must read: the Keystone pipeline is not dead

[mhgaffney]

Beersugger,

You presume to speak for the 99%?

You somehow failed to notice -- it's my thread. I can do with it as I please. If you don't like it....

you are free to go elsewhere...

Don't let the door whack you on the way out.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I started a thread, gaffe.

Let's hash out where you've gone wrong, there.

No -- this thread is not just about Venus -- it's about the urgent need for the next science paradigm shift -- so we can become sustainable on earth.

[cutthemdown]

Temple 1 had a probe crash into it. But the dust created didn't give a good chance to take a picture. I know my dads probe at the end of its mission to the Wild-1 comet did a flyby of Temple 1 and photographed the crater, confirming there was ice under the surface.

I'm sure they have a lot to learn about comets. This missions came up with more questions then they answered, but they do know that comets do not have a magma core, and also don't have volcanoes on them.

How old they are, were they formed etc all still being worked on.

Like I said though if you want to read about Gaff just find out all you can on the STARDUST probe. Gaff is right that scientists were surprised what they found from visiting these comets, and they really had a bunch of stuff wrong.

So Gaff your theory if science is lying about comets, because the truth would lead to the fact they can make energy from plasma through lightening? Is that right?

To tell you the truth most of the pictures need to be analyzed and then explained to a laymen. I won't even pretend I understand stuff like this.

Just saying for some reason I trust NASA and JPL scientists more then i trust you.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

No -- this thread is not just about Venus -- it's about the urgent need for the next science paradigm shift -- so we can become sustainable on earth.

I've answered on the other thread.

[cutthemdown]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_%28spacecraft%29


Here is a pretty good write up on it GAFF that just goes through what instruments the probe had, and what they have found in the particles they collected which were returned to earth.

Talked to a friend of my dads who worked on this with him, and he says the public if you contact NASA you can sometimes get more information. Like for books, or research studies whatever. Don't know if he is correct on that though.

My dads friend said he wasn't sure what it proved or didn't prove. Turns out engineers care about the mechanical function of the probe and not much about the science of it all.

I wish my dad had lived long enough to see the probes capsule return to earth. When it landed my friggin job wouldn't give it off to me. Can you believe that. An employees dead dad has a space probe returning to Earth and you won't give a dude a day off? So i quit that ****en job and went anyways. One of the best days of my life, even though i only saw something, maybe, then everyone is like the probe is down lol. Whatever though just being there with all the science heads was cool. Plus I knew it was where my dad would have been if still alive.

Seriously though Gaff I am no expert on comets, but I do believe they have frozen water on them.

It sounds like though from these explorations they got as many new questions as they did answers. So IMO I believe our science community is trying its best to figure this stuff out.

If they haven't its because of a lack of knowledge, not some stupid conspiracy.

Also Gaff looks like a lot of links to other papers at the bottom of the wiki stuff. That way you can dive into the source material.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_%28spacecraft%29


Here is a pretty good write up on it GAFF that just goes through what instruments the probe had, and what they have found in the particles they collected which were returned to earth.

Talked to a friend of my dads who worked on this with him, and he says the public if you contact NASA you can sometimes get more information. Like for books, or research studies whatever. Don't know if he is correct on that though.

My dads friend said he wasn't sure what it proved or didn't prove. Turns out engineers care about the mechanical function of the probe and not much about the science of it all.

I wish my dad had lived long enough to see the probes capsule return to earth. When it landed my friggin job wouldn't give it off to me. Can you believe that. An employees dead dad has a space probe returning to Earth and you won't give a dude a day off? So i quit that ****en job and went anyways. One of the best days of my life, even though i only saw something, maybe, then everyone is like the probe is down lol. Whatever though just being there with all the science heads was cool. Plus I knew it was where my dad would have been if still alive.

Seriously though Gaff I am no expert on comets, but I do believe they have frozen water on them.

It sounds like though from these explorations they got as many new questions as they did answers. So IMO I believe our science community is trying its best to figure this stuff out.

If they haven't its because of a lack of knowledge, not some stupid conspiracy.

Also Gaff looks like a lot of links to other papers at the bottom of the wiki stuff. That way you can dive into the source material.

Thanks, Cut.

I went up and had a look. Nothing new -- but it was interesting to read about the soup of hydro carbons found in the sample collected by Stardust.

It's a fair question -- where do all of these hydro carbons come from? They have been known -- for years -- to exist in the coma and tail of comets -- along with water vapor.

The key point is that NASA has never shown that these materials originated in the comet nucleus. If you look at the photos of comet Wild and Tempel I -- they look just like asteroids. So do photos of all other comets I have seen. Including Halleys.

