Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum light speed is fake

the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.
the diameter of the sun is 864,327.328 miles

this video shows a compressed plasma shock wave traveling across the sun in less than a second.

I always thought that mans claims on the speed of light were null and this proves that to me.

"when they claim that the speed of light cannot be reached"

from the video it looks like it wasnt just reached but surpassed multiple times.



http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/item.php?id=stereoimages&iid=146

BTW , Plasma is something.
"plasma is a state of matter"
so plasma is matter !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

maybe they will make an amendment to the speed of light to reflect these new findings.

or maybe they will make an amendment to plasma to conserve the speed of light , who knows these days what they will do to save face.

or can you figure it out yourself!

Impressive stuff!
Does the video show the propagation of the wave in real time, or is it speeded up?

the link or the page that the video is on did not say if the videos were in real time or not.
according to the below page the sun rotates once every
36 days or so.

http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/4Page1.pdf

heres a bit more about the Galactic Federation of Light scoutships around the Sun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz5z2aKZf3Q

The video also shows the sun (or the observer) rotating by about 1 degree every second. Do we really have a satellite orbiting the sun every 5 minutes?!

Scale the wave speed by 5minutes/36days and you get something much much slower than the speed of light. It will instead be travelling at the speed of sound.

The video also shows that the sun is green. Clearly the color of the sun is fake too! That'll be why your parents told you not to look at the sun, they didn't want you to discover the truth!

But perhaps they knew that if they told me not to look
I would look when they were not looking.

maybe Nasa is not telling that the video is spanning several days in a single second so that the video will
cause the viewers to think , to wonder , to find out for themselves , much like the
"when the earth stops spinning" video
by NATGEO.

No. It's such a routine practice. Just as the false colors, false size, false rotation, etc. are. They probably got complacent knowing that to them it's obvious so neglected to point that out.

Of course they're not going to put a several-days long video on the website, especially not if it runs at 1 frame/hour.

Excellently made video! I think some of those blobs might be bits of sun that get blasted off every now and then.

I can agree with the earth sized blobs possibly being
ejected from the sun , that part does make sence.

but the blobs move around and they dont follow a
path that would cause you to think that they were ejected from the sun.

some even move in the opposite direction of the sun.

some are traveling north to south , south to north , east to west ,etc,etc.

it would seem that they would all be moving in the same direction that the sun moves.

because the sun is where the blobs velocity came from
when it was ejected.

they must be extremely heavy to just remain orbiting the sun at such a close proximity otherwise they would need a tremendous velocity to remain in orbit.

and perhaps these could be remnants of planets that did not have enough velocity to attain orbit but gained that velocity as they spiraled inwards towards the sun.

That doesn't follow at all. The speed required to orbit around a body depends primarily on the distance from the center of the body. The mass of the orbiting body has almost nothing to do with the radius of the orbit. This of course is the case when the orbiting body is much less massive than the body being orbited. The actual orbit is determined by the combined mass of the 2 bodies and the speed of the orbiting body. Obviously the sun is much more massive than anything else that might be orbiting it, so the mass of the orbiting body can be ignored in the calculation.

Bill Gill

Thanks Bill. I was struggling to make sense of that. I can stop struggling now.

then we can just slow or speed up the earths orbital velocity and its orbit would not increase or decrease?

Bill, have you never heard of "orbital velocity"?


http://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

So what we end up with is that what you wrote



is what doesnt follow at all !

but its an easy mistake if you only look at things such as
below.
http://ceres.hsc.edu/homepages/classes/astronomy/spring99/Mathematics/sec10.html

but these mistakes can kill people.



on the contrary Bill , it is the satelights mass that determines the necessary velocity to attain a certain orbital distance from a body.




http://www.universetoday.com/84546/first-ever-in-flight-refueling-for-iss-set-for-mid-may/


increase orbital velocity = increase orbital distance
decrease orbital velocity = decrease orbital distance


that is why I said the below that you commented on



sometimes I wonder how anyone ever gets a college degree.

I wouldnt be thanking Bill so soon Bill S

he would have you thinking that you could orbit around the earth in a spacecraft of any mass as long as the spacecraft were a certain distance from the earths center.

And I would be absolutely right. Have you happened to notice that there are a lot of Earth orbiting satellites? And have you noticed that there are a lot of them in the same orbits? And have you noticed that they are not all the same mass? This shows up best of course in all the satellites in geosynchronous orbit.

Bill

so you think that as long as the spacecraft's or satellite's mass is of no concern then you could double or tripple its mass and that extra mass would not require any adjustments to the velocity to remain in that orbit?

or you could decrease its mass and the same would be true?

suppose our moon were to suddenly shrink its mass to 1/10 of what its mass is today , would it remain in its current orbit without the need to increase or decrease its orbital velocity?


I say that by increasing its mass without changing its orbital velocity , the moon would increase its orbit.

it would reach escape velocity if the moons mass is increased too much.

I think.

