Deep Impact ? Deep Impact Hoax

a_lost_packet_ · Jul 9, 2005

bigbrain - You are too idiot if you think that caricature of a plane can fly vertical. Bigbrain, didn't you just look at a picture of that plane and claim that there was no pilot because you were looking at the space behind the pilot seat?

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Do people rent you out for birthday parties? How much? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

skyeagle409 · Jul 9, 2005

bigbrain---You are too idiot if you think that caricature of a plane can fly vertical. skyk---LOL!! It takes off and lands vertically and it already has! bigbrain---you are going to go to the moon with lunar module. sky---Not without a Saturn V rocket. bigbrain---What would intelligent people do before going there? sky---Rehearse on Earth and plant flags, drive vehicles, collect rocks, place mirrors to be used to reflect laser beams from Earth and other things like that after reaching the moon. bigbrain---They would test lunar module here, on the earth. sky---That's logical. You wouldn't wait to get to the moon to discover flaws in the components, however, the test modules were tested in space. bigbrain---Nasa buffoons have never tested lunar module on the earth. sky---Says who? The NASA hoax folks? They gotcha again, bigbrain!

lunatio_gordin · Jul 9, 2005

yes, they did. It's called the "Flying Bedstead".

votefornimitz · Jul 9, 2005

Well, i posted it (Mass and velocity) like 20 minutes ago, but evidently you ignored it. As for the ejecta, it would be the same brightness as the comet, not brighter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> In the event of a full scale nuclear war or NEO impact event, there are two categories of underground shelters available to the public, distinguished by depth underground: bunkers and graves... </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Jul 9, 2005

VoteforNimitz - Well, i posted it (Mass and velocity) like 20 minutes ago, but evidently you ignored it. I didn't intentionally ignore it. I'll take a look in a few. I'm headed to grab some grub in just a minute. VoteforNimitz - As for the ejecta, it would be the same brightness as the comet, not brighter. But it would have covered a much larger area. Which gives out "more" light, a normal sized 100 watt bulb or a 100 watt bulb the size of a football field? More appropriately, which would reflect more light, a mirror which is one square foot or one that is the size of a football field? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

bigbrain · Jul 9, 2005

"sky---LOL!! That's funny coming from you, the person who said that it was impossible for a rocket to land vertically despite the fact the Delta Clipper has already done so on multiple occasions. It proves that you don't know what you are talking about and you call other people "embeciles?!" Coming from you--a person who has no idea where he is at nor any idea what he is talking about--it doesn't mean a thing to me, especially from a person who can't find a pilot in the cockpit of an aircraft. It is like getting lost in a broom closet, you understand!" Delta Clipper is a game for stupid children. Do you really think it is possible to keep in hovering a rocket? Try to balance a coke can on your forefinger. They have the same difficulty to try to balance a rocket using engines as a brake. The rocket would fall down in any directions at 360 degrees because of gravity forces. Try to understand, it is not difficult.

arit · Jul 9, 2005

ALP, I lost ou there for a minute, do you care to re-explain for me? We saw a bright light. If it's caused by kinetic energy, and not by oxygen igniting, which molecules were burning? Was it the ejecta that spread out while glowing hot? From friction? Friction againts what? Please re-explain. Regards, arit <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "We will either find a way, or make one!" - Hannibal </div>

votefornimitz · Jul 9, 2005

well, when you have enough small mirrors to fill a football field, they reflect the same, just as if you cut a 1ftx1ft peice of the football field mirror. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> In the event of a full scale nuclear war or NEO impact event, there are two categories of underground shelters available to the public, distinguished by depth underground: bunkers and graves... </div>

skyeagle409 · Jul 9, 2005

bigbrain---Delta Clipper is a game for stupid children. sky---LOL!! Another comical response from someone who doesn't know better! bigbrain---... Do you really think it is possible to keep in hovering a rocket? sky---It has already been done. bigbrain---The rocket would fall down in any directions at 360 degrees because of gravity forces sky---No such thing would happen. The space shuttle doesn't tumble,which proves that you are on the wrong page as far as reality is concerned. http://www.te.plk.af.mil/vehicles/clipper/clipper.html http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/dc-x.htm http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm

skyeagle409 · Jul 9, 2005

bigbrain---Try to balance a coke can on your forefinger. sky---You mean, like this? http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/image/foto/8-5-2003-9-36-ryan_x-13_vertijet_approaching_jetty.jpg

