Happy extinction! Let's be sure to burn up all our oil before then!!

New studies show the star, called T Pyxidis, is much closer than previously thought at 3,260 light-years away - a short hop in galactic terms.

I wonder what people are going to suggest we stop doing in order to stop this star from exploding and severely warming or cooling our globe?

It might have already exploded, since we are seeing it in the past.

The blast is expected to reach us in 2012 I believe.

We better start thickening up the atmosphere now.

We better start thickening up the atmosphere now

I did my part... had Mexican for lunch.

So once we detect the light from the explosion, how long after that do we have to respond to the incoming blast?

By the time you see it you're already in the process of being fucked. It's not the blast that gets you, it's the light. The flood of gamma rays produced by a nearby supernova could destroy the ozone layer and cause an ecological disaster. A full-blown gamma ray burst pointed directly at us would annihilate all life on the planet in a flash.

The blast is expected to reach us in 2012 I believe.

Oh, man, Quetzalcotl is going to be pissed when he gets here.

By the time you see it you're already in the process of being fucked. It's not the blast that gets you, it's the light. The flood of gamma rays produced by a nearby supernova could destroy the ozone layer and cause an ecological disaster. A full-blown gamma ray burst pointed directly at us would annihilate all life on the planet in a flash.

#6 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-07 01:17 PM

The blast is expected to reach us in 2012 I believe.

#4 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-01-07 01:09 PM

"A full-blown gamma ray burst pointed directly at us would annihilate all life on the planet in a flash."

or... turn us all into the incredible hulks.

God's reset button.

Here's another view --

Quick! Find a way to blame industry for this, set up a massive federal spending response and get the lackies on the newspapers to create a crisis!

So once we detect the light from the explosion, how long after that do we have to respond to the incoming blast?

#3 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2010-01-07 01:04 PM

Probably 10 seconds.

Well, fortunately, my office is in a sealed room that was initially intended for radiation treatments of cancer patients.

So hopefully it doesn't hit when I'm home playing video games.

Hell, there's even a couple physics students in here I could repopulate the earth with after.

Live or Die, I was joking.

I don't think it really matters, as we cannot do anything about it.

Although, depending on how soon it can possible explode, I guess there is no reason to take too many precautions in the global warming, global cooling discussion, as it seems the planet will be fried by external sources before it will be fried by internal sources.

"#13 | Posted by Diablo at 2010-01-07 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag: KNEE-JERK DOUCHEBAG ALERT!

or... turn us all into the incredible hulks

Ooooh that's true. But if everybody has superpowers, it wouldn't be cool. They wouldn't be superpowers anymore.

That would make me angry... you don't want to see me angry.... RRRAAAAGH

Hell, there's even a couple physics students in here I could repopulate the earth with after.

Lol but then your kids would have to... well... ugh...

"I'm more worried about Eta Carinae"

It's a few thousand light-years farther out.
We have time for another party.

Lol but then your kids would have to... well... ugh...

#20 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-07 02:06 PM

"I'm not the only lucky guy to have an office in a radiation shielded room"

No, you aren't. My lab used to be an accelerator beamline. The walls are several feet thick of leaded concrete.

Damn cosmic rays come right through anyway.

Oh shit.

#13 | Posted by Diablo

(Cough-Cough)...

*****HACK! HACK!******

Political hackery at it's stupidest.

It's a few thousand light-years farther out.

True, but T Pyxidis is only just now reaching the Chandrasekhar limit whereas Eta Carinae is ~100 solar masses. When Eta Carinae goes, it will make T Pyxidis look like a firecracker. And being only twice the distance, and radiation propogation obeying the inverse square rule . . .

You do the math. Make sure you have a lot of SPF 10,000,000

#21 | Posted by goatman

From the Wiki site: Hubble Space Telescope image showing Eta Carinae and the bipolar Homunculus Nebula which surrounds the star.

Bipolar?
Awww shit-you mean Happy to Sad, Ecstatic to raging mood swing thingy?

Not so scary in a Star-or Nebula.
Very Scary in a woman-especially if you're dating her.......

Damn cosmic rays come right through anyway.

#24 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2010-01-07 02:38 PM

Awww shit-you mean Happy to Sad, Ecstatic to raging mood swing thingy?

Not so scary in a Star- or Nebula.

Very Scary in a woman-especially if you're dating her.......

Posted by frankf55 at 2010-01-07 02:49 PM

The PMS Star scares a lot of men not to mention female emotional nebulas.

"SPF 10,000,000"

I think you're going to need to use scientific notation: SPF 10E23

"Happy extinction! Let's be sure to burn up all our oil before then!!"

Seriously. Imagine if we start conserving oil in a misguided attempt to sacrifice for the long term good and it turns out there is no "long term"? We'd feel like real suckers then. Best not to risk it.

A nearby death star ready to go supernova and possibly wipe out all life on earth?

Cool.

* Sparks doobage *

*Puts on headphones *

Enjoy life and live for today.

OR, be a liberal and fret, Fret, Fret! :)

I'm more worried about Eta Carinae

Yeah, if it's axis of rotation is pointed at us we're hosed. Otherwise, it will be a spectacular light show... visible in the daytime.

I've got a poster of the Carina nebula hanging on my wall... it's about 3' by 6'. Hubble took this ridiculous hi-res shot of it awhile back and I printed it off on a nice plotter. It's one of the most beautiful space images I've seen.

Sun eats a Comet 4 days ago....

It's one of the most beautiful space images I've seen.

It is very nice. But I've always been partial to globular clusters. At my little latitude, I can catch a glimpse for an hour or two in the early springtime morning -- something amateur astronomers north of me are jealous of.

#37 -- left out a very important name! Should read:

At my little latitude, I can catch a glimpse of Omega Centauri for an hour or two in the early springtime morning -- something amateur astronomers north of me are jealous of.

