Traces of another world found on the Moon (BBC)

page: 8
73
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: Phage
Just picking that big brain of yours:

is it possible for a Type 1 (or more) civilization to move planets or moons around?

and why don't we see the asteroid belt accreting?


Why would a type 1 civilization do this? I don't see why it would not be possible, but cost prohibitive possibly.




posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

still waiting to hear how the simulation ends lol

as far as comets: why did Temple1 leave them scratching their heads? where was the ice? what was that flash all about? why no crater in the impact zone? (that's four question marks for ya)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

why would they do it? that's like your dog asking why you sit in front of that screen and touch it with your finger. Do you really think you can figure out the motives of an advanced culture? and what do you know about their budget that we don't know?
I wonder what kind of money the aliens use. maybe we can borrow some lol

p.s. maybe you can chime in on why we don't see the asteroid belt accreting Phage may be too busy avoiding that one
edit on 9-6-2014 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

still waiting to hear how the simulation ends lol

as far as comets: why did Temple1 leave them scratching their heads? where was the ice? what was that flash all about? why no crater in the impact zone? (that's four question marks for ya)

Who says it left them scratching their heads? Can you show me where they claim the results are so astounding they can't make any sense and can only scratch their heads?

Your questions make it clear you are a EU delusional person. Ice was found as was carbon dioxide ice. It was venting, they have recordings.

Show me where NASA has no explanations for these things. Deep Impact confirmed the Mainstream theory. Of course we have a lot to learn still. Show me a comet with zero ice or water. Should be easy since ice/water has nothing to do with comets according to what you believe.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




So you are ignorant of the facts and don't know about the isotopic differences of different elements therefor it's guesswork. Gotcha. Nice how you ignored my proving you took the moon ringing quote completely out of context.


ok...here it is...


more guesswork.


edit: I didn't take it out of context...you actually responded that his is so because there is no water on the moon.

Therefore, all other bodies that have no water would be ringing...right ?

edit on 9-6-2014 by MarioOnTheFly because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

why would they do it? that's like your dog asking why you sit in front of that screen and touch it with your finger. Do you really think you can figure out the motives of an advanced culture? and what do you know about their budget that we don't know?
I wonder what kind of money the aliens use. maybe we can borrow some lol

p.s. maybe you can chime in on why we don't see the asteroid belt accreting Phage may be too busy avoiding that one

Type 1 is not that much ore advanced than us. Perhaps you meant type 3?

Because the entire mass of the Asteroid belt is about 4% of the moon so there simply is not enough mass to allow it to happen. Why would it? Why do you think people are running away from simple answers? Why ask questions that are easily answered and then pretend there is no explanation?



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




So you are ignorant of the facts and don't know about the isotopic differences of different elements therefor it's guesswork. Gotcha. Nice how you ignored my proving you took the moon ringing quote completely out of context.


ok...here it is...


more guesswork.


edit: I didn't take it out of context...you actually responded that his is so because there is no water on the moon.

Therefore, all other bodies that have no water would be ringing...right ?


No. I posted the full quote not taken out of context like you did. If you wish to learn more you are welcome to, I suspect you will choose ignorance.
solarsystem.nasa.gov...



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


I am surely ignorant...but please specify where did I take it out of context ?

I merely proposed that the ringing noise that is absent on Earth, might be due to composition of the Moon body itself.

Meaning elements or the construct of the body in general.

Since you concluded in your quote that the Moon ringing noise is due to lack of water, we can conclude that those two bodies differ in composition.

I fail to see where is this out of context...your link actually pretty much confirms what I'm saying...different composition of rocks on the Moon due to lack of water.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy

p.s. maybe you can chime in on why we don't see the asteroid belt accreting Phage may be too busy avoiding that one


Maybe because the entire asteroid field between Mars and Jupiter, in total, has only about 4% of the mass of our Moon. Add in the gravity of Jupiter and then factor in the pretty vast distances between the asteroids(hint, its not anything like the asteroid field that Han flies into during The Empire Strikes Back)and it becomes pretty clear that the mass of the asteroids is/was not enough to overcome Jupiter's gravity and form into a small planet.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

A body with no fluids or fluid like material (such as magma) would be more likely to "ring" if they were composed of a single, very hard, substance. The moon, with a lack of fluid type interior would be more likely to "ring" than would the earth.

In effect, the less dampening the more the ring.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Astr0

lol and of course we should believe everything written by the ancient Greeks, right?

Beginning an expedition to Mt. Olympus...going to find me some gods!



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Denoli

originally posted by: Denoli

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Denoli

so what if you are moving at 200 miles per hour and strike shoulders with another person moving 200 miles an hour in another direction...would one or both of you lose body parts?

The scenarios you present are not realistic at all.

But... I will agree that you are smarter than everyone else and the solar system is equivalent to pool balls on a pool table and if the earth was struck by another pool ball there would not be debris to be captured by the earth's orbit.

I mean, heck, when cars collide they never leave debris behind... they remain fully intact and bounce off one another like pool balls also.

It's not like the vast majority of our planet is molten... we are completely solid and the earth being struck by another planet would not even deform the planet...we would simply just bounce!! Right?

