Voyager 1 hits new region at solar system edge

Dec 05, 2011
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft has entered a new region between our solar system and interstellar space, which scientists are calling the stagnation region. In the stagnation region, the wind of charged particles streaming out from our sun has slowed and turned inward for the first time, our solar system's magnetic field has piled up and higher-energy particles from inside our solar system appear to be leaking out into interstellar space. This image shows that the inner edge of the stagnation region is located about 113 astronomical units (10.5 billion miles or 16.9 billion kilometers) from the sun. Voyager 1 is currently about 119 astronomical units (11 billion miles or 17.8 billion kilometers) from the sun. The distance to the outer edge is unknown. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

(PhysOrg.com) -- NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft has entered a new region between our solar system and interstellar space. Data obtained from Voyager over the last year reveal this new region to be a kind of cosmic purgatory. In it, the wind of charged particles streaming out from our sun has calmed, our solar system's magnetic field has piled up, and higher-energy particles from inside our solar system appear to be leaking out into interstellar space.

"Voyager tells us now that we're in a stagnation region in the outermost layer of the bubble around our ," said Ed Stone, Voyager project scientist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. "Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. We shouldn't have long to wait to find out what the space between stars is really like."

Although Voyager 1 is about 11 billion miles (18 billion kilometers) from the sun, it is not yet in . In the latest data, the direction of the has not changed, indicating Voyager is still within the , the bubble of charged particles the sun blows around itself. The data do not reveal exactly when Voyager 1 will make it past the edge of the into interstellar space, but suggest it will be in a few months to a few years.

The latest findings, described today at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco, come from Voyager's Low Energy Charged Particle instrument, Cosmic Ray Subsystem and .

Scientists previously reported the outward speed of the solar wind had diminished to zero in April 2010, marking the start of the new region. Mission managers rolled the spacecraft several times this spring and summer to help scientists discern whether the solar wind was blowing strongly in another direction. It was not. Voyager 1 is plying the celestial seas in a region similar to Earth's doldrums, where there is very little wind.

During this past year, Voyager's magnetometer also detected a doubling in the intensity of the in the stagnation region. Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it.

Voyager has been measuring energetic particles that originate from inside and outside our solar system. Until mid-2010, the intensity of particles originating from inside our solar system had been holding steady. But during the past year, the intensity of these energetic particles has been declining, as though they are leaking out into interstellar space. The particles are now half as abundant as they were during the previous five years.

At the same time, Voyager has detected a 100-fold increase in the intensity of high-energy electrons from elsewhere in the galaxy diffusing into our solar system from outside, which is another indication of the approaching boundary.

"We've been using the flow of energetic charged particles at Voyager 1 as a kind of wind sock to estimate the solar wind velocity," said Rob Decker, a Voyager Low-Energy Charged Particle Instrument co-investigator at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md. "We've found that the wind speeds are low in this region and gust erratically. For the first time, the wind even blows back at us. We are evidently traveling in completely new territory. Scientists had suggested previously that there might be a stagnation layer, but we weren't sure it existed until now."

Launched in 1977, Voyager 1 and 2 are in good health. 2 is 9 billion miles (15 billion kilometers) away from the sun.

Explore further: Image: Orion crew module at the Neil Armstrong Operations and Checkout Building, Kennedy Space Center

Related Stories

Recalculating the distance to interstellar space

Jun 15, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists analyzing recent data from NASA's Voyager and Cassini spacecraft have calculated that Voyager 1 could cross over into the frontier of interstellar space at any time and much earlier ...

No more solar wind for Voyager 1 spacecraft

Dec 13, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The 33-year odyssey of NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft has reached a distant point at the edge of our solar system where there is no outward motion of solar wind.

Voyager 1 measures magnetic mayhem

Jun 01, 2011

When Voyager 1 passed into the heliosheath in 2004, it became the first man-made object to explore the remote edge of the Sun’s magnetic influence. Launched by NASA on September 5, 1977, the probe was ...

Voyager seeks the answer blowin' in the wind

Mar 09, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In which direction is the sun's stream of charged particles banking when it nears the edge of the solar system? The answer, scientists know, is blowing in the wind. It's just a matter of getting ...

Recommended for you

New launch date set for ISS delivery vessel

8 hours ago

A robot ship will be launched from Kourou, French Guiana, after a five-day delay on July 29 to deliver provisions to the International Space Station, space transport firm Arianespace said Tuesday.

The heart of an astronaut, five years on

9 hours ago

The heart of an astronaut is a much-studied thing. Scientists have analyzed its blood flow, rhythms, atrophy and, through journal studies, even matters of the heart. But for the first time, researchers are ...

Image: Kaleidoscopic view of Mars

15 hours ago

Astrophotographer Leo Aerts from Belgium took advantage of the recent opposition of Mars and captured the Red Planet both "coming and going" in this montage of images taken from October 2013 to June of 2014. ...

User comments : 118

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Guy_Underbridge
4.9 / 5 (32) Dec 05, 2011
Not bad for something built in the same era as the Ford Pinto...
NotAsleep
4.9 / 5 (24) Dec 05, 2011
Lately, I find myself hoping that the rise of China as a super power will galvanize technical creativity and make us less resistant to risk like it did during the cold war (while hopefully doing so without the threat of global nuclear obliteration)

I have a picture of an astronaut walking on the moon in my cubicle. The caption: "We got here with a computer less powerful than your cell phone". I hope we never lose our pioneering spirit in the face of adversity...
Nanobanano
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 05, 2011
Just got done watching "secrets of the CIA", and we can do without Cold War era morality and risk assessments, thanks.
LariAnn
1.8 / 5 (22) Dec 05, 2011
It's too bad we don't "build 'em like we used to" - if all our unmanned probes were as durable as the Voyagers, we'd be awash in data about all the planets in our Solar System instead of watching probes crash into planets and moons after just a few months of service!
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (114) Dec 05, 2011
I don't think you understand just how complicated rocket science is. Those ones that "crashed" were designed to in order to glean extra information that otherwise the probe wouldn't have extracted.

I also get the feeling from reading these comments that people think it's very simple to sling probes in and out of orbit. Getting something into or out of orbit takes a tremendous amount of fuel. Carrying THAT fuel to the object in question requires even more massive amounts of fuel.

I get the feeling people think we should be able to launch one probe and put it into an orbit around a planet, get what we want, send it to the next planet, put it in orbit, etc.

It's cheaper to just build a new one. Really, it is.

It's much cheaper and easier for us to send new satellites into orbit than it is to try and reposition de-orbiting ones. This is greatly multiplied by the distance from Earth.

Now when we move beyond chemical propulsion, such spacecrafts will hopefully be feasible.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (18) Dec 05, 2011
I find myself hoping that the rise of China as a super power will galvanize technical creativity and make us less resistant to risk like it did during the cold war (while hopefully doing so without the threat of global nuclear obliteration)
Well what do you think its for? The most Useful enemies are ones you create yourself.

Above a certain level in the world there are no 'sides'. There is only one Side; EMPIRE.

Hey did you hear we just gave iran one of our best spy drones? Just like oppenheimer himself gave the soviets our nuclear secrets. Happens all the time.
http://www.nytime...mer.html

-In this era of accelerated and forced technological innovation, close competitors are of the utmost Importance. The world was never in danger of nuclear annihilation but the the belief that this was so was essential garnering public and private support for the enormous expense of Progress during that time.
Nerdyguy
4 / 5 (8) Dec 05, 2011
Just got done watching "secrets of the CIA", and we can do without Cold War era morality and risk assessments, thanks.


Not sure what "Cold War era morality" means. People are people. Always have been and always will be. The technology and fashions change, but as for the spying, political intrigue...that kind of thing, there's very little different today than during the Cold War. In fact, you could make the case (and many have) that the military/intelligence outlook is scarier now.
Nerdyguy
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 05, 2011
Hey did you hear we just gave iran one of our best spy drones?


No, but I did just see you make up a big old crapola sandwich and try to feed it to everyone.

The world was never in danger of nuclear annihilation


Ummm....yeah, OK there big boy. Some of your conspiracy theories are decidedly more entertaining than others.

Not only were we IN ACTUALITY at great risk of nuclear Armageddon. We STILL ARE.

Or, did you think Putin just put the equivalent of super-condoms on all those nukes so as to render them inadequate to the task?
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (108) Dec 05, 2011
The Soviet Union was never a serious "world ending" threat until the late 1970's. By then the US was much less afraid ironically.

During the Cuban Missile crisis, the USSR had exactly 4 ICBM. Four. That's the whole reason they were trying to get nukes into Cuba, they couldn't hit us otherwise.

The whole Red Scare was just that, a scare. The USSR never came anywhere close to reaching military parity with the United States. The closest it ever came was the late 70's and 80's, which by then relations were better and the engineered mass panic in the US was over.

