It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Two Habitable Worlds Gliese 581d and Gliese 581g Most Likely Do Not Exist

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason
Very well put, Stumason.


originally posted by: rustyclutch
a reply to: JadeStar

So you are saying its reasonable for them to not know whats 100 miles beneath their feet for sure but know whats floating in space billions of miles away with even an iota of certainty? Comedy.

What's comedy is that you can't grasp that we don't have alloys for instruments that can get deep down, up close & personal with the environment 100 miles down yet. When you come up with something that can withstand the heat & pressure at that depth, then we can talk. Until then, we have a brick wall in the way that we haven't barreled through yet. At present, we have instruments that can see a great distance into the cosmos. Like it or lump it buddy, it's easier to build a telescope to study 1000 light years away, for example, than it is to built a drill bit that will function under enormous environmental criteria under our feet.
edit on 7/4/2014 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/4/2014 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/4/2014 by Nyiah because: Ugh, typos galore. I blame the holiday shishkabobs




posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason
An idea has to be able to be demonstrated as true to be considered science. Demonstrated to be true would mean traveling to one of these planets and proving their theories to be true. That my friend is science. Saying that you know whats going on billions of miles away when you dont fully understand the space around you is foolish. They're still looking for that magical particle with the hadron collider. They still dont understand dark energy or matter. You can't have correct equations when you dont understand all of the variables. I don't have any degrees in anything but I do understand the scientific method, and for it to be accepted as science its supposed to be able to be proven to be true repeatedly by anyone performing the experiment correctly. I don't have anything against science, it's THEORIES that people use to pronounce things as science based on mathematic formulas that hold true under the right conditions.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: rustyclutch

here you go mate, a photo of a non sol planet,
en.wikipedia.org...:NASA%27s_Hubble_Reveals_Rogue_Planetary_Orbit_For_Fomalhaut_B.jpg



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Lol we have tanks that can withstand mortar fire but we dont have the capability to build anything to explore the ocean? I think the discussion between the two of us is done. I find it funny that people consider us to be so technologically capable on one hand, but totally incapable in the other. They claim to be able to send a man to mars. But not to the bottom of the ocean. Yep I think the convo between the two of us is done.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: suicideeddie

I didn't say none of the planets exist. I said they use things that are only theories as science and their math in a lot of things is probably off. The only reason we dont know its off is because to actually test all of these theories we have we would have to actually travel to these planets. Its not just the fact that they claim to know the planet is there, its the fact that they claim to be able to tell us what its made of, how big it is, and what its orbit might be is just insane. How do you go from all that information to "oh it was just sunspots" apparently the math people are using allows for a WIDE margin of error if a sunspot is being confused for a planet they drew artist renditions of. Either way....their science is bad. You guys can keep telling yourselves it isnt. Science isnt saying something is a diamond and it turning out to be a pile of feces.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: rustyclutch
a reply to: Nyiah

Lol we have tanks that can withstand mortar fire but we dont have the capability to build anything to explore the ocean? I think the discussion between the two of us is done. I find it funny that people consider us to be so technologically capable on one hand, but totally incapable in the other. They claim to be able to send a man to mars. But not to the bottom of the ocean. Yep I think the convo between the two of us is done.

o.O What planet are you on? The ocean is not 100 miles deep, the deepest spot is the Challenger Deep at 36,200 feet deep. That is 6.85 miles deep, not 100 miles. A DSV is not a "deep crust vessel" by ANY means. The continental crust is only about 30 miles at the thickest anyway, so what you're arguing is for someone to drill into the mantle. Think about that before you start with the hyperbole again, because you're looking quite foolish at this point considering you're having trouble with ocean depth & crust thickness.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Saying we dont know whats at the bottom of the ocean and saying we dont know whats 100 miles beneath our feet isnt saying the ocean is 100 miles deep. Please try harder to derail my statement.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: rustyclutch
a reply to: stumason
An idea has to be able to be demonstrated as true to be considered science.


Exactly - hence the release of papers for peer review, including the one's "announcing" the discovery of the planets and, likewise, this new study calling them into question.


originally posted by: rustyclutch
Demonstrated to be true would mean traveling to one of these planets and proving their theories to be true.


Not true - in fact, in a few years, we will have instrumentation available to be able to get a good, proper look at these planets and, if they are real, take spectroscopic analysis of their atmospheres to learn even more.


originally posted by: rustyclutch
That my friend is science. Saying that you know whats going on billions of miles away when you dont fully understand the space around you is foolish.


Nope - saying what you said is foolish. Astronomy and Geology are two totally different fields and require totally different methods and technology. To compare the two is, well, silly.


originally posted by: rustyclutch
They're still looking for that magical particle with the hadron collider.


Are they? There I was thinking they had announced it's discovery.


originally posted by: rustyclutch
They still dont understand dark energy or matter.


They aren't even sure if it exists... That much is still up for debate and being actively pursued.


originally posted by: rustyclutch
You can't have correct equations when you dont understand all of the variables.


When it comes to detecting planets transiting stars, the methodology is actually quite simple and well understood, if still at an early stage. The same applies to detecting them from gravitational effects.


originally posted by: rustyclutch
I don't have any degrees in anything but I do understand the scientific method, and for it to be accepted as science its supposed to be able to be proven to be true repeatedly by anyone performing the experiment correctly. I don't have anything against science, it's THEORIES that people use to pronounce things as science based on mathematic formulas that hold true under the right conditions.