At my little latitude, I can catch a glimpse of Omega Centauri for an hour or two in the early springtime morning -- something amateur astronomers north of me are jealous of.

Hell, I'm jealous of a sky free of light pollution. I have to go for a drive when I want to take out my telescope.

But yeah, globular clusters are something to see, too. Space is full of eye candy... and neutrinos.

But yeah, globular clusters are something to see, too.

I've used the tagline I have on my user page here since I started BBSing in the early '80s. It is from Vonnegut's book, "The Sirens of Titan". I love it.

Every passing hour brings the Solar System forty-three thousand miles closer to Globular Cluster M13 in Hercules and still there are some misfits who insist that there is no such thing as progress.

And being only twice the distance, and radiation propogation obeying the inverse square rule . . .

I thought that was for particle radiation?

Hell, I'm jealous of a sky free of light pollution. I have to go for a drive when I want to take out my telescope.

I hear that.

I grew up in middle-of-no-where upstate New York. The best was summer nights when everyone was in bed and it was pitch fucking black with the Milky Way stretched across the sky.

Now I live in Houston and am glad if I can see A star LOL.

Lol that could make for a pretty awesome sky in... well... nevermind.

Hell, I'm jealous of a sky free of light pollution. I have to go for a drive when I want to take out my telescope.

I do too except when I do sidewalk sessions for the neighbors. But then we are only looking at the planets and the moon, sometimes the Andromeda Galaxy. Not many people realize is a naked eye object and 4x the angular size of the moon ~ 2 degrees across! It is also the furthest thing visible to the naked eye. It is 2.2 million LY away.

What kind of 'scope do you have? I have a 10" Newtonian on a dob mount, a Meade 90mm ETX, and (my favorite) a Televue Pronto which is a 72mm refractor. It's a small aperture, but fuck --- at f13, the images are the best I've ever seen. I can resolve hundreds of individual stars in M13. Granted, I have some expensive eyepieces (also Televue) too. Three of them are from the eponymous Nagler series.

I bought my Pronto from Al Nagler himself at the '98 Texas Star Party. He was explaining the design of it to me. At one point he pointed at the viewfinder which had an unusual curve at the objective. He asked me if I knew why he designed it like that. I looked, scratched my head -- no light advantage, no dew protection, nothing. Finally I said, "No." He said, with a straight face, "I like the way it looks". LOL I've heard from other people he has a great sense of humor and displays it at all the star parties he goes to.

I thought that was for particle radiation?

I think all electromagnetic radiation falls off as the inverse of the sqare of the distance. Gravity, too.

T Pyxidis is only just now reaching the Chandrasekhar limit whereas Eta Carinae is ~100 solar masses. When Eta Carinae goes, it will make T Pyxidis look like a firecracker.

I think all electromagnetic radiation falls off as the inverse of the sqare of the distance. Gravity, too.

The energy isn't emitted isotropically, though. When a massive star goes supernova, a lot of the radiation gets emitted in beams along the rotational axis of the star. I think the radioactive decay of nickel and cobalt isotopes contribute to the light emitted, too, but that might be a different type of supernova I have a hard time keeping the different processes separate.

That's kind of mind-blowing in and of itself. Enough radioisotopes of those metals are produced that we can detect the gamma rays even when the source is in a distant galaxy.

a lot of the radiation gets emitted in beams along the rotational axis of the star

That is true, of course.

I'm azazed when I see pictures of a supernova and how they briefly outshine the other 100,000,000,000 stars in their galaxy. It's mind boggling

Goat, I wish you were home to experience this cold.

It would blow your mind.

Well, we can't do a damn thing about it except sit back and enjoy the thermonuclear fireworks.

It would blow your mind.

Nah. Texans are just pussies when it comes to cold.

This is barely cold enough to make a northerner's scrotum shrink.

Goat, I wish you were home to experience this cold.

It would blow your mind.

They apparently had a cold snap when I was offshore last time. I had dead plants that have weathered the 6 winters I've lived there. Who knows what will be dead when I get back onshore tomorrow.

I noticed at my rent house in N Texas it will be single digits tonight and three full days of sub-freezing weather.

WTF?

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm cobalt

Lol, I always thought Cherenkov radiation looked so cool. In a picture, of course. I'll pass on the firsthand experience. Radiation creeps me the hell out.

Apparently the Apollo astronauts who went to the moon saw flashes of Cherenkov light when they closed their eyes. Enough radiation was passing through the vitreous humor of their eyeballs to produce visible flashes.

Nah. Texans are just pussies when it comes to cold.

I'll be the first to admit I am. But the pahhandlers (Amarillo, Pampa, etc.) are used to it, I'm sure.

Enough radiation was passing through the vitreous humor of their eyeballs to produce visible flashes.

That's scary.

I wonder if the Apollo astronauts willed their bodies to science to be studied for short term radiation exposure like that? Could be a help for future space missions.

All I'm saying is that this is fucking brutal.

I'm off tomorrow so I'm standing 24 hour watch on the well and associated plumbing.

For some reason, I never get motivated to build a well haus in July when its 103.

I pay for my laziness in January by dealing with plastic tarps in 35 knot subfreezing winds, heat lamps, and dripping spigots.

This is barely cold enough to make a northerner's scrotum shrink.

55F is a weenie shrinker for me. Any colder than that and I'm paralyzed

This is barely cold enough to make a northerner's scrotum shrink.

Up north I imagine there was many a shriveled scrotum. I shoveled my driveway today in a pretty nasty wind and by the end of it, I my balls had taken refuge somewhere near my liver. It took a couple cups of hot chocolate and a generous helping of bailey's to coax them back down where they belong.

55F is a weenie shrinker for me. Any colder than that and I'm paralyzed

Yeah, I'm a warm climate person living in the wrong state.

I'll be the first to admit I am. But the pahhandlers (Amarillo, Pampa, etc.) are used to it, I'm sure.

Yeah, me too.

