOL


[edit on 8-6-2009 by Malcram]

fact is, these objects are ranging in distance from anywhere from 1 millimeter outside the shuttle's window to thousands of kilometers away. there is no depth of field in this image. therefore, they will appear to move at different speeds.

everything is moving in different directions - but every single change in direction i saw was in the same general direction. they all seem to be accelerating towards the right / bottom right of the frame. i assume this is the direction of the earth. now, if someone were to prove that the earth was in a different direction at the time of this footage, congratulations you have discovered something that completely changes the nature of this footage - but that is extremely unlikely.

i saw nothing curve and accelerate towards the left hand side of the footage, for example.

you should also bear in mind that the shuttle fires thrusters often to correct its orbit, and this *will* influence particles near the shuttle - but when this happens, all of the near particles will move away in an identical direction. because you can't tell how far away each one is in the footage, it would make some appear to move and others not.

remember - gravity isnt pulling them to earth in a straight line, it is accelerating them towards earth in a straight line. they aren't going to suddenly just drop - they will continue along their initial paths, and said paths will curve towards the earth as time goes on.

Originally posted by JScytale

PLEASE tell me what part of this is "ludicrous" to you. PLEASE.

Certainly if a cannonball does not have enough momentum it will fall back to Earth...

If you shoot 20 cannonballs at the same time with the same energy all 20 will fall back to Earth with the same trajectory... not move in random arcs.

Your example has absolutely nothing to do with the objects under discussion and neither does it explain any time frame before those cannonballs would return to Earth. I believe your friend Newton says something about mass

What is ludicrous about your theory is that you are stating that the movement of the tether objects is caused by gravity, yet you cannot show me any data to back up that possibility

OF COURSE things fall back to Earth... IN DUE TIME

But small objects like ice particles and debris have very little mass and as such would take a long time to return to Earth... as is evident by the HUGE debris field we now have to contend with.

Besides do you have ANY idea on how long an ice particle remains ice in space before it sublimates? Don't forget that this video according to Jim Oberg is DAYS after the event.


Please try to focus on reality. Your not helping your case

reply to post by JScytale


OK, I think you may have answered this already, I am too sleepy at the moment to understand most of what I read (and some of what I write).

If those objects are ice crystals or other small debris that came from the Shuttle then they should follow its orbit, and not change direction in that way.

If those objects are affected by gravity in that way then they can not be travelling at the same speed as the shuttle, so they should cross the field of vision very fast (probably too fast for the camera), and as the broken tether was also moving at high speed (although slower than the shuttle at that time, I think the shuttle overtook the tether twice in five days, but I may be mixing the numbers), so, if the objects are close to the tether they should not be affected by gravity in the way we see those objects move, if that was the case then the tether should also follow that path.

What I mean is that, although the objects look like they are affected by some force (that I think is an external force) and not able to move on their own, I don't see how their curved trajectories can be the result of gravity, unless is gravity toward the shuttle and not the Earth.

I think that an electrostatic force would have the same effect, for example, but I do not have any indication that there was any force of that type working on those objects.

PS: sorry if this post is somewhat mixed up, I usually make confusing posts when I write more than five lines.

Originally posted by zorgon
Don't forget that this video according to Jim Oberg is DAYS after the event.

I think this was filmed on the second overtaking of the tether, five days after the breaking, and that the first time was two or three days before.

reply to post by ArMaP

Yes I do believe you are correct...
So how long does ice remain ice in the sublimation zone?

BTW I spotted you UFO hoax on Youtube

COOKIE?

Why ArMaP your DO have a sense of humor after all



.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by zorgon]

reply to post by JScytale


to further expand on my example of extremely fast micrometeorites seeming to have a straight line trajectory, i'm going to explain gravity slingshotting.

this is how voyager changed its trajectory to visit other planets, as did other probes.

when an object enters a planet or other objects gravitational field with such tremendous speed as to be able to escape it again easily, it isn't immune to gravity - it just shoots through the field and gets influenced for a brief period of time.

space probes would frequently do this with planets like jupiter - as they entered, they would accelerate at a *huge* rate towards jupiter, but because they were moving far faster than the velocity needed to orbit, they would escape again in a different direction.



you can see the way gravity influences its trajectory very clearly in this example.

if you were observing a small portion of the sky when a gravity-assisting object shot past, it would look like something shooting by at TREMENDOUS speed and in a straight line, because the curve would be about as noticeable as the curvature of the earth when standing on it.

i'm going to point out, piece by piece, why your argument is wrong.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale

PLEASE tell me what part of this is "ludicrous" to you. PLEASE.

Certainly if a cannonball does not have enough momentum it will fall back to Earth...

If you shoot 20 cannonballs at the same time with the same energy all 20 will fall back to Earth with the same trajectory... not move in random arcs.

this is an example, not meant to be taken literally. it demonstrates the theory, but this particular example in practice isnt feasible because of the atmosphere (drag) and the limitations of gunpowder. However, that does not change the fact that what it is explaining and illustrating is 100% accurate. If you don't believe it, please explain to me in *great* detail how you think orbit works.