I wonder why this guy uses a small "m" to represent a
orbiting satelite?
and a large "M" to represent the earth?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky2XIElijvs

do you think that if we plug in different sized masses
into the small "m" the answer will always be exactly the same?

or could you possibly be wrong?

try it out and see just plug in the sun's mass
and the earth's mass.

then use the same and plug in double and tripple the earths mass.

then shrink the earths mass to 1/10th its mass today.

theres one thing you can rely on , the velocities will differ in each case because the mass is different in each case.

but you must somehow figure out how to keep the different earths with the different masses in the same orbit without changing their orbital velocity.

let me know what you find.



I plugged the above formula into a excell spreadsheet
and then I changed the values of m1 and the orbital velocity did not remain the same , I wonder why?

perhaps everybody is wrong except you !

I decreased the value of m1 the orbiting mass
and the orbiting velocity increased !

the values I used are as follows

m1 mass 7.3477 * 10^22

m2 mass 5.9736 * 10^24

moons perigee 362,570 km

the result was
12,629,335,298

then I replaced the m1 mass of 7.4377 * 10^22
with
m1 mass of 5.0 * 10^22

and the result changed to
12,653,922,800


this tells me that a heavier satellite needs to have a slower orbital velocity than a lighter satellite when occupying the same orbital distance.

that is why I said

you can struggle to climb up out of a ditch or you can
climb out easier and quicker with a tool such as
a ladder.

but someone selling you a faulty ladder might just put you back in the ditch if you buy it.

Sorry Paul, the moon is a slightly different animal than most satellites. The mass of the Moon is not insignificant compared to the mass of the Earth. So the calculation turns out to be a bit different. I was trying to say that the mass doesn't matter when the mass of the orbiting body is much smaller than the mass of the main body.

And have you heard of a Trojan orbit? There are 2 groups of asteroids in the solar system that are called the Trojans, because they were named after heroes of the Trojan war. The thing that makes them unique is that they are in the same orbit as Saturn. One group is 60 degrees ahead of Saturn in its orbit and the other 8s 60 degrees behind. Here is the Wikipedia article. The thing is of course that the Trojans are extremely less massive than Saturn, but they occupy the same orbit. So I'm afraid your contention is kind of shot down by the fact that there are many satellites that don't agree with your claim.

Bill Gill

nice try there Bill.

the trouble is that these trojans are not orbiting anything.
they have simply wandered into a area where they are not pulled by just the suns gravitational forces.

so if jupiter were to slow down then they would slow down also!

if jupiter were to speed up then they would follow.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point




your taking this WAY out of context and Im curious

are you a republican?

if you think that your example proves anything at all
then the obvious question is why are these asteroids only found in the 5 lagrange points?

why are they not found all along the orbit of jupiter?

we were discussing orbits not lagrange points.

and yes President Obama has a U.S. birth certificate.

Well, let me see, the Trojans aren't orbiting the Sun. Then they must be moving in some other direction than the path of Jupiter around the sun.

And back to your calculation of the orbit of the Moon. I suggest you recalculate the orbit using the correct math. The formula you showed is actually the correct formula to calculate the force between 2 masses. However, that is a static calculation. To calculate the orbit of the Moon you need to use calculus and figure the vectors involved. I read somewhere that Isaac Newton said the only thing that gave him a head ache was calculating the orbit of the Moon. Remember that Newton invented calculus just so he could calculate orbits. So if you want to convince me that the orbits depend on the mass of the object in orbit you will have to come up with the correct math.

Bill Gill

Ok, I just realized that I don't need to go through all that stuff up there. All I have to do is to show how to calculate orbital speed. Here is a web page that shows how to calculate the speed of a satellite in orbit. Notice that the only mass required in the calculation is the mass of the planet, or other body around which the satellite is orbiting. The mass of the satellite is ignored.

Bill Gill

its simple Bill

all orbital equations include g.
and g is proportional to mass

every planet or asteroid or satellite has its own separate g

thats how I know that the mass of an object is essential
for determining orbital velocity.

you cannot determine orbits without knowing g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation




for instance the suns surface gravity is 28 times the earths surface gravity.

Oh, huge science nerd burn right there.

you know paul, I think junior here neees to read a few Arthur C. Clarke novels to get up to speed on the simple ways of the solar system.




I am.

You don't want to get me started in on that crap though.

Cause of momentum?

Well, the moon is made of green cheese.

Coincidence?

Ok Paul, let's just try something else. You don't seem to be able to understand what a mathematical formula will tell you. Let's try a simple calculation using the formula from the link I put in my last post.



This is the formula for calculating the orbital speed of a satellite. So let's try what happens if we caclulate the speed of the Earth in its orbit around the sun.

In the formula

M is the mass of the planet (the Sun in our case) in Kg.
r is the radius of the orbit in meters.
G is the universal gravitational constant = 6.67 * 10^-11 N m^2/kg^2.

M - Mass of the sun = 1.98892 × 10^30 kilograms.
r - radius of Earths orbit = 150 * 10^9 m.
G = 6.67 * 10^-11 N m^2/kg^2.

And running those numbers through the formula I get:
Earth's orbital speed = 29747 m/s.

I did a quick search for the Earth's orbital speed on the web and came up with a more official speed of 29.783 k/s or 29783 m/s. The minor difference between the 2 numbers can be explained by the fact that the formula assumes a circular orbit, whereas the actual orbit is an ellipse.

But the one thing you might notice is that I did not use the mass of the Earth at any point in the calculation. The mass of the satellite, as long as it is small in relation to the mass of the object being orbited, is not required to calculate the orbital speed.

