Jump to content

Moontanman

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    11453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by Moontanman


  1. 2 hours ago, Robert Wilson said:


    Hi all,

    I would like to refer to the following video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1THwiaXZfzA

    which implies that what we see here is some kind of an "aliens spaceship" from out of space.

    I think that this is Ridiculous.

    Check minute 0:50 and minute 1:15 in the video - that is the so called "UFO" that they saw.

    I claim that this is just a small insect on the camera lens, and I don't understand how people can be so blind and not see it.

    The aircraft's infrared camera sits inside a pod as you can see here:

    https://www.raytheon.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/rtn_475606.jpg

    The insect probably got inside when maintenance was done on the aircraft , and it sits either on the camera lens, or on the inside window of the pod through which the camera looks out (and obviously, the insect is not exposed to the outside wind).

    That explains why it is SO STABLE in relation to aircraft sight (an external object like another airplane will NEVER be that stable) and it also explains why it is So Blurry... that is because it is adjacent to the camera lens so it is out of focus... Also, take again a good look at the video, you can see pretty clearly the Legs of that insect! can't you see it?

    It looks like an insect, it moves like an insect, and that's exactly what it is! just an insect!

    Also, why do they shows us the same video from the same aircraft all the time? Where is the video from the same event taken from the OTHER aircraft? let's see it and compare between the two videos. If it's really an external object to the airplanes, then we should see it moving EXACTLY the same way second by second in both videos! So where is the video from the second plane? Or maybe the camera of the other aircraft just didn't see the object? As expected if I'm right.

    Also, I don't know what they saw on the radar, but from my experience, especially in a sea environment, radars have LOT of false alerts for many things - Bird bands, fish bands jumping out of the water, sea turtles and even just sea waves. I think that what you see in the infrared's camera screen is NOT what they saw on the radar.

    I have no doubt a that what you see in this video is just a small insect walking on the camera's lens.

    Your opinion please.
     

    considering all the testimony and the fact the "tic tacs" were picked up on multiple rader, seen by multiple pilots and the radar of an aegis class ship and seen over the course of several days and assumed at first to be radar clutter and the radars were adjusted several times but the "Tic tacs" only became clearer and seen more often  your explanation is "ridiculous" Doesn't make it an alien spacecraft but even the navy has admitted it was something real in the airspace that day and unexplained and several others have been seen now btw... BTW it was officially a UAP, not a UFO...


  2. 2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

    Now there's an idea for a good sci-fi book mine a moon out and make it into a spacecraft with a really big engine. Lmao. Might make a new version of a Death star lol.

     I really don't see any advantage of landing on one of Mars moons as opposed to simply landing on Mars the atmosphere and gravity is low enough that you wouldn't gain much advantage.

    The idea has been bandied about a bit. The monolith has it's supporters. 

    Monolith55103h-crop.jpg


  3. 2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

    Did you check how small they are? ~ 150 and 280 times smaller than the Earth's Moon..

     

     

    Yes, that is one of their advantages, you can build a base there and study Mars up close with out contaminating it. The gravity is so low you could easily use mag-lev to launch probes and they could return material for study. 

     

    Besides everyone knows at least one of them is a alien spacecraft... >:D not really but they do have material that could be used for various purposes without actually landing on Mars... 


  4. 2 minutes ago, Strange said:

    I wonder if it's possible that off-planet manufacturing could become practical enough that the use of gold for industrial purposes was economical while still restricting the supply on Earth to keep the value of the "precious metal" high in things like jewellery and currency. 

    This assumes there are large-scale applications for gold which are limited by the price. Do you have any examples in mind? 

    Gold wires in electronics come to mind, gold wires in electric motors, gold is a very good conductor of electricity and doesn't corrode... 


  5. Gold or to be precise, it's value is inflated by it's use as currency. The addition of many times the gold we currently have would drop the price of gold but the boon to manufacturing where gold would be used if it weren't so expensive would create whole new markets for the metal. The idea of simply holding onto bullion is so Medieval in it's concept sweeping that away and using gold for a manufacturing resource would make sense as does using petroleum as feed stock instead of fuel. The price would drop but the things we could hake from it would make out lives better in the long term...   


