202 replies to this topic

[TheMacGuffin]

James McDonald was one of the few scientists courageous enough to say in public what many of them thought (or KNEW) in private, although Kaku and Hawking came very close to saying it.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 07 September 2012 - 05:42 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

If this was actually something we were flying around out there, then it would mean our technology is far more advanced than the public knows, but no astronomers could really identify it as a natural object.  They didn't know what it was.  

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 07 September 2012 - 06:16 PM.

[Hazzard]

TheMacGuffin, on 07 September 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

If this was actually something we were flying around out there, then it would mean our technology is far more advanced than the public knows, but no astronomers could really identify it as a natural object.  

They didn't know what it was.  

Thats interesting.

But, again, and as most of us already knows,... Not knowing, or not being able to identify something is far from the same thing as made by ET.

It simply meens we dont know what it was,... thats all there is to it.

[TheMacGuffin]

Hazzard, on 07 September 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

Thats interesting.

But, again, and as most of us already knows,... Not knowing, or not being able to identify something is far from the same thing as made by ET.

It simply meens we dont know what it was,... thats all there is to it.

Is someone constructed this thing, that doesn't leave too many possibilities, does it?  It's either one of ours, something very advanced, or someone else built it.

[bmk1245]

TheMacGuffin, on 07 September 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

If this was actually something we were flying around out there, then it would mean our technology is far more advanced than the public knows, but no astronomers could really identify it as a natural object.  They didn't know what it was.  

Really? How about searching through scientific publications?

Quote

Comet P/2010 A2 LINEAR is an object on an asteroidal orbit within the inner main belt, therefore a good candidate for membership with the main belt comet family. It was observed with several telescopes (ESO New Technology Telescope, La Silla, Chile; Gemini North, Mauna Kea, Hawaii; University of Hawaii 2.2 m, Mauna Kea, Hawaii) from 14 Jan. until 19 Feb. 2010 in order to characterize and monitor it and its very unusual dust tail, which appears almost fully detached from the nucleus; the head of the tail includes two narrow arcs forming a cross. No evolution was observed during the span of the observations. Observations obtained during the Earth orbital plane crossing allowed an examination of the out-of-plane 3D structure of the tail. The immediate surroundings of the nucleus were found dust-free, which allowed an estimate of the nucleus radius of 80–90 m, assuming an albedo p = 0.11 and a phase correction with G = 0.15 (values typical for S-type asteroids). A model of the thermal evolution indicates that such a small nucleus could not maintain any ice content for more than a few million years on its current orbit, ruling out ice sublimation dust ejection mechanism. Rotational spin-up and electrostatic dust levitations were also rejected, leaving an impact with a smaller body as the favoured hypothesis. This is further supported by the analysis of the tail structure. Finston-Probstein dynamical dust modelling indicates the tail was produced by a single burst of dust emission. More advanced models (described in detail in a companion paper), independently indicate that this burst populated a hollow cone with a half-opening angle α ~ 40° and with an ejection velocity vmax ~ 0.2 m s-1, where the small dust grains fill the observed tail, while the arcs are foreshortened sections of the burst cone. The dust grains in the tail are measured to have radii between a = 1–20 mm, with a differential size distribution proportional to a−3.44 ± 0.08. The dust contained in the tail is estimated to at least 8 × 108 kg, which would form a sphere of 40 m radius (with a density ρ = 3000 kg m-3 and an albedo p = 0.11 typical of S-type asteroids). Analysing these results in the framework of crater physics, we conclude that a gravity-controlled crater would have grown up to ~100 m radius, i.e. comparable to the size of the body. The non-disruption of the body suggest this was an oblique impact.

(link)

[TheMacGuffin]

bmk1245, on 07 September 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

Really? How about searching through scientific publications?

Yes, BMK, I'm well-aware that some people stuck various "explanations" on these pictures, such as "comet-like asteroid", but I never bought it.  Even Kaku didn't seem to buy it--not really--since they also claimed they had never seen anything like it before.  No, I don't buy it.

[TheMacGuffin]

They will say that two asteroids collided or two comets collided or whatever, but it doesn't ring true to me.  I think they would call these "anomalies" ANYTHING before they mentioned ETs.  I think they would rather say absolutely anything other than that.

http://www.google.co...76&tx=113&ty=83

[bmk1245]

TheMacGuffin, on 07 September 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

Yes, BMK, I'm well-aware that some people stuck various "explanations" on these pictures, such as "comet-like asteroid", but I never bought it.  Even Kaku didn't seem to buy it--not really--since they also claimed they had never seen anything like it before.  No, I don't buy it.
[...]

What a shock...
How about sequence by HST

(link)

[TheMacGuffin]

bmk1245, on 07 September 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

What a shock...
How about sequence by HST

Yes, it was up there quite a while, wasn't it, and it looks like it was becoming more distant--whatever it really was.  Do I believe any of the "official" explanations about these matters?  Of course not.  They are almost always lies.

What speed was it moving at?  About 11,000 miles per hour?  Constant speed?

In the video, Kaku denied it was an asteroid or comet.  Why did he say that?  Didn't he say that speed was too slow for an asteroid or comet?  That's why I posted the video, so Prof. Kaku could tell us that it wasn't a natural object.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 07 September 2012 - 07:30 PM.

[Wookietim]

Silly question... If I were to go into the archives of what was said, let's say, 40 years ago... would I find the same type of pronouncements?

Discoveries like this are perpetually just around the corner and only a couple decades away. The truth is we might have proof from SETI tomorrow or later today... or in 3 centuries. Or any time in between.

[bmk1245]

TheMacGuffin, on 07 September 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

Yes, it was up there quite a while, wasn't it, and it looks like it was becoming more distant--whatever it really was.  Do I believe any of the "official" explanations about these matters?  Of course not.  They are almost always lies.
[...]

