I think it is electrical arc machining due to difference in voltage potential in the object and it's location in space.
I think you're making shit up because you want to make yourself feel superior. I'm also pretty sure you don't work at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.
What, in the image, do you see that leads you to believe that there is more to this than a leaking asteroid?
Electric Universe theory keeps popping up everytime I see these new discoveries in space.
No, you keep seeing it because it's your pet theory - I say "theory," I mean "buzzword" - that you probably just love to trot out at any opportunity so people can see how awesome you must be because you know the truth.
If it was spinning so fast you could not see the spiralling
I was suggesting that it might be spinning too slowly - and the jets too fast - for you to see any spiralling. Or was that too simple for your planet-sized intellect to grasp?
I especially loved the article linked from that one about the "X" shaped asteroid. They say it must have been a collision with an oddly shaped object, like how a brick makes an oddly shaped splash.
Yeah, and who do "they" think they are, huh, these scientists with their years of "education" and their "telescopes" and their "data"? Puh-lease.
You can't take a single, throw-away simile from a news article written for the casual reader and assume you know exactly which scientific concepts they might be referring to - and then go scoffing at them with no explanation. Splashes - not ripples - can indeed take all kinds of strange shapes depending on the objects which create them, and I think it's a safe bet that these guys have studied the dynamics of collisions a lot more closely than you have.
Which I have never seen!
Nor spent years (who am I kidding, probably not even minutes) studying, as some of the brightest minds on the planet have.
Then that destroys their explanation of impact craters always being round no matter the direction of impact because the force is so powerful it explodes into a round shape anyway.
Who's talking about craters? The image captured is of an X-shaped debris field.
Drop an X-shaped object into water and you'll get an X-shaped splash. The ripples will rapidly become more-or-less circular as they expand, of course - is that where you're getting confused?
But when it's a 18,000 KPH projectile hitting an asteroid in space, then our rules about explosion shape does not apply anymore?!
No, they apply perfectly well. You just don't understand them outside of everyday experience. And by the way, these are collisions, not explosions.
Who are they trying to kid with this crap! Or is it a cover-up for alien technology and they can't actually admit the truth?
You want to prove science wrong? Study the evidence. Use the scientific method, find new evidence. But until you've done that, don't be surprised when people won't listen to your nonsense.
Grow up, get over yourself, accept that you don't know best, don't pick theories because of how hip and retro their names are, try actually studying science, and you'll find out the real world is an even more fascinating place than your fantasy land of poorly-intuited second-hand guff.
Okay, no, I suppose you could glean some of those things from social media these days. I forgot to allow for the stupidity of Facebookers. There's got to be a less inconvenient way to do this than blots, though.
The angle of any spiralling will depend on how fast it's spinning and how fast the jets are, so any spiralling just might not be perceivable in the images.
Slashdot Mirror
Is his name Tibor?
British Operator EE Offers £8 Million Petabyte 4G Data Bundle
£8 for a million petabytes? I'll take two.
Yes, yes, we're all bummed out that we didn't join the wagon when it started rolling. Get over it.
Chrome Is Better
I think you'll find it's possible for other people to have different opinions to yours and for both of you to be correct. Amazing, eh?
Feedly Requires Its Users To Create Google+ Profiles If They Want To Keep Using The Service
Fixed. No-one's putting a gun to your head here.
Actually it's now entirely out of date, since they've rolled back the update.
Google+ is not available in some companies and on some Google Apps domains
Oops. More research next time.
The FCC limits wireless access point RF power to 1 watt.
Maybe possibly this could power micropower sensors (note: with a 2-foot square antenna on each one).
But a cell phone?
The answer is obvious. More access points.
Just think with an efficiency of 25%, which is pretty efficient, the reflectance is now 75%
Solar panels do not work that way! Good night!
Pics or it did or didn't happen.
but never lived there. It is a terrible place to live.
But how would you know?
combined with a touch of muslims (no offence).
