Mysterious green UFO spotted on Jupiter from NASA image, sparks debate

Started by WAS, October 29, 2018, 05:03:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

WAS

Without access to the original images it's a little hard to tell, but it sure does look like light being captured as it moved (stray refraction or something), and thus looks elongated.

https://www.ibtimes.co.in/mysterious-green-ufo-spotted-jupiter-nasa-image-sparks-debate-784044?fbclid=IwAR0Ap7-VupLqMgTgj9SVcE0Tg37NyR74OMXsKIQSmzB9tQ7OjTb4qqsq1v8

digitalguru

[attachimg=1]
QuoteAfter watching the video, many people argued that this green UFO is an irrefutable evidence of alien life.

What do they know, it's obviously Thunderbird 2
[attachimg=2]


ajcgi

Ah no! There's a hole in my tin foil hat!  ;D
If you look at the raw Juno images, they're full of imaging anomalies or abherrations.
https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?source=junocam&ob_from=&ob_to=&perpage=16

PabloMack

So that's where my gum wrapper went. In space, UFOs don't need propulsion systems.

WAS

Quote from: PabloMack on October 31, 2018, 12:04:37 PM
So that's where my gum wrapper went. In space, UFOs don't need propulsion systems.

You'd think if a UFO had visible propulsion systems anything like what we perceive as them, it's likely not a UFO. That would inherently show a lack of ability to even get here (cosmically).

PabloMack

I would surmise that the act of "flying" is only applicable to something that is in the atmosphere and must "fly" to counter the force of gravity.

In space though, UFO="Unidentified Floating Object". Though my gum wrapper is floating, once identified it is no longer a UFO but an IFO :D

WAS

Technically it's still flying, just not by atmospherics. In space you still have to overcome gravitational influences.

Take yourself for example, if you were as high as the ISS, but not at 28k a second velocity, you would literally fall to Earth no different than within the atmosphere. You would also not really warm up at all in the atmosphere due to terminal velocities and not traveling at an access of 25+ thousand miles a second.

Matt

I beg to differ. Outside of the atmosphere there is nothing to slow your fall, so by the time you reach substantial atmosphere you'd be going fast enough to give yourself a good roasting... no?
Just because milk is white doesn't mean that clouds are made of milk.

Matt

Just because milk is white doesn't mean that clouds are made of milk.

WAS

I'm no good at the math and I have no reference point for a free fall time from the ISS or something of notable distance. But when you're this high, the gravity of earth is not as substantial, but does increase as you get closer to the surface. For example at 40km at the equate we see a loss of 1.2% from just a airliner jet.

http://www.mansfieldct.org/Schools/MMS/staff/hand/lawsgravaltitude.htm

Felix Baumgartner actually dives from Earth's upper most atmospheric boundary (able to be reached by a balloon at 23 miles) and was able to reach Mach 1.24 (372.78666 mp/s) and experienced very little in his suit, and the only quote at temperatures range of protection was "100 degrees Fahrenheit to -90 degrees Fahrenheit" according to DCC (David Clark Company) that designed the suit. 100 degrees F is uncomfortable but not deadly.

From my understanding of 1/R for gravity by km, the specific gravity at the ISS should be 0.024... so specific speed of fall would be incredibly slow depending on the weight and mass of the person, and it wouldn't really increase much even at the atmospheric boundary of of 100km at 0.09g. And of course, you don't weigh much in micro gravity because of this gravity + interstellar mass vs individual mass relationship.

Most objects in space, even dust, burn up, because of the velocity they were launched at, or because of the distance they traveled in relation to their mass and gravitational influences - which is usually dozens and dozens times that of a fall from the ISS. Even debris being launched from work on the ISS is moving at 25 thousand + mph.

This is also why scientists have talked about how spaceships entering the atmosphere like in Independence Day isn't that realistic because these alien ships have anti-grav flight to begin with, and would be able to be at a stand still and enter the atmosphere at a rate that wouldn't cause damage.

Update: The only variable I think we aren't taking into consideration in this scenario is if you aren't traveling as fast as the ISS, are you traveling at the earths rotation? Cause if not, you're going to be interfering with the earths rotation which would change things/add friction. Especially if at a "complete" stand still while Earth is rotating at about 1,000 mph.