It can be argued that much of the atrocities that took place within the USSR were carried out as perceived necessary measures to compete with a bellicose United States.

Douglas MacArthur publicly wanted to VAPORIZE China and the USSR. The top US general who until he was fired by Truman was thought by many to be more powerful than the president.

You wouldn't feel the need to arm up in such a situation?
Nerdyguy
5 / 5 (12) Dec 05, 2011
The Soviet Union was never a serious "world ending" threat until the late 1970's. By then the US was much less afraid ironically....

The whole Red Scare was just that, a scare. The USSR never came anywhere close to reaching military parity with the United States. The closest it ever came was the late 70's and 80's, which by then relations were better and the engineered mass panic in the US was over.

It can be argued that much of the atrocities that took place within the USSR were carried out as perceived necessary measures to compete with a bellicose United States....

You wouldn't feel the need to arm up in such a situation?


Yes, clearly the Americans are to blame for the Cold War. Those nice, friendly Red Chinese and Bolsheviks were all like, "hey dude, let's smoke a peace pipe and be friends". And we Americans were all like, "no way, we're gonna secretly use capitalism to take over the world dude."

You seriously need to start your own comedy tour.
Shootist
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 05, 2011
Frank, in the early 60s, the problem wasn't so much USSR nuking US, it was USSR making war to the Rhine. Their "4" ICBMs (I don't believe your figure) might kill DC, but the Warsaw Pact could of put 20 million men in Bitburg in a matter of days or weeks.

That was the issue.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2011
FrankHerbert:
I don't think you understand just how complicated rocket science is. Those ones that "crashed" were designed to in order to glean extra information that otherwise the probe wouldn't have extracted.
Not all probes that crashed were intended to do so. Russia's Mars 2 and Mars 6, and the USA's Mars Polar Lander, for example, were unplanned/unexpected crash landings.
See the "Mars Scorecard" for an amusing report on the "game" between Mars and Earth, concerning attempts to get hardware sent properly: http://www.bio.ap...ard.html
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (105) Dec 05, 2011
No, the issue, internally within the innards of the inside of the middle of the interior of the United States (get the point...), was that Moscow was going to vaporize their children. V-a-p-o-r-i-z-e their c-h-i-l-d-r-e-n. If you actually lived through it, you must have a conveniently forgetful memory.

People were building bomb shelters long before MAD was ever an issue. This is a result of cultivated fear among the right in the US.

Also, I will freely admit I can't back up the "4 ICBM" figure. It was told to me by an extremely qualified professor during the course of a lecture. The figure stuck with me. The point isn't that they had 4, the point is they didn't have enough to initiate MAD, in which case had the Cold War actually ignited prior to the 70's, it would have been a decisive US victory with something on the order of ~10 million US causalities.
Shelgeyr
2 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2011
...which scientists are calling the stagnation region


It is a plasma double layer. I so wish they'd use the existing terminology rather than make up their own.
Argiod
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 05, 2011
We can make satellites that are still functioning 119 AU's out in space; but still cannot make a car that lasts beyond its warantee... What is wrong with this picture?
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (102) Dec 05, 2011
^Capitalism
Argiod
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2011
Also, I will freely admit I can't back up the "4 ICBM" figure. It was told to me by an extremely qualified professor during the course of a lecture. The figure stuck with me. The point isn't that they had 4, the point is they didn't have enough to initiate MAD, in which case had the Cold War actually ignited prior to the 70's, it would have been a decisive US victory with something on the order of ~10 million US causalities.


LOL, the Arms Race is like two men, sitting in a pool of gasoline: one has three matches, the other has six. As with your example, the numbers are meaningless in the face of what any one nuclear bomb can do. One... is one too many!
Argiod
1.8 / 5 (11) Dec 05, 2011
Not bad for something built in the same era as the Ford Pinto...


Yeah; now if only we could build a Pinto that could last so long without maintainance... Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had put all that money and technology to better use improving the lives of all creatures on the face of the Earth? Space is fascinating, I'll grant; but by the time we realize a decent Return On Investment, we very well may have destroyed ourselves and the planet.
Nanobanano
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2011
Nerdguy:

The CIA did covert brainwashing experiments on our own citizens under the guise of medical research, including prolonged drugging, shocking people until they no longer resisted and became amnesiac, and hypnosis and other forms of "programming". You can throw the declaration, the constitution, and bill of rights out the window, because that's what they even did to our own citizens, and even some of their own agents.

Risk assessment?

Well, wasn't it the CIA who said Iraq had WMD, but never found anything?

They can't assess anything. They suck, except apparently when it comes to breaking the laws and basic human rights of our own people..
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (102) Dec 05, 2011
Also, I will freely admit I can't back up the "4 ICBM" figure. It was told to me by an extremely qualified professor during the course of a lecture. The figure stuck with me. The point isn't that they had 4, the point is they didn't have enough to initiate MAD, in which case had the Cold War actually ignited prior to the 70's, it would have been a decisive US victory with something on the order of ~10 million US causalities.


LOL, the Arms Race is like two men, sitting in a pool of gasoline: one has three matches, the other has six. As with your example, the numbers are meaningless in the face of what any one nuclear bomb can do. One... is one too many!


The point is the two pools of gasoline had not merged into one until the late 70's. I'm not saying the US should have engaged in a nuclear war with the USSR when it had the chance. I'm very glad it didn't. I'm just stating that the Red Scare was a fraud perpetrated against the American people by the right.
Nanobanano
1.9 / 5 (12) Dec 05, 2011
We can make satellites that are still functioning 119 AU's out in space; but still cannot make a car that lasts beyond its warantee... What is wrong with this picture?


FrankHebert has it right.

In a society that defines a "strong economy" based solely on the number of paper dollars you make, there is no incentive for companies to make products that last.

Instead, products are specifically tested and designed to fail by the next design cycle, so that the "consumer" must buy them again.

This is how they maximize their "paper" profits in "dollars", the imaginary currency of imaginary wealth. It's one reason why the rich make 10 times more than ever before relative to the average.

You can buy a light bulb made in china, and it lasts for years and years, and pays for itself several times per year compared to the U.S. counterpart.
Nanobanano
1.8 / 5 (11) Dec 05, 2011
I'm just stating that the Red Scare was a fraud perpetrated against the American people by the right.


You're probably right.

The republican agenda in this country appears to be:

1, make the wealthiest 1 or 2 percent as rich as possible while bankrupting everyone else.

2, make ten times more military than we will ever need, for no apparent reason, or else as yet another way to bilk billions and trillions from the people.

3, Absolutely NO TAXES on anyone who can actually afford to pay taxes.

4, Raise taxes on the poor and middle class, and kick gramma to the curve, and tell them "that's Freedom"- Ron Paul.

Ron Paul and Paul Ryan should both be kicked out of office and banned from ever holding public office again. Oh yeah, and Herman Cain with his "999" tax-the-hell-out of the average plan.
Telekinetic
1.8 / 5 (12) Dec 05, 2011
"Above a certain level in the world there are no 'sides'. There is only one Side; EMPIRE."- GhostofOtto
You mean REICH when you say Enpire, don't you, Herr Otto? The same REICH where your Fuhrer failed. Go peddle your Nazi claptrap elsewhere.
Nerdyguy
2.4 / 5 (11) Dec 05, 2011
The CIA did covert brainwashing experiments on our own citizens under the guise of medical research, including prolonged drugging,...


No end to the delusions of some people. You just kind of have to nod your head and smile. Then look away real fast.

Well, wasn't it the CIA who said Iraq had WMD, but never found anything?

They can't assess anything. They suck, except apparently when it comes to breaking the laws and basic human rights of our own people..


You've implied you're an American. Which is astounding, considering the incredible naivete and lack of fact you're throwing around here in regards to a government agency that helps protect you from external threats.

In summary, your brilliant assessment of the greatest intelligence organization ever assembled is "they suck", except at "breaking laws". Congratulations, I bet your parents are really proud.
Nerdyguy
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2011
The point is the two pools of gasoline had not merged into one until the late 70's. I'm not saying the US should have engaged in a nuclear war with the USSR when it had the chance. I'm very glad it didn't. I'm just stating that the Red Scare was a fraud perpetrated against the American people by the right.


It's unclear in what country you make your home Franky baby. I'd be much obliged if you'd share that information. You've said a few things in the past that implied you were American. Later posts have contradicted that. Please clarify.

I find it fascinating that you reached the amazing conclusion -- somehow missed by researchers, historians, and political analysts for several generations -- that not only was the Cold War solely the "fault" of America, it was very specifically the political right (conservatives) of America. I would highly recommend you seek a publisher and get writing, as this would make an excellent book. File under: Fiction, Conspiracy Theories.
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (102) Dec 05, 2011
The CIA did covert brainwashing experiments on our own citizens under the guise of medical research, including prolonged drugging,...

