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.

 

What if our planets are actually bigger than others in other galaxies? NASA maybe lying?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Surprised you all are arguing about the center of the universe.

What about the OP?

Our sun is the biggest star in the universe? Really?

Planets in other galaxies? I'm sure they are there, but, we don't have the tech to detect those yet...just the ones in our galaxy.

And there are planets bigger than Earth, and smaller than us.

And if we land on a planet that has nothing but micro organisms on it, I guess we would be giants to them.

Of course it is my sincere hope that the first planet we discover life on is populated by miniature gigantic space hamsters....because I want the first alien words spoken to us to be "Meep!"

Well....maybe not that last one.

But, this is Skunk Works: I propose that their must exist a world full of space hamsters (no...I don't know why they'd be called "space" hamsters.....).




posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful
Are hamsters good to eat? Giant ones, I mean.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No idea.

Don't think they'd fill you up though, because they are miniature giant space hamsters.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
We are tiny...



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: makemap

No, we are most definately not the Creator, though we are beings connected to the Source Creator.

Yes, NASA lies everyday and twice on Sundays.

Next?



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: caterpillage
Dang it. You asked the right question.

As far as the observable Universe goes, guess what? We are at the center of it.
But Meeblewarp, on his home planet of Zimwat, in the galaxy Formwort is in the center of his observable Universe too. So, who's actually in the center of the Universe?

We know we aren't at the center of the Solar System and we know we aren't in the center of the Galaxy. We orbit the Sun and the Sun moves around the center of the Milky Way. So how can we be at the actual center of anything.

The Universe has no center.


To Eric, yes I agree we are a little of topic here but if we could have a moment of leeway I think we have an interesting diversion.

And to Phage, I agree the universe seems to have no center. Do you think the universe is infinite then?



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: eriktheawful
Are hamsters good to eat? Giant ones, I mean.



You don't eat them, they eat you.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage



And to Phage, I agree the universe seems to have no center. Do you think the universe is infinite then?

Don't care enough to think about it much.

edit on 1/4/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: caterpillage
Dang it. You asked the right question.

As far as the observable Universe goes, guess what? We are at the center of it.
But Meeblewarp, on his home planet of Zimwat, in the galaxy Formwort is in the center of his observable Universe too. So, who's actually in the center of the Universe?

We know we aren't at the center of the Solar System and we know we aren't in the center of the Galaxy. We orbit the Sun and the Sun moves around the center of the Milky Way. So how can we be at the actual center of anything.

The Universe has no center.



And to Phage, I agree the universe seems to have no center. Do you think the universe is infinite then?




There's this, Accelerating expansion of the universe

But then there's this, Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: caterpillage



And to Phage, I agree the universe seems to have no center. Do you think the universe is infinite then?

Don't care enough to think about it much.


Really? I find the concept fascinating. I try to wrap my mind around the idea of an infinite universe from time to time.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: makemap

Maybe NASA is hiding secrets. But, if NASA doesn't bring back video images from Mars who can we actually trust? We have the technology, we have satellites and wireless internet. I can't see any reason why NASA can't send any Mars Rover with a GO Pro camera on within a few years to be honest. NASA should've done this a while back ago. Why are they still using crappy snapshot camera technology? We got like Terabyte hard drives we can have really long videos for 30+ years.

Consider the possibility that there are no rovers on Mars, and the whole thing is part of a massive deception designed to make people believe we're on an unremarkable blue ball amidst a random, chaotic and stupid universe.

They supposedly put a man on the moon--and videotaped it--almost 50 years ago. For some reason... they can't make it work now? It's 2016. I can fit a film studio Stanley Kubrick would've died for in my pocket.

There are no videos from the rovers on Mars because there are no rovers on Mars.

You are either trolling or not educated properly. It's a fact we've landed on the moon and we do indeed have rovers on Mars as well as a satellite around Pluto. It isn't up for debate and you have no basis for your false statements. Move along people.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage

Why. Would it change your life, either way?
But out of curiosity, how does one go about imagining infinity?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Surely, there must always be a center, even if we can't trace or quantify it for it's constant movement and the unknown dimensions of space? It's gotta be there though, right? Even if we're not smart enough yet to work out where that is at any given time?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, no? I guess in that sense, it'll remain a speculative philosophical question until the day we are learned enough to define such things.

My tiny mind just can't grasp the logic in: Nope, there's just no center.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: SlowNail

It's gotta be there though, right?
Not if you can wrap your head around the concept of space getting bigger, everywhere at the same time. Which, admittedly, is not something that is easy to wrap your head around. But that's what the data tells us is happening.