I'm just giving an out of the box theory so your saying if two bodies collided the debris would stay in an orbit to create a moon and not fall to earth or be thrown out into deep space ! Ok I'll dive down the rabbit hole make room if there is any!
And by the way the earths more rounder than a pool ball if a pool ball was to scale so sorry for throwing a curve ball


*sigh*

No...the earth is not "rounder" than a pool ball. It is not even AS round by a long shot. The earth is significantly wider at the equator than it is in the north/south direction.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Denoli

There is nothing wrong with thinking outside the box, however this thinking must be scientifically sound and possess some logic. If you have no training and no experience in a particular field, the odds of your thinking outside the box will be sound are vastly lessened.

Beware of thinking you are smarter than those at the top of the food chain scientifically speaking. There is usually a pretty sound reason for them to be there.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: astrostu
I find this thread interesting in that people who have no expertise in the subject, who have not devoted decades of their lives to the physics, geology, chemistry, and/or dynamics, think that their gut feeling trumps all the science. That the thousands of people who've worked on this problem for over a century and gotten to this point are wrong because - hey! - the methods are flawed (never mind the other uses and corroboration in completely unrelated fields) or the scientists are just making some vague assumption!

And I am being genuine -- I do find this phenomenon interesting.


I know what you mean. I see this often on ATS and I scratch my head every time. In some cases I am sure it is just plain ignorance combined with an overly inflated sense of intelligence (except that the smarter you really are, the more you realize you do not know). In other cases perhaps people would rather believe what they want to believe as opposed to recognizing the facts, the theories, the logic behind certain ideas.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Denoli

Ok, I will bite.

What is your level of education, what is your area of expertise which you have devoted years towards? What are your credentials and what papers have you written that have been peer reviewed?

Have you a degree in anything even remotely scientific?

Your theory, as you put it, does not take into account the actual effects of the collision of objects of large sizes. Instead you compare the collision of planets to pool balls. Or to 2 people colliding at 3 miles per hour with their shoulders. Try 2 people glancing off each other at hundreds of miles per hour. Then consider a thousand.... Only pool balls are pool balls.

You do realize that just the gravity of Jupiter pulled apart a comet that got a bit too close into multiple pieces, right? That doesn't happen on a pool table though, so it doesn't work that way in your pool table universe.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Denoli

Ok, I will bite.

What is your level of education, what is your area of expertise which you have devoted years towards? What are your credentials and what papers have you written that have been peer reviewed?

Have you a degree in anything even remotely scientific?

Your theory, as you put it, does not take into account the actual effects of the collision of objects of large sizes. Instead you compare the collision of planets to pool balls. Or to 2 people colliding at 3 miles per hour with their shoulders. Try 2 people glancing off each other at hundreds of miles per hour. Then consider a thousand.... Only pool balls are pool balls.

You do realize that just the gravity of Jupiter pulled apart a comet that got a bit too close into multiple pieces, right? That doesn't happen on a pool table though, so it doesn't work that way in your pool table universe.

Ooh so now u need to write a paper to have your head up ur ass ! That's were I went wrong and I need to be at the top of the food chain to be scientific oh we'll there's your theory right me bad should called below bracken not above top secret



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Denoli

lol no...however!!!

If you have no education, no training and no experience then your theories are going to (and are) formulated on ignorance. Heck, you do not even know what you don't know, apparently.

There is a difference between questioning something and proposing an uneducated scientific theory based on a distinct lack of true science and then puffing your chest out claiming you are "thinking outside the box".



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Denoli

Where is my theory? I do not formulate alternate theories unless I feel there is something wrong with whatever one we are discussing. That is not the case here.... I came to this OP to, perhaps, learn something new.

If I do find something wrong, I begin by asking questions and, perhaps, proposing my theory along with a question mark. Even then, I recognize that even though I may have a degree in Geology, I do not have any practical experience with astrology or physics (with the exception of those lower level physics classes I have taken, which are just that...lower level).

For instance: I am not convinced on the accelerating rate of expansion of the universe. Given that the farther away we look, the further back in time we are looking it stands to reason that at the edges of the known universe we would see a more rapidly expanding universe. I would also state that if the universe were expanding at an accelerating rate (my bone of contention) why are we not seeing such effects in our immediate neighborhood? Why are we only seeing evidence of it at the more extreme distances?

I ask questions, but will not assert that my above "theory" is true... I would like to know why it isn't true and if someone presents me with good, scientific reasons why the above effects are apparent I will not assert that I am correct. If I am not convinced I will state it just as such. And I am a person that tends to see things more black and white at times...

It is always best to at least attempt to maintain an open mind rather than automatically discount facts when presented. This is not how you learn...this is how you foster and promote ignorance.

Rather than acknowledge that if 2 human bodies were to collide at hundreds of miles an hour there would be pieces of bodies resulting from the collision you would choose to accuse me of a closed mind etc etc when I call your pool table approach to the collision of astral bodies incorrect.

When I, or anyone, points out the error in your thinking, perhaps you should examine the presented ideas before assuming that you are always right and anyone who thinks differently are wrong. Because, at least in this case, you are wrong and there is no question. Planets are not pool balls and they do not react as pool balls when they collide. Never have and never will.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I'm saying that there's no solid evidence or more evidence of a impact that created the moon to the moon been created by volcanos off earth both have the same probability of happening ! Given what we know already which is basically nothing so don't jump on me with the impact story like it's nailed on correct .



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I'm rarely right but I don't need the Hubble to take a pic of how big my ego is !





top topics
 
73
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 79 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP8 - Season Finale!

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def