  6. On 10/6/2019 at 3:06 AM, Sijo George said:

    Hello all,

    Recently I have read a number of good scientific arguments which says humans are not evolved on this planet. The book says we were droped off by aliens to our Earth. The arguments can be summarized as follows. But I am not sure whether the arguments are really true or not. It would be great if someone specialized in this subject can guide me to the correct path.

    9. Geneticists are resonably certain that the reasonably certain that the genes for type 2 diabetes, long term depression, lupus, biliary cirrhosis of lever and Chron's disease all came from Neanderthal DNA. But none of these diseases were infected in Neanderthal since these genes were dormant in them and passed to modern human and became dominent while they met. Some Neandarthal skeltons show signs of Arthritis, so that may also have come from them. It is recently found out that Neanderthal man extincted due to a common ear infection which comes in their childhood.

     

    One thing to remember, if someone suggests that humans didn't evolve on Earth but go one to suggest we interbred with a species, ie Neanderthals, that did evolve here then you can be sure who ever is suggesting this has no idea what they are talking about! 


  7. 3 minutes ago, MigL said:

    Maybe he'll have a mental breakdown, and his Presidency will end with him being carted off in a straight-jacket.
    ( I assure you I'm not trying to be insensitive to the plight of the mentally ill )

    Did anyone notice how he lost control during the press conference with the Finnish President?
    "That he would unleash a blizzard of lies is by now to be expected, but perhaps more important was how angry, aggrieved and petulant he was, lashing out at his opponents and the assembled reporters alike." ( MSN news feed description )

    And his response for the impending impeachment, for his abuse of the Office's power to have a political opponent investigated, is to ask another foreign state ( China ) to also investigate the Bidens.

    I think he's starting to come undone.
    ( wait, did I say 'starting' ? )

    He's come undun
    He didn't know what he was headed for
    And when He found what he was headed for
    It was too late!
     
    He's come undun
    He found a mountain that was far too high
    And when he found out he couldn't fly
    It was too late
     
    It's too late
    He's gone too far
    He's lost the sun
     
    He's come undun
    We wanted truth but all we got was lies
    Came the time to realize
    And it was too late
     
    He's come undun
    He didn't know what he was headed for
    And when we found what he was headed for
    PUTUS, it was too late
     
    It's too late
    He's gone too far
    He's lost the sun
    He's come undun
     
    Too many mountains, and not enough stairs to climb
    Too many churches and not enough truth was found
    Too many people with enough eyes to see
    Too many lives to end and not enough time dig
     
    It's too late
    He's gone

  8. 1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

    Don't forget the cube square law as it relates to this model. The lift goes up with squaring of the scale but the weight, which tends with volume when it does well, goes with getting cubed.

    So a full size version won't respond the same way...you would have to fast forward the video. 

    I was wondering if the cube square law would screw up a full sized version but even as a small drone it is still impressive. Have you seen those coordinated drone shows they put on it china recently? They were beautiful but when you thought of them in a military way they were ominous... 


  9. 1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

    Interesting, but what's with the no stagnation point claim?

    It also has a pretty poor aspect ratio, so claims of efficiency are dubious.

    Pretty cool maneuverability though it is a small model.

    Looks like the proverbial UFO.

    I honestly didn't mean for this to be compared to a UFO, since this is identified, and I know the title said Flying Saucer but this is about as close to a actual flying "Saucer" I have ever seen. The flying ability was what really caught my eye, I've seen lots of round flying machines but they never performed anything close to this!

    The US Air Force tried to develop a saucer shaped craft and failed miserably. A bit more development and this would a fiercely dangerous flying machine eve if it was a drone. Hard to shoot down something that can move like that. 

    The wind tunnel tests were impressive to me but I didn't really know any better... 

    Now having said that I have noticed it does seem to tend to move like flying saucers have been said to move in a falling leaf like motion when descending. Just a coincidence I am sure but still wild. 

    If a real full size version of this was developed I think it would give modern fighter jets a run for their money... 

    Ohyeah, did you notice the internal rotating part that serves as a gyroscope to stabilize it? I have been told a hundred times that not matter what spin seems to do for a frisbee it wouldn't have that effect on a flaying disc... I'm surprised it didn't have counter rotating parts...  