Your example has absolutely nothing to do with the objects under discussion and neither does it explain any time frame before those cannonballs would return to Earth. I believe your friend Newton says something about mass

What is ludicrous about your theory is that you are stating that the movement of the tether objects is caused by gravity, yet you cannot show me any data to back up that possibility

I have shown mounds of data. If you think the tether is excluded from the gravity of the earth, please explain why, in great detail. Regarding mass - Mass influences the FORCE with which gravity acts, but the ACCELERATION remains constant.
en.wikipedia.org...

OF COURSE things fall back to Earth... IN DUE TIME

But small objects like ice particles and debris have very little mass and as such would take a long time to return to Earth... as is evident by the HUGE debris field we now have to contend with.

it is always falling towards the earth. in orbit, the shuttle is essentially falling eternally. ask an astronaut what zero-g feels like, and he will tell you it feels exactly like falling - because that is what it is in orbit.

eventually it will REACH the earth - but it is always falling.

Besides do you have ANY idea on how long an ice particle remains ice in space before it sublimates? Don't forget that this video according to Jim Oberg is DAYS after the event.

considering a satellite broke, the vast majority of the debris in this situation is probably metal shards, chipped paint, etc. unless you think the tether just moved off without any fuss. In which case you should watch a controlled separation and notice the amount of debris still present in that kind of situation.

Please try to focus on reality. Your not helping your case

please follow this advice.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by JScytale

 

OK, I think you may have answered this already, I am too sleepy at the moment to understand most of what I read (and some of what I write).

If those objects are ice crystals or other small debris that came from the Shuttle then they should follow its orbit, and not change direction in that way.

If those objects are affected by gravity in that way then they can not be travelling at the same speed as the shuttle, so they should cross the field of vision very fast (probably too fast for the camera), and as the broken tether was also moving at high speed (although slower than the shuttle at that time, I think the shuttle overtook the tether twice in five days, but I may be mixing the numbers), so, if the objects are close to the tether they should not be affected by gravity in the way we see those objects move, if that was the case then the tether should also follow that path.

What I mean is that, although the objects look like they are affected by some force (that I think is an external force) and not able to move on their own, I don't see how their curved trajectories can be the result of gravity, unless is gravity toward the shuttle and not the Earth.

I think that an electrostatic force would have the same effect, for example, but I do not have any indication that there was any force of that type working on those objects.

PS: sorry if this post is somewhat mixed up, I usually make confusing posts when I write more than five lines.

like i explained before, because there is no drag in space, whens something separates from something else (snaps off, undocks, whatever) it is still moving in the same direction and speed and will forever, except it is also slowly drifting away as well because of the force of the separation. this is due to momentum.

en.wikipedia.org...

it is the same reason you will shoot out of your car if you crash with no seat belt on. the car stops, but you still have your momentum and will continue in the same trajectory with the same speed.

the same fact that there is no drag is why voyager could move at such incredible speed without using any fuel except to change its direction of movement. once it broke free from its launch vehicle and did a few gravity assists, NOTHING was slowing it down.

it is also why ion engines are feasible in space. the thrust they create is virtually nothing, but because they can be powered solarly they have essentially unlimited fuel - and at a constant rate fo acceleration of say 0.00000000000000001 m/s^2 with nothing decelerating you means with enough time, you can reach *any* speed.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by Jimmy2theR
Yes. If it's nothing but ice particles, lens abberations and all that, then why the on-slought of explanations from Oberg. It sure didn't take long for NASA to send him in here, this post is barely what? Not even 24 hours in and already touched a nerve.

Special Pleading and appeal-to-motive ad hominems.

Excellent work.

Originally posted by JScytale
fact is, these objects are ranging in distance from anywhere from 1 millimeter outside the shuttle's window to thousands of kilometers away. there is no depth of field in this image. therefore, they will appear to move at different speeds.

Now your getting desperate and grasping at straws.

How is it a 'fact' that some are outside the window and some are THOUSANDS of Kilometers away?

If that were true, considering the tether is only about 100 nautical miles away, (which is about 185 kilometers) that would imply that the objects "thousands of kilometers" away would indeed be BEHIND the tether, a point that some on our side contend is indeed the case

... and if we can see them that far away they would have to be HUGE... I mean surely you are not implying the ones "thousands of kilometers" away would be the same size as the ones outside the window?

You better quit while you can before you shoot your other foot

and said paths will curve towards the earth as time goes on.

As time goes on yes... but not over the space of the few minutes of duration of the video. that just defies all logic and the law of gravity.

Might want to take a refresher course


.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale
fact is, these objects are ranging in distance from anywhere from 1 millimeter outside the shuttle's window to thousands of kilometers away. there is no depth of field in this image. therefore, they will appear to move at different speeds.

Now your getting desperate and grasping at straws.

How is it a 'fact' that some are outside the window and some are THOUSANDS of Kilometers away?

If that were true, considering the tether is only about 100 nautical miles away, (which is about 185 kilometers) that would imply that the objects "thousands of kilometers" away would indeed be BEHIND the tether, a point that some on our side contend is indeed the case

my point was there is NO depth of field. we know the "critters" are extremely close because it is a lens effect caused when an illuminated particle is very close to the camera used in this film. the rest of the points of light? they could be ANYWHERE from just in focus to as far away as a star - because we don't have two cameras filming side by side (stereoscopic vision - its why you can catch a ball. read up on it.) we have NO data indicating how far anything is. the only known distance is the distance of the tether because it was measured.