Your blood thins pretty quick once you move away from that shit, especially into the summers down in Texas.

I'm off tomorrow so I'm standing 24 hour watch on the well and associated plumbing.

Good luck with that.

Yeah, I'm a warm climate person living in the wrong state.

I actually miss winter and can't wait to move back north.

I'm sure I'll change my mind though once shoveling snow becomes routine again.

I'm off tomorrow so I'm standing 24 hour watch on the well and associated plumbing.

I sent my tenant an email to make sure she put the covers on the vents of the pier and beam and to leave water dripping outside. I have a septic tank, so I don't like her doing it inside. She's a little ditzy, so I worry about her taking care of things.

I'm sure I'll change my mind though once shoveling snow becomes routine again.

I shoveled snow once in my life. We lived in Kansas City the winter of '88/89. It was the first time I had ever seen a snow shovel. (I was 33 YO then) The entire experience sucked. Glad it was my last as well as first experience with it.

I've got my outside spigots wrapped in towels---except for my horse trough.

Is it better to let them drip?

Both?

Wrapping them in towels only insulates them for so long. I would let it drip, too. I don't think there would be a problem if they are on the S side of the house. N side, (if it's windy, of course) I'd let them drip.

You're up in the Hill Country, aren't you? It seems they are always 3-5F colder than SA.

You're up in the Hill Country, aren't you?

Lucky bastard if you are.

Lot's of activity with the "thing" wheeling around Sol. There is no EIT imager data from any of them, only LASCO:

You're up in the Hill Country

Yeah, we're Kendall County---Upper Balcones country.

1,980' elevation on the north side of the hill.

I'm gonna go check some shit and make some adjustments..

I'm gonna go check some shit and make some adjustments..

Good luck. Hope all's OK

So how do the cattle fare? Do you have a barn for them? Or do they deal with it? I know the cattle of my neighbors in N Texas (who loved the greener grass on my side of the fence) would be in the open even on the coldest nights.

So how do the cattle fare?

No cattle here.

Those are back home-home---in west Texas.

But they're just ole range-bred F-1s---they do OK.

They just bunch up on the south side of a little loma and turn their asses to the wind.

Dad puts smudge pots at the windmill lines when it gets like this.

He's gonna end up burning 20 sections of grass someday.

Dad puts smudge pots at the windmill lines when it gets like this.
He's gonna end up burning 20 sections of grass someday.
#74 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2010-01-08 02:58 AM

Is that something spiritual or is there a different practical value? Pest control? Sounds like a character out from Cat Ballou, riding sidesaddle to be pympy.

I love bad science reporting in the media. When they say it will go supernova "soon," they mean in around the next 10 million years.

Lot's of activity with the "thing" wheeling around Sol.

You idiot, those are comets and imaging artifacts. ET isn't coming to get you... that's just a side effect of sleeping pills and cheap scotch.

"Lot's of activity with the "thing" wheeling around Sol."

You idiot, those are comets and imaging artifacts. ET isn't coming to get you... that's just a side effect of sleeping pills and cheap scotch.
#77 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-08 10:16 AM

First, it's herbal tea and touch of the green. Second, have you ever seen seven of those "artifacts" wheeling around our star? They appear to be massive. Third, idiocy could be best claimed as repeating the same unproductive activities expecting different results, so you might be right.

Light years out. 3260 light years out. Means it'll take 3260 years to reach us. I don't think any of us need to worry about this.

Light years out. 3260 light years out. Means it'll take 3260 years to reach us. I don't think any of us need to worry about this.
#79 | Posted by JasonSmiles at 2010-01-08 10:06 PM

For the light waves, yes, for the x-rays - nope. Just a couple decades, presuming we would be facing the wake from either star. Because there is a good chance the binary collapse would be more localized we're prolly in for an excellent show... in a couple thousand years.

3260 light years out. Means it'll take 3260 years to reach us.

It also means it could have happened 3159 years ago and we would be none the wiser.

3260 light years out. Means it'll take 3260 years to reach us.
-JasonSmiles

For the light waves, yes, for the x-rays - nope.
-RedLightRobot

Are you fucking retarded? What do you think x-rays are? Leprechauns traveling faster than the speed of light? Let me guess, the aliens told you this when they took you up to the mothership. An x-ray is a kind of "light wave".

Now explain how the "comets" you see can appear and disappear within 15-30 minute all over the place.

They are at a different distance and have a different velocity. Pretty simple stuff, redlight.

Then again, I'm sure it's baffling to a moonbat who thinks x-rays move faster than light...

"3260 light years out. Means it'll take 3260 years to reach us.
-JasonSmiles

For the light waves, yes, for the x-rays - nope.
-RedLightRobot"

Are you fucking retarded? What do you think x-rays are? Leprechauns traveling faster than the speed of light? Let me guess, the aliens told you this when they took you up to the mothership. An x-ray is a kind of "light wave".
#82 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-08 11:48 PM

Oopsy, I meant gamma, but you knew that's also how we observe black holes. You have not addressed what those LASCO-imaged objects are or are not. Do you think that these "alien ships" could travel at or faster than light? Wouldn't that explain their ability to cross such vast distances?

You are a fucking denier.

Let's not get our dicks out - just tell me what you can observe regarding the "thing" object.

And let me correct that - I misread a comment and repeated incorrectly - although gamma has less mass than alpha and beta it's still allegedly slower than light - but it's able to escape the gravity of a black hole unlike most of the electromagnetic bandwidth.

The way that these craft travel is similar - they reduce mass and do not exhibit inertia in the same manner as we observe. Thus, they can travel great distances possibly faster than light.

There is nothing to worry about, even if it went super nova thousands of years ago. This star is too far away for a super nova of its size to affect us. The authors either deliberately hyped it, or confused a super nova with a gamma ray burst.

I just want him to observe and report, not deny and insult.

