http://www.physorg.com/news110014869.html
Billions spent on technology that quite frankly gave little return investor interest.
Space shuttle and now the Space Station.
Money for space exploration is hard to find because NASA controls
that lions share.
If they are serious about interplanetary travel I hope they have some better ideas then what I have read on their websites.
Here is one that I like.
http://nlspropulsiion.net
But anything to get aerospace engineers to think outside the traditional box would be nice.
NASA has a great bunch of intelligent people. I hope to god NASA isn"t going to let these folks go also. That would be a national mistake in my opinion.
They cannot be serious?
They are talking about a "moon base", but it took how many years to make the space station and they still aren't done with it?
This has got to be some sort of sicke joke. These people cannot be this stupid.
They are talking about a "moon base", but it took how many years to make the space station and they still aren't done with it?
This has got to be some sort of sicke joke. These people cannot be this stupid.
The moon has all of the necessary supplies to make a base already (lunar concrete). Also, spacewalks take a much shorter time on the moon since it has some gravity. With 6 astronauts working on the moon at any given time, and with the aid of Japanese robotics, that signifigantly cuts down the number manhours required to build a base on the moon. Not to mention what we could do if we cooperated with the Chinese on this one. 
Are you serious? You mean.. you think we could accomplish more if we pulled together as a species instead of partitioning ourselves into warring factions? You must be a communist, someone scold this boy promptly! 
Truthfully though, the conditions of space require so much money to overcome... Getting anything up to escape or orbital velocity is a pretty penny at least with our current prevailing technologies.
Do certain countries have the money? Absolutely. It's just being used on techs and manpower to conquer the other countries. In other words, "Defense Spending". I hope it's not wishful thinking to dream of a day when we look at the universe on a bigger scale and pull together. The space race should be such a uniting cause... instead it's just another warfront and an official "Our Country's Penis is Larger" competition.
Truthfully though, the conditions of space require so much money to overcome... Getting anything up to escape or orbital velocity is a pretty penny at least with our current prevailing technologies.
Do certain countries have the money? Absolutely. It's just being used on techs and manpower to conquer the other countries. In other words, "Defense Spending". I hope it's not wishful thinking to dream of a day when we look at the universe on a bigger scale and pull together. The space race should be such a uniting cause... instead it's just another warfront and an official "Our Country's Penis is Larger" competition.
I want to know more about the NLSP you mentioned. Wish I had the $$$ to invest, but I'm poor. Check out the site mentioned, but you'll have to take out the extra "i" when you type it in.
:-)
:-)
From that website you posted:
"Even my patent application and patent will not be published at my request.”
Does it get more bogus than that? This guy has never dealt with the patent office -- if he had, he would know that this is impossible.
Please refrain from posting obvious fiction.
"Even my patent application and patent will not be published at my request.”
Does it get more bogus than that? This guy has never dealt with the patent office -- if he had, he would know that this is impossible.
Please refrain from posting obvious fiction.
QUOTE (am_Unition+Sep 26 2007, 12:33 PM)
Are you serious? You mean.. you think we could accomplish more if we pulled together as a species instead of partitioning ourselves into warring factions? You must be a communist, someone scold this boy promptly!
Truthfully though, the conditions of space require so much money to overcome... Getting anything up to escape or orbital velocity is a pretty penny at least with our current prevailing technologies.
Do certain countries have the money? Absolutely. It's just being used on techs and manpower to conquer the other countries. In other words, "Defense Spending". I hope it's not wishful thinking to dream of a day when we look at the universe on a bigger scale and pull together. The space race should be such a uniting cause... instead it's just another warfront and an official "Our Country's Penis is Larger" competition.
Yes, confirmed. You are obviously a liberal who is too blind to realize most of the countries you want to just "share" our money and technology with would rather just kill us.
Truthfully though, the conditions of space require so much money to overcome... Getting anything up to escape or orbital velocity is a pretty penny at least with our current prevailing technologies.
Do certain countries have the money? Absolutely. It's just being used on techs and manpower to conquer the other countries. In other words, "Defense Spending". I hope it's not wishful thinking to dream of a day when we look at the universe on a bigger scale and pull together. The space race should be such a uniting cause... instead it's just another warfront and an official "Our Country's Penis is Larger" competition.
Yes, confirmed. You are obviously a liberal who is too blind to realize most of the countries you want to just "share" our money and technology with would rather just kill us.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 26 2007, 05:47 PM)
Yes, confirmed. You are obviously a liberal who is too blind to realize most of the countries you want to just "share" our money and technology with would rather just kill us.
Please, the "with us or against us" attitude is a bit stifling.
I'm not a liberal. It's actually possible to refrain from classifying yourself into one of two categories. Good guess though, I bet you were sure you had me nailed.
Please, the "with us or against us" attitude is a bit stifling.
I'm not a liberal. It's actually possible to refrain from classifying yourself into one of two categories. Good guess though, I bet you were sure you had me nailed.
The private sector will take over when that happens.
Bah! If they took a day off in Iraq every week and gave me the money they'd save, I'd keep a dollar and pour the rest to keep the station up!
Us earthlings already lost an awesome constellation of lovely satellites some years ago and now they plan to lose this!
Bah!
Us earthlings already lost an awesome constellation of lovely satellites some years ago and now they plan to lose this!
Bah!
Bush Stikes Again, see what an under educated person can do to funk up a nation. The guy flunked college and quit the military during a war. 
Ridiculous. 2 billion dollars a year? What will the US be spending on the Iraq fiasco in 2015?
Our country has its priorities all wrong. What a waste.
Our country has its priorities all wrong. What a waste.
QUOTE (bobwinners+Sep 30 2007, 04:41 AM)
Ridiculous. 2 billion dollars a year? What will the US be spending on the Iraq fiasco in 2015?
Our country has its priorities all wrong. What a waste.
LOL!
24 billion dollars for non college/university schooling in Ohio and the state officials still had to lower the grading curve!
2 billion bucks for hard space science is well worth it.
Here's a thought! Mine asteriods! No EPA. ZERO earthquakes. Reduced onsite infer structure. Completely consumable!
Our country has its priorities all wrong. What a waste.
LOL!
24 billion dollars for non college/university schooling in Ohio and the state officials still had to lower the grading curve!
2 billion bucks for hard space science is well worth it.
Here's a thought! Mine asteriods! No EPA. ZERO earthquakes. Reduced onsite infer structure. Completely consumable!
Not to worry; any stated plans from NASA about year 2015 are bogus. We all know that NASA's plans change with every new president -- particularly when that president is of a different party.
Bush's days at the helm are numbered, and given the current trends it seems Hillary will be a shoe-in by next fall.
So all this hoopla about the Moon program and mothballing the ISS, is BS right now. While I'm not a prophet, I really don't think Hillary will continue Bush's ridiculous policies in this, nor in quite a few other arenas.
(Not that I'm a Hillary cheerleader; far from it. Just being realistic...)
Bush's days at the helm are numbered, and given the current trends it seems Hillary will be a shoe-in by next fall.
So all this hoopla about the Moon program and mothballing the ISS, is BS right now. While I'm not a prophet, I really don't think Hillary will continue Bush's ridiculous policies in this, nor in quite a few other arenas.
(Not that I'm a Hillary cheerleader; far from it. Just being realistic...)
QUOTE
The private sector will take over when that happens.
I agree.
Guest Michael,
Sorry but you can have your patent NOT published, I checked with PTO and
looked at the forms online that you would fill out when submitting an application.
Sorry but you can have your patent NOT published, I checked with PTO and
looked at the forms online that you would fill out when submitting an application.
have faith in mankind people,if it is important enough we will ALL come together for the betterment of all mankind.remember technology is neutral its what we do with it that matters.lol 
Company working with scientist is developing way to use space shuttle to
go at neal light speed. This will sure save the tax payers alot of money
when commercialized.
http://nlspropulsion.net
The American people need to get a ROI and keep the talented people on
the space shuttle on the job.
go at neal light speed. This will sure save the tax payers alot of money
when commercialized.
http://nlspropulsion.net
The American people need to get a ROI and keep the talented people on
the space shuttle on the job.
QUOTE
http://nlspropulsiion.net
total one sided propaganda, the usual
NASA irresponsibly smashed into comet Temple 1, which will come back this way soon, and may hit Earth ( maybe it has fragmented, which would cause far far more damage)
at the time of Deep Impact they said it was safe
then months later, they admitted it was foolish
This planet will be destroyed by the hand of a human being...... there are no controls, no consultation, and no sense.... the usual
QUOTE (Guest_Michael+Sep 26 2007, 05:46 PM)
From that website you posted:
"Even my patent application and patent will not be published at my request.”
Does it get more bogus than that? This guy has never dealt with the patent office -- if he had, he would know that this is impossible.
Please refrain from posting obvious fiction.
Bull Michael! His story is corroborated by the USPTO website. Incidentally, Holoman is one of the most famous living inventors, I know he has a lot of patents and he has a lot of respect in the military and in industry.
"Even my patent application and patent will not be published at my request.”
Does it get more bogus than that? This guy has never dealt with the patent office -- if he had, he would know that this is impossible.
Please refrain from posting obvious fiction.
Bull Michael! His story is corroborated by the USPTO website. Incidentally, Holoman is one of the most famous living inventors, I know he has a lot of patents and he has a lot of respect in the military and in industry.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jan 26 2008, 03:55 AM)
NASA irresponsibly smashed into comet Temple 1, which will come back this way soon, and may hit Earth ( maybe it has fragmented, which would cause far far more damage)
at the time of Deep Impact they said it was safe
then months later, they admitted it was foolish
Wow, that's interesting. I'd love it if you posted links to your references, not only on Tempel 1's orbit but also to the admission of foolishness.
at the time of Deep Impact they said it was safe
then months later, they admitted it was foolish
Wow, that's interesting. I'd love it if you posted links to your references, not only on Tempel 1's orbit but also to the admission of foolishness.
I'm going to have to agree with Zarkov on the http://nlspropulsion.net idea. I see a few statements that make me think the people who threw this idea together might not know enough physics. In one paper they referenced, http://nlspropulsion.net/Documents/propulsion_poster.pdf, I found this:
What the author failed to grasp is that the need for an increased force is when measured from a inertial frame of reference outside of the spacecraft. From a frame of reference moving with the spacecraft itself, the engine's thrust should remain constant without any need to change the electric field or number of electrons it is emitting. There are many other problems, this is only the tip of the iceberg. I wouldn't trust these people with my money.
QUOTE
This one "G" acceleration is the ideal desired rate of travel for an interplanetary or interstellar vehicle, as it simulates the gravitational effects of Earth, although, within the constraints of relativistic mechanics, a constant force will not provide a constant acceleration. As the craft reaches greater velocities, the force will have to be increased.
Either the electric field or the total charge, as in the case above, can be increased in magnitude to compensate for an increasing relative mass
Either the electric field or the total charge, as in the case above, can be increased in magnitude to compensate for an increasing relative mass
What the author failed to grasp is that the need for an increased force is when measured from a inertial frame of reference outside of the spacecraft. From a frame of reference moving with the spacecraft itself, the engine's thrust should remain constant without any need to change the electric field or number of electrons it is emitting. There are many other problems, this is only the tip of the iceberg. I wouldn't trust these people with my money.