So the lesson that will be learned by anybody who is interested in how things really work is that the mass of the orbiting body will not affect the way it orbits. The orbit is determined by the mass of the main body in the system, not the mass of the body in orbit.

Bill Gill

Bill

I dont know how that one got messed up.
it was the way I entered the values into excell I
think.

but anyway I fixed the excell spreadsheet tonight and
using the earth / moon I get 1.012232144 km/s using the
semi major axis in the equation for the radius
and the orbital speed is 1.022 on the moon wiki page
so I suppose the equation is pretty close.

and that was using the below equation which cannot be
used for acuracy in an elliptical orbit


but it only makes sense to me that since all bodies in space have gravity if they have mass you would be better off not leaving out mass when calculating a orbit around a planet or moon or asteroid or whatever.

another spaceship perhaps.

I dont like the way you do it with the equation that only uses 1 mass.

and I believe that a equation that uses all masses involved would be the prefered equation , just because
people have settled for the equations that you use only shows that they are lazy and dont really care too much if a satellite falls back down in a few years or so or not.

anyway I dont know what those blobs are made of but if they are earth sized and orbiting the sun at such a close distance then they must be the cores of what was very large planets at one time.

I dont know what there orbital speed is but
I do know that on the average the more massive planets in our solar system are in much higher orbits , like jupiter saturn and neptune and that tells me something , and if these blobs arent very massive then they would need a high orbital velocity in order to orbit the sun in their current orbit.


because the slower moving blob would not have enough inertia in its motion to resist the pull on it from the suns gravity and it would be pulled into the sun.

earths gravity 9.8 m/s^2

suns gravity 274.4 m/s^2

have a look at jupiter saturn and neptunes mass and orbital speed.

jupiter os 13.07 km/s mass 1.8986×10^27 kg

saturn os 9.69 km/s mass 5.6846×10^26 kg

neptune os 5.43 km/s mass 1.0243×10^26 kg

the further out the orbit the slower there orbital speed.


so what it all boils down to is this , if a object does not maintain its orbital speed then the only way for that object to remain in that particular orbit is for the object to gain mass.

This graph clearly shows that orbital speed of planets depends strongly on radius, and has nothing to do with mass



Data is from Wikipedia "Orbital Period" and "Solar System"

However planets all have very small mass compared to the Sun, and they're all a long way away compared to the blobs in those photos.


Regarding the blobs. I found this "letter" from "NASA" on some site. Makes perfect sense.




Another reason at least on can't be real is it has the dark side toward the sun and the bright side away from it!!!

Even if they are real, they need not be planets. Maybe they're just balls of sun-material that got ejected.

then how does a planet capture a moon?

if you take a long string of 8 planetoids or asteroids and line them up in trajectories that will pass each of them a certain set distance from a planet that has the mass of our earth , seperate them by a distance so that the gravitational forces between them would not affect any outcome.

but say the first has a mass of 1.3477 x 10^22 kg.
the second has a mass of 2.3477 x 10^22 kg
the third has a mass of 3.3477 x 10^22 kg
the fourth has a mass of 4.3477 x 10^22 kg
the fifth has a mass of 5.3477 x 10^22 kg
the sixth has a mass of 6.3477 x 10^22 kg
the seventh has a mass of 7.3477 x 10^22 kg
the eight has a mass of 8.3477 x 10^22 kg

but they all have a speed of 1.02 km/s which is the
orbital speed of our moon.

lets say that they are all passing the exact distance from the planet that our moon orbits in.

I would be willing to bet that the first of the planetoids or asteroids that gets captured by the planet would be of a mass close to the mass of our moon.

as in the seventh above that has the same mass as our moon.

and I also say that all of the planetoids before the first that is captured would end up colliding with the planet because of the gravitational attraction between the two masses.

and that the one following the captured one
just tuggs at the earth a little bit as it passes.

the only difference between them is their mass.

the distance from the planet is the same.
the velocity is the same.

but only 1 of the 8 will be captured by the planet.

every year our moons orbital velocity slows because of the gravitational interaction with the earth.
and every year our moons orbit increases due to this.

so the mass of an orbiting body is extremely important
and it is the speed of the orbiting body and its mass that keeps it in orbit.


do you think that our moon could remain in orbit if
its mass were slowly reduced to 1.3477 x 10^22 kg?


because that is what you and bill are trying to say.
you seem to think that the mass of a orbiting body has nothing to do with its orbital distance.


and do you think that the earth would orbit the sun if it were in jupiters orbit , or saturns , or neptunes if the earths orbital velocity that it currently has was not changed?

I dont.


jupiters current orbital velocity is 13.07 km/s

earths current orbital velocity is 29.78 km/

all planets are trying to move in a straight line
and they would were they not being pulled towards the sun by the suns gravity.

it is the pull away from the suns gravity that a planet can produce which is its mass times its velocity that causes a planet to move in a circular path or orbit.

if the earth could orbit the sun at jupiters orbit
with the orbital velocity it has today then that is where it would be now , not where it is today.

and that is true for all planets in our solar system.

its becoming clearer and clearer why we pretty much stopped our space exploration programs , we need people who haven't been poisoned by the idiots.

and I guess there aren't enough left.