a_lost_packet_ · Jul 9, 2005

VoteforNimitz - well, when you have enough small mirrors to fill a football field, they reflect the same, just as if you cut a 1ftx1ft peice of the football field mirror. Yup, and each particle of ejecta acts as a possible reflector/diffuser in regards to the light it receives from the Sun. If exposure was set for dim objects (ie: the relatively fainter stars in the background) and, all of a sudden, you had 5 times the amount of reflected light from the object in front of you available, wouldn't there be some exposure problems? Wouldn't you have to set your "shutter" to a higher speed, depending on the sensitivity of the film? Wouldn't the higher speed be counterproductive towards developing a good image of faint light, depending on the sensitivity of the film? Note: - I'm not a photography expert. (Although, long ago, I took some light formal training in photography and developing - B+W emulsion.) However, there are plenty of photo experts who have explained this before. I'd recommend taking a look around the "Moon Hoax" threads that bigbrain had going or do a google on "moon hoax no stars photo" or some such. I'm sure detailed information can be found there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Jul 9, 2005

arit - We saw a bright light. If it's caused by kinetic energy, and not by oxygen igniting, which molecules were burning? First, I'm not going to claim that all of the light observed was due to kinetic energy. To be honest, that would be impossible. It wouldn't just "hang around and glow" although a fireball (as in a nuke) may but that would require a sustained chemical reaction or the type of nuclear reactions present in stars. (Which I seriously doubt was obtainable through this impact.) Oxygen igniting? I am not aware of any data showing that there were any volatiles present in the spectral imaging of the ejecta. I'm sure there could have been but I haven't seen anyone talking about that yet. I've seen mention of "icy ejecta" but that's the limit of what I know about it at this moment. Certainly, some form of volatile is expected. arit - Was it the ejecta that spread out while glowing hot? From friction? Friction againts what? Please re-explain. I imagine that there was quite alot of heat generated from the kinetic reaction. I suppose it's possible some of that was still available in the material, for a short while, that was initially ejected. As far as "friction" goes, I don't think that friction between particles of ejecta is generating much energy at all atm. There could be some but I don't think that it is of any significance compared to the reflected light. The reflected light from the Sun by the ejecta plume is the main cause of Tempel 1's increased brightness. What I was trying to demonstrate in my post is that it is possible to gain photons from kinetic energy. A sufficient amount of kinetic energy can produce the energy necessary to excite electrons to release photons. Was there enough energy present in the impact to do this? Probably. In order to prove it, I'd have to do the math and I suck at it to be honest. Howev <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

JonClarke · Jul 9, 2005

It is you who don't understand the problem. The kinetic energy in joules released by the impact is one half the mass in kilograms multiplied by the square of the velocity in metres per second. For Deep Impact the impactor had a mass of 370 kg and a velocity of 10200 metres per second. Thus: 0.5 X 370 X 104040000 = 19,247,400,000 joules This is equivalent to about 4.8 tonnes of TNT. This certainly produces a flash. Look at the problem another way. The comet is mainly water ice. Raising the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree C requires 1 calorie, there are 4.1868 joules to a calorie. 19247400000 joules is 4597162510.8 calories, 4597162510.8 calories is enough to raise 766194 grams of water - three quarters of a tonne - to 6000 degrees C, the temperature of the sun's surface. This is more than eough to produce a bright flash and large explosion. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Jul 10, 2005

Tks for the hard numbers Jon! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

arit · Jul 10, 2005

Jonclarke, "This is equivalent to about 4.8 tonnes of TNT. This certainly produces a flash. " Can you explain to me exactly HOW this produces a flash? I am an engineer, not a chemist, but don't be afraid to use "heavy" words. Thanks in advance, arit <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "We will either find a way, or make one!" - Hannibal </div>

skyeagle409 · Jul 10, 2005

"You didn't respond to the points in my post explaining how the kinetic energy from the impact created the explosion/light observed. Care to explain to us how this could not have happened?" bigbrain---It looks like the mushroom cloud. bigbrain, Look what non-explosive munitions did to this tank! http://feedthefish.org/blog/materials/blogpix/rolling04.jpg Just like what happened when that comet was struck.

a_lost_packet_ · Jul 10, 2005

arit, now I see what you're asking. I dug up a very good page for you to explain exactly how and why electrons can emit photons. Keep in mind, a photon is just a unit of electromagnetic energy. Electrical Engineering Actually, this link is easier to read and understand than most that I found from physics sites. Basically, once an electron receives sufficient energy, it moves to an excited state in which an electron will advance to a permissable orbital. However, this is only temporary and unstable. The electron will constantly seek to reach the lowest possible energy level. It will emit a photon (unit of electromagnetic energy) to release the energy and return/regain it's previous stable orbital. Any energy below a threshold value will not react this way with the electron. So, there is always a specific minimal amount of energy required to excite the electron and get it to emit a photon. (I hope I explained that right.) In a nuclear fission explosion, photons constitute a great portion of the emitted energy. Highly excited electrons release a huge amount of photons. These photons, in turn, provide energy to heat the surrounding medium to hellish temperatures and cause all sorts of other nastiness as they impact the electrons of other materials. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