Additionally, I've done this KSP many times which is known for pretty good physics. You can stop a vehicles motion to 0/ms and it will fall to Kerbin (or Earth if you have real scale solar system mod) and not burn up. And that's with Kerbin/Earths rotation.

Matt

Gravity at the ISS is quite similar to what it is here on Earth. It only seems to be weightless because it's in freefall - it's travelling sideways incredibly fast, so while it's falling towards the Earth the Earth is curving away from it at the same rate.

Here's why:

1. Gravity falls off at 1/r^2. Radius is measured from the centre of the planet - this is only an approximation, but it's a good enough approximation for nearly spherical planets where the measurements occur outside of the sphere of the planet.

2. Earth has a radius of about 6380 Km. At about 400 Km above the ground, the ISS is at 6380 + 400 = 6780 Km. So let's look at the ratio of that to the Earth's surface. 6780 / 6380 = 1.063, i.e. only 6.3% further away from the centre of the planet.

3. If we plug that into 1/r^2 we get 1 / (1.063 x 1.063) = 1 / 1.13. That means the Earth's gravity at the ISS is only 13% less than it is here on the surface.
Just because milk is white doesn't mean that clouds are made of milk.

Matt

4. Therefore, if you were at a fixed, stationary point above the surface - unlike the ISS - but at 400 Km up, you are going to fall almost as quickly as if you were near the surface. But at 400 Km up there is barely any atmosphere to slow you down. So you start falling. Every second you accelerate at 9.81 m/s/s (Ok, 13% less than that, so 8.68 m/s/s). Every second your velocity increases by 8.68 m/s. After 100 seconds you are travelling at about 868 m/s. You have a long way to fall, and it takes quite a few minutes.

One of the other calculators on that page I linked to allows you to plug in the *distance* you fall, not just the amount of time:

https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224852055

You're going to fall for 400 Km, and most of that (maybe 300 Km?) there is negligible atmosphere. So I plugged in 300,000 metres and I tried gravity of 9.8 and 8.6. You're going to be falling for about 250 seconds before you reach the top of the atmosphere at 100 Km. At that time you're going at about 2400 m/s, or 8600 Km/h. The atmo density will build up quickly after that, and you're still speeding up. That'll cause an unhealthy amount of friction before it really has a chance to slow you down.

Maybe you wouldn't burn up though. Maybe? I might have overestimated the final speed. I'll leave that question to those of you who know more about materials and thermodynamics than I do.
Just because milk is white doesn't mean that clouds are made of milk.

Matt

Quote from: WASasquatch on November 01, 2018, 08:45:34 PM
Additionally, I've done this KSP many times which is known for pretty good physics. You can stop a vehicles motion to 0/ms and it will fall to Kerbin (or Earth if you have real scale solar system mod) and not burn up. And that's with Kerbin/Earths rotation.

I'm curious to know what its max speed gets to as it falls. And how long does it take?
Just because milk is white doesn't mean that clouds are made of milk.

WAS

Quote from: Matt on November 01, 2018, 11:14:03 PM
Quote from: WASasquatch on November 01, 2018, 08:45:34 PM
Additionally, I've done this KSP many times which is known for pretty good physics. You can stop a vehicles motion to 0/ms and it will fall to Kerbin (or Earth if you have real scale solar system mod) and not burn up. And that's with Kerbin/Earths rotation.

I'm curious to know what its max speed gets to as it falls. And how long does it take?

I haven't timed that but could give it a go. It takes a pretty good while in Real Solar System mod.

However I'll point out the ISS isn't in freefall, it is effectively ballistic flight, or spaceflight, at a speeds which defeats the SOI + pull. That speed slowly slows and once it's too slow for the SOI begins to "actually" fall towards the center of mass, which is when they do orbital correction burns.

Even at a specific gravity of about 90%, we don't have enough mass to create enough friction in Earths atmosphere. These objects are falling at over 10km/s, not just mere meters a second. }

I'll also point out that calculator is simply, purely wrong on top of not being able to find the "distance" version. It provides distance as a result? But yeah, for Felix's jump it says he would be traveling at 676.65885m/s . Even with him actually diving and not just free falling, he only reached 418 m/s or mach 1.23. So this formula is missing some information from reality. Which may be why his team and scientists are studying his jump, as well as up in the ISS studying micro gravity. May be aspects missing from that basic school formula.