Although I appreciate the author's (of that nls site) interest in science and desire to seek better ways to explore space, the author obviously does not know physics.
Don't get me wrong. I believe there is a good chance of developing a propulsion system within the next several decades that might provide exhaust velocities into the tens of thousands of kilometers per second, and the author does refer to some of those ideas. I'm only saying the author of this site is muddling such ideas here with considerable junk science and misinformation.
1. He repeatedly refers to acceleration and velocity in a context that makes them appear at least roughly as the same thing. Even if he does know the difference, it is inexcusable to mix those concepts by any degree even in casual conversation.
2. He believes a given type of rocket propulsion suffers from some theoretical or practical maximum spacecraft velocity. Even practically, there is no such hard limit. It is true that the initial vehicle mass requirement increases exponentially with the final spacecraft velocity requirement, but there is no "elbow" limit, as he states.
3. He provides links to things that have pretty much nothing to do with the subject. Sunyaev-Zel'dovich is simply reverse Compton scattering--high-energy electrons LOSING their energy to existing photons--which is simply the OPPOSITE of particle acceleration via Compton scattering (which IS something to be considered as a propulsion system!). Likewise Birkeland currents illustrate an EXTREMELY inefficient form of particle acceleration--there are a lot more promising methods.
4. He implies the idea of using nuclear power to efficiently accelerate particles is close to realization but being neglected by mainstream science. Neither is true. Basically, the site simply says "It oughta be done". People really are working on these things--but progress is slow.
5. He neglects to discuss the tremendous waste of energy (even when the power source is nuclear) required to separate charges in order to accelerate them and how, ideally, it is acceleration of neutral particles that would make the best exhaust. Admittedly, that requirement makes things 100 times more difficult--but the fact that he doesn't mention it is still quite revealing.
6. The word "efficiency" appears nowhere on the site. That, in my opinion, is the clincher.
Don't get me wrong. I believe there is a good chance of developing a propulsion system within the next several decades that might provide exhaust velocities into the tens of thousands of kilometers per second, and the author does refer to some of those ideas. I'm only saying the author of this site is muddling such ideas here with considerable junk science and misinformation.
1. He repeatedly refers to acceleration and velocity in a context that makes them appear at least roughly as the same thing. Even if he does know the difference, it is inexcusable to mix those concepts by any degree even in casual conversation.
2. He believes a given type of rocket propulsion suffers from some theoretical or practical maximum spacecraft velocity. Even practically, there is no such hard limit. It is true that the initial vehicle mass requirement increases exponentially with the final spacecraft velocity requirement, but there is no "elbow" limit, as he states.
3. He provides links to things that have pretty much nothing to do with the subject. Sunyaev-Zel'dovich is simply reverse Compton scattering--high-energy electrons LOSING their energy to existing photons--which is simply the OPPOSITE of particle acceleration via Compton scattering (which IS something to be considered as a propulsion system!). Likewise Birkeland currents illustrate an EXTREMELY inefficient form of particle acceleration--there are a lot more promising methods.
4. He implies the idea of using nuclear power to efficiently accelerate particles is close to realization but being neglected by mainstream science. Neither is true. Basically, the site simply says "It oughta be done". People really are working on these things--but progress is slow.
5. He neglects to discuss the tremendous waste of energy (even when the power source is nuclear) required to separate charges in order to accelerate them and how, ideally, it is acceleration of neutral particles that would make the best exhaust. Admittedly, that requirement makes things 100 times more difficult--but the fact that he doesn't mention it is still quite revealing.
6. The word "efficiency" appears nowhere on the site. That, in my opinion, is the clincher.
QUOTE
references, not only on Tempel 1's orbit but also to the admission of foolishness.
skim through my website.....
http://www.omegafour.com/forum2/viewforum....9304cfda1c6556e
QUOTE (Zarkov+Jan 26 2008, 03:55 AM)
NASA irresponsibly smashed into comet Temple 1, which will come back this way soon, and may hit Earth ( maybe it has fragmented, which would cause far far more damage) at the time of Deep Impact they said it was safe
then months later, they admitted it was foolish
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
then months later, they admitted it was foolish
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 7 2008, 08:53 AM)
skim through my website.....
http://www.omegafour.com/forum2/viewforum....9304cfda1c6556e
Well, I found this:
QUOTE
Just received an email stating
"" **No observable changes were made to the orbit. It was as if we had never hit in the first place.**
and
"" **The comet did not dissassociate. In fact, no long term jets were formed. The observers were quite disappointed as the comet returned to pre-impact behavior quickly.**
and
"" **I'm not sure what you mean by 'energetically react' but not very long. As mentioned before, observations of the comet after impact showed it behaving much as it did before indicating that Deep Impact did not affect the comet as much as we had hoped (ie by forming a jet, etc).**
Well that is good news from the source, so all is well. >>
"" **No observable changes were made to the orbit. It was as if we had never hit in the first place.**
and
"" **The comet did not dissassociate. In fact, no long term jets were formed. The observers were quite disappointed as the comet returned to pre-impact behavior quickly.**
and
"" **I'm not sure what you mean by 'energetically react' but not very long. As mentioned before, observations of the comet after impact showed it behaving much as it did before indicating that Deep Impact did not affect the comet as much as we had hoped (ie by forming a jet, etc).**
Well that is good news from the source, so all is well. >>
So your own website seems to indicate that there is absolutely no risk from Tempel 1. It's orbit did not change and it didn't fragment, directly contradicting statements made you made here on Physorg. And I didn't see any references or links leading to any statements made by NASA admitting foolishness. Did I miss something?
QUOTE
Did I miss something?
mmmh yes, those speculations (they were NOT verified and can't be because the comet is invisible to Earth) placate anxiety
what will happen soon is yet to be experienced
Re regret.. see article where astronaut states shooting a cosmic rock is foolhardy.
What is already up and stable is best left up and stable...... perturb the orbit and what will come down is not known until its in your face.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 7 2008, 09:29 PM)
mmmh yes, those speculations (they were NOT verified and can't be because the comet is invisible to Earth) placate anxiety
what will happen soon is yet to be experienced
Re regret.. see article where astronaut states shooting a cosmic rock is foolhardy.
What is already up and stable is best left up and stable...... perturb the orbit and what will come down is not known until its in your face.
I'm not going to spend any more time looking through your gargantuan website on a fool's errand looking for a link that doesn't exist. Unless you can provide post a link on Physorg where an astronaut (an astronaut! not an astronomer?) says shooting a cosmic rock is foolhardy, I'm going to assume that factoid, like everything else you write, comes straight out of your imagination.
some thoughts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3610953.stm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 850335.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 850335.htm
NASA astronaut Edward Lu said Hollywood-style solutions such as detonating a nuclear bomb in outer space to destroy an oncoming asteroid could increase the chances of a hit on Earth.
"Some of the simpler methods that people have talked about have turned out to be, upon closer inspection, not as simple as you might think," he said.
"There is a random element to them.
Things like hitting them with a bomb or flying a spacecraft into them - you just don't know what the results of that are going to be. It could make things worse."
A reference! I never thought I'd live to see the day. And in fact I would have to agree with Astronaut Lu. However, please note that there is a huge difference in energy between the Deep Impact collision (19 gigajoules) and the energetic events like nuclear explosions (4,000 terajoules) that it would take to deflect, split, etc. an asteroid or comet. There was no chance that Deep Impact would destroy Tempel 1 or alter its orbit.
oh, no chance ?
do you know what a comet is composed of ?
do you know comets break up spontaneously, and a "small" hit can be all it takes
NO CHANCE ??? ....... well we shall see over the next 20 years.... there will be many more returns...
Meanwhile NASA has total responsibility for any Earth impact that may occur from Temple 1
Seems you think I am not genuine, nor educated... LOL, because I do not agree with you or many others on the Internet.... well your loss. IMO y'all are then total fools, and that includes NASA.
There is much this planet does not understand, and actions like Deep Impact and Temple 1 just show how fragile your civilisation is
a little knowledge can be an Earth extinction event.
mmh, glad you are a little correct
Comets can be almost pure H2O2, they certainly do not contain water as surmised, CO2 maybe
and as such small comets are as high an energy source as an A-bomb
but only worse
They can be very very big, and on impact they release an overpressure of pure oxygen
They can break up on entry and pepper and vaporise a massive area
If the comet is big enough, they can set an entire "organic" planet on fire killing 99% of the LIFE forms, either by incineration or oxygen starvation
As the ancients knew, comets are not to be played with, they bring extinction
Unfortunately the controllers of this planet are complete fools.... it is too late to lament after the deed.
Tempel 1 will return.
mmh, glad you are a little correct
Comets can be almost pure H2O2, they certainly do not contain water as surmised, CO2 maybe
and as such small comets are as high an energy source as an A-bomb
but only worse
Not according to this:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i29/8429notw1.html
A large team of astronomers and other scientists has just published the first detailed analysis of infrared emission spectra recorded during last year's Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1. The results point to an assortment of minerals, water, and other inorganic and organic materials as the stuff of which comets are made (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1124694).
Water YES
CO2 NO
H202 NO
Arthur
LIFE made water from substances such as H2S, NH3, CO2, CH3, CO3, OH, metal oxides etc, by the "rock eating" bugs.
The occasional comet hit would have added little (water formation by explosive decomposition, not water by delivery) as water is being continuously lost to space and turned back into OH .... H2O2
YOU have missed the point, water would never form in space. It just isn't stable
Only stable chemicals can persist from the beginning of time and exist until the end of time
LIFE made water from substances such as NH3, CO2, CH3, CO3, OH, metal oxides etc, by the "rock eating" bugs.
Friggin amazing.
Arthur
cynical or ???
R U a microbiologist, ???? do U have any idea at all, except what you have been told from passed on limited knowledge????
LOL
Oh BTW, I am a microbiologist.
>>> On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" >>
simply poisoning... global poisoning that comes from limited knowledge.... eventually the degradation becomes complete....
why because all was originally given in foresight
now humankind plays god via hindsight
and hindsight is too late to save sanity or extinction.
Downhill all the way until oblivion.... oh so-intelligent human beings.... fools of the highest order
YOU have missed the point, water would never form in space. It just isn't stable
Only stable chemicals can persist from the beginning of time and exist until the end of time
Yes, and hydrogen peroxide is far less stable than water. When people purchase hydrogen peroxide solutions and forget to use them quickly, later they discover that they don't have any hydrogen peroxide left, only water. Millions of people are unwittingly performing this demonstration right now. Odd that you are unaware of this basic chemical fact.
Oh BTW, I am a microbiologist.
Then, Mr microbiologist, surely you can point us to a rock eating but that pees Water?
Arthur
LIFE made water from substances such as H2S, NH3, CO2, CH3, CO3, OH, metal oxides etc, by the "rock eating" bugs.
POOF!
Any remaining semblance of credibility, GONE.......
true, very anthropic there, certainly on Earth water is more stable, very high IR, very low UV....OH is highly reactive, the reaction rate is almost unmeasurable
however in a cosmic environment OH ( or as H2O2 ) is far more stable than water
in space very low IR, very high UV... OH is extremely stable
low IR and low UV gives H2O2 stability, especially when laid down on a bed of frozen carbon dioxide...