No end to the delusions of some people. You just kind of have to nod your head and smile. Then look away real fast.


Are you serious? You're almost as bad as Pirouette with your need to pontificate bad information.

http://en.wikiped..._MKULTRA
Project MKULTRA, or MK-ULTRA, was the code name for a covert, illegal CIA human experimentation program, run by the CIA's Office of Scientific Intelligence. This official U.S. government program began in the early 1950s, continued at least through the late 1960s, and used U.S. and Canadian citizens as its test subjects.
Nerdyguy
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 05, 2011
I'm just stating that the Red Scare was a fraud perpetrated against the American people by the right.


You're probably right.

The republican agenda in this country appears to be:

1, make the wealthiest 1 or 2 percent as rich as possible while bankrupting everyone else.

2, make ten times more military than we will ever need, for no apparent reason, or else as yet another way to bilk billions and trillions from the people.

3, Absolutely NO TAXES on anyone who can actually afford to pay taxes.

4, Raise taxes on the poor and middle class, and kick gramma to the curve, and tell them "that's Freedom"- Ron Paul.

Ron Paul and Paul Ryan should both be kicked out of office and banned from ever holding public office again. ...


I won't even touch the rest of this ludicrous, nonsensical and factually incorrect post. But, were you aware that Ron Paul and Rand Paul are quite different in their views and priorities? Naw, didn't think so.
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (102) Dec 05, 2011

I find it fascinating that you reached the amazing conclusion -- somehow missed by researchers, historians, and political analysts for several generations -- that not only was the Cold War solely the "fault" of America, it was very specifically the political right (conservatives) of America. I would highly recommend you seek a publisher and get writing, as this would make an excellent book. File under: Fiction, Conspiracy Theories.


You're intentionally conflating the Cold War with the Red Scare because you're a sophist. I obviously drew a distinction between the two, the latter engineered by the American right.
Nerdyguy
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA


Pirouette? Really? So, your point would be to equate ME with a conspiracy theorist, when I am suggesting that your conspiracy theory lunacy is literally incredible? What's the rationale there?

In any case, your brilliant Wiki article is good for a laugh, if nothing else. Early on, we see this statement:

"Because most MKULTRA records were deliberately destroyed in 1973 by order of then CIA director Richard Helms, it has been difficult, if not impossible, for investigators to gain a complete understanding of the more than 150 individually funded research sub-projects ..."

And then -- despite admitting that nothing is actually known or verified -- the authors immediately begin explaining the intricate details of this super-secret program.

Woot! Way too much entertainment for me this late at night.
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2011
You're intentionally conflating the Cold War with the Red Scare because you're a sophist. I obviously drew a distinction between the two, the latter engineered by the American right.


Naw, chalk it up to being up past my bedtime. If you go back to the original comment that got this thing started, the issue was the Cold War. I still don't see anywhere that you made a distinction between the two, but upon rereading I can see where you started talking about the Red Scare. My earlier posts in rebuttal to you used the term "Cold War" and you said nothing, so I didn't think much about it. In addition, you jump back and forth in your posts, interspersing the term "Red Scare" while responding to my comments. Thus, no distinction was made.

BTW, one definition of "sophist" is "scholar or thinker". I appreciate the compliment.
Nerdyguy
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2011
@FrankyBaby:

Just going to ignore that request to share with us all your location of residence?

No way did you just miss it - you've gone through my comments with a fine-tooth comb and pulled out things I didn't remember I'd written.

So, man up big boy and go on record. Or is it just way too easy to sit back and hide under your shield of anonymity?
Silverhill
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 05, 2011
Argiod:
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had put all that money and technology to better use improving the lives of all creatures on the face of the Earth? Space is fascinating, I'll grant; but by the time we realize a decent Return On Investment, we very well may have destroyed ourselves and the planet.
According to an engineer who worked with the L-5 society (now part of the National Space Society), the American people's ROI was impressive. Just the *tax* revenues from private-sector development of spin-offs from the manned space program (up through Apollo) were greater than the tax expenditures by 13:1. (Now think about the *total* money that was put to use in the economy as a whole.)
Silverhill
4.3 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2011
Nerdyguy:
In any case, your brilliant Wiki article is good for a laugh, if nothing else. Early on, we see this statement:

"Because most MKULTRA records were deliberately destroyed in 1973 by order of then CIA director Richard Helms, it has been difficult, if not impossible, for investigators to gain a complete understanding of the more than 150 individually funded research sub-projects ..."

And then -- despite admitting that nothing is actually known or verified -- the authors immediately begin explaining the intricate details of this super-secret program.
"Difficult to gain complete understanding" != "nothing is actually known". I don't know the intimate details of those programs, but I know that you should not get carried away with hyperbole -- or outright error -- in your responses.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 06, 2011
Re: "It is a plasma double layer. I so wish they'd use the existing terminology rather than make up their own."

Indeed. Rumor on the street is that a 100-fold increase in the electron intensity is what the new electrical framework expects in the virtual cathode region of the solar discharge boundary. We are witnessing the birth of a new scientific framework, and no matter how loudly one yells, it would seem that only a handful would understand what laboratory plasma physics tells us that the virtual cathode should look like.

But I hear that Ralph Juergens just scored a point.
Jayded
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2011
@ Nerdy Guy - Proof that the brainwashed dont see the edges.

@ Frank - It may be complex, it may be difficult but my word the discoveries are fantastical. I wish we could send out more probes with better AI and communication abilities.
YummyFur
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2011
It makes me happy to know that there's this little electronic gadget pooting through space eleven billion miles away sent on its way 34 years ago and it's still sending a few photons back to Earth and those photons are carrying information that we can understand.
Peteri
5 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2011
LOL. Never ceases to amaze me how these discussion threads so quickly drift off-topic and degenerate into parochial playground squabbles about political or religious beliefs!

Back on topic, I wonder how much longer we will be able to receive telemetry from the Voyagers before either their on-board thermo-electric power supplies run-down or the signal strength of their transmissions fall below the level that we can detect here on earth due to the increasingly vast distances separating us from the craft?
Isaacsname
5 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2011
...which scientists are calling the stagnation region


It is a plasma double layer. I so wish they'd use the existing terminology rather than make up their own.


Question, if it's a layer of plasma with defined boundaries of electron density, could they bounce signals off it like we do with the ionosphere, and if so, why haven't we before ?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (9) Dec 06, 2011
No, but I did just see you make up a big old crapola sandwich and try to feed it to everyone.
Hahaaa that's funny.

The world was never in danger of nuclear annihilation


Ummm....yeah, OK there big boy. Some of your conspiracy theories are decidedly more entertaining than others.
The world was NEVER in danger of nuclear war. It was a big SHOW. What, do you think the People in Charge of such things would want to soil Their own nests? Ruin the future for Their own descendants?

The people are the enemy. Leaders have been making war on us for a few thousand years, by dividing us up and setting us against one another. They've become very good at it.

Just one little example of many many... The timing of the Cuban missile crisis. It had been a decade since Korea and the west had forgotten who the enemy was and what he was capable of. And a war was needed in southeast Asia because overpopulation had made a mess again.

This is how the world Works.
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2011
Ghost, governments often operate in secret and hide their motivations from the public, particularly when they reach a certain size. However, capitalizing the word "never" doesn't make your statement any less false... it's a fact that both the US and the USSR had (and still have) enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the world several times over.

The Voyager space probe, on the other hand, is a testament to the ingenuity of mankind. We have a probe that's been operating for 35 years, that still has a suite of working and relevent scientific instruments, still has the ability to maneuver and can communicate with us from 119 AU away. This is a fact worth focusing on. It's something that provides light to an otherwise dark and dreary present, something that will hopefully continue to inspire us to push the boundaries
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2011
PS, that wasn't meant to be focused at you... I apologize if it seemed to be. Had I known my original comment would cause a conversation on Soviet-era politics, I wouldn't have made it
Baseline
5 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2011
The cold war was nothing compared to the war on terror in terms of just what it means for the military establishment. It is most fortunate for the US military that after WWII the cold war began. After all those billions spent defeating the Axis how could they possibly have hoped to continue to get billions in funding without a super scary enemy to prepare to fight? At least the cold war had victory conditions that could be known. The US military again becomes most fortunate that the war on terror seems to really get going just as the cold war comes to an end. After all a standing army and one whos budget far outpaces the rest of the world combined needs an enemy to justify it's existance. I imagine it is very good for their budget that there will never be victory conditions for this war. Found those WMD's yet?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2011
Ghost, governments often operate in secret and hide their motivations from the public, particularly when they reach a certain size. However, capitalizing the word "never" doesn't make your statement any less false... it's a fact that both the US and the USSR had (and still have) enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the world several times over.
Fissiles are the most valuable material that a civilization at our stage of development can possess. Fissiles are freedom. They are protection. They are security in a violent and uncertain universe and a world full of violent, uncertain human beings.

