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: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: suicideeddie

I understand the processes. Im saying the processes yield false results. Therefore they need a better method because the one they are using is inaccurate. I dont know why it bothers people so much for me to say this. They shouldnt be confusing planets and sunspots. A planet is an object completely seperate from the sun. A sunspot is on the sun. To get the two confused means there are a lot of variables that are probably being guessed on. Such as the distance of the object from the star its passing in front of. If you can confuse a sunspot with a planet because of the brief dimming of light, why couldnt it be an asteroid or comet further out instead of a sunspot further in? Its bad science. Only thing it does is tell you something is there. I will accept that much. As far as using that method to describe the size, orbit, and what a planet is made of......the method failed horribly this time.




posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: rustyclutch
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.


Do you have to travel to the Moon to know that it exists? Of course not. It's the same thing. You can look at the moon, study it from the reflected light and tell your kids, 'see that big bright thing, it's the MOON."



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: rustyclutch
a reply to: suicideeddie

I understand the processes. Im saying the processes yield false results. Therefore they need a better method because the one they are using is inaccurate.


It is not inaccurate, it has a margin of error. These things are refined with time. That's what was done here. Science is self-correcting. That is its strength, not its weakness.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thorneblood
a reply to: JadeStar
Sad...or a NASA cover-up



heh yeh.. they found the prime real estate for moving the elites off planet ... and then say oops doesn't exist heh...

if i found the perfect uncharted tropical island getaway... i wouldn't want others knowing about it
then again.. believe what you like..



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: rustyclutch
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.


In every single scientific publication these two planets were labelled UNCONFIRMED. You understand what that means right?

It means they were strongly suspected but needed further observations to confirm them or rule them out. That is what happened here.

You may label this process "bad science" but the ridiculousness of that is you are completely wrong. Bad science would have been had they pretended these planets existed WITHOUT SEEKING FURTHER CONFIRMATION.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

Roswell came to my mind when I read this. Maybe they picked up some signals that were not just "noise". I think of it like this the only 1 planet we know to have life is earth. If there was 2 planets in the habitable zone that race/races would probably be super advanced and I feel the chances of life their would be almost 100 percent.

Think about if mars was livable for us. We could just switch between the 2 planets if there was trouble on 1 escaping our own extinction. Anyhow just my 2 cents.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I know a planet that does exist and holds life......Earth, let's take care of this one first then maybe look for another.I just find it ironic that this planet is being destroyed by people and we want to send more people over galaxies to other planets. We try to patch the problem....as usual, duct tape anyone?.....WD-40?

We must fix what is in our backyard before we can fix the neighborhood. We must learn to live in a room before we can own a house. We must first crawl to eventually run. We must learn to use our matches wisely without burning down the house.

Thank God we are not smart enough for inter galactic travel or to even identify a habitable planet. Hehehe....Some humans wish they could escape all this, I hope they will never make it and have to deal with what is here. Please, stay and watch what you have left behind for your children children...LOOK straight forward of what is becoming here and now not up and away in the clouds of what it could be. I suppose some like making a mess and are use to butlers picking up their trash.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I know I may sound jaded but am I really being unrealistic?



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
I know I may sound jaded but am I really being unrealistic?


Taking care of this world is inextricably linked to the amount of people present on it. The Earth while plentiful is not an infinite space.

It is a cradle. And just as a baby eventually outgrows its cradle, so are we. No matter how pretty we make this cradle it will grow no larger.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Dude I think like this is where the Mantis type ET are from and they like told NASA they better do a coverup lickity split or there was going to be some like total major downers going to happen to us so the puppet NWO shadow government had never a straight answer do their overlords bidding.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar
So two worlds have died. Maybe they rest in peace.

Two wolrds that shall never be.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

Destroyed by the death star they were. Someone shutdown seti before its too late.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   

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.

Sure, why not? Those are not mutually exclusive states. Logic fail.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

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.

You can't look below ground through a telescope. You can look through a telescope into space, and as it is mostly vacuum, light travels unimpended for billions of light years, allowing us to use it to study remote celestial objects.

If basic thing like that are beyond your comprehension, then perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on scientific research.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join