In chemistry the environmental conditions can turn physical and chemical behaviour upside down
true, very anthropic there, certainly on Earth water is more stable, very high IR, very low UV....OH is highly reactive, the reaction rate is almost unmeasurable
however in a cosmic environment OH ( or as H2O2 ) is far more stable than water
in space very low IR, very high UV... OH is extremely stable
low IR and low UV gives H2O2 stability, especially when laid down on a bed of frozen carbon dioxide...
In chemistry the environmental conditions can turn physical and chemical behaviour upside down
point us to a rock eating but that pees Water?
There are many microbes that do this
see around black smokers at the bottom of the ocean
These organisms use chemical energy bound in inorganic molecules for growth
There are also microbes that live deep underground that eat rock
water is an oxidation product after all.
Just as some microbes breakdown sugars and pee alcohol
some bugs eat inorganics and pee water
or in many cases these bugs are eaten and their water content is then excreted by the predator,,,, in the chain of LIFE, where the lower organisms control and refine the conditions for the higher organisms, in a mutually beneficial super-organism
I call this super-organism LIFE
Why do you find that so strange ?
true, very anthropic there, certainly on Earth water is more stable, very high IR, very low UV....OH is highly reactive, the reaction rate is almost unmeasurable
however in a cosmic environment OH ( or as H2O2 ) is far more stable than water
in space very low IR, very high UV... OH is extremely stable
low IR and low UV gives H2O2 stability, especially when laid down on a bed of frozen carbon dioxide...
In chemistry the environmental conditions can turn physical and chemical behaviour upside down
There are many microbes that do this
see around black smokers at the bottom of the ocean
These organisms use chemical energy bound in inorganic molecules for growth
There are also microbes that live deep underground that eat rock
water is an oxidation product after all.
Just as some microbes breakdown sugars and pee alcohol
some bugs eat inorganics and pee water
or in many cases these bugs are eaten and their water content is then excreted by the predator,,,, in the chain of LIFE, where the lower organisms control and refine the conditions for the higher organisms, in a mutually beneficial super-organism
I call this super-organism LIFE
Why do you find that so strange ?
I just explained to you why water ice can be stable in space. Ignoring what I said doesn't make me wrong.
I guess you're operating under that impression that if you repeat something that is incorrect often enough, it will become correct.
For anybody that wants to see just how active and unstable hydrogen peroxide is, a quick perusal of the wiki article on H2O2 will do.
Biochemical reactions make water, usually from carbohydrates, which are carbon chains cross-linked with water. This water is excreted
Bugs can make and hold their water is many forms, from fats to sugars. Such bugs do not usually eat rock.
To reproduce the conditions when the first rock eating microbes fell onto Earth is impossible, all previous environmental history is conjecture. Such microbes will only be found today deep within the Earth
BTW there is much to this world that has never been studied, never been dreamed of....
Biochemical reactions make water, usually from carbohydrates, which are carbon chains cross-linked with water. This water is excreted
Bugs can make and hold their water is many forms, from fats to sugars. Such bugs do not usually eat rock.
To reproduce the conditions when the first rock eating microbes fell onto Earth is impossible, all previous environmental history is conjecture. Such microbes will only be found today deep within the Earth
BTW there is much to this world that has never been studied, never been dreamed of....
Where did the original water in their protoplasm come from?
Where did the microbes come from?
From the source of LIFE, where else ? slime is a good store of material to make water
LOL, you think all is known ??? Rock eating bugs, eg bugs found around black smokers are only known to simply exist, what their biochemistry is, is still unknown
The bug community in microbiological studies is growing everyday, and some of the new bugs are astounding....
There are bugs found growing very very slowly deep underground. Once again growing them in a laboratory has not been successful
As I said, a good exercise for you to explore
meanwhile researchers know more about this than I do, so if you wait a while, you may be supplied with your precious names... in time
LOL
You would rather believe in magic? yes limited knowledge always appeals to magic
or the Q "why" 4eva as kids do..... LOL
I believe in what is seen to be possible... drawn from reality.
So
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3610953.stm
QUOTE
He said that with several decades' warning, the orbital velocity of an incoming asteroid would only need to be altered by a small amount - less than the order of one cm per second - to make it miss the Earth. ( Zarkov:- or make it hit the Earth )
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 850335.htm
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| He said that with several decades' warning, the orbital velocity of an incoming asteroid would only need to be altered by a small amount - less than the order of one cm per second - to make it miss the Earth. ( Zarkov:- or make it hit the Earth ) |
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 850335.htm
NASA astronaut Edward Lu said Hollywood-style solutions such as detonating a nuclear bomb in outer space to destroy an oncoming asteroid could increase the chances of a hit on Earth.
"Some of the simpler methods that people have talked about have turned out to be, upon closer inspection, not as simple as you might think," he said.
"There is a random element to them.
Things like hitting them with a bomb or flying a spacecraft into them - you just don't know what the results of that are going to be. It could make things worse."
A reference! I never thought I'd live to see the day. And in fact I would have to agree with Astronaut Lu. However, please note that there is a huge difference in energy between the Deep Impact collision (19 gigajoules) and the energetic events like nuclear explosions (4,000 terajoules) that it would take to deflect, split, etc. an asteroid or comet. There was no chance that Deep Impact would destroy Tempel 1 or alter its orbit.
QUOTE
There was no chance that Deep Impact would destroy Tempel 1 or alter its orbit.
oh, no chance ?
do you know what a comet is composed of ?
do you know comets break up spontaneously, and a "small" hit can be all it takes
NO CHANCE ??? ....... well we shall see over the next 20 years.... there will be many more returns...
Meanwhile NASA has total responsibility for any Earth impact that may occur from Temple 1
Seems you think I am not genuine, nor educated... LOL, because I do not agree with you or many others on the Internet.... well your loss. IMO y'all are then total fools, and that includes NASA.
There is much this planet does not understand, and actions like Deep Impact and Temple 1 just show how fragile your civilisation is
a little knowledge can be an Earth extinction event.
Zarkov,
Yes, I have a fairly decent idea of what's in a comet. It's certainly not more than 5% H2O2.
Yes, I know comets break up spontaneously, but you are simply making an assumption when you say a small hit is all it takes. Comet Shoemaker-Levy was broken up by tidal forces from Jupiter. Other comets get too close to the Sun. Do you know of any verified examples of any collisions breaking up a comet?
I appreciate your concern for our collective safety, but considering the vastness of space things are not likely to hit us even if NASA does mess with their orbits.
Yes, I have a fairly decent idea of what's in a comet. It's certainly not more than 5% H2O2.
Yes, I know comets break up spontaneously, but you are simply making an assumption when you say a small hit is all it takes. Comet Shoemaker-Levy was broken up by tidal forces from Jupiter. Other comets get too close to the Sun. Do you know of any verified examples of any collisions breaking up a comet?
I appreciate your concern for our collective safety, but considering the vastness of space things are not likely to hit us even if NASA does mess with their orbits.
QUOTE
It's certainly not more than 5% H2O2.
mmh, glad you are a little correct
Comets can be almost pure H2O2, they certainly do not contain water as surmised, CO2 maybe
and as such small comets are as high an energy source as an A-bomb
but only worse
They can be very very big, and on impact they release an overpressure of pure oxygen
They can break up on entry and pepper and vaporise a massive area
If the comet is big enough, they can set an entire "organic" planet on fire killing 99% of the LIFE forms, either by incineration or oxygen starvation
As the ancients knew, comets are not to be played with, they bring extinction
Unfortunately the controllers of this planet are complete fools.... it is too late to lament after the deed.
Tempel 1 will return.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 15 2008, 06:07 PM)
mmh, glad you are a little correct
Comets can be almost pure H2O2, they certainly do not contain water as surmised, CO2 maybe
and as such small comets are as high an energy source as an A-bomb
but only worse
Not according to this:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i29/8429notw1.html
A large team of astronomers and other scientists has just published the first detailed analysis of infrared emission spectra recorded during last year's Deep Impact mission to comet Tempel 1. The results point to an assortment of minerals, water, and other inorganic and organic materials as the stuff of which comets are made (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1124694).
Water YES
CO2 NO
H202 NO
Arthur
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 15 2008, 11:07 PM)
mmh, glad you are a little correct
Comets can be almost pure H2O2, they certainly do not contain water as surmised,
Water does tend to degrade under the influence of ultraviolet light, 'tis true, but hydrogen peroxide is worse. It is inherently unstable and will spontaneously degrade without any help from ultraviolet light. Furthermore items like iron oxides that are commonly found in comet dust are known to catalyze the degradation of hydrogen peroxide. In some other discussion I provided a link to a paper which estimated that 5% H2O2 was the maximum concentration that could be achieved in a comet, but you conveniently ignored it. Here it is again. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0712/0712.3314.pdf
Given that the study of Tempel 1 didn't find any H2O2 (thanks, Arthur), the 5% figure is probably a very generous maximum.
Comets can be almost pure H2O2, they certainly do not contain water as surmised,
Water does tend to degrade under the influence of ultraviolet light, 'tis true, but hydrogen peroxide is worse. It is inherently unstable and will spontaneously degrade without any help from ultraviolet light. Furthermore items like iron oxides that are commonly found in comet dust are known to catalyze the degradation of hydrogen peroxide. In some other discussion I provided a link to a paper which estimated that 5% H2O2 was the maximum concentration that could be achieved in a comet, but you conveniently ignored it. Here it is again. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0712/0712.3314.pdf
Given that the study of Tempel 1 didn't find any H2O2 (thanks, Arthur), the 5% figure is probably a very generous maximum.
The hydroxyl radical is ultra long term stable in space
there are massive clouds of this -OH in the cosmos
which condenses to H2O2
which is relatively stable when frozen at low pressure and kept very cold
Yes it can spontaneously decompose to OH again.... see eruption creators on the moon's of Saturn
but cosmic H2O2 is stable enough to massively accumulate around cold moons, and break off (explosively ejected) as if icebergs to roam the Universe as diamagnetic comets.
Water is not stable in a cosmic situation, even in a short term situation (except it is stable on Earth, H2O2 not stable on Earth)
Water under cosmic conditions yields OH and H
then H+H ---> H2
You play with comets on your patch of turf, preferably on your planet far away....
keep them away from me thanks
LOL
If you are so sure of NASA's science, and that would be going against all we know in chemistry and all the data observed and tested over many many lifetimes , fine
but this world is too precious to have delusional cocksure Dr Strangeloves putting us all at risk , for an Independence Day fireworks display
that risk continues..... maybe for centuries to come
The facts are that the technology used on space craft detect the OH radical, not water or hydrogen peroxide as such,... and erroneously the conclusion is that OH is due to water decomposition, or indicates the presence of water, LOL
well you believe your bible, I believe science.... there is no water in space.... it is way to unstable to exist
I haven't read your link.... will do so, Thanks
there are massive clouds of this -OH in the cosmos
which condenses to H2O2
which is relatively stable when frozen at low pressure and kept very cold
Yes it can spontaneously decompose to OH again.... see eruption creators on the moon's of Saturn
but cosmic H2O2 is stable enough to massively accumulate around cold moons, and break off (explosively ejected) as if icebergs to roam the Universe as diamagnetic comets.