As the production of this material was Inevitable, it behooved Those in Charge to produce it quickly and in overwhelming amounts so as to continue to maintain Their control over Their world and to provide it as much protection as possible.
cont
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (101) Dec 06, 2011
Alexis de Tocqueville predicted in the 1820's the greatest threat the US (or a democracy in general) would ever face would be a never ending war against an amorphous enemy.

Quite prescient, don't you think? This is why conservatives scare the hell out of me. They are going down a road there is no return from, and being as smart as they all like to think they are they should know better. It's the blind leading the blind and everyone thinks their tetrachromatic. It's ridiculous.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2011
Fissiles enabled the conquest of the oceans and an overwhelming superiority over any and all renegades and upstarts. They gave us a secure and dependable alternative source of energy.

They enabled the creation of vast isolated underground settlements as protection from plague and natural disaster until such time as we can scatter our eggs about the inner system. Yeah theyre there because they CAN be there. Fissiles made them POSSIBLE. And so their creation was an Essentiality. An Unavoidability. A Mandate.

Fissiles will enable a seed population to leave the planet quickly and permanently should an emergency arise. We are thus now a little less in danger of extinction.

And this was all made possible solely BECAUSE the US and the USSR just happened to become dire enemies at just the right Time for all this to occur. And most everyone bought this enormous LIE that all that life-saving material was produced in order that we may potentially END life out of greed and insanity.

Get real.
Bitflux
4.9 / 5 (9) Dec 06, 2011
its sad, this is a scientific website, and its filled with people showing off the size of their dicks and not their brains.
Guy_Underbridge
4.7 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2011
its sad, this is a scientific website, and its filled with people showing off the size of their dicks and not their brains.
Nah, just how far they can piss. They won't commit on dick measurements.
NotAsleep
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2011
it's a fact that both the US and the USSR had (and still have) enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the world several times over.
Indeed. Together. Good cop or bad cop - you have no choice but to deal with one or the other. And if you choose the USSR they will sell you junk weapons like they did israels enemies, and you will be overwhelmed. Or like the elite iraqi republican guard... annihilated.

This is how wars are Engineered and the Results of them Predetermined. US/USSR; 2 sides, 1 coin. East/west, moslem/Xian, sunni/shiite, etcetc - EMPIRE.

The israeli garrison state owns the ability to ensure its own perpetuity.
http://en.wikiped...tockpile

That bridgehead will NOT fail.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2011
Sorry for those that can't stand this stuff but I can't stand all the mistakes. Further down I will make an on topic post, already wrote it. So here I go attacking ignorance as ever.

Their "4" ICBMs (I don't believe your figure) might kill DC,
Neither do I. I think it was more like zero. We had short range missiles on their border in Turkey. I am not sure that Kennedy knew that at the time but he certainly knew the Russians best chance to hurt the US was to just blow up all their bombs. They didn't really need to deliver them if all they wanted was to destroy the US. Which they weren't crazy enough to do.

Well it was more than zero. More that four:
http://en.wikiped...e_Crisis
Quote in next post>>
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2011
When Kennedy ran for president in 1960, one of his key election issues was an alleged "missile gap", with the Soviets leading. In fact, the United States led the Soviets. In 1961, the Soviets had only four intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). By October 1962, they may have had a few dozen, although some intelligence estimates were as high as 75.[10]

The United States, on the other hand, had 170 ICBMs and was quickly building more. It also had eight George Washington and Ethan Allen class ballistic missile submarines with the capability to launch 16 Polaris missiles each with a range of 2,200 kilometres (1,400 mi).
This is why I sometimes check. I also like to post what I was thinking before I checked.

I don't know who was crazier. Kennedy or Khrushchev BUT I am certain the US generals that thought we should launch were fucking insane. Fortunately neither K was that crazy.
>>
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2011
Warsaw Pact could of put 20 million men in Bitburg in a matter of days or weeks.

That was the issue.
For us yes. For Khrushchev it was the nukes in Turkey. He didn't see any difference between our nukes there and his in Cuba especially after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He had a point but he didn't have the tools as there wasn't a damn thing he could about the nukes in Turkey if he wasn't willing to go to war. Keep in mind that both Ks fought in WWII but Russia bleed and bleed in the snow in the mud in the streets on the steppes in the cities pretty everywhere west of the Urals there were dead Russians by the millions. 600,000 died taking Berlin. They had no delusions about the horrors of a hot war.

For all the perfidy and evil of the Soviet system it wasn't likely to start a war with the West as they knew that win or lose they would lose more than anyone could afford and that is without nukes. Take a look at the delivery systems.>>
Nerdyguy
1.1 / 5 (39) Dec 07, 2011
@frankherbert: still hiding behind that anonymity and refusing to announce your country of origin? Seriously, that's just beyond cowardly. You spend 95% of your posts ripping on America and its shortcomings, and can't have the decency to admit where you're from? Had I known that question would shut you up like it did, I would have asked it a long time ago.
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2011
Aircraft carriers. Without looking it up the US had four or more. Russia zip.

Long range strategic bombers. US hundreds. Russia the backfire bomber that US overrated and was pretty worthless for reaching the US or even France.

Boomers - US eight submarines with 16 missiles each. Soviets nada.

Long range interceptors. US lots. Russia none. The Russian fighters looked good on paper but had little range.

Tanks. OK there the Russians had a LOT. However Russian tanks have always looked better on paper then in combat. They were creamed by Israeli Shermans and Centurions. Mostly because of tactics. I suppose the Arabs didn't do as well as Soviets would have but they were trained in Russian tactics.

Artillery. US guns were and are shorter range just like in the Persian Gulf War but they move much faster and don't hang around to get hit. Might be a wash as I think the Russians had rather a lot of artillery. The question is who could keep them supplied the longest.>>
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2011
Basically the Russians knew they would be severely damaged and could only attack the Germans directly before things would get really nasty for them.

This is why the conflicts between the West and the East took place with surrogates and a lot of posturing.

The catch is that for most of us in America this is hindsight as the US military seems to have made every effort to overate the Russians at all times and in almost all ways.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2011
FH
V-a-p-o-r-i-z-e their c-h-i-l-d-r-e-n. If you actually lived through it, you must have a conveniently forgetful memory.
Yes that is what we thought. I was one of the children that had the crap scared out of me(figuratively). I often worried about everyone being killed in WW III. But the fact is the Russians were the ones that would have been vaporized and they knew it.

The point isn't that they had 4, the point is they didn't have enough to initiate MAD
I heard the Russians thought that was an insane concept. Which it was.

it would have been a decisive US victory with something on the order of ~10 million US causalities.
might have been more, mostly from fallout crossing the Pacific and soldiers in Europe.

I'm just stating that the Red Scare was a fraud perpetrated against the American people by the right.
More from the Military. And I am not sure how much was intentional and how much simply paranoia due to inadequate intelligence.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2011
Russian tanks have always looked better on paper then in combat. They were creamed by Israeli Shermans and Centurions.
Nicht wahr Herr
Pimmelkopf:

"The T-34 was a Soviet medium tank produced from 1940 to 1958. Although its armour and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II"

-North Korea invaded with 150 T-34s in 1950. The thing is, although Russia had become very proficient in tank design from experience on the eastern front, it didn't continue to improve it's tech, relying instead on it's reputation and position as arch-enemy of western forces, to consistently sell junk to it's allies such as the Arab nations.

This one factor alone can account for the major upsets in Arab/Israeli conflicts, and for the US victories in iraq, the balkans and elsewhere.

They were capable of building superior weapons but instead sold the future losers hype and junk.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2011
No end to the delusions of some people.
Sorry but they really did do at least some of that. Tested LSD on unwitting Americans for instance.

In summary, your brilliant assessment of the greatest intelligence organization ever assembled is "they suck",
No that would be Bletchly Park and the Americans that did the work on the Japanese codes. The Russians had better intelligence most of the Cold War and they were still inferior to the US and British work in WWII. Which was before the CIA.

The CIA did some crazy stupid stuff. They actually thought they could win in Laos. DUMB.

They also managed some brilliant work which people often forget and many if not most of the bad stuff is nonsense but yes they did do some things that were so bad it is hard to comprehend that Americans could have been responsible for them.

http://en.wikiped..._MKULTRA

Oh and VD should note that the Canadians were involved in this as well. They helped the CIA.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2011
This one factor alone can account for the major upsets in Arab/Israeli conflicts, and for the US victories in iraq, the balkans and elsewhere.
No. The main reason in the Six War, besides utter incompetence of the generals and the idiocy of getting caught with their pants down before they finished fucking around getting ready to invade, was that the Soviet tactic was to fight buttoned up and the Israeli's had the tank commander with his head out whenever possible. First sight = first shot = first kill.