     


  10. 19 hours ago, CharonY said:

    Even if we can manipulate current flow economically, there is a big issue in terms of the ecological effects. Say, if we were able to circulate from the ocean floor by magic means, then we would also move carbon back into the cycle. We could have more biological activity, but that also entails higher release of CO2. One of the reason why iron seeding was deemed attractive is that it would (in theory) target specific nutrient limitations, while leaving sunk carbon alone. In fact, the basic idea was that the newly produced biomass would sink before it can be oxidized. But it is still not clear whether that happens quantitatively. The other challenges of course is the interplay with existing currents. The deposition of carbon does not really happen locally. For example huge conveyor belts that move across the globe are instrumental in burying carbon, e.g. by downward movement of biomass rich warmer water once it moves to the colder region. In other words, effects are not only hard to impossible to contain, but sometimes it actually requires these long-distance transports to actually act as sinks. There are much more details to it but it would be way beyond my expertise. I admit that my eyes somewhat glaze over when they go full-bore on their research, but my takeaway from those seminars is always: "it's complicated" and "it is very global". 

    The latter I suspect to justify all that travel for field work (and tans).

    Agreed... but changing the environment to suit us and introducing exotic species is kind like what we (humans) do and have been doing for tens of thousands of years. My suggestion was bit tongue in cheek and maybe I should have made that clearer. But it is what we, as a species do... 
     

    I have given this idea of why the oceans is not more widely covered by seaweed, this conundrum does have a logical solution. Mangroves are an example that can be compared. Mangroves surround the coast in vast areas of the tropics but they do not cover every coast, the reason is similar to why sargassum doesn't cover the entire or most oceans. Mangroves are temperature dependant, they cannot live where it freezes or the temps go below a certain tolerance, I'm not sure what that is, also mangroves grow best where they can catch and hold onto mud or sediment as it flows off the land, nutrients, also wind and waves also limit mangroves, on shores with high wave action is a regular thing mangroves tend not to grow. 
     

    I can imagine in the future mangroves evolving to float out on the ocean and form huge islands of interlocking roots with the leaves and trunks above the water in warm ocean gyres but this is just fantasy... 

    Sargassum is, as far as I know, kind of unique, it occurs only in one small area of one ocean. While currents do confine it to this area it does escape and is found all long the east coast washed up on shore after storms. I've seen it a couple feet deep in some areas on the beach, it has been used and mulch and fertilizer in past times. It does escape the "sargasso sea" but it either is immediately washed up on share by wave action or taken into cool or cold water where it cannot grow. 

    A very similar if not identical "seaweed" I use that term because seaweeds are not vascular plants and are in fact members of the protist group if I am not mistaken. Be that as it may, a very similar but sessel version of this seaweed grows on rocky shores in the are as well and it is quite possible that the sargasso sea is the result of pieces being torn off that float away and are corralled by ocean currents in the area. 

    I think the question of why it does cover more ocean, and it does get quite thick and widespread in some large areas on the sea surface, is significant. I think it's a unique to the area it's found in and if introduced to other gyres in other warm oceans it might take hold and one has to wonder why something similar hasn't evolved in other oceans and the answer might be that sargasso has evolved relatively recently from a brown seaweed that is normally attached to rocks in the immediate area and is often torn off by storms and some populations of this "plant" has managed to survive in the open ocean when contained in warm water by oceanic currents. The suspect does indeed grow in the surrounding area attached to rocks and has already evolved gas sacks to make it buoyant where it grows on rocks. I'm not sure if the oceanic version is genetically different from the form that grows on rocks but I suspect from personal observations that it is not... 


  11. 53 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    Even if we can manipulate current flow economically, there is a big issue in terms of the ecological effects. Say, if we were able to circulate from the ocean floor by magic means, then we would also move carbon back into the cycle. We could have more biological activity, but that also entails higher release of CO2. One of the reason why iron seeding was deemed attractive is that it would (in theory) target specific nutrient limitations, while leaving sunk carbon alone. In fact, the basic idea was that the newly produced biomass would sink before it can be oxidized. But it is still not clear whether that happens quantitatively. The other challenges of course is the interplay with existing currents. The deposition of carbon does not really happen locally. For example huge conveyor belts that move across the globe are instrumental in burying carbon, e.g. by downward movement of biomass rich warmer water once it moves to the colder region. In other words, effects are not only hard to impossible to contain, but sometimes it actually requires these long-distance transports to actually act as sinks. There are much more details to it but it would be way beyond my expertise. I admit that my eyes somewhat glaze over when they go full-bore on their research, but my takeaway from those seminars is always: "it's complicated" and "it is very global". 