Water is not stable in a cosmic situation, even in a short term situation (except it is stable on Earth, H2O2 not stable on Earth)
Water under cosmic conditions yields OH and H
then H+H ---> H2
You play with comets on your patch of turf, preferably on your planet far away....
keep them away from me thanks
LOL
If you are so sure of NASA's science, and that would be going against all we know in chemistry and all the data observed and tested over many many lifetimes , fine
but this world is too precious to have delusional cocksure Dr Strangeloves putting us all at risk , for an Independence Day fireworks display
that risk continues..... maybe for centuries to come
The facts are that the technology used on space craft detect the OH radical, not water or hydrogen peroxide as such,... and erroneously the conclusion is that OH is due to water decomposition, or indicates the presence of water, LOL
well you believe your bible, I believe science.... there is no water in space.... it is way to unstable to exist
I haven't read your link.... will do so, Thanks
Just read the first 5 lines
delusional. They are trying to support the existence of water in space by reversing the natural sequence of reactions
which START with H2O2 and degrade to water, NOT START WITH WATER and degrade to H2O2
sorry
water does not form as a primary product, H2O2 does, so yes he admitted water is broken UP (reversed reaction forming H2O2 with energy input) by UV, true
so any water in space is very soon lost to OH and H2O2.
Where did this "fanciful" water in comets come from ? ??? Earth????? LOL
those authors are very poor chemists, sorry they are NOT chemists.....
that paper is only fit for recycling,
It shows very anthropic reasoning, and a blatant manipulation of data to further their erroneous conclusions and placate DANGER, definitely not reality related to the conditions in space
... I will even say a very very STUPID attempt, not even of high school standard
delusional. They are trying to support the existence of water in space by reversing the natural sequence of reactions
which START with H2O2 and degrade to water, NOT START WITH WATER and degrade to H2O2
sorry
water does not form as a primary product, H2O2 does, so yes he admitted water is broken UP (reversed reaction forming H2O2 with energy input) by UV, true
so any water in space is very soon lost to OH and H2O2.
Where did this "fanciful" water in comets come from ? ??? Earth????? LOL
those authors are very poor chemists, sorry they are NOT chemists.....
that paper is only fit for recycling,
It shows very anthropic reasoning, and a blatant manipulation of data to further their erroneous conclusions and placate DANGER, definitely not reality related to the conditions in space
... I will even say a very very STUPID attempt, not even of high school standard
UV light interacts with matter strongly so even a thin coating of dust is sufficient to protect a layer of ice. Also, since the Sun is the major source of UV in the solar system, the intensity of UV light decreases like 1/r^2 if r is the distance of the Sun. This means that at a certain distance even exposed ice will not be in much danger from UV. This makes the outer solar system, starting with Jupiter's moons, a vast repository of water ice. Hydrogen peroxide, on the other hand, isn't safe even if there is no UV light around. This makes two complementary reasons H2O2 doesn't build up in the solar system:
1. It's made from water by UV light exposure, and there's not much water exposed to UV light in the solar system
2. Even if it does get made it spontaneously decomposes.
Just out of curiosity, where do you think Earth's water came from?
1. It's made from water by UV light exposure, and there's not much water exposed to UV light in the solar system
2. Even if it does get made it spontaneously decomposes.
Just out of curiosity, where do you think Earth's water came from?
QUOTE
Earth's water came from?
LIFE made water from substances such as H2S, NH3, CO2, CH3, CO3, OH, metal oxides etc, by the "rock eating" bugs.
The occasional comet hit would have added little (water formation by explosive decomposition, not water by delivery) as water is being continuously lost to space and turned back into OH .... H2O2
YOU have missed the point, water would never form in space. It just isn't stable
Only stable chemicals can persist from the beginning of time and exist until the end of time
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 16 2008, 05:54 PM)
LIFE made water from substances such as NH3, CO2, CH3, CO3, OH, metal oxides etc, by the "rock eating" bugs.
Friggin amazing.
Arthur
QUOTE
Friggin amazing.
cynical or ???
R U a microbiologist, ???? do U have any idea at all, except what you have been told from passed on limited knowledge????
LOL
Oh BTW, I am a microbiologist.
>>> On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" >>
simply poisoning... global poisoning that comes from limited knowledge.... eventually the degradation becomes complete....
why because all was originally given in foresight
now humankind plays god via hindsight
and hindsight is too late to save sanity or extinction.
Downhill all the way until oblivion.... oh so-intelligent human beings.... fools of the highest order
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 16 2008, 10:54 PM)
YOU have missed the point, water would never form in space. It just isn't stable
Only stable chemicals can persist from the beginning of time and exist until the end of time
Yes, and hydrogen peroxide is far less stable than water. When people purchase hydrogen peroxide solutions and forget to use them quickly, later they discover that they don't have any hydrogen peroxide left, only water. Millions of people are unwittingly performing this demonstration right now. Odd that you are unaware of this basic chemical fact.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 16 2008, 06:53 PM)
Oh BTW, I am a microbiologist.
Then, Mr microbiologist, surely you can point us to a rock eating but that pees Water?
Arthur
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 16 2008, 04:54 PM)
LIFE made water from substances such as H2S, NH3, CO2, CH3, CO3, OH, metal oxides etc, by the "rock eating" bugs.
POOF!
Any remaining semblance of credibility, GONE.......
QUOTE
When people purchase hydrogen peroxide
true, very anthropic there, certainly on Earth water is more stable, very high IR, very low UV....OH is highly reactive, the reaction rate is almost unmeasurable
however in a cosmic environment OH ( or as H2O2 ) is far more stable than water
in space very low IR, very high UV... OH is extremely stable
low IR and low UV gives H2O2 stability, especially when laid down on a bed of frozen carbon dioxide...
In chemistry the environmental conditions can turn physical and chemical behaviour upside down
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When people purchase hydrogen peroxide |
true, very anthropic there, certainly on Earth water is more stable, very high IR, very low UV....OH is highly reactive, the reaction rate is almost unmeasurable
however in a cosmic environment OH ( or as H2O2 ) is far more stable than water
in space very low IR, very high UV... OH is extremely stable
low IR and low UV gives H2O2 stability, especially when laid down on a bed of frozen carbon dioxide...
In chemistry the environmental conditions can turn physical and chemical behaviour upside down
point us to a rock eating but that pees Water?
There are many microbes that do this
see around black smokers at the bottom of the ocean
These organisms use chemical energy bound in inorganic molecules for growth
There are also microbes that live deep underground that eat rock
water is an oxidation product after all.
Just as some microbes breakdown sugars and pee alcohol
some bugs eat inorganics and pee water
or in many cases these bugs are eaten and their water content is then excreted by the predator,,,, in the chain of LIFE, where the lower organisms control and refine the conditions for the higher organisms, in a mutually beneficial super-organism
I call this super-organism LIFE
Why do you find that so strange ?
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 17 2008, 05:29 AM)
true, very anthropic there, certainly on Earth water is more stable, very high IR, very low UV....OH is highly reactive, the reaction rate is almost unmeasurable
however in a cosmic environment OH ( or as H2O2 ) is far more stable than water
in space very low IR, very high UV... OH is extremely stable
low IR and low UV gives H2O2 stability, especially when laid down on a bed of frozen carbon dioxide...
In chemistry the environmental conditions can turn physical and chemical behaviour upside down
There are many microbes that do this
see around black smokers at the bottom of the ocean
These organisms use chemical energy bound in inorganic molecules for growth
There are also microbes that live deep underground that eat rock
water is an oxidation product after all.
Just as some microbes breakdown sugars and pee alcohol
some bugs eat inorganics and pee water
or in many cases these bugs are eaten and their water content is then excreted by the predator,,,, in the chain of LIFE, where the lower organisms control and refine the conditions for the higher organisms, in a mutually beneficial super-organism
I call this super-organism LIFE
Why do you find that so strange ?
I just explained to you why water ice can be stable in space. Ignoring what I said doesn't make me wrong.
I guess you're operating under that impression that if you repeat something that is incorrect often enough, it will become correct.
For anybody that wants to see just how active and unstable hydrogen peroxide is, a quick perusal of the wiki article on H2O2 will do.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 17 2008, 12:29 AM)
There are many microbes that do this
see around black smokers at the bottom of the ocean
These organisms use chemical energy bound in inorganic molecules for growth
There are also microbes that live deep underground that eat rock
water is an oxidation product after all.
Just as some microbes breakdown sugars and pee alcohol
some bugs eat inorganics and pee water
Please list a SPECIES by SCIENTIFIC NAME that EATS ROCK and PEES WATER.
Thanks
Arthur
see around black smokers at the bottom of the ocean
These organisms use chemical energy bound in inorganic molecules for growth
There are also microbes that live deep underground that eat rock
water is an oxidation product after all.
Just as some microbes breakdown sugars and pee alcohol
some bugs eat inorganics and pee water
Please list a SPECIES by SCIENTIFIC NAME that EATS ROCK and PEES WATER.
Thanks
Arthur
Ah Arthur
you think all these bugs have been categorised....
suffice it to say, some bugs EAT ROCK.
Human beings have only scratched the surface with pathogenic bugs, let alone all the rest out there.
Now there is a good research project for you
If you have a thought that comets bring water then WHY???? is Venus devoid of water.... as well as the Moon, Mars and even the moons of other planets... on and on...comets, asteroids etc
Oh there are claims "water" (or the deceitful term "ice" with water connotations) exists from indirect estimations on some cosmic bodies
but no water drawn from another world has even been positively analysed.
Just another misinformed biblical story that is totally false.... God knows!!!!!
Oh I know the answer.... Earth is the only planet in this Universe that comets have ever hit....
WELCOME back Tempel 1
LOL
get real and get scientific and stop behaving like a spoiled child.
All your models are wrong, so turn a new page.
you think all these bugs have been categorised....
suffice it to say, some bugs EAT ROCK.
Human beings have only scratched the surface with pathogenic bugs, let alone all the rest out there.
Now there is a good research project for you
If you have a thought that comets bring water then WHY???? is Venus devoid of water.... as well as the Moon, Mars and even the moons of other planets... on and on...comets, asteroids etc
Oh there are claims "water" (or the deceitful term "ice" with water connotations) exists from indirect estimations on some cosmic bodies
but no water drawn from another world has even been positively analysed.
Just another misinformed biblical story that is totally false.... God knows!!!!!
Oh I know the answer.... Earth is the only planet in this Universe that comets have ever hit....
WELCOME back Tempel 1
LOL
get real and get scientific and stop behaving like a spoiled child.
All your models are wrong, so turn a new page.
That's funny. A self-proclaimed microbiologist trying to explain how microbes - which require water - are responsible for the creation of water on this planet. Where did the original water in their protoplasm come from? Where did the microbes come from? And why couldn't you respond to Arthur's direct request for an example of a species? You're a microbiologist, this should be easy as cake.