And yes the Soviet tanks looked good on paper. Shermans looked bad even with the new guns the Israelis put in them. Might have even been inferior in reality except for the inferior procedures.

As for Iraq, the Soviet tanks aren't in the same class as the Abrams. They can't afford to build that kind of monster, we were barely willing. And depleted uranium sabots are nasty stuff. They penetrate and then ignite. About all I can say the tank crews must have died really fast.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2011
Which you so graciously point out:
Long range interceptors. US lots. Russia none. The Russian fighters looked good on paper but had little range.
In further discussion...
This is why the conflicts between the West and the East took place with surrogates and a lot of posturing.
These conflicts to which you refer took place in regions rife with exploding populations in the thrall of virulent religions. Conflict there was inevitable and imminent. Southeast Asia, Korea, and the Arab world would have exploded by themselves anyway. Instead they were aligned with the superpowers and their conflicts could proceed in Manageable and Constructive ways.

When the ayatollah took over it seemed the logical result would have been a joint Iran/Iraq/Palestinian move against Israel. But instead, inexplicably, Baathist Iraq attacked Iran and proceeded with a very orderly 11 year war of attrition which did little else but defuse this potential. Shiite gegen Shiite - mohammud forbids this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2011
No. The main reason in the Six War, besides utter incompetence of the generals and the idiocy of getting caught with their pants down before they finished blah
Indeed. Fighting with junk and trained how to use it badly by russians. Russians who got their experience fighting the SS in the Crimea. It was a setup.
No that would be Bletchly Park and the Americans that did the work on the Japanese codes. The Russians had better intelligence most of the Cold War and they were still inferior to the US and British work in WWII. Which was before the CIA.
The best way to share sensitive and valuable info is through spy networks. It can be conveyed by pros and tightly controlled. Many many examples of agents 'captured' and turned, of people like oppenheimer and canaris sharing freely.

The USSR was given much of it's tech so it could remain a useful competitor. Breathtaking innovation and Progress was the Result.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2011
You mean REICH when you say Enpire, don't you, Herr Otto?
He means the Illuminati. You haven't read much of Otto have you?

Ethelred
Nerdyguy
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2011
Basically the Russians knew they would be severely damaged and could only attack the Germans directly before things would get really nasty for them.

This is why the conflicts between the West and the East took place with surrogates and a lot of posturing.

The catch is that for most of us in America this is hindsight as the US military seems to have made every effort to overate the Russians at all times and in almost all ways.

Ethelred


Just entertaining as hell watching people re-write history before your very eyes.
Nerdyguy
1.6 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2011
...The CIA did some crazy stupid stuff. They actually thought they could win in Laos. DUMB.

They also managed some brilliant work which people often forget and many if not most of the bad stuff is nonsense but yes they did do some things that were so bad it is hard to comprehend that Americans could have been responsible for them.

http://en.wikiped..._MKULTRA

Oh and VD should note that the Canadians were involved in this as well. They helped the CIA.

Ethelred


Again, you've quoted the same idiotic article as another commenter, which starts off (as all these nutty-ass, conspiracy-theory, "the evil CIA is testing evil substances on Americans" garbage) by explaining how it's "difficult IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE" to determine anything about this subject.

Then the goofballs march on, explaining intricate details of things they've just told you they know almost nothing about. Hilarious stuff. Who needs SNL?

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2011
You mean REICH when you say Enpire, don't you, Herr Otto?
He means the Illuminati. You haven't read much of Otto have you?

Ethelred
Naw YOU mean the illuminati. More extraordinary evidence:

"Mr. Hastings dismisses claims that President Franklin Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked to draw the US into war. But he says it is nonetheless extraordinary that the US political and military leadership did not ensure that Pearl Harbor and other Pacific bases were on full precautionary footing."
http://www.csmoni...(page)/2

-Extraordinary evidence abounds.

"Many air commanders supported such a follow-up, believing that fuel dumps, repair shops, and other US logistical sites were now vulnerable.

"A cautious commander, Nagumo decided against more action."
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2011
"Why did the Japanese attack a nation whose industrial might was an order of magnitude larger? Why didnt the US see the signs that a strike was coming? Who in the US chain of command was most responsible for American unpreparedness?"

"The nakedness of America's Pacific bases continues to puzzle posterity, writes British journalist and historian Max Hastings in his gripping new history of World War II, "Inferno.""

"Destruction of Pearl Harbors infrastructure might have forced the US to withdraw its naval forces to the US West Coast. For decades, some historians have argued that Nagumo missed an opportunity"

"Most important, a US public that had been divided over entry into the war became united at a stroke."

-Just liker 9/11. And the battleship Maine. And the lusitania. And the Reichstag fire. And soviet missiles in cuba. And Guy Fawkes. etc...etc...etc.

'No matter what the public sentiment, it can be quickly and thoroughly changed by Events of sufficient magnitude.'

EMPIRE.
Nerdyguy
1.1 / 5 (37) Dec 07, 2011
@FrankHerbert: PM'ing nasty messages is a clear violation of the PhysOrg policies. Just a friendly reminder.
Nerdyguy
1.1 / 5 (34) Dec 07, 2011
^report abuse


Are you suggesting that I report your nasty PMs to PhysOrg? I guess I could do that. To be honest, it seems a little silly and juvenile. But, OK. It's easy enough.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2011
Just entertaining as hell watching people re-write history before your very eyes.
Yes. I got tired of seeing you do that.

Again, you've quoted the same idiotic article as another commenter
For Nerdguy being accurate but annoying to his thinking = idiotic.

the evil CIA is testing evil substances on Americans"
It does no such thing. HOWEVER the CIA did do it and obviously you think it is evil.

by explaining how it's "difficult IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE" to determine anything about this subject.
It did no such thing. Lying like that won't make it true. It actually said:

it has been difficult, if not impossible, for investigators to gain a complete understanding
And you have had the gall to complain about the way I quote. Deliberately cutting things short to change the meaning is something I never do.>>
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2011
Then the goofballs march on, explaining intricate details of things they've just told you they know almost nothing about.
READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE.

Hilarious stuff. Who needs SNL?
You need to read and cutting quotes to change the meaning.

the Church Committee and Rockefeller Commission investigations relied on the sworn testimony of direct participants and on the relatively small number of documents that survived Helms' destruction order

In 1977, a Freedom Of Information Act request uncovered a cache of 20,000 documents[7] relating to project MKULTRA,


Now do you want to show even more defects in your reading or was that just a bunch of intentional lie hoping no one would notice?

Ethelred
Nerdyguy
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2011
The cold war was nothing compared to the war on terror in terms of just what it means for the military establishment. It is most fortunate for the US military that after WWII the cold war began.


Yeah, they were just so "lucky". I'm sure every last one of those heroes who'd just been shot at for many years and were finally getting a chance to go home sat back and said, "you know, I just wish we could do this some more."

You clearly no nothing about the military, the military mindset, or the military man. While the military is as diverse as any organization in terms of the political views, etc. of its members, those who are fortunate enough to actually know real soldiers, sailors, marines and pilots are familiar with the concept that the vast majority of soldiers recognize the importance of peace like no civilian really can.

Your post is clearly an anti-American tirade. Which is fine, but you should label it accordingly.

Nerdyguy
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 07, 2011
For Nerdguy being accurate but annoying to his thinking = idiotic.


Ethelred, this is a figment of your imagination. I go out of my way to stick to the topic. And, I said specifically that the article was idiotic. Which it clearly is. Just because you are emotionally swayed by conspiracy theories does not mean they are "real".

the evil CIA is testing evil substances on Americans"
It does no such thing. HOWEVER the CIA did do it and obviously you think it is evil.

No idea what this meant. Typo maybe?

by explaining how it's "difficult IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE" to determine anything about this subject.
It did no such thing. Lying like that won't make it true. It actually said:

it has been difficult, if not impossible, for investigators to gain a complete understanding
And you have had the gall to complain about the way I quote. Deliberately cutting things short to change the meaning is something I never do.>>

Ummm...isn't that the same? ?????
Nerdyguy
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2011
READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE.


I did, but only because I enjoy fiction so much.

Any article that starts off with the author explaining how it's difficult if not IMPOSSIBLE to determine the facts, but then tells you THE FACTS without any caveat...gimmee a break. Gullibility and naivete aren't among my strong suits.

Hilarious stuff. Who needs SNL?
You need to read and cutting quotes to change the meaning.


lmao. For the record, then:

MY VERSION:
"difficult IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE" to determine anything about this subject.