Paul, your analysis would be much more convincing if you had something to back it up. It shouldn't be too hard. All you have to do is to apply Newton's laws of motion and gravity, using calculus to determine all of the vector motions and forces, and you will be able to track the motions of all the bodies. With modern computational techniques you should be able to do it relatively easily. But if you don't want to do that you need to accept the fact that a lot of people have spent a lot of time figuring these things out and what they have figured out works to a very high degree of accuracy. So brace up and accept that it is real.

Bill Gill

you accept what you perceive to be real and I will accept what I perceive to be real.

hows that?

but go ahead bill and put the earth in jupiters orbit but dont change its speed , and see if it stays there.

it should because mass has nothing to do with orbits and
even though the earth is less massive than jupiter your
perception should be real enough for you.

but let me do it for you using your equation even.

I did this so that you can easily cut-n-paste the values
into your calculator.

earth in jupiters orbit...LOL

G = 0.0000000000667 N(m/kg)^2

M = mass of earth = 5973600000000000000000000.00 kg

radius = 778,547,200,000 m


v=sqr(GM)/r

0.0000000000667 * 5973600000000000000000000.00 = 398439120000000.00

398439120000000.00 / 778,547,200,000 = 511.77

sqrt of 511.77 = 22.62 meters/s

511.77 / 1000 = 0.022622391 km/s

so theres your proof bill.

using your math.

the only thing I did was change the mass of jupiter
with the mass of the earth and low and behold what a
difference.

jupiter has a orbital speed of 13.07 km/s today.

but in order for the earth to orbit in jupiters orbit its orbital velocity would need to be reduced from
29.78 km/s to 0.022622391 km/s otherwise the earth in jupiters orbit would simply leave the solar system.

what a tragic occurance that would be and all because mass
has nothing whatsoever to do with orbits.



I would have to say that my perception of reality is much closer to reality than your perception of reality.

sorry to hear that March , but I suppose everybody has
his faults. LOL

hey start a new thread and we could share reasons why we
vote the way we do.

like , what has a republican ever done that was actually good for the country.

or why did the republicans sell out the people of america by removing trade restrictions that caused the loss of millions upon millions of jobs in america.

or any subject you can think of that might cause me or others that are not mulit millionares to vote republican

Well, if I did that it would obviously not work very well, since that is completely out of agreement with the formula which correctly calculated the Earth's orbital speed. Obviously Jupiter's orbital speed is different, but the calculation using the same formula, and Jupiter's distance from the sun would give the correct speed, not matter what sized planet was at that distance.

A note to other readers. I don't really enjoy explaining paul's mistakes. I just feel that I should try to get the word out that most of the time he doesn't know what he is talking about and so I am trying to let others know that what he says should not be taken at all seriously.

Bill Gill

Bill , I used the same formula to calculate jupiters orbital speed before I used it to calculate the speed of
the earth in jupiters orbit.

this one that you used to correctly calculate the earths
orbital speed earlier.





and the result was 13.05356394 km/s

and the only thing I changed was the mass in the formula that you used to calculate the earths orbital speed.

so how could it be completely out of agreement with the formula which correctly calculated the Earth's orbital speed if I used the same exact formula.

I think your in denial or you think that you can convince others to stick their head in the sand as you have.




I haven't noticed where you have done that bill, could you point me and the others you are communicating that to
so that we may observe what you are referring to.




but I did use jupiters distance from the sun in the formula , bill.

G = 0.0000000000667 N(m/kg)^2

M = mass of earth = 5973600000000000000000000.00 kg

radius = 778,547,200,000 m

you can find the radius here if you like , bill
the semi major axis is what I used in my calculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-major_axis

It requires energy loss. Either by crashing into each other (already on a collision course), or deformation by tidal forces, etc. Otherwise they can't be captured regardless of their mass. That's classic physics anyway.


You're just guessing from common sense. Sounds a lot like those ancient people who guessed a heavier object would fall faster than a light one, all else being equal.

It's actually almost the same idea. More mass means stronger force of gravity, but it also means more momentum, so more force is required to change it's course. Turns out it needs just the same amount of extra force that the stronger gravity provides.



That make no sense at all. You didn't even claim that the moon is losing mass. Why should mass be "extremely important"? You can see that it is extremely unimportant by the fact that moon's period and distance are changing while the mass isn't.




Exactly. You can look it up. However this may only apply for small orbiting bodies, or those at large distances. I havn't checked what happpens when two earths are orbiting each other at close range.


Now you're confusing yourself. My answer is the same as yours, "no". I already told you that was my idea when I posted the graph.

well kallog

I did the math using the formula that bill used.

this one



I plugged in the distance from the center of the sun to jupiters center.

I plugged in earths mass.

and I did not get the 13.07 km/s speed that jupiter orbits the sun at today.

in fact I only got 0.022 km/s

since you really do know how to use a formula
why dont you prove yourself by posting a worked formula as I did.

but use the same formula above that bill and I did.

unless you and bill both know your wrong and just don't want to admit it , as usual.

Paul, why did you change the mass of the Sun when you made the calculation for an orbit at Jupiter's distance. That is the only mass in the formula, and I can't believe that the mass of the Sun changes just because you are at a different distance.