Instrumentation has also consistently shown the surface temperature of comets to be way too warm -- for ice to exist.

Sure -- during the remote part of the cometary orbit -- in deep space -- far from the sun -- no doubt comets collect ice on the surface. But this ice is gone long before the comets get close to the sun. So how to explain the coma and tail.

To date they are not explained -- except by McCanney's plasma discharge comet model -- which argues that comets receive a strong electrical bolt from the sun. This electrical energy -- explains the chemical soup found in the coma -- which is really a chemical laboratory.

The coma and nucleus are negatively charged -- and this attracts positively charged protons, ions and dust from the rear. All of this material gets mixed in the coma -- and produces water and many kinds of hydrocarbons.

It would be easy to test McCanney's alternative model/ The problem is that NASA won't do it. I have never said it was a conspiracy -- tho the effect is pretty much the same. Scientists committed to the old outdated model simply cannot make the conceptual leap to the next model.

Scientists can be very closed minded. Indeed, this is a colossal understatement.

MHG

[mhgaffney]

Check out these amazing photos of the Chaiten volcano in Chile - taken a few years ago.

Notice the incredible lightning displays within the plume. There is no thunderstorm here. Just an erupting volcano.

The display of Nature -- in the photo is totally anomalous. The electrical phenomena has not been explained by the present science model. Not can it be.

MHG

[W*GS]

gaffe, what you don't know about electricity is orders of magnitude more than what you do know.

Lightning has been observed in volcanic ash clouds many times. It's not anomalous.

[Rohirrim]

Lightning has always been associated with volcanic eruptions. At some point, no doubt, we will completely understand the physics of the phenomenon, and discover that it's not much different from wearing socks, shuffling your feet on a carpet, and shocking somebody with your finger. What has improved exponentially is the capacity of human beings to capture natural phenomenon with recording equipment. Plutarch recorded that he saw sheet lightning on Vesuvius in 79 AD. Lightning was also noted by witnesses of Krakatoa in 1883. Mt. St. Helens sent out balls of lightning rolling along the ground.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Lightning has always been associated with volcanic eruptions. At some point, no doubt, we will completely understand the physics of the phenomenon, and discover that it's not much different from wearing socks, shuffling your feet on a carpet, and shocking somebody with your finger. What has improved exponentially is the capacity of human beings to capture natural phenomenon with recording equipment. Plutarch recorded that he saw sheet lightning on Vesuvius in 79 AD. Lightning was also noted by witnesses of Krakatoa in 1883. Mt. St. Helens sent out balls of lightning rolling along the ground.

As usual, Ro is out to lunch.

As I pointed out earlier, in 2005 the static charging model for lightning was pronounced dead in Scientific American. One of the leadings scientists in the field, Joseph Dwyer, announced that we are back to square one.

They did the math and came up orders of magnitude short -- no way static charging can explain the huge amounts of energy in lightning.

You get the right answers by asking the right questions. The next question is: what is thew source of the lightning.

Jim McCanney has given the answer. And its the same answer Tesla would have given. The source = the sun.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by W*GS

gaffe, what you don't know about electricity is orders of magnitude more than what you do know.

Lightning has been observed in volcanic ash clouds many times. It's not anomalous.

Standard dummy reaction.

Sure, it's been observed. The point is it's never been explained.

Dufus.

[mhgaffney]

a million or more lightning bolts strike the earth every day.

Sure it's familiar -- we have all seen it. We have come to take it for granted.

This does not alter the fact that it's anomalous.

A million bolts. Imagine how much energy that is! Wow.

If we could harness even a fraction of it - we could power human civilization, end poverty, save the planet, etc/

We could all drive hummers or even cadillacs. Who cares? With hydrogen fuel -- there would be zero pollution.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

a million or more lightning bolts strike the earth every day.

Sure it's familiar -- we have all seen it. We have come to take it for granted.

This does not alter the fact that it's anomalous.

A million bolts. Imagine how much energy that is! Wow.

If we could harness even a fraction of it - we could power human civilization, end poverty, save the planet, etc/

We could all drive hummers or even cadillacs. Who cares? With hydrogen fuel -- there would be zero pollution.

Unfortunately, the "Banksters" are conspiring to prevent harnessing the energy. JP Morgan being the ring leaders.

Once again, the solution is to harness your bull**** and power the planet.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

If we could harness even a fraction of it - we could power human civilization, end poverty, save the planet, etc

What are the technical difficulties in harvesting lightning as an energy source? List them below:

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by W*GS

What are the technical difficulties in harvesting lightning as an energy source? List them below:

Incredible!

For once W*gs asks a real question. And a good one.