I guess in that sense, it'll remain a speculative philosophical question until the day we are learned enough to define such things.
Can't hurt. The Universe certainly doesn't care about what we think.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: makemap

Maybe NASA is hiding secrets. But, if NASA doesn't bring back video images from Mars who can we actually trust? We have the technology, we have satellites and wireless internet. I can't see any reason why NASA can't send any Mars Rover with a GO Pro camera on within a few years to be honest. NASA should've done this a while back ago. Why are they still using crappy snapshot camera technology? We got like Terabyte hard drives we can have really long videos for 30+ years.

Consider the possibility that there are no rovers on Mars, and the whole thing is part of a massive deception designed to make people believe we're on an unremarkable blue ball amidst a random, chaotic and stupid universe.

They supposedly put a man on the moon--and videotaped it--almost 50 years ago. For some reason... they can't make it work now? It's 2016. I can fit a film studio Stanley Kubrick would've died for in my pocket.

There are no videos from the rovers on Mars because there are no rovers on Mars.


Faulty logic is faulty. Using the same logic;

Why wouldn't they use the same awesome technology to just fake videos then? You realize how long it takes to transfer a digital still from mars right?


An orbiter passes over the rover and is in the vicinity of the sky to communicate with the rover for about eight minutes at a time, per sol. In that time, between 100 and 250 megabits of data can be transmitted to an orbiter. That same 250 megabits would take up to 20 hours to transmit direct to Earth! The rover can only transmit direct-to-Earth for a few hours a day due to power limitations or conflicts with other planned activities, even though Earth may be in view much longer.


So you can see, 20 hours for 31.5 megabytes. 250 megabits = 31.5 megabytes. A go pro 1080p 1 hour long video is somewhere near 20+ gigabytes uncompressed, or roughly 634 times the size. That would be around 12,680 hours, or 328.3 days, or 1.4 years to transmit just ONE hour of footage from the mars satellite to earth, not considering that the mars satellite only has 8 minutes per day to receive data from the rover -- so it would take years just to get the data from the rover to the satellite, and then years more to bounce that data from the satellite back to earth.

The average distance from earth to mars is roughly 140,000,000 miles.

So as you can see, it would basically take life times to get a years worth of footage from the rovers. We'd have to basically setup laser arrays with lasers powerful enough to shoot a crossed a network of relays all the way back to earth to get that sort of information in a timely manner. We'd also have to be able to make sure they all stayed perfectly inline and weren't hit by solar radiation or knocked out of calibration or convergence by any floating debris, and we'd also have to make sure that none of the mirrors got dirty or damaged and then we'd need to run continuous maintenance on the entire relay, which means either people or robots would have to be stationed near by to conduct said maintenance at each and every relay. Not to mention, we'd have to have an endless and continuous power supply for the laser relay stations. If even one relay drifted a centimeter, you'd have zero data transmission. In short, it's technologically impossible for us right now.

In other words, we basically need to invent quantum entangled communication first, which if we did that -- would change the entire world as we know it in terms of how we send/receive data. You think you're 250megabit internet is fast, it's got nothing on what would be required to transmit from Mars to Earth a real time twitch.tv stream. Like, you don't understand data transmission at all, let alone over 100's of millions of miles.

So knowing this, IF THEY HAD VIDEO, that'd be telling that it wasn't real and it was faker than Vanilla Ice. This means the simplest explanation using Occam's Razor is that there really ARE rovers on mars and no deception is happening at all. Be happy with the Jpegs, like really -- it's amazing they can even get that over 140 million miles.
edit on 5-1-2016 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 04:37 AM
link   
There is work on making a space based "internet" to store and forward as and when its possible but its a right royal PITA as the fastest you can transmit data is the speed of light but due to the transmission medium you have to lose some of that for error correction and general overheads, the more data you want to transmit the bigger the buffers you need and you need those nodes to be pretty much maint free as its not going to be easy to send someone half way to mars to clean something.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: makemap

Who knows. In something as infinite as the universe size is irrelevant. One persons golf ball could be another species planet. IE MiB. (the movie)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

If it is getting bigger everywhere at the same time that does not mean it has no centre. If i somehow blew up a balloon continuously/infinitely it will still have a centre - just because we don't where it is, does not mean there is no centre.

How can anything exist without a centre?
edit on 5-1-2016 by johnb because: grammar



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: johnb




If i somehow blew up a balloon continuously/infinitely it will still have a centre

Yes. But only the skin of the balloon is getting bigger.


How can anything exist without a centre?
I know, weird huh? How can space get bigger everywhere?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
nasa lies about everything



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join