Just because you say it in brackets, doesn't make it true.
What is this I don't even
THEN THE WORLD!
Greg Egan did it.
And if they do, they won't acknowledge it.
I think it is electrical arc machining due to difference in voltage potential in the object and it's location in space.
I think you're making shit up because you want to make yourself feel superior. I'm also pretty sure you don't work at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.
What, in the image, do you see that leads you to believe that there is more to this than a leaking asteroid?
Electric Universe theory keeps popping up everytime I see these new discoveries in space.
No, you keep seeing it because it's your pet theory - I say "theory," I mean "buzzword" - that you probably just love to trot out at any opportunity so people can see how awesome you must be because you know the truth.
If it was spinning so fast you could not see the spiralling
I was suggesting that it might be spinning too slowly - and the jets too fast - for you to see any spiralling. Or was that too simple for your planet-sized intellect to grasp?
I especially loved the article linked from that one about the "X" shaped asteroid. They say it must have been a collision with an oddly shaped object, like how a brick makes an oddly shaped splash.
Yeah, and who do "they" think they are, huh, these scientists with their years of "education" and their "telescopes" and their "data"? Puh-lease.
You can't take a single, throw-away simile from a news article written for the casual reader and assume you know exactly which scientific concepts they might be referring to - and then go scoffing at them with no explanation. Splashes - not ripples - can indeed take all kinds of strange shapes depending on the objects which create them, and I think it's a safe bet that these guys have studied the dynamics of collisions a lot more closely than you have.
Which I have never seen!
Nor spent years (who am I kidding, probably not even minutes) studying, as some of the brightest minds on the planet have.
Then that destroys their explanation of impact craters always being round no matter the direction of impact because the force is so powerful it explodes into a round shape anyway.
Who's talking about craters? The image captured is of an X-shaped debris field.
Drop an X-shaped object into water and you'll get an X-shaped splash. The ripples will rapidly become more-or-less circular as they expand, of course - is that where you're getting confused?
But when it's a 18,000 KPH projectile hitting an asteroid in space, then our rules about explosion shape does not apply anymore?!
No, they apply perfectly well. You just don't understand them outside of everyday experience. And by the way, these are collisions, not explosions.
Who are they trying to kid with this crap! Or is it a cover-up for alien technology and they can't actually admit the truth?
You want to prove science wrong? Study the evidence. Use the scientific method, find new evidence. But until you've done that, don't be surprised when people won't listen to your nonsense.
Grow up, get over yourself, accept that you don't know best, don't pick theories because of how hip and retro their names are, try actually studying science, and you'll find out the real world is an even more fascinating place than your fantasy land of poorly-intuited second-hand guff.
Okay, no, I suppose you could glean some of those things from social media these days. I forgot to allow for the stupidity of Facebookers. There's got to be a less inconvenient way to do this than blots, though.
Why not just present the user with a few images of book covers, famous landmarks, or sports stars? Let them pick their favourite. Problem solved, no?
They've linked it (I think mainly by orbit) to other debris and to meteorites which they've presumably dated in other ways.
The angle of any spiralling will depend on how fast it's spinning and how fast the jets are, so any spiralling just might not be perceivable in the images.
He used a SpaceX ship to fly to the comet.
Obviously untrue. What does Chuck Norris need with a spaceship?
Well, maybe not SourceForge specifically, but yeah.
What's strange here is that Mosley ... C) has definitely strange tastes in extracurricular activities.
You must not have been on the internet very long.
...am getting sick and tired of this lame old joke.
The internet was built on anonymity
Not really. It was built without consideration either way to anonymity. Then along came cookies and TOR.
10 internet points to you for identifying the joke!
No, using the word hacking and automatically associating it with illegal activity is the true crime here.
The only difference between "hacking" and "research and development" is legality
Make your mind up.
New to X2Go? Start here!!!
soon to come
Ahhh, open source software.