Please at least try to keep your calculations somewhere in the neighborhood.

Bill Gill

I'm not sure why I did that bill.
but I corrected the value of the mass to reflect the mass of the sun in the formula that I first used.



and I got 13.05773176 km/s

then I changed the value of the suns mass in the formula you use



and I got 13.05356394 km/s

so I guess that there is still a small difference in the results.

but the formula that I use is most likely more precise.



I wonder if that is why there are two different results?

because all of the required data in the two formulas are exactly the same.

My way doesn't require a formula. It's based on actual astronomical observations.

You can look up the data points of my graph on the two Wikipedia pages I mentioned. I just copied the numbers in directly. No math at all.

This really isn't something you can possibly argue. We know how far the planets are from the Sun, we know how fast they move (we can just look at them, and look at our watch!).

What you can argue is what happens at when the masses are similar for Sun and planet, and/or when they're very close. But even that may go nowhere.

I went and made an even better graph.



This compares the simple formula to the actual data. They match pretty well but not perfectly. Probably because of elliptical orbits, and the missing planet mass term.

It seems clear that this simple formula won't work when both masses are similar. But that isn't the case for the sun and anything else in the solar system at all. Which is what we're talking about.

Maybe it also doesn't work for a small (Earth sized) object orbiting really close to the surface of the sun? That's the original issue.

that graph is much better kallog.

I think we could pretty much say that the earth sized objects are not naturally occurring , that is if the objects are actually there.

according to what we have just went through the mass of an object that orbits the sun has absolutely nothing to do with the radius between the sun and the object.

because we have determined that a earth sized mass could occupy the same orbit that jupiter occupies and have the same orbital velocity.

so if these objects are real and not some type of photographic glitch then they must be artificial.

I haven't calculated the necessary orbital speed of these objects but all the other planets in the solar system have increasing orbital speeds as you get closer to the sun and that is reflected in you graph above.

so we can estimate their distance from the sun and then we can get their estimated orbital speed by using G and the radius from the sun and the mass of the sun.

this is getting interesting.

according to what we have just covered we already know that the needed orbital velocity is locked into the radius.

so if the objects do not move at or around that speed then they would need to have some type of propulsion.



http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/37919/UFO_DISCLOSURE_HUGE_UFO_s_ORBITING_THE_SUN/


http://www.thebigwobble.com/2010/01/nasa-images-earth-sized-spherical.html
[img]http://www.2.bp.blogspot.com/_OhaHEeWqYU0/S13pCF6CEqI/AAAAAAAAHec/SRq2bQihtkw/s1600-h/ttttt.bmp[/img]

Only for the planets. More extreme cases might be more different to the equation. Particularly elliptical orbits and large masses. However these objects could be in circular orbits with small masses, so that can be OK.


Yep, if they're right at the surface of the sun, v0 comes to about 400km/s. Kind of off the scale on my graph - pretty fast!



Yea. Except that I can't see any videos of them actually moving so we can't even estimate what their speeds might be. They just randomly pop up in different places in different shots.

One of your videos showed the forward and behind images, I think, from the same time. And the 'object' was in different places. That pretty much confirms that it wasn't the same object.

I think everyone loves the idea of discovering something. But sadly people are looking at images which they don't understand, so they're seeing things that don't exist. Kind of like how an ancient person might look closely at a digital photo and say "oh, that building has a tiny staircase along the edge of the roof!" But we know it's the just pixels.

Remember when loads of people suddenly started discovering Atlantis on Google Earth's sea floor images? But it turned out the "streets" were just the paths of the ships that recorded the data.

it looks like the person who compiled the above mosaic used filters so that the blob could be seen better.

but it looks as if it traveled quite a distance in the time that the pictures were taken.

all of the surface features on the sun seem to be in the same place in all 4 photos.

but the blob has moved a great distance in each photo.

1 hr and 9 minutes elapse between
7:36 UT and 8:45 UT in the 2 top photos.

using these photos we can assume it is traveling at least
50 x the radius of the earth in 1 hr and 9 minutes if the blob is earth sized as they say it is.

so thats around 318,900 miles or 513,219 kilometers.
that puts its orbital speed at around 123 km/s

1 hr and 9 minutes is 4140 seconds , at 400 km/s it would travel 1,656,000 kilometers

and it looks like it is pretty close to the surface so maybe we should have a closer look into the distances and speeds of this object to verify that it is not artificial.


the planet mercury only travels at 47.87 km/s , so its out of the picture.

and its orbit is from 46,001,200 km to 69,816,900 km

so what is this thing that travels so close to the sun at such a slow speed.

and from its angle it shouldnt even be orbiting in the first place.

its almost as if it is spiraling down from north to south but it would circle the sun several times before it crosses the suns equator.

if that is true then it would need to both increase and
decrease its velocity to remain at the same radius from the suns center because the circle it follows both increases and decreases.

I think this blob is supposed to be Mercury. If it is, then it'll be a long way from the surface of the sun, so it won't be travelling as fast as you calculate - perspective.