QUOTE
which require water
Biochemical reactions make water, usually from carbohydrates, which are carbon chains cross-linked with water. This water is excreted
Bugs can make and hold their water is many forms, from fats to sugars. Such bugs do not usually eat rock.
To reproduce the conditions when the first rock eating microbes fell onto Earth is impossible, all previous environmental history is conjecture. Such microbes will only be found today deep within the Earth
BTW there is much to this world that has never been studied, never been dreamed of....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| which require water |
Biochemical reactions make water, usually from carbohydrates, which are carbon chains cross-linked with water. This water is excreted
Bugs can make and hold their water is many forms, from fats to sugars. Such bugs do not usually eat rock.
To reproduce the conditions when the first rock eating microbes fell onto Earth is impossible, all previous environmental history is conjecture. Such microbes will only be found today deep within the Earth
BTW there is much to this world that has never been studied, never been dreamed of....
Where did the original water in their protoplasm come from?
Where did the microbes come from?
From the source of LIFE, where else ? slime is a good store of material to make water
QUOTE
why couldn't you respond to Arthur's direct request
LOL, you think all is known ??? Rock eating bugs, eg bugs found around black smokers are only known to simply exist, what their biochemistry is, is still unknown
The bug community in microbiological studies is growing everyday, and some of the new bugs are astounding....
There are bugs found growing very very slowly deep underground. Once again growing them in a laboratory has not been successful
As I said, a good exercise for you to explore
meanwhile researchers know more about this than I do, so if you wait a while, you may be supplied with your precious names... in time
LOL
You would rather believe in magic? yes limited knowledge always appeals to magic
or the Q "why" 4eva as kids do..... LOL
I believe in what is seen to be possible... drawn from reality.
So
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 17 2008, 07:44 PM)
Ah Arthur
you think all these bugs have been categorised....
suffice it to say, some bugs EAT ROCK.
Human beings have only scratched the surface with pathogenic bugs, let alone all the rest out there.
Now there is a good research project for you
Ah Zarkov,
You stated it as if it were a FACT that
But when pressed for details to support this you can't provide any and then resort to these weasle words.
Then you add:
But when pressed for details to support this you can't provide any and then resort to these weasle words.
Then you add:Rock eating bugs, eg bugs found around black smokers are only known to simply exist, what their biochemistry is, is still unknown
So it sounds like this is really just your hypothesis.
In another post you say:
But you fail to note that carbohydrates are formed from Photosynthesis which takes CO2 and 6 H20 molecules as its input and outputs Sugar and O2.
Can you show a SPECIFIC organism that can create Carbohyrates without H20 as an input?
Arthur
you think all these bugs have been categorised....
suffice it to say, some bugs EAT ROCK.
Human beings have only scratched the surface with pathogenic bugs, let alone all the rest out there.
Now there is a good research project for you
Ah Zarkov,
You stated it as if it were a FACT that
QUOTE
LIFE made water from substances such as H2S, NH3, CO2, CH3, CO3, OH, metal oxides etc, by the "rock eating" bugs.
But when pressed for details to support this you can't provide any and then resort to these weasle words.
Then you add:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| LIFE made water from substances such as H2S, NH3, CO2, CH3, CO3, OH, metal oxides etc, by the "rock eating" bugs. |
But when pressed for details to support this you can't provide any and then resort to these weasle words.
Then you add:Rock eating bugs, eg bugs found around black smokers are only known to simply exist, what their biochemistry is, is still unknown
So it sounds like this is really just your hypothesis.
In another post you say:
QUOTE
Biochemical reactions make water, usually from carbohydrates, which are carbon chains cross-linked with water. This water is excreted
But you fail to note that carbohydrates are formed from Photosynthesis which takes CO2 and 6 H20 molecules as its input and outputs Sugar and O2.
Can you show a SPECIFIC organism that can create Carbohyrates without H20 as an input?
Arthur
[QUOTE=adoucette,Feb 16 2008, 11:41 PM]
Friggin amazing.
Amazing Amazing!
Friggin amazing.
Amazing Amazing!
Some moons have massive hydrocarbon deposits
no LIFE there
I state bugs make water as a fact... at least a highly probable fact considering the bugs that have been found, and the biochemistry that is known, and the myriad of products they can produce. These bugs are stand-alone, the seeds of LIFE
The bugs could even make water (short time span) from H2O2, or capture water when H2O2 ice decomposes..... there are many many scenarios,... what has happened may never be known
But considering LIFE is one coherent super-organism, then LIFE without a doubt can make its own water.... that is my professional opinion..... and I am sure if you had the research facilities you would find good agreement in the literature
But you have not even looked..... nor presented a counter opinion..... just disbelief born from ignorance... poor form.
I fail to understand why you find this claim so strange
But I won't be taunted any longer
Accept it or reject... I don't care... your ignorance not mine.... go back to your BIBLE, LOL
no LIFE there
I state bugs make water as a fact... at least a highly probable fact considering the bugs that have been found, and the biochemistry that is known, and the myriad of products they can produce. These bugs are stand-alone, the seeds of LIFE
The bugs could even make water (short time span) from H2O2, or capture water when H2O2 ice decomposes..... there are many many scenarios,... what has happened may never be known
But considering LIFE is one coherent super-organism, then LIFE without a doubt can make its own water.... that is my professional opinion..... and I am sure if you had the research facilities you would find good agreement in the literature
But you have not even looked..... nor presented a counter opinion..... just disbelief born from ignorance... poor form.
I fail to understand why you find this claim so strange
But I won't be taunted any longer
Accept it or reject... I don't care... your ignorance not mine.... go back to your BIBLE, LOL
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 18 2008, 03:58 PM)
I state bugs make water as a fact... at least a highly probable fact considering the bugs that have been found, and the biochemistry that is known, and the myriad of products they can produce. These bugs are stand-alone, the seeds of LIFE
The bugs could even make water (short time span) from H2O2, or capture water when H2O2 ice decomposes..... there are many many scenarios,... what has happened may never be known
But considering LIFE is one coherent super-organism, then LIFE without a doubt can make its own water.... that is my professional opinion..... and I am sure if you had the research facilities you would find good agreement in the literature
Oh, but I have looked.
And I find NOTHING to support your claim.
And YOU have posted NOTHING (save your opinion) to prove your claim: That the water on Earth came from Rock eating bugs that Pee water.
In fact, when put on the spot, you are nothing but a pile of self contradictions:
First you state:
The bugs could even make water (short time span) from H2O2, or capture water when H2O2 ice decomposes..... there are many many scenarios,... what has happened may never be known
But considering LIFE is one coherent super-organism, then LIFE without a doubt can make its own water.... that is my professional opinion..... and I am sure if you had the research facilities you would find good agreement in the literature
Oh, but I have looked.
And I find NOTHING to support your claim.
And YOU have posted NOTHING (save your opinion) to prove your claim: That the water on Earth came from Rock eating bugs that Pee water.
In fact, when put on the spot, you are nothing but a pile of self contradictions:
First you state:
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
Rock eating bugs, eg bugs found around black smokers are only known to simply exist, what their biochemistry is, is still unknown
But by the next turn of the crank:
But by the next turn of the crank:
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
I state bugs make water as a fact... at least a highly probable fact considering the bugs that have been found, and the biochemistry that is known,
But that's a MASSIVE UNDERSTATEMENT.
Your original claim was that the WATER ON EARTH came from these organisms.
Finding a bug that pees water is still a LONG LONG way from showing that the OCEANS came from these bugs.
Or when asked for the specific name of an organism, you weasel out of it thusly:
Life before water eh? Where do you get these messages, from a joey named Skippy?
Oh you can do it
be strong and don't read !
You sound like the Pope in the "Galileo and the Pope" struggle
Yes, burn me like you did the astronomer Bruno (sp?)...
Contradiction does bring out the "know-alls" hell bent on any form of damage control
prefering anything but to face the truth... or at least genuine attempts by others to project "the truth"
Arthur, you must learn to discuss, rather than be Lord of the Fools
Oh my, I missed that
I am undone
DIRECT EVIDENCE ???= PROOF ????
I never knew they landed a chem lab on that moon.....
well fancy that !!!!!!
Deceitful in all respects
NASA is going to carry out an absurd and completely PRIMITIVE madness (bangers in the letterbox childish trick) , for the ignorant masses, cheers all round, as they try to blow up the Moon, DELIBERATELY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But that's a MASSIVE UNDERSTATEMENT.
Your original claim was that the WATER ON EARTH came from these organisms.
Finding a bug that pees water is still a LONG LONG way from showing that the OCEANS came from these bugs.
Or when asked for the specific name of an organism, you weasel out of it thusly:
QUOTE (Zarkov+)
researchers know more about this than I do, so if you wait a while, you may be supplied with your precious names... in time
Which tells me quite clearly, you know of no microbes that eat rock and pee water, you just BELIEVE that that is the source of water on the earth.
People who push their BELIEFS as FACT,
hmmm...
Where have we seen that before?
Arthur
Which tells me quite clearly, you know of no microbes that eat rock and pee water, you just BELIEVE that that is the source of water on the earth.
People who push their BELIEFS as FACT,
hmmm...
Where have we seen that before?
Arthur
I suppose you also find it strange that LIFE made free oxygen. Both oxygen and water are products of LIFE, and actually are parts of LIFE, as much as the various species (physical bodies) are parts of LIFE
Both free oxygen and water are entirely unnatural substances, both made by and for LIFE
Many bugs do not require oxygen to live, in fact oxygen is often fatal for them
In the spectrum of life forms, all options are covered...... whether we have identified these or not
and lucky for us LIFE is so resilient.
I still maintain that claim, whether you or anyone else agree
Where LIFE goes water and oxygen follow.
This aspect of this discussion is now closed from my end.. you may prattle on all you wish
LOL
Both free oxygen and water are entirely unnatural substances, both made by and for LIFE
Many bugs do not require oxygen to live, in fact oxygen is often fatal for them
In the spectrum of life forms, all options are covered...... whether we have identified these or not
and lucky for us LIFE is so resilient.
QUOTE
Your original claim was that the WATER ON EARTH came from these organisms.
I still maintain that claim, whether you or anyone else agree
Where LIFE goes water and oxygen follow.
This aspect of this discussion is now closed from my end.. you may prattle on all you wish
LOL
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 18 2008, 05:07 PM)
I still maintain that claim, whether you or anyone else agree
Where LIFE goes water and oxygen follow.
This aspect of this discussion is now closed from my end.. you may prattle on all you wish
LOL
I have no problem when you state it as a PERSONAL BELIEF.
Which, in the absence of any supporting evidence is what it amounts to.
Am I surprised that life can create an O2 enriched atmosphere?
No, not when 3/4 of the surface of the planet is covered with many kilometers of H20 and most of what isn't covered in H20 is frequently rained on.
Such that via photosynthesis, a tiny percent of the O2 from that water is liberated over several billion years and results in an atmosphere with an O2 mass that is roughly 1,000 times that of the oceans.
No, no problem at all.
Arthur
Where LIFE goes water and oxygen follow.
This aspect of this discussion is now closed from my end.. you may prattle on all you wish
LOL
I have no problem when you state it as a PERSONAL BELIEF.