... and if we can see them that far away they would have to be HUGE...

You better quit while you can before you shoot your other foot

and said paths will curve towards the earth as time goes on.

As time goes on yes... but not over the space of the few minutes of duration of the video. that just defies all logic and the law of gravity.

Might want to take a refresher course

read my post. im serious. read it until you understand my argument and then comment. stop embarrassing yourself in front of the people who actually understand physics 101.

Originally posted by JScytale we know the "critters" are extremely close because it is a lens effect caused when an illuminated particle is very close to the camera used in this film.

Well we are getting somewhere now. At least your acknowledging 'critters'

Now there is only one problem with the 'lens artifact' excuse.

IF it was a lens artifact that creates the 'notch' effect, then in any given frame you pick the notch would be in the SAME direction as all 'points of light' would show the same effect.

However in the video they are not, as you can see in this capture wher the two main critters show the notch opposite each other. This would be impossible for a lens artifact to accomplish



And in the next frame notice what has happened



The notch is now the opposite direction.

Now in this series of screen captures look closely to how the critter changes shape from frame to frame.



To ArMaP

Can you make an animation of those frames? I have no way to clip it from the video. If so I can email you the six frames

Thanks

Now here is the lens artifact you are trying to compare these critters to..



Somewhere I have one with multiple light sources, I believe its posted here at ATS somewhere, where it shows all the notches in the same direction as would be the case. I will find it later (or someone can post it )

I just found this one today on Wikipedia

Great shot don't you agree?

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale we know the "critters" are extremely close because it is a lens effect caused when an illuminated particle is very close to the camera used in this film.

Well we are getting somewhere now. At least your acknowledging 'critters'

Now there is only one problem with the 'lens artifact' excuse.

IF it was a lens artifact that creates the 'notch' effect, then in any given frame you pick the notch would be in the SAME direction as all 'points of light' would show the same effect.

However in the video they are not, as you can see in this capture wher the two main critters show the notch opposite each other. This would be impossible for a lens artifact to accomplish

And in the next frame notice what has happened

The notch is now the opposite direction.

Now in this series of screen captures look closely to how the critter changes shape from frame to frame.

To ArMaP

Can you make an animation of those frames? I have no way to clip it from the video. If so I can email you the six frames

Thanks

i call them "critters" because thats what you call them. i guess you missed the quotation marks?

the notch being on the other side does not rule out camera artifacts, nor does shape alteration. bear in mind these are almost obviously out of focus due to the fact they spring out from points of light when the camera zooms in in the original footage, and they are translucent. If these were solid objects at great distance they would be in clear focus and be overstaurated by the same source of light that is oversaturating the tether.



2:10
notice how the solidly defined points of light bloom out to be translucent "critters" when the camera zooms in? they are almost definitely camera artifacts, unless they all decided to synchronize revealing their true form at the exact same instant as the camera zoomed in due to reading the mind of the camera operator.

i encourage you to compare their relative sizes before the zoom and after so you can see that the distinct points of light grow and go out of focus with the zoom.

now the real question is, are you a rational person willing to listen to conflicting arguments and come to a new conclusion, or are you going to not surprise me and continue to skim my posts, look for random bits of information, ignore when i call out your ignorance, and post more unbased claims?

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]

In this thread...

Are some UFO's animals that live in space?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In this post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

BFFT made an animation of the Critter NASA is watching on there mission control screen... pretty huge wouldn't you say?




In context



Well have fun with your delusion... I need to do some work

TTFN

[edit on 8-6-2009 by zorgon]

Originally posted by zorgon
In this thread...

Are some UFO's animals that live in space?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In this post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

BFFT made an animation of the Critter NASA is watching on there mission control screen... pretty huge wouldn't you say?

In context

Well have fun with your delusion... I need to do some work

TTFN

[edit on 8-6-2009 by zorgon]

i dont get the logic behind "if i find mroe examples of this it means my opinion is true."

Originally posted by JScytale

now the real question is, are you a rational person willing to listen to conflicting arguments and come to a new conclusion,

Rational? Most times yes
Willing to listen? Been reading all your posts so far so yes...
Come to a new conclusion? Based on your 'evidence'? About as much chance as a snowball in Hades

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by JScytale

now the real question is, are you a rational person willing to listen to conflicting arguments and come to a new conclusion,

Rational? Most times yes
Willing to listen? Been reading all your posts so far so yes...
Come to a new conclusion? Based on your 'evidence'? About as much chance as a snowball in Hades

alright. lets ignore all the times i called you out previous to this - explain why the "critters" bloom out from points of light in the video i linked previously. explain to me why they are smaller in width than the tether, and later wider after the zoom.

please also explain to me why they are all oriented exactly towards the camera so that their "donut holes" face us, and we see no objects of similar width from the side.

don't ignore this post. if your argument holds an ounce of water you should be able to explain this easily and scientifically.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by JScytale]