ETHELRED VERSION:
"difficult, if not impossible, for investigators to gain a complete understanding"

I fail to see the dramatic difference between the two. Would you really refer to this as lying? I propose that you are letting your ego and anger get the best of you. My point is valid, despite the fact that the great and powerful Ethelred doesn't like it.

Nerdyguy
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2011
@Ethelred: do you really find it necessary to go back to the 3rd grade, and label people as "liars" because they don't agree with you?

Now do you want to show even more defects in your reading or was that just a bunch of intentional lie hoping no one would notice?


Why lie? I'm genuinely proud of the fact that I'm not naive enough to believe the massive mountain of ridiculous claims by conspiracy theorists that do not stand up to the light of day.

Unless you've personally worked on a CIA operation code-named MKULTRA, the fact is that you are getting your news from the same sources as me: public websites and news agencies.

When it comes to this particular subject, it's impossible to tell fact from fiction. Like you, I can list a whole bunch of seemingly intelligent-sounding articles on the subject, all of which essentially take the same info. and have a different opinion.

OR

I'm really a super-duper-special-agent and I'm trying to mind control you right now!
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (9) Dec 07, 2011
I go out of my way to stick to the topic.
The topic is the Voyager. So no you didn't.

And, I said specifically that the article was idiotic.
And I showed you were wrong.

Just because you are emotionally swayed by conspiracy theories does not mean they are "real".
Just because you intentionally cut a quote short to change the meaning doesn't make the article false.

No idea what this meant. Typo maybe?
There are many things you don't understand like how to read.

Ummm...isn't that the same? ?????
No. Learn how to read. Or get a brain transplant.

"Determine anything" does not equal "for investigators to gain a complete understanding".

They determined a lot of things. They just didn't determine everything.

Nowhere did the article claim there was no information available. YOU lied by cutting the quote short.>>
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2011
Are you really that dense that you didn't understand that you made a profound change in meaning? If so why the hell are on this site? The Yahooligans will love idiotic thinking like that so try posting on Yahoo.

Any article that starts off with the author explaining how it's difficult if not IMPOSSIBLE to determine the facts,
Lie.

but then tells you THE FACTS without any caveat...gimmee a break
Lie.

Gullibility and naivete aren't among my strong suits.
Idiocy is.

fail to see the dramatic difference between the two.
Which is why I am pointing out that you are an idiot.

Would you really refer to this as lying?
Yes or stupid. Hard to tell with you.

I propose that you are letting your ego and anger get the best of you.
I propose that you can't read. I don't get angry just because you make stupid remarks.

My point is valid, despite the fact that the great and powerful Ethelred doesn't like it.
Your point was the product of idiocy.>>
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2011
@Ethelred: do you really find it necessary to go back to the 3rd grade, and label people as "liars" because they don't agree with you?
You started calling people idiots. And lying is lying no matter what grade your reading level is. Yours is very low or you lied. Choose one.

Why lie?
You will have to answer that yourself. The alternative is that you just can't comprehend much. I suspect the latter but the former is a bit nicer to call you.

I'm genuinely proud of the fact that I'm not naive enough to believe the massive mountain of ridiculous claims by conspiracy theorists that do not stand up to the light of day.
Only there were no ridiculous claims except yours.

, the fact is that you are getting your news from the same sources as me: public websites and news agencies.
In this case a Congressional investigation was the source. With 20,000 documents and witnesses.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2011
When it comes to this particular subject, it's impossible to tell fact from fiction
It's easy. You posted the fiction. Accidentally or deliberately it is still fiction.

I'm really a super-duper-special-agent and I'm trying to mind control you right now!
Or you really can't comprehend the concept of actual documents and actual witnesses.

Go ahead show where they had no documentation and no witnesses.

The CIA has more jobs then just intelligence gathering. Conspiracy is actually one of those jobs. They are supposed to conspire against American's enemies but sometimes they have been completely out of control and Laos was not the only time. For instance we KNOW that Helms destroyed most but no all of the documents and THAT was a conspiracy. WE paid for those documents. He conspired with others in the CIA to cover up something. The Congressional investigation was able to determine some of it. It wasn't pretty and your attempts to obfuscate this isn't pretty either.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2011
Unless you've personally worked on a CIA operation code-named MKULTRA, the fact is that you are getting your news from the same sources as me: public websites and news agencies.
Naw MKULTRA is true. You only disbelieve it because somebody labeled it a conspiracy theory for you, and you are far too worldly and mature and rational to entertain such things as conspiracy theories arent you?

Dupe.
Shelgeyr
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 09, 2011
Unless you've personally worked on a CIA operation code-named MKULTRA...


Naw MKULTRA is true. You only disbelieve it because somebody labeled it a conspiracy theory for you...


Girls! Girls! You're BOTH pretty!
naqe
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2011
Why is there so much talk about politics? This is amazing. We will finally (the whole world!) get some info on what's going on beyond the heliosphere. I wonder how many people behind the voyager projects won't live to see this data... I for one have been waiting for a long time for these probes to give us some data. And I wasn't even born when they were sent off...
Skepticus
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 11, 2011
I thought this was about Voyager, not about the Mossad asking for people address, nor the CIA blaming the KGB and the GRU and vice versa for the snafus of the Cold War, nor a boxing ring where they stop reasoning like men and go at each other for rounds after rounds..stick to science debate, gentlemen. If you are affiliated to those agencies, your time spent here arguing just proves that taxpayers' money are wasted, you are overpaid and under-employed. Over and out.
ZombieArmy
not rated yet Dec 11, 2011
So about that Voyager.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2011
So who is stopping you guys from discussing Voyager? All you are doing is complaining.

How is that better than politics?

Contrast and compare - whining vs politics.

Please give evidence to support your claims.

References to Carl Sagan will receive bonus points.

Those that do not understand the reason for the bonus points are not eligible for the contest.

All entries become property of Physorg.com and will not be returned to the contestants without a self addressed email TCPIP container.

Peanuts may have been processed on this equipment.

Not to be taken with belladonna or strychnine.

Losers will be drawn and quartered for being whiny without justification.

Winners will receive an all expense paid trip to Mingapulco.

Due to the retirement of Ming and this not being his site in the first place the prize has been redacted.

But it sounded good when I thought of it.

Redacted has been found to be an obfuscatory word so it too has been redacted. Please replace with VOID.

Ethelred
SteveL
not rated yet Dec 12, 2011
Contrast and compare - whining vs politics.
Aren't they basically the same thing? I know I bemoan the fact that there is literally no one worth voting for.

FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (98) Dec 13, 2011
Contrast and compare - whining vs politics.
Aren't they basically the same thing? I know I bemoan the fact that there is literally no one worth voting for.



What is your view of the current political climate in the US compared to its history? To word it another way: do you think politics is worse in the US than it has ever been, better, or about average?

I'd like to hear your take on it.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2011
Aren't they basically the same thing?
Sometimes politics is not whining but instead is lashing out at random. See Sarah Palin for examples of random shooting when furry animals are not involved. Better yet Ms. Black Cocktail Dress as she has not shot in a non-random manner, ever.

I know I bemoan the fact that there is literally no one worth voting for.
One problem is that no Democrats are willing to run against Obama. That leaves the Republicans and they seem to have put ideology WAY in front of practicality these days. Basically it didn't work the first time so they redoubled as they couldn't possibly be wrong despite never having a single success in lowering the debt or decreasing the size of government since Eisenhower and he wasn't really a Republican.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2011
What is your view of the current political climate in the US compared to its history?
One side has lost its mind and the other is floundering around trying to repair the damage with the guys that caused the damage trying to sabotage any repairs as it would help the other party. Yes I do find the present Republican Party to be irrational and more in touch with the percieved needs of the Party than the actual needs of the country. I used to be a Republican and now I find them quite batshit insane.

Quick to the BatShit Mobile, Robin.

BatShitMan, is it really made of BatShit?

BatShitMan's reply in the Next Exciting BatShit post.
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (99) Dec 13, 2011
One side has lost its mind and the other is floundering around trying to repair the damage with the guys that caused the damage trying to sabotage any repairs as it would help the other party. Yes I do find the present Republican Party to be irrational and more in touch with the percieved needs of the Party than the actual needs of the country. I used to be a Republican and now I find them quite batshit insane.


Seems pretty accurate to me.

But do you think things are worse compared to other moments in US history? I think people tend to believe the time they live in is special, be it worse or better.

We have had various parties in various states of mental disease in control at various points in our history. How do you think this moment compares?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2011
Yes, Robin. BatShit is the foundation of all Right Thinking because it is cheap and makes such good fertilizer for RightWing ideas. Why, that is how I came up with the BatShitPlane with two RightWings. Now if I can just find the correct Right Handed Wing Nut Retainer Clip to keep them on we will be able to defeat all that Wrong Thinking that insists the BatShitPlane must have a wing on the Left.