Mercury's orbit is inclined 7deg to that of the Earth, which I guess might also be the orientation of the images, so that would explain the angle it's travelling at.

in the above A is the AHEAD soho
and B is the BEHIND soho

mercury is not in a line of sight between either A or B

here are a couple of images taken by SOHO to show how SOHO sees Mercury.





anyway even if someone tried to use the SOHO images to
determine if the speed of light is fake , they are spaced apx 38 minutes apart so it would be impossible.

I guess that is a built in safeguard.

Obviously that's a different kind of picture. The planets are bright. In our one the dot is dark. Maybe becuase ours is in front of the sun and those are behind, or maybe because those are purposely more exposed to make the planets visible against the bright sun.

Does your "line of sight" diagram show the same time when those images were taken? Maybe it's a reflection off the telescope barrel? Those are supposed to behave something like that.

http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/artifacts/artifacts.shtml


Who knows what that person who made the picture did to it. Have to go to the NASA site and find those original pictures to be sure. Also there seems to be one missing in the middle of the sequence.

What are you smoking? There's limited bandwidth. That's why the compression artifacts got there in the first place, they tried to rush too many images through too fast and sacrificed the quality just so they could see the Sun as fast as possible.

Also why would they need images spaced a second apart? None of these large scale features on the sun will change in that time.

I thought I said you don't want to get me started on that?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I couldn't imagine anything as embarrassing
as voting republican.

and unless It was my intent to destroy america
I couldn't think of a reason to vote republican.

I never have heard a really good reason or a really good
argument or discussion.

I can sum it all up like this and it would be mostly correct.

the republicans took the most powerful nation in the world and destroyed its economy by removing trade restrictions.

and all the time they were doing this they were also
starving the government of that nation a little more every year by reducing taxes on the rich people who were using those tax breaks to build more and more businesses
in some other nation.

knowing that if a buisness could hire workers for $0.15 cents an hour they would certainly not hire american workers.

and they didn't , they hired people in other nations
so the taxes that the american workers used to pay to the american government was reduced because the wages
that the new hamburger flippers make isn't quite enough
to allow the government to operate without borrowing from the nation that the republican's gave all the power
to.

but what is so obvious is how a republican always finds fault in the way the government is running itself and want's to trim even more power / money away from it so
that the hamburger flippers can have a few more penneys to spend on the products that are made in another nation who is becoming or already is the new worlds most powerful nation.

in more precise words republicans are constantly complaining about what they did.

and they do it in a way that makes people think that that they're right , they ruin the economy , then they complain that the economy is bad.

and then they say that all we need to do is take more ability away from the american government to govern itself properly and that will fix everything.

they do away with programs that help the poor and needy then they turn around and give that money to the rich so that the rich can build even more businesses in other nations that hire people in other nations.

the way I see it is that a vote for a republican is a vote for raising the chinese flag over america.

and thats not american.



http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...&vote=00048

check to see who voted yea and who voted nay

republicans don't seem to like small business in america.



http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...&vote=00281


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...&vote=00236


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...&vote=00141

If you think American people are somehow more deserving of doing work that they're less capable of than other people then I that's just useless patriotism. Ever notice the hundreds of millions of people in China who have been lifted out of poverty by a lack of American trade restrictions? Do you think starving Chinese peasants are better left to die so Americans can earn enough money to pay for the petrol in their cars?

Anyway, back on topic! Check out this picture I found. It's chock full of space blobs. But they're not illuminated from the correct direction.

less capable of is not even slightly true.
american's were the ones that were performing these jobs before these jobs were sent overseas to take advantage of the higher profits that can be made due to lower wages.



useless?
if you have no sense of national pride , if you feel nothing while watching your country going down the drain because of the un patriotic people in your nation who just do not care what happens to your country as long as they can turn a profit , then I think that you don't really have a country.

your just hanging your hat wherever you can find a hat rack.



yes I most certainly have.

but is it the american peoples responsibility to sacrifice their way of life and their american dream in order to raise the standard of living in other countries?

but I can also point you to millions of american's who no longer have a job and are now living at or below the poverty level in america as long as their unemployment checks will last , then welfare and disability after that expires.

which is just another problem that the republican's created and are now complaining about while trying their best to make the problem even worse.



the petrol in chinese cars


chinese population control?

what to do if your car is being towed in china







don't stop with china , you must include the entire worlds starving masses , do you think that china will move all of the businesses back to the u.s. and all the rest of the worlds nations that have opted for the lower wages found in china?

I don't think so.

hey they did loan us loads of money , wasn't that nice.

but did they give us any money as in a favor return gesture?

I don't think so.

but where has all that money gone...

have a look at all the food that china is giving all the
starving peasants , look at the nice houses they live in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN9CzHf9aKk&feature=related

I think the mobile peasant shacks are designed for invading the beaches of far away lands according to their sloped front sections.

so that the peasants can find better places to grow their food , perhaps land that is better suited such as YOUR country or mine.

or maybe they will be needed to clear roadways for their model rocketry vehicles designed to deliver food to the starving peasants who are further away from the farms.

they could probably throw a thousand of their tanks at every 1 of ours.

WHAT A BEAST.




--------------------------------------------------



I cant see what your talking about.

they are using a filter thay only lets certain light pass through the lens and that is possibly what you are referring to.





but here look at this girls nose for 20 seconds then look at a white place on your screen.




all the really bright parts look dark and all the really dark parts look bright.