Which, in the absence of any supporting evidence is what it amounts to.
Am I surprised that life can create an O2 enriched atmosphere?
No, not when 3/4 of the surface of the planet is covered with many kilometers of H20 and most of what isn't covered in H20 is frequently rained on.
Such that via photosynthesis, a tiny percent of the O2 from that water is liberated over several billion years and results in an atmosphere with an O2 mass that is roughly 1,000 times that of the oceans.
No, no problem at all.
Arthur
As a scientist my personal beliefs on scientific matters are professional beliefs
>> Liquid water has not been found on the Martian surface within the last decade after all, according to new research. >>
see
http://www.physorg.com/news123491857.html
and liquid water has not been found on the Moon, nor on Venus.... mmmh a consistent picture is being uncovered.
All "so called identifications" have been via remote sensing.... however it would seem that water as such is quite elusive, since claims of "detection" have only been characterised by very long arm length methods.
It has been erroneously claimed (Temple 1) that the hydroxyl radical -OH indicated water
and now deuterium indicates water, oh no, that rock formation..... etc
What the Bible has told you is a fairy story.... water is not everywhere. It CAN ONLY exist where wild LIFE lives... where LIFE has made it and where LIFE can enforce unnatural conditions for it to be reasonably stable (as is also the case for gaseous "oxygen") and that LIFE, as far as we can tell at this time, lives only on Earth.
>> Liquid water has not been found on the Martian surface within the last decade after all, according to new research. >>
see
http://www.physorg.com/news123491857.html
and liquid water has not been found on the Moon, nor on Venus.... mmmh a consistent picture is being uncovered.
All "so called identifications" have been via remote sensing.... however it would seem that water as such is quite elusive, since claims of "detection" have only been characterised by very long arm length methods.
It has been erroneously claimed (Temple 1) that the hydroxyl radical -OH indicated water
and now deuterium indicates water, oh no, that rock formation..... etc
What the Bible has told you is a fairy story.... water is not everywhere. It CAN ONLY exist where wild LIFE lives... where LIFE has made it and where LIFE can enforce unnatural conditions for it to be reasonably stable (as is also the case for gaseous "oxygen") and that LIFE, as far as we can tell at this time, lives only on Earth.
For a LEADING organisation devoted to "science", NASA has achieved greatness
but in their arrogance they have shown that they have feet of clay.
Recent history (Lagrangian theory, water claims, Temple 1 attack etc) has exposed widening cracks in their inability to learn or push back the frontiers of ignorance.
Unfortunately NASA is infected with the same mental deterioration as the rest of the population. There is no hope of a cure.
Unfortunately NASA has become dangerous, a threat to the whole of life on Earth...
IMO, it is time a world space authority took over future control of all space activities.
but in their arrogance they have shown that they have feet of clay.
Recent history (Lagrangian theory, water claims, Temple 1 attack etc) has exposed widening cracks in their inability to learn or push back the frontiers of ignorance.
Unfortunately NASA is infected with the same mental deterioration as the rest of the population. There is no hope of a cure.
Unfortunately NASA has become dangerous, a threat to the whole of life on Earth...
IMO, it is time a world space authority took over future control of all space activities.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 29 2008, 08:01 PM)
For a LEADING organisation devoted to "science", NASA has achieved greatness
This from someone who also claims NASA lied about sending men to the moon.
Arthur
This from someone who also claims NASA lied about sending men to the moon.
Arthur
QUOTE
Both oxygen and water are products of LIFE
Life before water eh? Where do you get these messages, from a joey named Skippy?
http://www.physorg.com/news122898790.html
Enceladus orbits in Saturn's outermost "E" ring. It is one of only three outer solar system bodies that produce active eruptions of dust and water vapour. Moreover, aside from the Earth, Mars, and Jupiter's moon Europa, it is one of the only places in the solar system for which astronomers have direct evidence of the presence of water.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330049,00.html
In 2005, NASA's Cassini spacecraft revealed giant geysers of ice grains and water vapor shooting from the south pole of Enceladus. But how the geysers formed and the source of the ice crystals had remained a mystery until now. New research, detailed in the Feb. 7 issue of the journal Nature, provides a clear view of the processes beneath the moon's crust that yield the handful of geysers.
The results reveal there must be water beneath the moon's surface and also support the idea that Enceladus' geysers are the source of Saturn's E-ring, a faint circle of tiny ice and dust particles.
Enceladus orbits in Saturn's outermost "E" ring. It is one of only three outer solar system bodies that produce active eruptions of dust and water vapour. Moreover, aside from the Earth, Mars, and Jupiter's moon Europa, it is one of the only places in the solar system for which astronomers have direct evidence of the presence of water.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330049,00.html
In 2005, NASA's Cassini spacecraft revealed giant geysers of ice grains and water vapor shooting from the south pole of Enceladus. But how the geysers formed and the source of the ice crystals had remained a mystery until now. New research, detailed in the Feb. 7 issue of the journal Nature, provides a clear view of the processes beneath the moon's crust that yield the handful of geysers.
The results reveal there must be water beneath the moon's surface and also support the idea that Enceladus' geysers are the source of Saturn's E-ring, a faint circle of tiny ice and dust particles.
yes, so they speculate
all based on erroneous assumptions
Arthur, the evidence is so against "water" that it is becoming OBSCENE this push for Biblical accuracy.
They fly against accepted chemistry
they fly against thermodynamics
they fly against rational and obvious solutions
Conclusion: THEY are totally MAD!!!!!
THEY certainly should never again be allowed to hold the fate of LIFE on Earth in their foolish hands
all based on erroneous assumptions
Arthur, the evidence is so against "water" that it is becoming OBSCENE this push for Biblical accuracy.
They fly against accepted chemistry
they fly against thermodynamics
they fly against rational and obvious solutions
Conclusion: THEY are totally MAD!!!!!
THEY certainly should never again be allowed to hold the fate of LIFE on Earth in their foolish hands
QUOTE (Zarkov+Feb 29 2008, 10:37 PM)
yes, so they speculate
all based on erroneous assumptions
Yes, and as your posts on this board have shown, you don't speculate at all.
And you are obviously SO much smarter than the NASA scientists.
You know, scientists at NASA who you ALSO claim could never put a spacecraft in an circurlar equatorial orbit around the moon and thus LIED about all the Apollo missions.
Yes, YOU are so convincing, what with your total LACK of any supporting facts and your total reliance on HAND WAVING as proof.
Arthur
all based on erroneous assumptions
Yes, and as your posts on this board have shown, you don't speculate at all.
And you are obviously SO much smarter than the NASA scientists.
You know, scientists at NASA who you ALSO claim could never put a spacecraft in an circurlar equatorial orbit around the moon and thus LIED about all the Apollo missions.
Yes, YOU are so convincing, what with your total LACK of any supporting facts and your total reliance on HAND WAVING as proof.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2008, 01:49 AM)
This from someone who also claims NASA lied about sending men to the moon.
Arthur
NASA has problems. I have a suit against NASA it might get to the Supreme Court.
Zharkov seems to have changed.
Arthur
NASA has problems. I have a suit against NASA it might get to the Supreme Court.
Zharkov seems to have changed.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Mar 1 2008, 10:54 AM)
I have a suit against NASA it might get to the Supreme Court.
What are you suing them for and why do you think it is a CONSTITUIONAL issue?
Arthur
What are you suing them for and why do you think it is a CONSTITUIONAL issue?
Arthur
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 1 2008, 03:37 AM)
They fly against accepted chemistry
they fly against thermodynamics
they fly against rational and obvious solutions
What "accepted" chemistry and thermodynamics are you talking about? And please, no handwaving, only links to actual sources are acceptable.
they fly against thermodynamics
they fly against rational and obvious solutions
What "accepted" chemistry and thermodynamics are you talking about? And please, no handwaving, only links to actual sources are acceptable.
Regardles of what they contain the reson the ancient cared about these things and kept track of them as when they do hit a planet the smash the tectonic plate and literally throw the entire planet into a different orbit as it smahed itself together with the wave. People don't realize that our tectonic plates sit on this nice little lubrication and they move. That's true though our world has takn the idea that we will just keep regenerating. this is a sad thing, but at the same time it does seem as it is needed.
Oh and on the smarter than the Nasa scientists... Yeah when I tell them to ground a shuttle they listen most likely because I know why.
Oh and on the smarter than the Nasa scientists... Yeah when I tell them to ground a shuttle they listen most likely because I know why.
Yes you are somewhat correct, Zarabtul
On Earth we sit on a thin float, sitting on semisolid hot lava... precarious
however this somewhat stable situation can only be tipped by an asteroid impact.... not a comet.
Comets just cause multi-megaton "air-explosions" and set fire to planets with unnatural "oxygen and carbon" fuel sources, usually incinerating or suffercating the rest of the inhabitants...... like this is about as bad as it can get unless it is two planets colliding... which is very very very unlikely... unless that is the result of a super-nova
Now if we lived on the Moon, we will soon be under attack ! even more precarious
What have we done ?????
NOTHING
NASA is going to carry out an absurd and completely PRIMITIVE madness (bangers in the letterbox childish trick) , for the ignorant masses, cheers all round, as they try to blow up the Moon, DELIBERATELY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(ESA did this, but only as a LAST resort as their probe was going to crash anyways.... they got their L1 incorrect)
These guys at NASA need to be certified INSANE, have their toys removed and then lock them away in a padded cell.
Don't be surprised if war is declared on Earth in the near future..... yes it will come from outer-space. I might just lead the way.
see
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/...-new-missi.html
>> NASA have decided to take a more direct strategy in investigation of the moon. And by "strategy" we mean "ramming it at top speed and then exploding". Either that, or they're planning to punch a big hole and ask all the conspiracy nuts "Okay, tell us how we faked THAT!">>>
LOL, what a bunch of NASTY IGNORANT and DECEITFUL TOSSERS and LOSERS
On Earth we sit on a thin float, sitting on semisolid hot lava... precarious
however this somewhat stable situation can only be tipped by an asteroid impact.... not a comet.
Comets just cause multi-megaton "air-explosions" and set fire to planets with unnatural "oxygen and carbon" fuel sources, usually incinerating or suffercating the rest of the inhabitants...... like this is about as bad as it can get unless it is two planets colliding... which is very very very unlikely... unless that is the result of a super-nova
Now if we lived on the Moon, we will soon be under attack ! even more precarious
What have we done ?????
NOTHING
NASA is going to carry out an absurd and completely PRIMITIVE madness (bangers in the letterbox childish trick) , for the ignorant masses, cheers all round, as they try to blow up the Moon, DELIBERATELY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(ESA did this, but only as a LAST resort as their probe was going to crash anyways.... they got their L1 incorrect)
These guys at NASA need to be certified INSANE, have their toys removed and then lock them away in a padded cell.
Don't be surprised if war is declared on Earth in the near future..... yes it will come from outer-space. I might just lead the way.
see
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/...-new-missi.html
>> NASA have decided to take a more direct strategy in investigation of the moon. And by "strategy" we mean "ramming it at top speed and then exploding". Either that, or they're planning to punch a big hole and ask all the conspiracy nuts "Okay, tell us how we faked THAT!">>>
LOL, what a bunch of NASTY IGNORANT and DECEITFUL TOSSERS and LOSERS
You've become completely delusional.