But it smells and doesn't really do anything.

Negative thinking is harmful Robin. If you really believe the BatShit Mobile will get us to the scene of the crime it will do so. If it doesn't its all the Democrat's fault and we must use more BatShit. The answer is ALWAYS more BatShit. The only error is to not use enough BatShit.

More dubious insight to come.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2011
Well I was wondering where the term batshit insane came from and this was what I came up with after vast and deep research.

http://www.urband...20insane

While useful it didn't explain the antecedents.

http://ask.metafi...t-Batman

That didn't help either. My version is clearly best.

Ethelred Hardrede
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2011
But do you think things are worse compared to other moments in US history?
Why yes Robin I do. Not all moments of course but since WWII, yes.

think people tend to believe the time they live in is special, be it worse or better.
Of course this time is special. It contains ME. Whichever ME you choose. I choose Ethelred.

How do you think this moment compares?
No one has a clue but some think they know it all. In the past some people actually had a clue to reality as they COULD find their ass with both hands. When Governor MoonBeam(Governor Brown of California)is the clear headed one there is a real problem. And I am not sure that MoonBeam even has a clue anymore. Shuffling paper till the problem goes away is not always the right answer though it is still an often undervalued solution.

Ethelred Hardrede
SteveL
not rated yet Dec 13, 2011
Contrast and compare - whining vs politics.
Aren't they basically the same thing? I know I bemoan the fact that there is literally no one worth voting for.



What is your view of the current political climate in the US compared to its history? To word it another way: do you think politics is worse in the US than it has ever been, better, or about average?

I'd like to hear your take on it.
Oh, I have a bit of an understanding of history. We certainly are no worse than times in the past. The present times (whenever they are) are easily perceived as being "worse" than those of other times. Personally I really haven't "liked" any candidates of any party since Reagan or anyone else for that matter since I came of voting age. Basically I was raised a liberal Democrat. Jimmy Carter changed that for me, so I switched sides and became a Republican. George W changed that for me and I became an independent after his first term. Continued:
SteveL
5 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2011
Basically I'm in a position that I have to try to decide on who will do the least amount of damage to my country. It seems as if everyone who is running is either an incompetent idiot, a liar, flip-flops as the direction of the political wind changes or has repeatedly sold out compared to their campaign promises - or a combination of the above. It ain't pretty. There's not a darn one I can be proud of or who I can trust to respectfully represent the country I love. This is a dirty business.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2011
Jimmy Carter changed that for me, so I switched sides and became a Republican.
Funny that. Reagan changed me.

Specifically Greedy KillerWatt, his completely inappropriate Secretary of the Interior. That job was created by Teddy Roosevelt to conserve the National resources and he was so willing to expend them, before the Second Coming, yes really, the OIL COMPANIES thought he was overdoing it.

There is simply no way a competent man could have kept him on as long as Reagan did unless he wanted to use it all up also.

Ethelred
SteveL
not rated yet Dec 13, 2011
Jimmy Carter changed that for me, so I switched sides and became a Republican.
Funny that. Reagan changed me.

Specifically Greedy KillerWatt, his completely inappropriate Secretary of the Interior. That job was created by Teddy Roosevelt to conserve the National resources and he was so willing to expend them, before the Second Coming, yes really, the OIL COMPANIES thought he was overdoing it.

There is simply no way a competent man could have kept him on as long as Reagan did unless he wanted to use it all up also.

Ethelred
If we are paying attention, we learn in hindsight what was hidden from our foresight. It's OK that we are all looking for someone to fill (politically) our varrying expectations. For me Reagan was the only president I actually voted for - rather just to keep someone else out of office because they were more bone-headed. He actually made me like him because he seemed to have a positive can-do attitude without the baggage of past lies.
SteveL
not rated yet Dec 13, 2011
George W Bush showed me that clearly the Republicans have lost their way. The Republican party isn't conservative. John F. Kennedy was more conservative than modern Republicans. In modern times the "conservative" concept is a misnomer and doesn't fit the definition.

To me a true conservative:

1) Minds their own business, not that of their neighbors - unless the neighbors make it their business.
2) Takes care of their own first and when able takes care of others.
3) Saves for the unforseen and spends less than they take in.
4) Plans for eventualities.
5) Considers options and possibilities before reacting.
6) Treats others with respect and consideration.
7) Judges a tree by its fruit.
8) Expects decisions and policies to be made at the lowest level possible (State's Rights).
9) Is more interested in substance than the flashy show.
10) Protects their own, with their life if need be.
11) Protects our resources and the world we live in.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Dec 14, 2011

For me Reagan was the only president I actually voted for
I voted for him. Once. I voted for Nixon once. Too young the first time. And yes I had a rational reason at the time. He once said that if we had no reason to be in Vietnam we should get out. Too bad he didn't remember that and instead got caught in the mess that Johnson made.

He actually made me like him because he seemed to have a positive can-do attitude without the baggage of past lies.
Yes we can survive a total nuclear exchange. Two feet of Earth will do the trick. And I voted for him. My only excuse was that bit of stupidity wasn't from Reagan but one of his Cabinet members.

I once heard that when Reagan was given his first official briefing on the nuclear weapons he came out of the meeting with a gray face. He did seem to get over that 6 feet of earth idea real quick after becoming President.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Dec 14, 2011
John F. Kennedy was more conservative than modern Republicans.
Pretty much. Reagan wasn't as conservative as his worshipers claim and Kennedy wasn't as liberal as his worshippers think. I don't think Bush has any worshippers.

1) Minds their own business, not that of their neighbors - unless the neighbors make it their business.
That is not inherently conservative. It is American.

2) Takes care of their own first and when able takes care of others.
That is not being conservative. It is a bit self centered but reasonable depending on the balance.

3) Saves for the unforseen and spends less than they take in.
This is dependent on income but is vital for subsistence and near subsistence farmers. It makes no sense under many conditions. It ignores the advantages of borrowing now to pay for things that will be used over time. That is how England became rich even before they took control of India.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Dec 14, 2011
4) Plans for eventualities.
Common sense not conservative in any political sense. Borrowing to build a business is part of planning for eventualities.

5) Considers options and possibilities before reacting.
Well that one sure leaves out McCain and includes a lot of liberals. Certainly included Bill Clinton.

6) Treats others with respect and consideration.
Again not part of being conservative. Just an application of the Golden Rule. Karl Rove missed out on that one.

7) Judges a tree by its fruit.
OK that aphorism escapes me. I judge trees by many things. As an amateur photographer I tend to judge how they look during Magic Hour.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Dec 14, 2011
8) Expects decisions and policies to be made at the lowest level possible (State's Rights).
This one I have to completely disagree with. That isn't what States Rights have been about since the one time it was used to support human rights back during the Alien and Sedition Acts. Since then it has usually been shouted out to deny human rights. Sorry if you don't see it that way but do try taking a look at the actual history. Slavery, bigotry, stopping blacks from voting. Nothing good since the A&S Acts which were a hideous blot on an otherwise good man John Adams.

9) Is more interested in substance than the flashy show.
I take it you don't understand running for office is part of politics? Reagan sure did.

10) Protects their own, with their life if need be.
Again that is not conservative. It something that evolved in humans but in some cases this human instinct is taken advantage of by the power hungry.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Dec 14, 2011
11) Protects our resources and the world we live in.
I did mention Greedy Killerwatt. I should mention that Teddy is my favorite President. I suppose that has something to do with my despising Killerwatt.

Much of that was sound basic thinking not conservatism though many politicians use rhetoric based on that to gull the voters. At the moment the Republican Party is Radical not conservative and too many Democrats are just floundering about with no understanding that neither traditional Liberalism or Conservatism is right for the present much less a future none of them even remotely understand.

Obama is from the past. The Republican candidates want to go back to a fantasy past that never existed and was really pretty desperate for people living that didn't own farmland.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Dec 14, 2011
I do miss Bill Clinton. He understood the future better than any of these idiots. No, he wasn't perfect but at least he had a clue that the future will not be like the past. So did Teddy and I think Kennedy might have. The US needs someone with that understanding and the will to push it through. Heck, just someone that understands banking would be an improvement.

Ethelred
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (98) Dec 14, 2011
For me Reagan was the only president I actually voted for - rather just to keep someone else out of office because they were more bone-headed.


Maybe that should clue you in that you are bad at voting? I'm honestly not trying to be insulting, but if Reagan is the only guy you actually voted FOR and not as the lesser of two evils, well, I really don't know what to say to that.

That's inexcusable.
ZombieArmy
not rated yet Dec 14, 2011
So who is stopping you guys from discussing Voyager? All you are doing is complaining.