Oopsy, I meant gamma

Oopsy, you're still a fucking dumbass. It's called the electromagnetic spectrum for a reason. Whether you're talking about radio waves, IR, visible light, UV, gamma rays... it's all photons (or light waves if you prefer). In a vacuum all photons move at a constant speed - the speed of light.

You have not addressed what those LASCO-imaged objects

Of course I have. They are ordinary astronomical bodies viewed at different distances, moving at different speeds, and traveling on different trajectories relative to the satellite observing the sun. There is nothing mysterious in those images unless you don't know what the hell you're looking at.

Wouldn't that explain their ability to cross such vast distances?

Vast distances? How the hell do you know the distance to any of these objects? The truth is that you don't. The fast ones are foreground objects that appear to be moving rapidly because of their position and velocity relative to the satellite's. If two objects are moving with the same velocity at different distances, the nearer of the two will be observed to cover a larger angular distance over a given time. Something that is particularly close will cover such a large angular distance that it will appear as a streak in a video instead of a moving point source.

But sure... it makes much more sense to swear up and down that they're little green men moving faster than the speed of light. It looks like you and Batshit Bob are going to have to share the dunce cap.

You are a fucking denier.

Of what? A butchering of astronomy by some dimwit who thinks gamma rays move faster than the speed of light and can't wrap his head around the oh-so-baffling concept of visual perspective? Jesus fucking christ, man, these are concepts that any fifth grader with a telescope will understand.

LASCO

ZombieHunter thinks that name calling proves his point. It only proves he can't have a reasonable debate with people who have different views.

ZombieHunter thinks that name calling proves his point. It only proves he can't have a reasonable debate with people who have different views.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

yeah, he's been losing his Zombable touch it seems...

"Oopsy, I meant gamma"

Oopsy, you're still a fucking dumbass. It's called the electromagnetic spectrum for a reason. Whether you're talking about radio waves, IR, visible light, UV, gamma rays... it's all photons (or light waves if you prefer). In a vacuum all photons move at a constant speed - the speed of light.

No. Gamma are less mass, therefore less interaction. That's what makes them a great tool for identifying black holes - from their freakin' fountains, unlike other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum which cannot escape the influence of gravity. Therefore, certain bandwidth can apply to different rate of travel based on existing space - and since time is a function of mass and gravity they may also possess a much stranger dilation. Perfect vacuums don't every apply, naturally.

"You have not addressed what those LASCO-imaged objects"

Of course I have. They are ordinary astronomical bodies viewed at different distances, moving at different speeds, and traveling on different trajectories relative to the satellite observing the sun. There is nothing mysterious in those images unless you don't know what the hell you're looking at.

That "thing" - what is it?

"Wouldn't that explain their ability to cross such vast distances?"

Vast distances? How the hell do you know the distance to any of these objects? The truth is that you don't. The fast ones are foreground objects that appear to be moving rapidly because of their position and velocity relative to the satellite's. If two objects are moving with the same velocity at different distances, the nearer of the two will be observed to cover a larger angular distance over a given time. Something that is particularly close will cover such a large angular distance that it will appear as a streak in a video instead of a moving point source.
But sure... it makes much more sense to swear up and down that they're little green men moving faster than the speed of light. It looks like you and Batshit Bob are going to have to share the dunce cap.

I make mistakes. But I'm more honest than you.

"You are a fucking denier."

Of what? A butchering of astronomy by some dimwit who thinks gamma rays move faster than the speed of light and can't wrap his head around the oh-so-baffling concept of visual perspective? Jesus fucking christ, man, these are concepts that any fifth grader with a telescope will understand.
#90 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-09 01:01 AM

I mistook the data, although it is correct that gamma rays would reach the Earth faster than other bandwidth due to their limited interaction.

If you really doubt my intellect then all I can tell you is that so do I. All I want is for you to acknowledge that "thing" appears to be a spoked star in orbit of our sun. That's it. Nothing less, but I'm sure you'll manage a way.

If you are not having a good enough time try examining your "limited interactions".

Gamma are less mass, therefore less interaction.

Gammas have no mass, like all electromagnetic radiation. When compared to than electromagnetic radiation of longer wavelengths, their low likelihood of interacting with a given chunk of matter is a consequence of their high energy and some technical things to do with the nature of the interactions themselves.

Therefore, certain bandwidth can apply to different rate of travel based on existing space - and since time is a function of mass and gravity they may also possess a much stranger dilation. Perfect vacuums don't every apply, naturally.

This is a load of random jargon thrown together into a meaningless heap of technobabble. It's like a script for a crappy sci-fi movie written by a cashier at Home Depot. You're talking out your ass and it's painfully obvious.

That "thing" - what is it?

Light reflecting off a moving rock.

I'm more honest than you.

Why don't you start demonstrating your honesty by admitting that you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

Great - now they've taken down both the LASCO imager data so there's nothing to look at. Nice.

Redlightrobot --

When we all spoke of it before a few weeks ago, you also mentioned interest in this NASA report too, so you might want to read my following post to BuffaloBob to get the link.

it is correct that gamma rays would reach the Earth faster than other bandwidth due to their limited interaction

Generally speaking, high-energy electromagnetic radiation will experience less attenuation than lower-energy radiation across the same distance. The photons would all arrive at the same time, though.

BuffaloBob

Remember awhile ago when I told you about the "Surveyor I - A Preliminary Report" dated June 1, 1966 which I found in my Dad's belongings, along with a few glossy photos and the letter from JPL which was sent top all JPL employees who helped work on it?

Well, I had made a xerox copy of all of it (the Report, the letter to my Dad from JPL, and the photos) when I had to do a bunch of other xeroxing a few weeks ago. Since I've made the copy, if you would still like it just leave me a post on here and I'll leave an email address to get ahold of me and send it to you by regular mail.

BUT -- and this might work out better for you -- I only just recently found a link to the very same Surveyor I Report online. I didn't know it had been printed online before making my copy and probably should have researched it more. duh!