I wish this forum had an ignore feature.
You'd be a clear favorite for that honor.
Arthur
I wish this forum had an ignore feature.
You'd be a clear favorite for that honor.
Arthur
QUOTE
I wish this forum had an ignore feature.
Oh you can do it
be strong and don't read !
You sound like the Pope in the "Galileo and the Pope" struggle
Yes, burn me like you did the astronomer Bruno (sp?)...
Contradiction does bring out the "know-alls" hell bent on any form of damage control
prefering anything but to face the truth... or at least genuine attempts by others to project "the truth"
Arthur, you must learn to discuss, rather than be Lord of the Fools
QUOTE
direct evidence of the presence of water.
Oh my, I missed that
I am undone
DIRECT EVIDENCE ???= PROOF ????
I never knew they landed a chem lab on that moon.....
well fancy that !!!!!!
Deceitful in all respects
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 1 2008, 11:40 PM)
You sound like the Pope in the "Galileo and the Pope" struggle
No, the only one making POPE like statements, without feeling the need to back any of them up with something mundane like PROOF, is you.
You're a fraud, desperate to debate people of science, though you obviously know none, and whine because most scientific sites have banned you.
Then, when you created your own site, no one will join you.
Can you say LOSER.
So, go ahead, keep spouting off about how NASA didn't land men on the moon.
It kinda puts the rest of your loony ideas in perspective.
Arthur
No, the only one making POPE like statements, without feeling the need to back any of them up with something mundane like PROOF, is you.
You're a fraud, desperate to debate people of science, though you obviously know none, and whine because most scientific sites have banned you.
Then, when you created your own site, no one will join you.
Can you say LOSER.
So, go ahead, keep spouting off about how NASA didn't land men on the moon.
It kinda puts the rest of your loony ideas in perspective.
Arthur
Actually, I do fall in that catagory.
User posted image: User posted image
Then again i am German and so is he who happens to be calling the German Arch Diocese of Zara a bastardized part iof the church not worthy for their heaven. Then again Saint John Paul had to have picked a German for a reason as we were working together in his final days. Now I just see a world torn apart that is destined to be destroyed and NASA is not blowing up the Moon. If anything they would try to harvest it to cool the Earth.
User posted image: User posted image
Then again i am German and so is he who happens to be calling the German Arch Diocese of Zara a bastardized part iof the church not worthy for their heaven. Then again Saint John Paul had to have picked a German for a reason as we were working together in his final days. Now I just see a world torn apart that is destined to be destroyed and NASA is not blowing up the Moon. If anything they would try to harvest it to cool the Earth.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 2 2008, 12:43 AM)
NASA is going to carry out an absurd and completely PRIMITIVE madness (bangers in the letterbox childish trick) , for the ignorant masses, cheers all round, as they try to blow up the Moon, DELIBERATELY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From the mouth of the beast.
(ESA did this, but only as a LAST resort as their probe was going to crash anyways.... they got their L1 incorrect)
QUOTE
Countless objects have hit the Moon since its formation (in fact, the Moon’s formation was quite possibly the product of a very large impact to the Earth). Most of the large craters one sees on the Moon resulted from large asteroid or comet impacts early in the history of the solar system; however, numerous impacts by much smaller objects continue even today. These smaller objects range in size from smaller than a grain of sand to a basketball. Most of the shooting stars one sees at night are indeed small grains to rock-sized fragments entering the Earth’s atmosphere. If they are hitting the Earth’s atmosphere, you can bet some are also hitting the Moon! (which has no atmosphere to burn them up or slow them before they reach the surface). While these objects are small, due to their high velocity (~40 km per sec), even these relatively small objects pack a considerable punch! The energy associated with the LCROSS impact is about 6 billion Joules (1 Watt = 1 Joule per sec, so the energy of LCROSS is what you’d get from 100 million 60 Watt light bulbs in a second). A 10 kg (about 22 lbs) meteorite would impact with about 8 billion Joules of energy. There are probably several of these size objects striking the Moon every few months (some have recently been imaged by small ground-based telescopes using high-speed-film cameras). So, in short, the Moon has been, and continues to be, pummeled by objects of all sizes over the last 3.9 billion years, many of them having energies many, many times greater than that of the LCROSS impact.
http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/faq.htm#q4
http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/faq.htm#q4
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Countless objects have hit the Moon since its formation (in fact, the Moon’s formation was quite possibly the product of a very large impact to the Earth). Most of the large craters one sees on the Moon resulted from large asteroid or comet impacts early in the history of the solar system; however, numerous impacts by much smaller objects continue even today. These smaller objects range in size from smaller than a grain of sand to a basketball. Most of the shooting stars one sees at night are indeed small grains to rock-sized fragments entering the Earth’s atmosphere. If they are hitting the Earth’s atmosphere, you can bet some are also hitting the Moon! (which has no atmosphere to burn them up or slow them before they reach the surface). While these objects are small, due to their high velocity (~40 km per sec), even these relatively small objects pack a considerable punch! The energy associated with the LCROSS impact is about 6 billion Joules (1 Watt = 1 Joule per sec, so the energy of LCROSS is what you’d get from 100 million 60 Watt light bulbs in a second). A 10 kg (about 22 lbs) meteorite would impact with about 8 billion Joules of energy. There are probably several of these size objects striking the Moon every few months (some have recently been imaged by small ground-based telescopes using high-speed-film cameras). So, in short, the Moon has been, and continues to be, pummeled by objects of all sizes over the last 3.9 billion years, many of them having energies many, many times greater than that of the LCROSS impact. http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/faq.htm#q4 |
(ESA did this, but only as a LAST resort as their probe was going to crash anyways.... they got their L1 incorrect)
What is your preoccupation with orbital mechanics that are not relevant to interplanetary travel?
If NASA's rocket misses the Moon it will go into high Earth orbit
a very eccentric orbit with a high precession rate.
The bomb may eventually come back to Earth at quite a pace.
This could come about because the wrong values for the L1 L2 point were used to calculate trajectories.
L1 L2 can be the knowledge between life and death
If NASA's rocket misses the Moon it will go into high Earth orbit
a very eccentric orbit with a high precession rate.
The bomb may eventually come back to Earth at quite a pace.
This could come about because the wrong values for the L1 L2 point were used to calculate trajectories.
L1 L2 can be the knowledge between life and death
What do Lagrange points have to do with transitional maneuvers between earth and lunar orbits? From my understanding, Lagrange points primarily deal with stationary orbital positions with respect to planetary bodies.
If NASA's rocket misses the Moon it will go into high Earth orbit
a very eccentric orbit with a high precession rate.
The bomb may eventually come back to Earth at quite a pace.
This could come about because the wrong values for the L1 L2 point were used to calculate trajectories.
L1 L2 can be the knowledge between life and death
Its NOT a bomb.
All its energy is KINETIC.
The impactor is the Centaur upper stage which, unlike the implication in the very non-scientific article you referenced, will have first burnt most of its propellent to get to the moon and once there, will purge the small amount that is left.
If it was to inadvertantly come back to Earth, it would burn up, like any other returning satellite. Being that its an empty upper stage (ie fairly big for its weight) it would be unlikely to have many large pieces survive re-entry, and even then only impact the surface at relatively low terminal velocities.
While you go on and on about L1 and L2 values, the fact is that NASA, JAXA and the Russian routinely send spacecraft to the moon and into lunar orbit.
Arthur
Moon-Earth
well inside the L1 Earth side a probe will fall back to Earth (and outside L2)
inside L1 moon-side a probe will fall towards the Moon (& inside L2)
A Lagrangian point is like a hilltop....
you start by pushing a billy cart (eg a rocket), you must know the terrain over which your powerless journey will take
If your push was too light or too strong you will be going at the wrong velocity.... either too slow to get past L1... or too fast causing a power fall to the Moon (or past it)
Remember space travel IS NOT like driving a car..... all motion is basically shoot and follow an orbital path........ all predetermined and hopefully all correctly characterised by a mathematical/mechanical analysis... that is if you wish to achieve aims.
L1 and L2 are pivotal points in orbital mechanics
AND they become especially and critically important if L1 and L2 are grossly different values as is the case with the Moon.
The shape of an inertial orbit around a central body is defined by the L1 L2 points
There are serious troll problems on this site. Some posters here are totally ignorant and dangerously irrational.
There are serious troll problems on this site. Some posters here are totally ignorant and dangerously irrational.
Totally agree.
We even have a few posters that even claim that NASA faked the Apollo moon landings.
Hard to believe, even in the 21st century, how ignorant someone can be.
Arthur
Can't they all be, please?
QUOTE
These guys at NASA need to be certified INSANE, have their toys removed and then lock them away in a padded cell.
Are you looking for company?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| These guys at NASA need to be certified INSANE, have their toys removed and then lock them away in a padded cell. |
Are you looking for company?
Don't be surprised if war is declared on Earth in the near future..... yes it will come from outer-space. I might just lead the way.
Don't be surprised if war is declared on Earth in the near future..... yes it will come from outer-space. I might just lead the way.
QUOTE
What is your preoccupation with orbital mechanics that are not relevant to interplanetary travel?
If NASA's rocket misses the Moon it will go into high Earth orbit
a very eccentric orbit with a high precession rate.
The bomb may eventually come back to Earth at quite a pace.
This could come about because the wrong values for the L1 L2 point were used to calculate trajectories.
L1 L2 can be the knowledge between life and death
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 3 2008, 08:53 AM)
If NASA's rocket misses the Moon it will go into high Earth orbit
a very eccentric orbit with a high precession rate.
The bomb may eventually come back to Earth at quite a pace.
This could come about because the wrong values for the L1 L2 point were used to calculate trajectories.
L1 L2 can be the knowledge between life and death
What do Lagrange points have to do with transitional maneuvers between earth and lunar orbits? From my understanding, Lagrange points primarily deal with stationary orbital positions with respect to planetary bodies.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 3 2008, 03:53 AM)
If NASA's rocket misses the Moon it will go into high Earth orbit
a very eccentric orbit with a high precession rate.
The bomb may eventually come back to Earth at quite a pace.
This could come about because the wrong values for the L1 L2 point were used to calculate trajectories.
L1 L2 can be the knowledge between life and death
Its NOT a bomb.
All its energy is KINETIC.
The impactor is the Centaur upper stage which, unlike the implication in the very non-scientific article you referenced, will have first burnt most of its propellent to get to the moon and once there, will purge the small amount that is left.
If it was to inadvertantly come back to Earth, it would burn up, like any other returning satellite. Being that its an empty upper stage (ie fairly big for its weight) it would be unlikely to have many large pieces survive re-entry, and even then only impact the surface at relatively low terminal velocities.
While you go on and on about L1 and L2 values, the fact is that NASA, JAXA and the Russian routinely send spacecraft to the moon and into lunar orbit.
Arthur
QUOTE
What do Lagrange points have to do with transitional maneuvers between earth and lunar orbits?
