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.

 

2015 Proves That Our Solar System Is Way More Awesome Than We Realized

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Do you really believe scientists can tell the difference between 4 and 6 million years ?

I'd imagine it would have been a number of events that cause the extinction event , my thought were if this sudden ejection of another planet caused by Jupiter as stated in your OP may have been the spark.

I dont know, it's New Years Day here, im a lil pissy, but i really wanna join in this coversation.




posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: scubagravy

Why?



Well here in, we have Phage, and you, Vague !

Why what ?>



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: scubagravy



Do you really believe scientists can tell the difference between 4 and 6 million years ?

Do you know the difference between a million and a billion?

Welcome to the conversation.


edit on 12/31/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: scubagravy
a reply to: lostbook

Do you really believe scientists can tell the difference between 4 and 6 million years ?

I'd imagine it would have been a number of events that cause the extinction event , my thought were if this sudden ejection of another planet caused by Jupiter as stated in your OP may have been the spark.

I dont know, it's New Years Day here, im a lil pissy, but i really wanna join in this coversation.


Your input is most appreciated. Sure, it's hard to draw the line as to when things a million or a billion years ago happened exactly. Yes, there's no way to prove this stuff with absolute certainty unless one was actually there. For all of the things scientists know, there's still so much that scientists don't know.
edit on 31-12-2015 by lostbook because: word change



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: scubagravy

Oh nm you did answer.
edit on stThu, 31 Dec 2015 22:08:56 -0600America/Chicago1220155680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook




For all of the things scientists know, there's still so much that scientists don't know.
Of course there is. Can you name a scientist who thinks there is nothing more to learn? That would sort of put them out of business, don't you think?

In any case, just because they don't know everything, it doesn't mean they don't know anything.

edit on 12/31/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: scubagravy

I'm pretty sure that most scientist went to school long enough to tell the difference between 4 million and 6 million.

One of them is 2 million more.

I'm not a scientist, but learned that quite a long time ago.....



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Oh ok, through carbon dating ? is that an exact science is it ?



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: scubagravy



Do you really believe scientists can tell the difference between 4 and 6 million years ?

Do you know the difference between a million and a billion?

Welcome to the conversation.



Your bank account and my bank account ? nah, just realised what i had typed.

I still think carbon dating is as right as a broken clock, and nothing anyone here can change my mind.

Thank you for the welcoming.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 03:22 AM
link   

edit on stFri, 01 Jan 2016 03:23:05 -0600America/Chicago120150580 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 05:15 AM
link   
2015 has most definitely been a year of space exploration. It could be compared to Columbus discovering America, or Magellan completing his round the world voyage.

We visited a comet:



(Hundreds of photos can be found here - imagearchives.esac.esa.int... )


We visited Ceres:





And, most importantly, visited Pluto and Charon:




Pluto alone revealed a kind of mini-world never seen before, with tholin-covered mountains of water ice, plains of nitrogen ice with glaciers, gigantic convection cells and pits, and a bluish hazy atmosphere.




posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: scubagravy



I still think carbon dating is as right as a broken clock, and nothing anyone here can change my mind.

You're wrong. But that's not really relevant. Carbon dating is used only on organic matter and, at best, can date stuff to about 50,000 years old.
edit on 1/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheProphetMark
Been waiting to share this video with ATS to see the opinions of others.
Since this topic is on Solar Systems, I figured this would be the best place for it.

Enjoy the video, I personally think it's beautiful and reminds me a lot of Atoms.

"As above, so below" comes to mind.




i'm sorry, but this is plain wrong. the model the video shows has two problems.

firstly it’s not scientifically correct, and secondly, the animation was created by a guy with the intention of promoting a completely pseudoscientific and inaccurate model of the Solar System and the Universe as a whole. It's gone viral and has spawned many proponents and knockoffs. The "vortex solar system" model however is complete nonsense.

as the guy from bad astronomy, Phil Plait, describes


"...shows the Sun leading the planets, ahead of them as it goes around the galaxy… This is not just misleading, it’s completely wrong... Sometimes the planets really are ahead of the Sun as we orbit in the Milky Way, and sometimes trail behind it (depending on where they are in their orbit around the Sun)."



The orbits of the planets look like this:




"In the helical model, he shows the planets as orbiting around the Sun perpendicular to the motion of the Sun around the galaxy; “face-on”, if you like.This is wrong. Because the orbits of the planets are tipped by 60°, not 90°, they can sometimes be ahead and sometimes behind the Sun. That right there, and all by itself, shows this helical depiction is incorrect.”


What the solar system looks like depends on whether you are observing it from inside or outside the solar system. If you view the solar system's passage through the universe from outside the solar system, it would look kinda vortex-ish, that's basic accepted fact based on elementary school math. What exactly is this model showing that differs so considerbly from the standard accepted model? Nothing really, other than artistic creativity and some kind of mathless pseudoscientific basis to justify its argument. Apart from that, the "vortex" is still heliocentric anyway.

While the vortex animation on its own does kindasorta show something perhapsabit resembling the actual astrophysical truth, please be aware of the inaccuracy of this "vortex" model and the deep seated misunderstandings it is based upon, like:


“The constellations at the background are sufficient evidence to deny the heliocentric orbits for planets. The Sun at 500 light seconds distance, when visible within a cone of 30° maintaining a background of one constellation, say for example Aries, (Hamel at 68ly) the SOLSTICES and EQUINOXES through Zodiac Earth maintains in the opposite constellation at midnight, namely Libra. After six months to maintain heliocentric orbit, the mid day of today should become midnight and the midnight should become midday. This has not taken place!“


Complete and utter horseradish with a side of baloney.




“My feeling is that if your take-home message was only that the Solar System moves through space, and the planets trace out pretty spirally paths, then all is well and no harm done. But if it’s leading you to question the heliocentric model, then we’re all buggered.”

–Rhys Taylor, astrophysicist


analysis for those who might give a flying asteroid.
edit on 1-1-2016 by spygeek because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join