So, if for understandable privacy reasons, you'd rather not have the Report mailed to you, then you can now get it from the link below. (There are also a few lunar surface photos on there too.)

Great - now they've taken down both the LASCO imager data so there's nothing to look at. Nice.

I'm sure it's all part of a coverup by the smoking man.

top all = to all

wow, can't even type. really do need to say good-night

unlike other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum which cannot escape the influence of gravity

What the hell are you talking about? All parts of the electromagnetic spectrum experience gravity. Equally.

"Gamma are less mass, therefore less interaction."

Gammas have no mass, like all electromagnetic radiation. When compared to than electromagnetic radiation of longer wavelengths, their low likelihood of interacting with a given chunk of matter is a consequence of their high energy and some technical things to do with the nature of the interactions themselves.

So, we can agree that gamma rays would have the best opportunity to reach the Earth first, just not under 3000 years.. But within that time will you ever forgive me?

"Therefore, certain bandwidth can apply to different rate of travel based on existing space - and since time is a function of mass and gravity they may also possess a much stranger dilation. Perfect vacuums don't every apply, naturally."

This is a load of random jargon thrown together into a meaningless heap of technobabble. It's like a script for a crappy sci-fi movie written by a cashier at Home Depot. You're talking out your ass and it's painfully obvious.

Mass density (which changes according to mass energy) equates to initial gravitational capacity - energy changes the parameters. Gravity is a localized force, meaning it's limited in real space. Time dilates out from the center of gravity in what are referred to as relative "frames". Superdense, massive objects exhibit stronger gravitational force and thereby more time displacement. Easy peasy.

Don't imply there aren't sound principals behind these ideas. Even Star Trek has a lot more to do with scientific advancement than you can imagine.

"That "thing" - what is it?"

Light reflecting off a moving rock.

In the animated GIF's I posted the object has spinning spokes - can you explain them? Also, as a rock, why does it appear to be a star? What kind of "rock"? Oh fuck it - you're never going to state the obvious. It's a rock, how observant of you. [rolling eyes, waiting your bitter glare]

"I'm more honest than you."

Why don't you start demonstrating your honesty by admitting that you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.
#95 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-09 02:20 AM

That's kinda why I present those images and data - to provoke a response. What you are threatened by? I can't explain them, and I don't like your response. These aren't "optics".

Redlightrobot --
When we all spoke of it before a few weeks ago, you also mentioned interest in this NASA report too, so you might want to read my following post to BuffaloBob to get the link.
#97 | Posted by CalifChris at 2010-01-09 02:21 AM

Awesome! I'm d/l now. Thank you again. After I read it I want to discuss it.

"unlike other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum which cannot escape the influence of gravity"

What the hell are you talking about? All parts of the electromagnetic spectrum experience gravity. Equally.
#102 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-09 02:30 AM

Well gamma doesn't attenuate as dramatically and can actually escape a black hole.. Or do I have that wrong as well? Let's try it your way "Perhaps since the time dilation accelerates the attenuation that might account for no gamma ray fountains ever coming from black holes.." Dude!

"Great - now they've taken down both the LASCO imager data so there's nothing to look at. Nice."

I'm sure it's all part of a coverup by the smoking man.
#100 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-09 02:26 AM

It's happening as the "thing" passes in front of the sun. They call it a "bakeout" and stop uploading data for the public. Conspiracy - sure. You don't even know what the damned satellite is, so just fuck off for now. You've given me nothing but grief and disappointment.

Mass density (which changes according to mass energy) equates to initial gravitational capacity - energy changes the parameters. Gravity is a localized force, meaning it's limited in real space. Time dilates out from the center of gravity in what are referred to as relative "frames". Superdense, massive objects exhibit stronger gravitational force and thereby more time displacement

Flinging more sciency-sounding words at the wall to see what sticks? This rant is a string of words that wants to be jargon but isn't.

Mass density (which changes according to mass energy) equates to initial gravitational capacity - energy changes the parameters.

Mass density is just the amount of matter in a region of space, and it hardly equates to "gravitational capacity," which is a term you invented.

Gravity is a localized force, meaning it's limited in real space.

Localized how? The gravitational force decays with the square of distance. Its effects may become negligable, but they do not simply vanish.

Time dilates out from the center of gravity in what are referred to as relative "frames".

Time doesn't "dilate out" from anything, dimwit.

Superdense, massive objects exhibit stronger gravitational force and thereby more time displacement.

They curve spacetime to a greater extent and the effects of gravitational time dilation are more pronounced deep within the potential well.

Don't imply there aren't sound principals behind these ideas.

There isn't even a coherent train of thought behind them. Much less a "sound principle".

Well gamma doesn't attenuate as dramatically and can actually escape a black hole.. Or do I have that wrong as well?

Nothing "escapes" a black hole once it passes the event horizon except as Hawking radiation.

Perhaps since the time dilation accelerates the attenuation

The extent of gamma ray attenuation depends on their energy, thickness of the material they are passing through, and certain properties of that material. Time dilation has nothing to do with it.

You've given me nothing but grief and disappointment.

Oh no. How will I live with myself?

"Mass density (which changes according to mass energy) equates to initial gravitational capacity - energy changes the parameters. Gravity is a localized force, meaning it's limited in real space. Time dilates out from the center of gravity in what are referred to as relative "frames". Superdense, massive objects exhibit stronger gravitational force and thereby more time displacement"

Flinging more sciency-sounding words at the wall to see what sticks? This rant is a string of words that wants to be jargon but isn't.

But it's correct jargon and linear. Peasy.

"Mass density (which changes according to mass energy) equates to initial gravitational capacity - energy changes the parameters."

Mass density is just the amount of matter in a region of space, and it hardly equates to "gravitational capacity," which is a term you invented.

It refers to that mass capacity for storing mechanical energy, which equates to the entire objects gravitational capacity. Depending upon it's matter that may change. Seems logical 'nuff.