Indeed, which is what has happened here and even by proving something as potentially wrong is a discovery in itself. You seem to be under the delusion that science has to be right first time, otherwise it's "pseudo-science"
edit on 4/7/14 by stumason because: tags all squiffy



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

to add to that response link 300 miles below the earths surface. Maybe you should stop trying to make other people look like a fool, I think you got a little egg on your face in the process.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: rustyclutch

Your posts raise some serious questions about how much we can claim to know. You're right in saying that we don't know everything about our own planet. You're right to say that science doesn't have all the answers.

At the same time, we have to consider the outcomes of where we focus our attention and where funding should be directed. Which holds the greater value in terms of overall knowledge? Deep sea exploration or the search for habitable planets and, potentially, evidence of life elsewhere?

Both areas of study receive funding and both have added to our sum of knowledge.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: rustyclutch

Jeebus H Krishna, you have some funny idea's, don't you?

How does a tank withstanding mortar fire equate in anyway to being able to design machines to plough the ocean depths? (even though we do actually have those machines and tanks aren't really designed to withstand mortar fire anyway - they are designed to withstand AT weaponry)

By comparison, the instantaneous pressure wave from a regular mortar shell exploding is significantly less than the sustained pressures experienced at the oceans bottom. Even a human being just feet away from said shell has a good chance of walking away from it, provided they avoid the shrapnel, whereas no human can withstand the pressure down in the Ocean.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Im not under the illusion science has to be right its first time. I would imagine this isnt the first time they have detected a planet somewhere. Therefore with that being said, maybe they should check their results a few more times before announcing planets. When you spout of scientific facts that turn out to not be facts at all....I think that could be considered pseudoscience. I understand that the process of science is an evolution that involves getting a lot of things wrong before getting a lot of things right. What I am saying is that when this is probably the 1000th (or more im sure) planet you have supposedly discovered you shouldnt go from knowing how big it is and its mass and orbit, to it being a sunspot. Or am I to believe that sunspots behave exactly like planets as they orbit around the sun including the way they influence things around them? Whoever said they found these planets was WAYYYYY off the mark. If you guys dont like me saying so I dont really care. They named and made up planets that did not exist. That is what happened. If the science they were using was so good they wouldnt have been so far off of the mark. You cant have it both ways, either they got it figured out or they dont. If they got it figured out, shame on them for messing up and putting out bad reports. If they dont have it figured out, shame on them for acting like they do and then teaching it to you.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: rustyclutch
a reply to: Nyiah

Saying we dont know whats at the bottom of the ocean and saying we dont know whats 100 miles beneath our feet isnt saying the ocean is 100 miles deep. Please try harder to derail my statement.


Look dude, it doesnt matter what you say here..
Jade is respected, the "theories" are respected,
heck even the science IS respected...
And derailing your statements, your doing a fine
job with that yourself..

For every person that would say theyve been to
another planet "when" that is possible, there
will be 10 you saying they hasnt been....



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

WHAT?! You mean inferring from a star's orbit that there is a planet orbiting it ISN'T foolproof?! This could wet the proverbial sand beneath the impenetrable fortress of science!

/sarcasm

It's a good thing that wasn't something we were setting off to discover the hard way.
edit on 4/7/2014 by zackli because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: rustyclutch

The "Sunspot" could cause a dip in the ambient light levels being seen from the star, leading to a misidentification as a planet transiting said stellar object - it really is a simple mistake to make and now we are aware such a thing can happen, this only makes the methodology more sound - your attempts to rubbish it are weak.

The fact they have picked up on this possible (and it isn't confirmed that the new study is right either) shows that our knowledge is advancing.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Miccey

Lol wtf does Jade being respected have to do with anything. Jade isnt the one that found the planet. Jade isnt the one who put out the article saying the planet existed and then retracted that statement. This has nothing to do with Jade. Frankly I dont care how much respect anyone has for Jade. I was never disrespectful. All I said is their science is bad. If it wasnt bad we wouldnt be having this discussion. Simple cause and effect really. I apologize for disagreeing with your online heroes. I wasnt aware that ATS members were the final word on scientific matters.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Oh man...Fine
Keep making a fool of yourself...

It´s like telling a painter that he cant use
a paintbrush, cause youve used your fingers
all your life..



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

They determine object are in space by seeing them pass in front of other objects that give off light in space basically. I understand how the process works. My point is that if you mistake a sunspot for a planet whats to say it was a sunspot? Whats the proof it was a sunspot? Could it have been a comet? Could it have been an asteroid? Could it have been a planet that wasnt even in that system that just happened to cross the path of light? All they are giving is another claim with no concrete proof. They are saying "well it wasnt a planet, so that brief dimming had to be a sunspot". Another unsubstantiated claim.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: rustyclutch
a lot of methods used to assess if a star has a orbiting mass are quite old to science, if we visible see that a star has a wobble we can use Barycentric coordinates (1827) newtons law (1687)to work out a possible orbit and mass eg: spaceplace.nasa.gov...
redshifts/Doppler variation to work out distance
to find out what a mass contains from the light we receive from it directly or reflected we can use Astronomical spectroscopy (optical, radio and x-ray, 1814-present)
these methods have been used for hundreds and years and you can even test them out yourself at home



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Miccey

Is Jade an astronaut, space-traveler or extraterrestrial? Has she seen this planet we are talking about. Did she see the sunspot? Nothing in this discussion is based on any observation or scientific experiment carried out by Jade so your comparison isnt really relevant at all. I'm not saying a painter cant use his paintbrush. Im saying I'm not impressed by the picture being painted and I have seen better. It might look like the Mona Lisa to you.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join