Topic: object releases other object --crashing ufo?
mightymoe's photo
Sun 01/11/15 08:44 PM

Yes, these constants are true and unchanging.

The part that I found puzzling is the margin between 11,000 and 8,000 years. There is a three thousand year variance between proposed orbits. Seems dramatic doesn't it?

Maybe, I'm missing something in how this was articulated. what




Did You ever get to look at 'YouTube's / What's This? (Sweden 2012)?'


the straighter and more distant it goes, the less precise the math is... they don't know it's exact mass either, or what it's made out of... it's a variable...

no photo
Sun 01/11/15 09:48 PM
I had contacted the fellow who first brought this 'LoveJoy' comet to our attention but I haven't been able to see it yet.

I'll go out tonight again and try to see if I can spot it.

no photo
Sun 01/11/15 09:59 PM
Remember, the mass of an object freely moving through the vacuum of space will not effect its fixed orbit... Granted, there is a greater cause to believe any other objects it encounters despite how little their mass maybe could contribute to loss of inertia.

For example, if You drop a hammer and a feather at the same time while standing on the Moon... They both hit the surface at the same time.

mightymoe's photo
Mon 01/12/15 08:31 AM

I had contacted the fellow who first brought this 'LoveJoy' comet to our attention but I haven't been able to see it yet.

I'll go out tonight again and try to see if I can spot it.


look just to the right of orion, above the belt..

mightymoe's photo
Mon 01/12/15 08:35 AM

Remember, the mass of an object freely moving through the vacuum of space will not effect its fixed orbit... Granted, there is a greater cause to believe any other objects it encounters despite how little their mass maybe could contribute to loss of inertia.

For example, if You drop a hammer and a feather at the same time while standing on the Moon... They both hit the surface at the same time.


true, because they are both heading directly at the moon... if they are not traveling directly at it, the moons gravity would affect them both differently, because of mass, velocity, and angle...

no photo
Tue 01/13/15 01:20 PM


Remember, the mass of an object freely moving through the vacuum of space will not effect its fixed orbit... Granted, there is a greater cause to believe any other objects it encounters despite how little their mass maybe could contribute to loss of inertia.

For example, if You drop a hammer and a feather at the same time while standing on the Moon... They both hit the surface at the same time.


true, because they are both heading directly at the moon... if they are not traveling directly at it, the moons gravity would affect them both differently, because of mass, velocity, and angle...


I was under the assumption that it doesn't matter what the mass or velocity of an object may be. Just so long as it is traveling in a vacuum (A Place With No Resistance Like Viscosity) its speed and trajectory would remain the same.


The Three Laws Of Motion Proposed By Sir Isaac Newton:

(1) An object in motion has a tendency to stay in motion unless effected by an outside force and an object at rest has a tendency to stay at rest unless effected by an outside force.

(2) The greater the mass of an object the greater the amount of energy is required to accelerate or decelerate that object and the lesser the mass of an object the lesser the amount of energy is required to accelerate or decelerate that object.

(3) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction in proportion to its mass.

(Junior-High Must Of Paid-Off)

no photo
Tue 01/13/15 01:46 PM
Edited by SheikOfLaBroquerie on Tue 01/13/15 02:32 PM
I will go out again tonight and look to the right of Orion's belt.

Okay, this is the same side as his sword is hanging from...? Or from my right-side looking at him?

I'll look on both sides. He's an easy view this time of year.


For anybody else out there wondering what Orion looks like... There are three very bright stars that sit all in a row with strikingly equal distance one to the next.
If you're in the Northern hemisphere these three very vivid stars will be in a Southerly direction. If you live in a country close to the Equator it'll be almost straight over head. If you live in the Southern hemisphere you'll have to look in a Northerly direction.

Most comets are only ever just a very faint-wisp of light and the broader edge will always be reaching away, respectively, from where the Sun on the other side of Earth will be.

The red star Betelgeuse (Arabic For House Of The Twins) will be above or immediately below these three bright stars that make-up Orion's belt. (Relative To Where You Are.)

mightymoe's photo
Tue 01/13/15 03:21 PM

I will go out again tonight and look to the right of Orion's belt.

Okay, this is the same side as his sword is hanging from...? Or from my right-side looking at him?

I'll look on both sides. He's an easy view this time of year.


For anybody else out there wondering what Orion looks like... There are three very bright stars that sit all in a row with strikingly equal distance one to the next.
If you're in the Northern hemisphere these three very vivid stars will be in a Southerly direction. If you live in a country close to the Equator it'll be almost straight over head. If you live in the Southern hemisphere you'll have to look in a Northerly direction.

Most comets are only ever just a very faint-wisp of light and the broader edge will always be reaching away, respectively, from where the Sun on the other side of Earth will be.