"Gravity is a localized force, meaning it's limited in real space."

Localized how? The gravitational force decays with the square of distance. Its effects may become negligable, but they do not simply vanish.

Localization refers to the spacetime at which an event or effect is demonstrable. You kind of got it. I think you are referring to spacial inertia to define spacetime and that's backwards. Energy starts at one point and then transitions as it attenuates and interacts.

"Time dilates out from the center of gravity in what are referred to as relative "frames"."

Time doesn't "dilate out" from anything, dimwit.

Alright - the space dilates. Whichever, it's irrelevant.

"Superdense, massive objects exhibit stronger gravitational force and thereby more time displacement."

They curve spacetime to a greater extent and the effects of gravitational time dilation are more pronounced deep within the potential well.

Agreed regarding the "shape" of the well, but what other time dilation can you point to? It's always gravity-related. It's always localized. Predictably. I believe this is how fuel might be rationed for travel - defined between gradients of gravity in spacetime.

"Don't imply there aren't sound principals behind these ideas."

There isn't even a coherent train of thought behind them. Much less a "sound principle".
#107 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-09 03:08 AM

Your re-wording my statements, but they are correct. Time is concentrated at the point of highest energized mass density appears to be lost on you - yes, time (or space if you will) dilates from that point, not from the object surface or from anything else.

"Well gamma doesn't attenuate as dramatically and can actually escape a black hole.. Or do I have that wrong as well?"

Nothing "escapes" a black hole once it passes the event horizon except as Hawking radiation.

Okay. The fountains are not observably passing through or from event horizon. What conversion process initiates them?

"Perhaps since the time dilation accelerates the attenuation"

The extent of gamma ray attenuation depends on their energy, thickness of the material they are passing through, and certain properties of that material. Time dilation has nothing to do with it.
#108 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-09 03:15 AM

I was poking fun. The gamma fountains don't seem to mind the black holes gravity much. Acceleration is a distortion of spacetime?

And since you don't agree with localized time effects, that means that you aren't a big fan of "dark matter"?

But it's correct jargon

Like hell it is. When you're not inventing words, you're using very specific techical terms in contexts where they don't even remotely apply.

Alright - the space dilates.

Spacetime has curvature but this is fundamentally different from time dilation.

Time is concentrated at the point of highest energized mass density appears to be lost on you

Did you copy/paste this from the timecube website or have you just been watching too much Dr. Who? "Time" isn't something that you can concentrate.

The gamma fountains don't seem to mind the black holes gravity much.

No shit. They are emitted from the matter surrounding the black hole, not the black hole itself

"You've given me nothing but grief and disappointment."

Oh no. How will I live with myself?
#109 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-09 03:15 AM

Hold your nose?:]

Look, these lasts posts have been fun. I would much rather you consider that whatever the "thing" object is, it doesn't correspond with any known rock that I can identify. Watch the GIF and tell me what you think.

that mass capacity for storing mechanical energy

Other than the contribution of the stored energy to the stress-energy-momentum tensor, the storage of mechanical energy has nothing to do with gravitation. This "gravitational capacity" is a term you cooked up.

"The gamma fountains don't seem to mind the black holes gravity much."

No shit. They are emitted from the matter surrounding the black hole, not the black hole itself
#113 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-09 03:41 AM

But, by your own admission the time displacement is a larger spacetime than the point of inception. It's generated as a part of the black hole itself, technically.

"that mass capacity for storing mechanical energy"

Other than the contribution of the stored energy to the stress-energy-momentum tensor, the storage of mechanical energy has nothing to do with gravitation. This "gravitational capacity" is a term you cooked up.
#115 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-09 03:43 AM

Because it easily defines the matter used, it's density and amount.

Dude, I looked at the gif. It's a bright object. An asteroid or possibly even a planet. The "spokes" are probably diffraction spikes or a similar phenomenon. Not exactly a close encounter of the third kind here.

Because it easily defines the matter used, it's density and amount.

Once again, you're talking out your ass. If you want to discuss these sort of things, you're going to have to use technical terminology in the proper context otherwise what you're saying makes no sense whatsoever. A bunch of half-baked neologisms and re-defined technical terms won't help you communicate.

"But it's correct jargon"

Like hell it is. When you're not inventing words, you're using very specific techical terms in contexts where they don't even remotely apply.

I'm not studied and don't pretend to be - the jargon is available online too. You like to bitch about jargon as much as I like to bitch about fundamentalism.

"Alright - the space dilates."

Spacetime has curvature but this is fundamentally different from time dilation.

That's why I stated time dilates, but you have problems with that, so I presumed it would be easier to see it the other way 'round. Not so much.

"Time is concentrated at the point of highest energized mass density appears to be lost on you"

Did you copy/paste this from the timecube website or have you just been watching too much Dr. Who? "Time" isn't something that you can concentrate.
#112 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-09 03:40 AM

I'm willing to entertain you, that does qualify as science fiction. Ha!

But seriously, I thought that was easiest to get across - time is a "field of effect" and lessens further from the center of gravity, therefore it gradiates throughout real space.

Dude, I looked at the gif. It's a bright object. An asteroid or possibly even a planet. The "spokes" are probably diffraction spikes or a similar phenomenon. Not exactly a close encounter of the third kind here.
#118 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-09 03:49 AM

Not optics, so I'm uncertain how you are relating "refraction". Do you mean that the software is glitching? It would appear to be very predictably animated..

Doesn't it appear to be a spoked star orbiting our sun? Do you have a better description?

Damn. Gumby's creator died. Bye, Gumby.

"Because it easily defines the matter used, it's density and amount."

