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.

 

A fresh perspective on Ceres, it's a left-over moon

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I've mentioned that I've learned a lot of interesting things, but rarely post them. This is because I don't have 100% proof that I can post here to share with you. I wouldn't say I've learned something unless I was presented with some sort of data that convinced me it's true. And not Hoagland type information.

About Ceres...

Long ago, before the human domination of Earth, there was a planet between Mars and Jupiter. In fact, I remember hearing about a equation that somebody came up with that would predict where a planet should be in orbit around the sun. All the MSM planets line up on this equation, including a planet that should be where the asteroid belt is. This planet, let's call it Planet M, was completely destroyed. The how/why of that situation is another, expansive story. Planet M had 4 moons, two of which survived, Ceres being the largest. It isn't some dwarf-planet, that happen to form into a circle among all these asteroids, that doesn't even make sense. When you start looking at more and more pictures of Ceres, start to think of it as a moon, I think your intuition will agree with you. When compared to our moon, it shares quite a bit. They both even have their own "shiny" spots.

At the time I learned this, it was implied that these moons, at the time of the Planet M's existence, were inhabited, along with Planet M.

So the chance of there being anomalies should be pretty good.

I want to post this to give some people a fresh take on what they are looking at, not to cause any unrest or anger anybody.

When you are trying to figure something out, you need as many different perspectives on it as possible, so maybe this one can help some people out.

Cheers




posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
That's funny I had the same thought. I even wrote a fictional story about it a while ago. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
The only evidence is a blurred photo...which, for the purpose of identification...could be anything.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: bananashooter
That's funny I had the same thought. I even wrote a fictional story about it a while ago. www.abovetopsecret.com...


Your intuitions are correct. Keep those brain waves moving!



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: PrinceJohnson
The only evidence is a blurred photo...which, for the purpose of identification...could be anything.


I don't have evidence for you. I'm only attempting to give the Thinkers a new road to travel down.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LuckyYurg

Any sort of a time frame as to when this went down ?



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Hmm...


The total mass of the Asteroid belt is estimated to be 3.0 to 3.6×1021 kilograms, which is 4 percent of the Earth's Moon.

Source

That's hardly enough to be a major planet. Plus, about half the mass of the main belt is in the four or five largest of the asteroids.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: LuckyYurg It isn't some dwarf-planet, that happen to form into a circle among all these asteroids, that doesn't even make sense. When you start looking at more and more pictures of Ceres, start to think of it as a moon, I think your intuition will agree with you. When compared to our moon, it shares quite a bit. They both even have their own "shiny" spots.

Cheers
There's no real difference between a moon and a planet, and a spherical asteroid. They all formed more or less the same way. Take a look at Mercury and tell me how much it looks like our moon. Now look at Europa, or Ganymede, or Io, or Titan, or any of the other moons in the solar system. They all look a bit different, but they're all formed the same way, as are all of the planets, even the gas giants.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I understood the asteroid belt to be the result of a tug of war between Jupiter and the Sun which never allowed a planet to form. Continuous gravitational attraction one way and another.
I heard the story about it being a planet, but I thought that had been discarded as there was no known mechanism that could account for a planet disintegrating.
I guess I will revisit some websites to check things out again.
Thanks for the post OP.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
But it has been hypothesized already, that of planet Phaeton. Phaeton was destroyed and became much of the asteroid belt.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 10-6-2015 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
You lost me as soon as you said they were inhabited.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

Naturally we aren't aware of things that can destroy planets, doesn't mean they don't exist on some plane.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I'm not trying to sell it.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: LuckyYurg

Any sort of a time frame as to when this went down ?


100s of millions of years, if not a billion. Hard to say.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
Hmm...


The total mass of the Asteroid belt is estimated to be 3.0 to 3.6×1021 kilograms, which is 4 percent of the Earth's Moon.

Source

That's hardly enough to be a major planet. Plus, about half the mass of the main belt is in the four or five largest of the asteroids.


These are just the large left over chunks, most of it was completely destroyed, just the large bits or rubble remain.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

You are right, it's absolutely crazy to think it might have been inhabited.



Astrobiologists hope to find life elsewhere in the universe, or possibly even in our own cosmic neighborhood, the solar system. Their efforts are usually concentrated on worlds such as the planet Mars, or icy moons like Europa. However, there are other, less conventional locations in the solar system where scientists think life may be found.

At the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life conference in Florence, Italy, Joop Houtkooper from the University of Giessen divulged a theory that life could have originated on the asteroid Ceres.

The distant world Ceres, the smallest known dwarf planet in the solar system, lies within the asteroid belt. It was called a planet after its discovery in 1801, then later downgraded to asteroid status. With the latest planet definition from the International Astronomical Union, the round object is now considered a dwarf planet. Is there a chance that this exotic world is home to extraterrestrial organisms?

Space.Com
UniverseToday
Forbes
Astrobiology



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Planets are formed via Star Ejecta, not from bits of dust orbiting a Star. MSM is starting to point this out a bit. There was a report that, surprise, planet Mercury is made of the same thing as Sun ejecta. The planets change as they age. Almost like we have a nice timeline with Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars all lined up for us.

The silly thing about saying they form from dust that accumulates, is that if the dust is in orbit, it's being hit with centrifical force, which would constantly be spreading it out, not clumping it up.


Ceres was a moon, but since it's not anymore, I guess dwarf-planet it close enough.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: LuckyYurg
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I'm not trying to sell it.

That's probably a good thing. I don't know nearly enough to say whether or not another planet may have at one time been a part of our solar system, and somehow was destroyed, thus creating the asteroid belt, but to my (admittedly uneducated on the matter) mind, it seems plausible. I don't see any possible way we could determine how many moons said planet might have had though, much less that they were inhabited.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: LuckyYurg
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I'm not trying to sell it.

That's probably a good thing. I don't know nearly enough to say whether or not another planet may have at one time been a part of our solar system, and somehow was destroyed, thus creating the asteroid belt, but to my (admittedly uneducated on the matter) mind, it seems plausible. I don't see any possible way we could determine how many moons said planet might have had though, much less that they were inhabited.


Unfortunately that's where my personal experiences have come into play, it's something I can't put you through



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: LuckyYurg

In answer to this I think that at some point gravity supersedes rotational forces. I am not a mathematician though.
Anyway, who knows. I have tried to find a theory of solar ejecta forming planets but I am not having much luck.
I shall keep trying.

Edit: Did you by chance mean in supernovae?




edit on 10-6-2015 by Jonjonj because: question



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join