The red star Betelgeuse (Arabic For House Of The Twins) will be above or immediately below these three bright stars that make-up Orion's belt. (Relative To Where You Are.)


betelguese is on his shoulder, if your facing west, lovejoy will be to the right of his belt...


mightymoe's photo
Tue 01/13/15 03:23 PM



Remember, the mass of an object freely moving through the vacuum of space will not effect its fixed orbit... Granted, there is a greater cause to believe any other objects it encounters despite how little their mass maybe could contribute to loss of inertia.

For example, if You drop a hammer and a feather at the same time while standing on the Moon... They both hit the surface at the same time.


true, because they are both heading directly at the moon... if they are not traveling directly at it, the moons gravity would affect them both differently, because of mass, velocity, and angle...


I was under the assumption that it doesn't matter what the mass or velocity of an object may be. Just so long as it is traveling in a vacuum (A Place With No Resistance Like Viscosity) its speed and trajectory would remain the same.


The Three Laws Of Motion Proposed By Sir Isaac Newton:

(1) An object in motion has a tendency to stay in motion unless effected by an outside force and an object at rest has a tendency to stay at rest unless effected by an outside force.

(2) The greater the mass of an object the greater the amount of energy is required to accelerate or decelerate that object and the lesser the mass of an object the lesser the amount of energy is required to accelerate or decelerate that object.

(3) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction in proportion to its mass.

(Junior-High Must Of Paid-Off)


i thought we were talking about gravity affecting objects... remember the comet we were discussing?

no photo
Thu 01/15/15 06:31 PM
Very good !

This is an excellent picture showing the comet's progression westward. These dates are going to be useful for at least a month or more.

Yes, we were still discussing objects in general, while in space. (Or A Vacuum)
These three fundamental laws of motion are as pertinent to the biggest planet or the smallest pebble huddling through space.

It's with regards to the very first video that we've reviewed, that's such a source of dilemma. The object displays going much too slowly for a burn-up re-entry, then seemingly propels this other smaller portion in the opposite direction at an alarming speed.
If this video was taken behind a sheet of glass or from within a closed vehicle, then I'd assume it was a reflection from somewhere behind the camera. These types of hoax are very easy to do.

Thanks, for the diagram of Lovejoy's progression, Mightymoe.

mightymoe's photo
Mon 01/19/15 02:27 PM
NASA keeps getting caught try to hide the UFOs it captures on its various cameras in space. This time, you can seen an object appear floating around the Earth’s Atmosphere. As you see in the video, NASA quickly shuts off the feed, claiming technical difficulties.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mloo3kxQfFM

no photo
Sun 01/25/15 12:15 PM
I've watched this video several times, and I think it's a volcano farting on the horizon.

tears <---- Don't Push Folks!

messi_is_a_tim_1888's photo
Sun 01/25/15 12:32 PM

I've watched this video several times, and I think it's a volcano farting on the horizon.

tears <---- Don't Push Folks!
Shouldn't have ate those beans, eh? laugh laugh There's an asteroid the size of 5 football pitches, passing the Earth tomorrow, at a distance of 750000 miles Sheik. Saw it on Disclosetv earlier.drinker

no photo
Sun 01/25/15 12:37 PM
Are You sure this asteroid is going to pass?

We need more football pitches, don't we?

messi_is_a_tim_1888's photo
Sun 01/25/15 12:39 PM

Are You sure this asteroid is going to pass?

We need more football pitches, don't we?
Not the way these ones would be delivered, if it hit us Sheik? bigsmile

no photo
Sun 01/25/15 12:45 PM
Edited by SheikOfLaBroquerie on Sun 01/25/15 01:01 PM
Right, we couldn't pick-and-chose where it's going to land.

Best wear some protection! shades

no photo
Sun 01/25/15 12:50 PM

Right, we couldn't pick-and-chose were it's going to land.

Best wear some protection! shades

It would be nice if it landed right on top of London, that would be one chit hole sorted out:smile:

messi_is_a_tim_1888's photo
Sun 01/25/15 12:54 PM


Right, we couldn't pick-and-chose were it's going to land.

Best wear some protection! shades

It would be nice if it landed right on top of London, that would be one chit hole sorted out:smile:
Or Edinburgh? F*****g hate that city, so i do! laugh laugh

no photo
Sun 01/25/15 12:55 PM
Edited by SheikOfLaBroquerie on Sun 01/25/15 01:03 PM
Londoners would have to do lots of heavy lifting to get it where they needed it, wouldn't they?

no photo
Sun 01/25/15 12:58 PM
Edited by SheikOfLaBroquerie on Sun 01/25/15 01:00 PM
Nooooooooo!

NOT Edinburgh, where will we get our McEwan's Extra!