Once again, you're talking out your ass. If you want to discuss these sort of things, you're going to have to use technical terminology in the proper context otherwise what you're saying makes no sense whatsoever. A bunch of half-baked neologisms and re-defined technical terms won't help you communicate.
#119 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-09 03:51 AM

True. Language is important and perhaps I'm slow to accept things contrary to my inborn sense, but you haven't been very pleasant in your discourse. I'd say you've been a rude fuck and insulting people seems to be your mandatory linguistic application. Everyone should learn the terminology, applying the ideas takes something different than rote capacity. I'm just fascinated with this apparent coverup and it's repercussions. People who otherwise keenly observe the shuttle launches and are so gung-ho for space travel still deny all things UFO and alien. We don't need a bitchfight without Jell-o and titties, do we?

Ugly bastard. Human serpent.

According to a former NASA employee Otto Binder, unnamed radio hams with their own VHF receiving facilities that bypassed NASA's broadcasting outlets picked up the following exchange:

NASA: What's there? Mission Control calling Apollo 11...

Apollo: These "Babies" are huge, Sir! Enormous! OH MY GOD! You wouldn't believe it! I'm telling you there are other spacecraft out there, lined up on the far side of the crater edge! They're on the Moon watching us!

Ugly bastard. Human serpent.
#124 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2010-01-09 04:14 AM

Gumby?! I never question the green rubber dude on an orange horse, just my dosage.

According to a former NASA employee Otto Binder, unnamed radio hams with their own VHF receiving facilities that bypassed NASA's broadcasting outlets picked up the following exchange:
NASA: What's there? Mission Control calling Apollo 11...
Apollo: These "Babies" are huge, Sir! Enormous! OH MY GOD! You wouldn't believe it! I'm telling you there are other spacecraft out there, lined up on the far side of the crater edge! They're on the Moon watching us!
#125 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2010-01-09 04:34 AM

One thing that's fun is Google Earth 5.0 Mars. I found what appears to be a gigantic golden forest - the "trees" kind of look like bright yellow tube worms. 1932'10.83"S 9311'7.38"W

According to a former NASA employee Otto Binder, unnamed radio hams with their own VHF receiving facilities that bypassed NASA's broadcasting outlets picked up the following exchange:

NASA: What's there? Mission Control calling Apollo 11...

Apollo: These "Babies" are huge, Sir! Enormous! OH MY GOD! You wouldn't believe it! I'm telling you there are other spacecraft out there, lined up on the far side of the crater edge! They're on the Moon watching us!

#125 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2010-01-09 04:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

BuffaloBob

Re my #99 | Posted by CalifChris at 2010-01-09 02:26 AM

After thinking it over, it's probably best I don't leave even a temporary email address for you here on DR to contact me about sending the Report. I'd never give out your email address to anyone if I received it. But I'd have no way of knowing if it was really you (and not just someone pretending to be you) who'd be sending me the email to have the Report mailed to them -- not with all the pranksters here on DR and out in cyberspace.

There's info in my #99 how to download the Report online.

Dude, I looked at the gif. It's a bright object. An asteroid or possibly even a planet. The "spokes" are probably diffraction spikes or a similar phenomenon. Not exactly a close encounter of the third kind here.
#118 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-09 03:49 AM

Btw - both LASCO imagers show the same "diffraction spikes" - explain THAT.

Cool to own one of these -

CalifChris

I have downloaded the info, and looked it over somewhat. I need to look at it in more depth----anything in particular I should be looking for? As to the email, you would know it was from me---I don't think there would be any doubt.

Redlight,

Here is an explaination of diffraction even you can understand.

After dark go find a screen door or screen window in your house.

Turn out the lights in the room.

Find a bright point light source (street light or something) fairly far away.

Look at it thru the screen. See the pointy things. That is diffraction.

No matter where you look or what object you look at, the diffraction pattern (the direction the pointy bits point) will stay the same.

The camera on LASCO has a lens with extremely fine scratches in it (no matter how highly polished and expensive, all lenses have this problem). Those fine scratches create the diffraction pattern like the screen door fabric.

Every object photographed thru that lens will have the exact same diffraction pattern.

Simple physics. Try it for yourself. Learning is FUN.

There is an additional effect happening with digital image captures having to do with pixels that is too involved to go into here but the effect is the same. Every exposure has the same orientation of distortion.

Axe

Your condescending attitude is not warranted. Diffusion has nothing to do with the video from Lasco. Scratches on the lens have nothing to do with the result.

A few of the LASCO images that have appeared on the "extraterrestrial" Web sites show much larger and brighter, but still saucer-like features. These images are in fact obtained with the instrument door closed, but with an incorrectly long exposure. The big "saucers" result from massive pixel bleeding along every row of the detector containing part of the image of the "opal," or small diffusing lens, in the instrument door, that is used for obtaining calibration data.

If your correspondents still prefer to believe that the pixel-bled images of planets or bright stars are something else, ask them why the extended part of the "saucers" (i.e., the pixel bleeding) always occurs in the same direction relative to the image --- even when the spacecraft is rolled relative to its normal orientation relative to the Sun.

Axe - explain how the alleged "diffraction spikes" appear to be scaled to each imagers data. I'm quite interested in how you believe the calibration lens is to blame for the non-optical imager data - opal isn't integrated into the imager data. You might want to consider another source these "anomalies"? I've got imager data where seven of the "things" are in orbit - all spinning, none aligned. Explain that me please, since it's so easy for you.

Also, the UFO's aren't at all shaped the same. You should really consider examining the data from the perspective that the imager is showing an anomaly and not integrating false data. That would be done by the software - which would make it purposeful.

Thanks for "jumping" to the rescue: learning ROX!

What's the govt savior solution to this one? Some next generation geo-forming?

Problem-Reaction-Solution.

#135 | Posted by KIRBY1986 at 2010-01-09 09:08 PM

Abuse flag. You know, if you were to actually email the site owner you might be able to advertise legitimately. As it is you are damaging any opportunities that may have otherwise been available to you. It wouldn't be too difficult to direct traffic from Egypt, New Zealand and Poland - as a gift to your ISP. Cache servers identify you personally, btw. I could ask around..