    The latter I suspect to justify all that travel for field work (and tans).

    Agreed...


  12. 1 minute ago, mistermack said:

    Yeh, sorry you're right. I put the decimal point in the wrong place. 

    The principle still applies though, I don't think with those pressures you would have a workable system.

    I disagree, clusters of small pipes would do the trick if the walls were supported by the pressure... 


  13. 5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

    I think using air as you describe really is a non-starter, but pumping up water as in my model might well work.

    Just a quick look at the required air pressures makes using air an impossible job. At 100 feet, you need 440 psi. At a thousand, you need 4,400 psi. I agree that at a thousand feet, the internal pressure in the pipe would balance the water pressure. But what about at the surface? What kind of pipe could hold 4,400 psi pressure at the surface? And what sort of pump could supply it? And imagine the heat energy being lost by that kind of pumping. It's an impossible project that way, but pumping up cloudy water from the deep is just overcoming the friction with the pipe walls, which in a wide enough pipe would be negligible. 

    I'm pretty sure that at one hundred feet you need about 45 psi... I am an open water scuba diver, pressure increases at the rate of 15 psi per 33 feet.. 


  14. 22 minutes ago, mistermack said:

    I can't see that being easy or cheap to do. The pressures at ocean depths are phenomenal, so you would need extremely powerful pumps and thick walled piping, and a lot of energy, to do it that way. 

    If you had a submersed electric propeller and a thin walled pipe, you could pump up cloudy water that you have disturbed with a jet and the only energy needed is to overcome friction in the pipe. The wider the pipe, the lower the friction, so it should be doable that way. 

    As far as the local environment is concerned, you would be doing it in an ocean desert, something that covers more than half of the planet, so I can't see much harm coming from it. If you can raise the productivity in the lifeless parts of the ocean, it takes the pressure off the threatened species elsewhere, by applying a brake to the price of fish worldwide.

    Off the coast of south america cold water wells up naturally and supports a wide ecosystem from sardines to humboldt squid. A series of solar powered pumps could use thin tubes in clusters to carry the air. The thin tubes are more resistant to pressure than one large tube and the air pressure would support the tube against the water pressure.  Over time you could establish a similar ecosystem. Unusual currents have brought the humboldt squids as far north as washington state in recent years temporarily creating a new fishery for the huge squids. Hmmm squid steaks on the grill! Ecosystems can be manipulated and appropriate species will move in... 

     


  15. I've grown sargassum weed in an aquarium, water movement is important as are nutrients. If you really wanted to increase the nutrients you could anchor a bouy in very deep water and pump down air to make a rising current to bring up nutrient rich water. This is easy to do but it changes the local environment and that might not be desirable... 


  16. 51 minutes ago, Sensei said:

    Thick atmosphere = large pressure of atmosphere at the surface..

    Habitable for human being is the not same as habitable to any organic life form and even less for inorganic forms.. Supply of energy might be due to planet's internal activity e.g. volcanoes, tidal forces etc.

    I understand that, I am not thinking of humans, but life in general. 


  17. Think of it this way, totally speculation, take the continent of Africa, divide it in half, one half is the peak of modern ecosystem (before people fucked it up) the other half is the cretaceous at it's peak. Would the cretaceous animals wipe out the modern mammals? would the modern mammals wipe out the cretaceous animals or would they merge and form a unique combined ecosystem?     


  18. If we could move Venus, adding water should be child's play and that would be the Key. Earth has about as much CO2 as Venus but most of ours is locked up in carbonate rocks. Add a few comets, spin Venus up to a more reasonable day thength and you would, probably in a rather long time,have a habitable planet. Water is the key! 

    Recent research points to Venus having oceans up until as recently as one billion years ago... 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.