Since you so adore YT (orbital movements of Earth and P/2010 A2, with HST images)

TheMacGuffin, on 07 September 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

[...]
What speed was it moving at?  About 11,000 miles per hour?  Constant speed?
[...]

You tell me, with sources, please.

TheMacGuffin, on 07 September 2012 - 07:21 PM, said:

[...]

In the video, Kaku denied it was an asteroid or comet.  Why did he say that?  Didn't he say that speed was too slow for an asteroid or comet?  That's why I posted the video, so Prof. Kaku could tell us that it wasn't a natural object.

Wrong! He mentioned meteor (1:00), not asteroid when he was ruling out comets and meteors. And what did he mentions after that, i.e. starting 1:10?

To make it more clear:

Quote

The peculiar object P/2010 A2 was discovered¹ in January 2010 and given a cometary designation because of the presence of a trail of material, although there was no central condensation or coma. The appearance of this object, in an asteroidal orbit (small eccentricity and inclination) in the inner main asteroid belt attracted attention as a potential new member of the recently recognized² class of main-belt comets. If confirmed, this new object would expand the range in heliocentric distance over which main-belt comets are found. Here we report observations of P/2010 A2 by the Rosetta spacecraft. We conclude that the trail arose from a single event, rather than a period of cometary activity, in agreement with independent results³. The trail is made up of relatively large particles of millimetre to centimetre size that remain close to the parent asteroid. The shape of the trail can be explained by an initial impact ejecting large clumps of debris that disintegrated and dispersed almost immediately. We determine that this was an asteroid collision that occurred around 10 February 2009.

(Nature 467, 814–816 (14 October 2010),emphasis mine)

[TheMacGuffin]

bmk1245, on 07 September 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

(Nature 467, 814–816 (14 October 2010),emphasis mine)

According to your own evidence, they first photographed it in January 2009, before this alleged "collision" took place.  LOL  Try again.


"Hubble first detected the X-shaped object in late January and clocked it at 11,000mph. Dubbed P/2010-A2, experts think that what they're looking at could be a comet that was produced out of the collision of two asteroids, even though the object is exhibiting behavior that researchers have never seen before in comets."

http://www.google.co...29,r:2,s:0,i:82

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 07 September 2012 - 10:03 PM.

[Sky Scanner]

TheMacGuffin, on 07 September 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

They will say that two asteroids collided or two comets collided or whatever, but it doesn't ring true to me.

Why doesn't it ring true to you?

[bmk1245]

TheMacGuffin, on 07 September 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

According to your own evidence, they first photographed it in January 2009, before this alleged "collision" took place.  LOL  Try again.


"Hubble first detected the X-shaped object in late January and clocked it at 11,000mph. Dubbed P/2010-A2, experts think that what they're looking at could be a comet that was produced out of the collision of two asteroids, even though the object is exhibiting behavior that researchers have never seen before in comets."

http://chrome://newt...29,r:2,s:0,i:82

Simple: PRE-DISCOVERY OBSERVATIONS OF DISRUPTING ASTEROID P/2010 A2, David Jewitt et al. 2011 The Astronomical Journal 142 28.
Table I (from the paper)

Observatory UT a DOYb V c R (AU)d Δ (AU)e α (◦)f
STEREO A 2009 Feb 10 41 >8.0 2.299 3.242 3.2
SOHO 2009 Mar 15 74 >7.9 2.252 3.226 3.0
STEREO B 2009 May 24 144 >8.0 2.154 3.171 3.4
LINEAR 2009 Nov 22 326 17.10 ± 0.10 2.006 1.246 23.0
LINEAR 2009 Dec 10 344 16.45 ± 0.15 2.006 1.112 15.9
LINEAR 2009 Dec 15 349 16.53 ± 0.15 2.006 1.084 13.5
LINEAR 2009 Dec 16 350 16.66 ± 0.15 2.006 1.079 12.9
LINEAR 2010 Jan 6 371 16.42 ± 0.15 2.010 1.030 2.9
HST 2010 Jan 25 390 16.72 ± 0.08 2.018 1.078 11.5
HST 2010 Jan 29 394 16.80 ± 0.08 2.020 1.099 13.5
HST 2010 Feb 22 418 17.42 ± 0.08 2.034 1.286 23.1
HST 2010 Mar 12 436 17.88 ± 0.08 2.047 1.473 27.0
HST 2010 Apr 2 457 18.45 ± 0.08 2.066 1.717 28.8
HST 2010 Apr 19 474 19.77 ± 0.45 2.084 1.922 28.7
HST 2010 May 8 493 19.19 ± 0.32 2.105 2.150 27.4
HST 2010 May 29 514 19.52 ± 0.30 2.130 2.393 25.0

{I'm too lazy to format table, but you'll get dates of observations, as well instruments}

[TheMacGuffin]

Correction, the first pictures were taken on January 6, 2010, meaning that the supposed "collision" could not have taken place on February 10th.

"NASA's Hubble Space Telescope is the gift that keeps on giving. As we entered the New Year (and decade) on January 6th, the Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research (LINEAR) sky survey become aware of what has been labeled a “mysterious X-shaped debris pattern.” Additionally, a "comet-like" tail was observed."

Science@NASA reported the following:

"The object, called P/2010 A2, was discovered by the Lincoln Near-Earth Asteroid Research (LINEAR) sky survey on Jan. 6. At first, astronomers thought it might be a so-called "main belt comet"--a rare case of a comet orbiting in the asteroid belt. Follow-up images taken by Hubble on Jan. 25 and 29, however, revealed a complex X-pattern of filamentary structures near the nucleus.

http://www.google.co...r:16,s:35,i:243

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 07 September 2012 - 10:12 PM.