RCADE - wasn't this account disabled? Is this an NSA or TIA joke?

#135 | Posted by KIRBY1986
Also, you could use an English course. BUYER - with a fucking U. Speaking of which..

RLR, a couple of years ago I told you what those spikes were: Blooming. Bob posted a very relevant link up thread that goes a long way toward explaining it.

Every pixel on a CCD sensor acts like a tiny little well. Every time a photon hits the pixel it stores an electron in that "well" and then gets read out to a processor at the end of the exposure. Many times, like in your above links, bright objects in the field of view will over-expose small areas while the rest of the image is has proper exposure. When that happens the tiny little "pixel well" fills up with electrons and flows out along the column of pixels adjacent to it. This is what you are seeing, electrons overflowing out of a small group of pixels, overexposing its neighboring pixels.

If you are really interested in a deeper understanding of CCDs, and the phenomenon of blooming etc., I recommend joining the following Yahoo user group. They have a seemingly endless wealth of knowledge, not to mention thousands of the most beautiful astronomical images you'll ever see.

#139 | Posted by Jay at 2010-01-09 11:18 PM

That's right - you did post that information before. To clarify, the CCD does not add those "spokes", they might be added by other software, but the imager isn't bleeding - they are far too sharp and predictable. If you watch the animated GIF the "thing" rotates. So, any "pixel overflow" is still coming from the object in rotation. These "things" are not like any other phenomena and often are in counter-cyclical orbit which makes them obvious foreign bodies in our solar system. Why not watch the animated GIF's from both LASCO imagers and then explain how it's bleeding rotating spokes.

Presumed counter-cyclical orbits. They "appear" to, I have no definitive data either way.

Pardon my earlier intrusion. I just thought someone was asking for an explanation of what diffraction was.

Little did I know that this was turning into a tin foil hat convention.

The only thing sadder than Glen Beck parrots are the losers who see little green men in their Cheerios.

the CCD does not add those "spokes", they might be added by other software,...

You need to back that up with something other than speculation.

The CCD most certainly does add those spikes as I explained above, just look at your own links at 5:30. In the first link you don't see any spikes until the object comes into view. That's important because if the spikes were wings or some such they would appear before the central bright object comes into view, but they don't. The "wings" only appear after the the central object is in the field of view and overexposes and then blooms as explained above. The second 5:30 link begins with the object already in the field of view, however, the spikes disappear after the central part goes behind the mask. They disappear because there is no longer anything overexposing the pixels to cause blooming. As far as rotation, I see none. Perhaps you could explain.

RLR, this thread has been removed from the front page and I have to work tomorrow, so, we'll have to take this up some other time. Good night.

Pardon my earlier intrusion. I just thought someone was asking for an explanation of what diffraction was.
Little did I know that this was turning into a tin foil hat convention.
The only thing sadder than Glen Beck parrots are the losers who see little green men in their Cheerios.
#142 | Posted by axe at 2010-01-10 12:10 AM

Actually the definition added enough to prove the CCD isn't including optical lens data, so thanks!

"the CCD does not add those "spokes", they might be added by other software,..."

You need to back that up with something other than speculation.
The CCD most certainly does add those spikes as I explained above, just look at your own links at 5:30. In the first link you don't see any spikes until the object comes into view. That's important because if the spikes were wings or some such they would appear before the central bright object comes into view, but they don't. The "wings" only appear after the the central object is in the field of view and overexposes and then blooms as explained above. The second 5:30 link begins with the object already in the field of view, however, the spikes disappear after the central part goes behind the mask. They disappear because there is no longer anything overexposing the pixels to cause blooming. As far as rotation, I see none. Perhaps you could explain.
#143 | Posted by Jay at 2010-01-10 12:41 AM

Thanks for the thoughtful response. The "spokes" might be added by something other than the CCD imager itself. That includes software which I've already speculated is possibly the case. Whom and why are obvious enough too.

So, you still haven't watched the animated GIFs which show the spinning spokes? I highly recommend that you do that before responding further - we're obviously talking apples and oranges until you do.

Redlight, from your gif, I'd say that the image is Mercury, since the angular movement seemed about right for that over the timespan of the video. Of course, the reflected light would appear to be winglike, in defraction and as described, above.

Redlight, from your gif, I'd say that the image is Mercury, since the angular movement seemed about right for that over the timespan of the video. Of course, the reflected light would appear to be winglike, in defraction and as described, above.
#146 | Posted by tadowe at 2010-01-10 02:09 AM

You mean CCD bleeding, not diffraction as there are no optics involved. Why does the "bleeding" appear to be spokes spinning? A good guess!

#150 | Posted by alpha_dawg at 2010-01-10 02:30 AM

Are you instructing me?
#153 | Posted by alpha_dawg at 2010-01-10 03:01 AM

BuffaloBob

CalifChris
I have downloaded the info, and looked it over somewhat. I need to look at it in more depth----anything in particular I should be looking for?

I liked the lunar surface photos. : )

As to any scientifc space details contained in the Report, well, you know I wouldn't be of much help to you there. lol I just thought the entire Report package might be of interest to you.

I liked its historical value -- having the actual Surveyor I Report plus a few extra glossy photos of the lunar surface along with the cover letter from JPL to their employees -- and all having been sent at the actual time the mission took place. I had never seen the package before (actually all was sent in a large envelope) and found it going through a box of photos when clearing out some things around here. My Dad was working as a test pilot for JPL at the time which was why he one of the ones who received it.

JPL was very proud they had played a part, as it as it was the first of the Surveyor missions into space and was quite a big deal at the time.

The Report is about 39 pages and I'd made a xerox copy of the Report along with the few extra photos which came with it and the cover letter from JPL. They're only xerox copies so hope you won't be disappointed in the quality but they look okay.

As to the email, you would know it was from me --- I don't think there would be any doubt.

#131 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-01-09 05:52 PM.

Way late so saying good-night.

Good night, CC!