Unfortunately the man who could probably answer is dead - N Tesla.

His notebooks might offer clues -- except that on Tesla's death they were taken by federal authorities. Not sure who exactly.

Tesla may have been 500 years ahead of his time. His papers ought to belong to humanity as a whole.

I will hazard a guess of my own. The issue appears to be one of control. Scientists could no doubt design a lightning rod to download the electricity. But how to control it?

MHG

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I will hazard a guess of my own. The issue appears to be one of control. Scientists could no doubt design a lightning rod to download the electricity. But how to control it?

Certainly you're familiar with the work of Dr. Uman. A summary, please.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Certainly you're familiar with the work of Dr. Uman. A summary, please.

It was too good to last.

W*gs reverts to his usual self.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

It was too good to last.

W*gs reverts to his usual self.

You're convinced that lightning could be used as an energy source; Dr. Uman is one of the leading experts on lightning. You need to address his critiques of lightning as an energy source.

[cutthemdown]

The problem with lightening is its immense power and it's random nature. It would probably be really hard to take a lightening bolt, capture it, and get the voltage and amps right etc etc to match our grid. The expense of the technology to pull it off probably be really expensive.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

The problem with lightening is its immense power and it's random nature. It would probably be really hard to take a lightening bolt, capture it, and get the voltage and amps right etc etc to match our grid. The expense of the technology to pull it off probably be really expensive.

Complex problems often look insurmountable -- until someone with the answer comes along.

Then it looks simple -- and you wonder why you never figured it out.

Please compare these photos.

Notice that the transmitters/receivers on the standard micro wave tower are pointed horizontally -- parallel with the surface of the earth.

Compare this with Tesla's tower on Long Island. Notice that the apex of the transmitter is pointed straight up at the sky. I submit -- this shows the tower was not for standard broadcasting -- one of the common but erroneous explanations -- that you have repeated. No, IMO, it had a very different purpose.

McCanney thinks it was pointed skyward because Tesla was running experiments with the atmosphere -testing its resistance/conductance of electricity.

McCanney says Tesla was firing radio waves and maybe electrical bursts up to the ionosphere -- in an attempt to render the air conductive - - to create a circuit -- and draw down electrical energy from the upper atmosphere.

He might be right. Tests could easily decide the matter. If someone would simply to run the tests.

[W*GS]

gaffe's back in pretend-land.

He can't answer any of my questions, so he goes back to his comfort zone - insanity.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by W*GS

gaffe's back in pretend-land.

He can't answer any of my questions, so he goes back to his comfort zone - insanity.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why Venus rotates in reverse fashion compared to the other planets.

Your science understanding is limited to what you read in a standard textbook -- or heard from a professor who learned the same material in the same fashion.

The blind indoctrinate students who become professors who - in their turn -- indoctrinate the next generation in the same flat earth paradigm.

In this fashion -- the blind follow the blind.

[mhgaffney]

Notice -- W*gs has no explanation for why the apex of Tesla's transmitter points to the heavens -- instead of in parallel to the earth's surface -- as standard broadcasting towers do.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I'm still waiting for you to explain why Venus rotates in reverse fashion compared to the other planets.

Your science understanding is limited to what you read in a standard textbook -- or heard from a professor who learned the same material in the same fashion.

The blind indoctrinate students who become professors who - in their turn -- indoctrinate the next generation in the same flat earth paradigm.

In this fashion -- the blind follow the blind.

This from the guy who argued endlessly that heat and temperature are the same.

And your 911 science?? If it weren't so offensive and self serving, it would be funny.

Stick with poetry and organic gardening......you produce enough manure to fertilize the prairies.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I'm still waiting for you to explain why Venus rotates in reverse fashion compared to the other planets.

I already gave it - likely an impactor or series of impactors. Same thing for Uranus and Pluto.

It's not so much that Venus rotates "backwards", it's that it's "north" pole points "down".

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Your science understanding is limited to what you read in a standard textbook -- or heard from a professor who learned the same material in the same fashion.

The blind indoctrinate students who become professors who - in their turn -- indoctrinate the next generation in the same flat earth paradigm.

In this fashion -- the blind follow the blind.

Well, no.

You see, we learn about things like conservation of angular momentum, Newton's laws, and so on, all of which have been observed and verified numerous times, and which are used to make accurate and correct predictions. Think of all the interplanetary probes that get to their targets with incredible precision.

You, on the other hand, grab some nonsense out of a book or off the web, and believe it blindly because you haven't the intellectual chops to critically analyze it, and accept it as all true believers do, without question.

Again, I ask - what is Venus?

Again, I ask - how does the ISS not melt?