Yes, before. Just as 100 years ago Europeans were doing them before America overtook.



Yes. The most powerful form of democracy - vote with your feet.


Yes. It's called not judging people by who their parents were.



No problem, the greatest country can surely solve whatever problem it has.



No. It turns out that many countries can't be helped by free trade. Sometimes their people are so unable to make enough coordinated effort that no opportunities are enough.



Zoom in on the upper half. You can see what looks like half a dozen spheres.

well you have a point there for sure.
but americans introduced mass production , why did europe take so long to develope , when americans carried industrialization so far so quickly.

you guys had thousands of years to develope but your rich held you back , being stingy and not wanting the common man to have the same luxuries that they did.

american industry was built upon taking a route that was an exact reversal of the way industry was developed in europe.

now the chinese havent done anything but copy and steal
all the technology that america and other countries developed and put into practice.

and china was a dirt poor country until the republicans became the catalyst when the rich in america decided they wanted to become more like the european ruling class that europe had for thousands of years that stagnated europe.






LOL... where did that come from?

having a political party that has robbed its nation blind has nothing to do with their parents.



Yes We Can



that is absolutely amazing.

in america no ones family is really from america they come from everywhere , it was the freedoms and the choices they could make , the ability to study whatever trade they chose , to work in that trade no matter who their parents were or where they came from.

I think the major problem with ability that you speak of is nothing more that the rich and greedy of those nations holding back the things needed for them to become able.

you could take any of these people you speak of and put them in a environment that has the necessary schools and industries and those people could perform as well or better than yourself.



well kallog if the spheres are behind the sun then they would be illuminated.

what is the bandwidth?

here is a monitoring web site , updated every 5 minutes
I think.
http://solarmonitor.org/full_disk.php?date=20110524&type=strb_00195

but heres a new twist on it ... curved trails of an object , of course this too is probably just compression curves I suppose.



my my , have a look at the below video that shows that
the soho images are being tampered with ...

possibly to cut the public out of seeing what they should normaly see?

you can clearly see that most of the image has been duplicated from the same image and only a fraction of what should be seen is allowed to be seen in the images.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I490PBeUw24

What's the difference between somebody born in China and somebody born in America? You are saying the person lucky enough to be born in America has some birthright to take advantage of the work other people (who happen to be Americans) have done. But foreigners don't have that right. Neither the American child nor the Chinese child born today actually developed production lines, internet, color TV or nuclear power. So why should one person have more rights to them than the other? You prefer an elite ruling class of rich Americans keeping the rest of the world in poverty, for no other reason than pride in the superiority of their class (country)?

Remind you of Europe all over again?


Wherever they hung their hat huh? :P


Sure. But see where the lit sides are. They should be towards the sun, or at least all over the "front" surface. Sometimes the brighter parts of the spheres are in the upper right direction while the sun is in the lower right.

Object? Trail? No. They are curved patterns on the images. Don't assume it's an image of an object or that it has a trail. You don't know that. Why not try to find out what they really are? Now I've seen them I'm curious too so I'll probably go digging and get the answer. Will you?

Remember the lesson from the past about the sperm. Early biologists saw cells with wiggling tails swimming around in their microscopes. They assumed their tails were wiggling like tadpoles because they saw it with their own eyes. Now we know they rotate like a screw. They allowed their commonsense to overwhelm their scientific objectivity.


Of course. The raw data is not fit for public consumption. If they don't pretty things up then normal people (like you and me) won't be interested in looking at them. You can probably obtain original data and reconstruct the images yourself. It might not be on the internet, but maybe you can write to NASA and ask for a copy.


Where did that idea come from? You have no evidence whatsoever, so please drop it.

they are born in different countries.
one is born into freedom and one is born into communism.
one has the rights to choose.
and one has no choice to choose.
one may attend a trade school then move to a city to work in that trade if he chooses.
and one may be ordered to move to a city to work in a trade wether he likes it or not.
etc..etc..etc...



No , Im saying that the work that americans put into building america and what was its
industrial base has been traded away by the republicans for their constituents
(the elite class in america ) because of the lower wages in china and other countries.




sure they do , foreighners could have had their own revolution like americans had to remove
the elite as their leaders, in this case the brittish elite.
or we could refer to them as the brittish republican elite class.
then they could have established a fair and liberal government that does not prefer the elite
but prefers all.
theres nothing wrong with the elite in general , they give non elites a sence of hope that they may someday rise to their level of wealth.
hope is a good thing as long as there is hope available.
but in the old days you had to be born into the elite !!!
these days you can work your way into being the elite.
and that is what a lot of americans want to do , but the current ruling republicans in america
have all but dissabled hope.
because they removed the ability of an american to rise to their level through trade restricitons removal.

in other words its extremely difficult to run a buisness and compete with the wages of china
and other low wage countries.

and the only way this will ever be remedied will be to replace those trade restrictions.

if a buisness in china can build a product and ship it to america for $10.00
and a buisness in america must pay out $20.00 to build a similar product then there should be
a $10.00 tax placed on the chinese product as soon as it enters the country.

and whoever has purchased that product to sell in america should pay the tax.

this way it would be the consummers choice to support americans or to support the chinese.

and visa versa ...