I like reading through relevant discussions to the article, it's pretty interesting. Not so interesting when I have to wade through 30 comments not even coming close to relating to the article, however.
SteveL
5 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2011
So who is stopping you guys from discussing Voyager? All you are doing is complaining.

I like reading through relevant discussions to the article, it's pretty interesting. Not so interesting when I have to wade through 30 comments not even coming close to relating to the article, however.
Just as with your post, no one seems to still have anything to say concerning the article. Other than complaining, the last on-topic post was 5 days ago.
SteveL
not rated yet Dec 15, 2011
2) Takes care of their own first and when able takes care of others.
That is not being conservative. It is a bit self centered but reasonable depending on the balance.
My helping to support my unemployed/underemployed sons and their families and helping to support my father in these difficult economic, times before giving money to charities like I used to, is a bit self-centered? Then so be it.

3) Saves for the unforseen and spends less than they take in.
This is dependent on income but is vital for subsistence and near subsistence farmers. It makes no sense under many conditions. It ignores the advantages of borrowing now to pay for things that will be used over time. That is how England became rich even before they took control of India.>>
I've been poor, but I've also noticed that even the poorest of us seems to be able to afford cigs and booze. We don't have to buy into the advertising confusing our wants for our needs.
SteveL
not rated yet Dec 15, 2011
7) Judges a tree by its fruit.
OK that aphorism escapes me. I judge trees by many things. As an amateur photographer I tend to judge how they look during Magic Hour.>>
This one should have been easy. It basically means that a person, company, group or party, should be judged by their actions, not by what they say. Do they have integrity? Do they honor their promises? Do they respect others? People and groups will say anything. It's their track record that really tells the tale.
SteveL
not rated yet Dec 15, 2011
For me Reagan was the only president I actually voted for - rather just to keep someone else out of office because they were more bone-headed.


Maybe that should clue you in that you are bad at voting? I'm honestly not trying to be insulting, but if Reagan is the only guy you actually voted FOR and not as the lesser of two evils, well, I really don't know what to say to that.

That's inexcusable.
I appreciate your opinion, but we all look for certain things in a political leader. We don't have to agree on which things or what we are looking for. It's our understanding that it's OK for others to be different and think differently that allows us to be a civilized society. When you, I, or someone else decides to threaten our differences that are protected by our constitutional rights, then we have a problem.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 15, 2011
Then so be it.
I did say it was reasonable. Depending on the balance which depends on the situation. I was just pointing out that it isn't conservative in any political sense.

I've been poor, but I've also noticed that even the poorest of us seems to be able to afford cigs and booze.
I don't smoke or drink. I do need an internet connection. That is my addiction.

We don't have to buy into the advertising confusing our wants for our needs.
Which again is not being conservative. It was the disconnect from the claim of Conservative that I was dealing with.

This one should have been easy. It basically means that a person, company, group or party, should be judged by their actions, not by what they say.
Then it wasn't very good aphorism. Much easier and clearer to say:

Judge by actions not words.

I was pointing out that there are many ways to judge things on which depends on the persons and circumstances.

And again this not Conservatism.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2011
Conservatism is about not changing things because the old ways worked. The catch is we live in a changing world and American conservatives often have a fantasy view of how well things worked in the past. For instance:

11) Protects our resources and the world we live in.
Yet you voted for Reagan. Twice apparently if not twice then it seems likely it was for his second term. His spendthrift ways with American resources is why I quit the Republican Party.

The Sierra Club is conservative. Reagan was often the antithesis and that worst part of Reagan is now a major aspect of the Republican Party.

Ethelred
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (96) Dec 15, 2011
I appreciate your opinion, but we all look for certain things in a political leader. We don't have to agree on which things or what we are looking for. It's our understanding that it's OK for others to be different and think differently that allows us to be a civilized society. When you, I, or someone else decides to threaten our differences that are protected by our constitutional rights, then we have a problem.


So you're saying Reagan wasn't a true conservative, correct? My point is, maybe "conservatism" isn't attainable. It's some ideal that no one can actually reach and politicians can only pay lip service to.

Basically my theory is the only politicians who would actually claim to be "conservative" are actually quite the opposite. They are playing with buzzwords because they know there are a bunch of people that listen for them. They however are not interested at all in fulfilling them.

It's like the flag pin scandal from the '08 election. I LOVE AMERICA MORE! NO ME!
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (97) Dec 15, 2011
Basically I think conservatives (at least the ones that have thought about their ideology and returned to it over and over) are lazy. Now I'm not talking about the single issue gun rights advocates, evangelicals, etc. I'm talking about people that have come to reasoned conclusions and still choose conservatism.

I also don't mean absolutely lazy, just politically. I believe generally these people have some sort of success in their given field, and are probably quite knowledgeable on a few topics. I believe this success leads to a certain amount of hubris with regards to analyzing the political process.

Political science is very complicated. It's I believe the second oldest science and has produced little if any useful theory. It's just damn complicated. Much like economics.

But because people are trusted with the right to vote, I believe every person tends to think they have some sort of expertise in politics. Everyone has there own opinions. Very few people say they don't know. cont
FrankHerbert
2.8 / 5 (97) Dec 15, 2011
I studied political science. In personal conversations (not in hostile online environments) I frequently say I don't know. MUCH more often than any person I know who by no means has "studied" the subject.
I can state for a damn near certainty that I am more uneasy and less willing to answer even simple political questions simply because I don't know. I HAD to study political science to come to that conclusion.
I believe the problem with reasoned conservatives is that they think they have the proper tools to come to absolute conclusions about politics. They don't. If I don't have them then the average dick on the street corner (conservative or liberal) has no idea what he is talking about either. But he can't admit it.
You voted for Reagen because he said the right things. He played you like a fiddle and you had no idea it was going on. Your hubris led you to believe you were voting for something that does not and probably cannot even exist.
Only the least cons. politicians claim to be.
SteveL
not rated yet Dec 16, 2011
So you're saying Reagan wasn't a true conservative, correct? My point is, maybe "conservatism" isn't attainable. It's some ideal that no one can actually reach and politicians can only pay lip service to.
My opinion is that I haven't seen anyone in politics who is a true conservative, including Reagan. It's like altruism. Have you ever found anyone who is truly and purely altruistic, with no self benefit or no self interest? Finding such may be rare, but it doesn't mean that it's not a worthy goal.

I guess my point, the point that caused me to post off topic like this is that you stated
This is why conservatives scare the hell out of me.
and I fell compelled to respond. I don't really think you fear true conservatives. I think you and I fear blind radacalism. The kind that wants to force us to speak, act and think as the state would have us. True conservatism would never ask you to vary from your consitutionally protected rights.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2011
True conservatism would never ask you to vary from your consitutionally protected rights.
Except for one word, ASK, that goes for true Liberals, Progressives, Conservatives or any other American that has anything resembling the spirit of America EXCEPT for that ASK part. Replace that with DEMAND or LAW then you have it right.

Politicians and others have the right and sometimes even the responsibility to ASK. There is a difference between asking someone to go to the park to protest instead on the street. To open the door for someone to see if a criminal is inside. To volunteer to join the military.

Asking is fine.

Claiming that it is the province of Conservatives true or not is nonsense. Many of men that wrote those laws were not Conservatives. Many of them were just plain radical. They changed the world and this is in no way conservative.

Again I have to point out that your definition of a conservative did not describe a conservative in the English language.

Ethelred
SteveL
not rated yet Dec 17, 2011
Sure, the initial founders of US were revolutionaries and radicals. However any who read the histories should recognize that the cause was just. And there were many mistakes by how human rights were politically and economically defined at the time. Specifically race and gender should never have been issues that required amendments to the consitution. Those rights should have been implied from the time of the Declaration of Independance by defining who "mankind" and the "governed" were. That was a missed opportunity that took 200 years and a lot of blood to correct.

Again I have to point out that your definition of a conservative did not describe a conservative in the English language.

Ethelred
I have no requirement that you agree with my opinion.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2012
Sub: Science in philosophy in-depth
Your Information: In the stagnation region, the wind of charged particles streaming out from our sun has slowed and turned inward for the first time, our solar system's magnetic field has piled up and higher-energy particles from inside our solar system appear to be leaking out into interstellar space. This image shows that the inner edge of the stagnation region is located about 113 astronomical units (10.5 billion miles or 16.9 billion kilometers) from the sun
comments: Pridhveem viswam Asya dharineem- Earth region around 100 AU links to Heart and Center of Universe- projected at ~10^5 lY - see my books. Plasma regulated Electromagnetic phenomena in Magnetic Field Environment- Science in philosophy helps in time.See reports sent to ESA-solar orbiter and Cluster Missions-2010.
http://vidyardhic...pot.com/