Moon-Earth
well inside the L1 Earth side a probe will fall back to Earth (and outside L2)
inside L1 moon-side a probe will fall towards the Moon (& inside L2)
A Lagrangian point is like a hilltop....
you start by pushing a billy cart (eg a rocket), you must know the terrain over which your powerless journey will take
If your push was too light or too strong you will be going at the wrong velocity.... either too slow to get past L1... or too fast causing a power fall to the Moon (or past it)
Remember space travel IS NOT like driving a car..... all motion is basically shoot and follow an orbital path........ all predetermined and hopefully all correctly characterised by a mathematical/mechanical analysis... that is if you wish to achieve aims.
L1 and L2 are pivotal points in orbital mechanics
AND they become especially and critically important if L1 and L2 are grossly different values as is the case with the Moon.
The shape of an inertial orbit around a central body is defined by the L1 L2 points
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 3 2008, 04:22 PM)
Remember space travel IS NOT like driving a car..... all motion is basically shoot and follow an orbital path........ all predetermined and hopefully all correctly characterised by a mathematical/mechanical analysis... that is if you wish to achieve aims.
Which of course is not exactly true.
We don't just "shoot and follow an orbital path".
A spacecraft on the way to the moon will typically do one or more mid-course corrections to adjust the speed and orientation of the spacecraft in relation to the moon's orbital path.
Then, upon arrival at the moon, the spacecraft will do an orbital insertion burn that is adjusted in timing and duration for the actual moon arrival speed and position and then typically a final burn that again is adjusted based on the actual orbital results of the insertion burn to circularize the orbit.
We have done this MANY times and have had no problems getting to the moon or going into the PLANNED equatorial or polar orbit.
I suspect by now that the only person who actually believes Zarkov, is Zarkov.
Arthur
Which of course is not exactly true.
We don't just "shoot and follow an orbital path".
A spacecraft on the way to the moon will typically do one or more mid-course corrections to adjust the speed and orientation of the spacecraft in relation to the moon's orbital path.
Then, upon arrival at the moon, the spacecraft will do an orbital insertion burn that is adjusted in timing and duration for the actual moon arrival speed and position and then typically a final burn that again is adjusted based on the actual orbital results of the insertion burn to circularize the orbit.
We have done this MANY times and have had no problems getting to the moon or going into the PLANNED equatorial or polar orbit.
I suspect by now that the only person who actually believes Zarkov, is Zarkov.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 4 2008, 10:53 AM)
I suspect by now that the only person who actually believes Zarkov, is Zarkov.
... and even he manages to regularly contradict himself
... and even he manages to regularly contradict himself
"primitive" biochemistry LOL
'seeds of LIFE' like organisms
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080304/ful...s.2008.642.html
>> People may have come ‘out of Africa’, but what about more primitive forms of life? >>>
yes these bugs are in water; but the hunt is on
As far as space travel goes
all objects in motion follow orbital paths.
Yes you may fire and then steer.. change direction, change velocity etc but all unobstructed motion is orbital... even on Earth
To steer, fuel must be carried
and if the L1 is not know, quite a lot of fuel would need to be carried to adjust velocities +/- and if you were carrying a "lander" plus fuel + human beings...
mmmh, that would require a LOT of fuel..weight.... to go and return into and from unknown territory.... mmmh
Back in those days weight was at an unreasonable premium......
And the docking of a lander with a mother probe in an unstable orbit... mmmh.... tricky even now.....
and not a mishap... mmmh
'seeds of LIFE' like organisms
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080304/ful...s.2008.642.html
>> People may have come ‘out of Africa’, but what about more primitive forms of life? >>>
yes these bugs are in water; but the hunt is on
As far as space travel goes
all objects in motion follow orbital paths.
Yes you may fire and then steer.. change direction, change velocity etc but all unobstructed motion is orbital... even on Earth
To steer, fuel must be carried
and if the L1 is not know, quite a lot of fuel would need to be carried to adjust velocities +/- and if you were carrying a "lander" plus fuel + human beings...
mmmh, that would require a LOT of fuel..weight.... to go and return into and from unknown territory.... mmmh
Back in those days weight was at an unreasonable premium......
And the docking of a lander with a mother probe in an unstable orbit... mmmh.... tricky even now.....
and not a mishap... mmmh
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 4 2008, 04:30 PM)
Yes you may fire and then steer.. change direction, change velocity etc but all unobstructed motion is orbital... even on Earth
To steer, fuel must be carried
and if the L1 is not know, quite a lot of fuel would need to be carried to adjust velocities +/- and if you were carrying a "lander" plus fuel + human beings...
mmmh, that would require a LOT of fuel..weight.... to go and return into and from unknown territory.... mmmh
Back in those days weight was at an unreasonable premium......
Absolutely.
Carrying a lot of EXCESS (or even worse, not enough) fuel is not practical.
But there is NO QUESTION that we (and the Russians) sent PLENTY of spacecraft to the moon and into lunar orbit, in the years leading up to Apollo.
You might have missed it, but the very earliest missions were either Lunar fly bys or Lunar impacts.
The spacecraft velocity changes, easily tracked from earth, would allow later missions to be flown PRECISELY.
The Lunar Orbiters would similarly told you all you needed to know about going from an eliptical insertion orbit to a specific circular lunar orbit.
Clearly the RESULTS of those many Lunar missions would have told you all you needed to know to get Apollo from the Earth to the Moon, to Lunar Orbit and return.
Arthur
To steer, fuel must be carried
and if the L1 is not know, quite a lot of fuel would need to be carried to adjust velocities +/- and if you were carrying a "lander" plus fuel + human beings...
mmmh, that would require a LOT of fuel..weight.... to go and return into and from unknown territory.... mmmh
Back in those days weight was at an unreasonable premium......
Absolutely.
Carrying a lot of EXCESS (or even worse, not enough) fuel is not practical.
But there is NO QUESTION that we (and the Russians) sent PLENTY of spacecraft to the moon and into lunar orbit, in the years leading up to Apollo.
You might have missed it, but the very earliest missions were either Lunar fly bys or Lunar impacts.
The spacecraft velocity changes, easily tracked from earth, would allow later missions to be flown PRECISELY.
The Lunar Orbiters would similarly told you all you needed to know about going from an eliptical insertion orbit to a specific circular lunar orbit.
Clearly the RESULTS of those many Lunar missions would have told you all you needed to know to get Apollo from the Earth to the Moon, to Lunar Orbit and return.
Arthur
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 4 2008, 09:30 PM)
To steer, fuel must be carried
and if the L1 is not know, quite a lot of fuel would need to be carried to adjust velocities +/- and if you were carrying a "lander" plus fuel + human beings...
and if the L1 is not know, quite a lot of fuel would need to be carried to adjust velocities +/- and if you were carrying a "lander" plus fuel + human beings...
Dr. Zarkov, L1 as far as the Earth and the Moon are concerned, is a position about 84% of the way to the Moon where a body can be shepherded by prevailing gravitation to match the orbital position of the Moon.
Here's an example:
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMM17XJD1E_index_0.html
L1 can be useful as an observational position, or as a starting orbit for interplanetary missions, but as far as transition between the Earth and Moon, it's not particularly significant as far as I can tell. If you can show otherwise, please do so.
Here's an example:
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMM17XJD1E_index_0.html
L1 can be useful as an observational position, or as a starting orbit for interplanetary missions, but as far as transition between the Earth and Moon, it's not particularly significant as far as I can tell. If you can show otherwise, please do so.
Regarding the earlier dispute about patents/publishing, the US law on this presently is as follows. It is important to distinguish between patents and patent applications in this discussion.
1. At the time an application is filed, a statement can be filed that there is not going to be any foreign applications made. Since the rest of the world for the most part publishes an application 18 months after the "priority date," the US moved to follow suit years ago, but only if there was to be no foreign applications. If you file only in the US, you can request that your application not be published before a patent issues, but upon issuance of the patent, the patent WILL be published. Therefore, if you aren't sure you really want a patent and may want to keep things a trade secret or that you may be willing to give up foreign patent rights in order to supposedly keep competitors in the dark for as long as possible, you can ask for no publication of the application.
2. The only exception to the above is if the patent application gets hit with a security restriction because of some national security interest. Then the application will never be published until the restriction is lifted and it may not even get examined to see if a patent should issue, which of course, will never be published until the security restriction is issued. Every so often you will hear about a patent issuing that had been filed 15, 20, 30 years ago but that had the security restriction clamped down upon it and then at some later date, often much, much later, the restriction is lifted.
1. At the time an application is filed, a statement can be filed that there is not going to be any foreign applications made. Since the rest of the world for the most part publishes an application 18 months after the "priority date," the US moved to follow suit years ago, but only if there was to be no foreign applications. If you file only in the US, you can request that your application not be published before a patent issues, but upon issuance of the patent, the patent WILL be published. Therefore, if you aren't sure you really want a patent and may want to keep things a trade secret or that you may be willing to give up foreign patent rights in order to supposedly keep competitors in the dark for as long as possible, you can ask for no publication of the application.
2. The only exception to the above is if the patent application gets hit with a security restriction because of some national security interest. Then the application will never be published until the restriction is lifted and it may not even get examined to see if a patent should issue, which of course, will never be published until the security restriction is issued. Every so often you will hear about a patent issuing that had been filed 15, 20, 30 years ago but that had the security restriction clamped down upon it and then at some later date, often much, much later, the restriction is lifted.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Zarkov Posted: Yesterday at 9:44 PM all objects in motion follow orbital paths. Yes you may fire a rocket and then steer.. change direction, change velocity etc but all unobstructed motion is orbital... even on Earth To steer, fuel must be carried and if the L1 is not know, quite a lot of fuel would need to be carried to adjust velocities +/- and if you were carrying a "lander" plus fuel + human beings... as in "going to the Moon" mmmh, that would require a LOT of fuel..weight.... to go and return into and from unknown territory.... mmmh Back in those days weight was at an unreasonable premium...... And the docking of a lander with a mother probe in an unstable orbit... mmmh.... tricky even now..... and not a mishap... mmmmh -------------------- BigDumbWeirdo (Zarkov @ Mar 4 2008, 04:44 PM) all objects in motion follow orbital paths. Bullsh*t. Yes you may fire a rocket and then steer.. change direction, change velocity etc but all unobstructed motion is orbital... even on Earth Bullsh*t. To steer, fuel must be carried and if the L1 is not know, quite a lot of fuel would need to be carried to adjust velocities +/- and if you were carrying a "lander" plus fuel + human beings... as in "going to the Moon" Bullsh*t. Boy... You're good at never posting anything worth reading, aren't you? Dude, seriously. When even sweet, forgiving Tikay is making fun of you, it's time to give it a rest. |
There are serious troll problems on this site. Some posters here are totally ignorant and dangerously irrational.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Mar 5 2008, 03:40 PM)
There are serious troll problems on this site. Some posters here are totally ignorant and dangerously irrational.
Totally agree.
We even have a few posters that even claim that NASA faked the Apollo moon landings.
Hard to believe, even in the 21st century, how ignorant someone can be.
Arthur
O I C
an all troll site
an all troll site
QUOTE
But some thoughts are mine... and these WILL NOT be shared, under any circumstances.
Can't they all be, please?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.