But their relatives did , and their relatives fought and died so that their childern could have a better life and not be ruled over by elite tyrants that only care about their riches and allow the citizen to starve and remain poor peasants who's only purpose in life is to serve the tyrants.



because in a country whose citizens have hope for what they can accomplish there is a
sence of ability that breeds ingenuity and those citizens can achieve more than citizens
who really cannot expect to accomplish much in their lifetime.

so the rights of the one ends where the others rights begin.
citizens of a communist nation believe that all things are everyones things.
but their rights to all things stop at their nations borders.
they do not have a right to other peoples things beyond their border.



No. I dont , I would prefer that other countries would have taken the initiative and expended the effort to remedy their own destiny.
and I would prefer that the rulers of nations ( those that make the rules ) did not make the
rules in favor of only a few people but of all people.
and the rules that are in place are in favor of the low wage countries.



Not really , the people are beginning to see through whats happening in the world.
even Donald Trump a Republican knows that the trade issues are destroying his country.
it is still legal for some peasant american to start up a buisness in america , so
perhaps many of these peasants gathering together can start up buisnesses that will cause
the trade issues to change , perhaps they will only buy products that are made in america by americans for the sole purpose of giving their children hope.


No , I dont see europe all over again , I see american ingenuity , integrity , I see america rising out of the mire its currently stuck in , its what we do , its how we started.

we dont need to pick up arms against an oppressor , we only need to use the most feared weapon
we possess in a manner that will reduce our our enemies to dust and that weapon is
where we spend our money.

like you said

But we dont run.

I think The most powerful form of democracy - vote with your money

its the only thing the elite understand.

once they see that they can no longer make money using other than american labor
they will find a way to make money , its what they do , there really good at it.

so they will begin to reinvest in american labor.

Many Chinese already achieved that goal. They didn't have a revolution but they got rich anyway. However they did it, they did it, now they're getting the payout for their efforts. Just like Americans did back in the day.

So you should support that success. Even if it comes at the cost of the elite class (American businessmen).


It's not difficult, just run your business in China! Most big manufacturers are running parts of their business there for exactly that reason.



OK so you are saying what I suspected. Americans are gifted a special birthright by God because their ancestors had wars. Chinese people don't have those rights despite their ancestors also having wars, and despite those wars bringing to power the form of government that has now brought them to the success they have. Whatever you say about tyrants, there isn't any more desperate poverty in China than in America. Even if you call them communists, the people are still getting rich and have freedom.


They did that in China! Support their success.

I guess I'll pass.

OK, we got a bit off topic anyway :P

Back to the sun blobs. Did you have a look at the blobs in the green picture I posted? Here's closeups of some of them I rearranged for clarity:




They look a lot like spheres, not too different from the spheres that so many people on Youtube say are UFOs. But guess what. I made them myself! Something like this:

Took a picture of the sun
Put single-pixel white dots on it
Saved it as JPEG with the lowest quality setting
Applied a blurring filter to get rid of a lot of sharp edges
And bingo! Sun blobs appeared!

Still have to work out how those curved ones work. Maybe they are trails of something.

It's not what is causing the image you are looking at but it is worth remembering

Two light beams going in opposite directions move away from each other at twice the speed of light when viewed side on you would conclude that.

Nothing in that defies the laws of relativity ... no single object is moving faster than the speed of light.

Think about the angle you have on the event as shown.

It is also true that in a fast expanding universe the two edges of the universe can be moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light for exactly the same reason as the opposite light beams above.

Paul, why are you posting optical illusions? This isn't an optical illusion. You can see the shape how it really is. You can reorient it if you like, and maybe it'll look more like a dimple than a blob, but the same would be true of the other ones.

Mt point is, those sun blobs from NASA are consistent with compression artifacts. The problem is most people don't understand the technology they're using enough to recognize a compression artifact.

but wouldn't the compression artefact's be found throughout the images if it is a algorithm issue?

as in the below image.




and why would ESA and NASA put such a crappy camera system on a billion euro venture in the first place
when the results / images taken by the camera would be a major component of the project's success?

also , if it is an algorithm problem then they should change the algorithm to reflect a little quality and just have a bit more patience waiting the extra second for the images to process.

of course if this was a planned issue then the low quality images makes perfect sense to me.

after all its not a project to find extraterrestrial life
is it.

its a project used to observe the sun.

so why would you need quality images?

Remember they're supposed to be caused by cosmic rays, which would illuminate a single pixel extremely brightly without necessarily affecting its immediate neighbors. Something that pretty much no ordinary scene would do, not even an actual blob. You example picture doesn't show how JPEG fails to cope with sharp points.

I guess one way to solve it would be have the onboard computer check for these things and take another picture immediately after. But then people would complain that it's censoring things!


It's not the camera, it's the compression. They already resolved it by getting higher quality versions of the exact same images after they fixed one of the receiving stations on Earth. Those new images show the small points as much more like small points.

I guess you'd be happy if they just shut everything down when there's a failure, rather than trying to squeeze whatever data they can from it.


Exactly. But if it does happen to pick up actual objects (who said anything about life?), then they'll look like objects, and won't be explainable as cosmic rays with compression artifacts.