bigbrain · Jul 10, 2005

"Basically, once an electron receives sufficient energy, it moves to an excited state in which an electron will advance to a permissable orbital. However, this is only temporary and unstable. The electron will constantly seek to reach the lowest possible energy level. It will emit a photon (unit of electromagnetic energy) to release the energy and return/regain it's previous stable orbital. Any energy below a threshold value will not react this way with the electron. So, there is always a specific minimal amount of energy required to excite the electron and get it to emit a photon. (I hope I explained that right.)" You are like those art critics that use difficult words to swindle us, but Jackson Pollock paintings are only manure. You talk about electrons, photons, permissable orbital, excited state. The true fact is that we still do not know how atom is made. There are only theories. The true fact is that we still do not know how comet is made. There are only theories. Is the nucleus of a comet made of ice? It is only a theory. At nasa.gov I have read this: "Impactor spacecraft - about the same dimensions as a typical living room coffee table". Speed: 36,000 kilometers per hour. In practice a very poor thing. Comet speed: unknown, because Nasa buffoons have not technology to know the lenght and the shape of the comet orbit. Impactor material: copper. Why have Nasa boffoons used copper and not lead? The impactor is a battery-powered spacecraft. In practice it is a little toy for children. Can this little toy for children cause that big bump, that big flash that looks like a mushroom cloud? Nasa boffoons are playing in the space as if they were playing a science fiction game on their computers. And you, skyeagle and a_lost_packet, are only two ridiculous gullible guys.

skyeagle409 · Jul 10, 2005

bigbrain---Comet speed: unknown, because Nasa buffoons have not technology to know the lenght and the shape of the comet orbit. sky---Of course we have the technology but the reality of that technology has escape your eyes. LOL!!! bigbrain---Impactor material: copper. Why have Nasa boffoons used copper and not lead? sky---Because NASA had a lot of copper pennies left over in their hoax chest. bigbrain---The impactor is a battery-powered spacecraft. In practice it is a little toy for children. sky---I am very sure that many NASA employees are much older than 8 years of age. bigbrain---Can this little toy for children cause that big bump, that big flash that looks like a mushroom cloud? sky---The same way a steel tank goes up in flames when struck by non-explosive kinetic energy munitions fired from an A-10 or an Abrams tank. bigbrain---Nasa boffoons are playing in the space as if they were playing a science fiction game on their computers. sky---Now, you are admitting that NASA does have spacecraft after all. bigbrain---And you, skyeagle and a_lost_packet, are only two ridiculous gullible guys. sky---Realistic is the name of the game on our side of the fence and pure fantasy is the name of the game on yours. http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov/home/

skyeagle409 · Jul 10, 2005

bigbrain---The rocket would fall down in any directions at 360 degrees because of gravity forces. Try to understand, it is not difficult. bigbrain, You lack the knowledge on scientific issues. Note, this vehicle is not falling down "in any directions at 360 degrees." Just goes to show that you do not understand what you are talking about. http://area51specialprojects.com/llrv.html

skyeagle409 · Jul 10, 2005

bigbrain---Play and stop the movie continuously to see the single frames. What do you notice? It looks like the mushroom cloud. sky---Just as was the case here, so what is the point of your argument? http://www.meteorite.com/meteor_crater/index.htm

bigbrain · Jul 10, 2005

"You lack the knowledge on scientific issues. Note, this vehicle is not falling down "in any directions at 360 degrees." Just goes to show that you do not understand what you are talking about. http://area51specialprojects.com/llrv.html" Hey, gullible guy, what is that? A crane that can fly? Have your astronauts trained with a flying crane? What's that got to do with lunar module? What a nice cockpit? Ferrari Pininfarina design? If you learn to fly this flying crane, then you are able to fly lunar module. Is this your opinion? You are a /*ad hominem deleted*/ than all the art critics who say this manure: http://www.beatmuseum.org/pollock/cathedral.html is a work of art.

petepan · Jul 10, 2005

Excellent work there Jon <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

petepan · Jul 10, 2005

bigbrain said Is this your opinion? You are a much bigger swindler, cheat, trckster, crook than all the art critics who say this manure: Goodness gracious bigbrain, keep insulting people like that and you certainly will be banned, as sure as the sun rises in the east. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Don't you know its rude/b>??

telfrow · Jul 10, 2005

Goodness gracious bigbrain, keep insulting people like that and you certainly will be banned, as sure as the sun rises in the east. We'll see.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

Deep Impact ? Deep Impact Hoax

a_lost_packet_

Guest

skyeagle409

Guest

lunatio_gordin

Guest

votefornimitz

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

bigbrain

Guest

arit

Guest

votefornimitz

Guest

skyeagle409

Guest

skyeagle409

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

arit

Guest

skyeagle409

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

bigbrain

Guest

skyeagle409

Guest

skyeagle409

Guest

skyeagle409

Guest

bigbrain

Guest

petepan

Guest

petepan

Guest

telfrow

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page