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.

 

"Earth is actually 2 planets" Scientists conclude

page: 4
54
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Wow this puts new meaning to something learned every day. Oh boy will have to share this with my sons later...heheh




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Very cool. It makes more sense than the original hypothesis. There's really only one big difference between the original moon hypothesis and this one. Instead of 45 (or less) degree collision that knocked a piece of earth into orbit, this one suggests a head on collision that completely melded the two planets together and part of this mixture became the moon. This is why earth and the moon both have the same composition and they couldn't find evidence of the object that hit us. It was there the entire time.

No real surprise here, though. The early solar system was essentially a billiard table.
edit on 2 1 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

number are symbolic when it comes to ancient text. 10,000 years in the bible does not mean 10,000 years, it has a symbolic meaning. it is similar in that it is a huge planet that comes into our sol system that we did not know about. the time frame that it enters our system does not take away from the fact that an ancient people believed this planet existed with no tech, like we have. the time frame might be wrong, but it is similar in that their is a planet to answer your question.
edit on 1-2-2016 by CosmicSmack because: grammar and spelling



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: CosmicSmack


number are symbolic when it comes to ancient text. 10,000 years in the bible does not mean 10,000 years, it has a symbolic meaning.

What is this a response to?



it is similar in that it is a huge planet that comes into our sol system that we did not know about.

That's news to me. This hasn't even been confirmed yet, but there's nothing to suggest it comes ''into'' the solar system. It would already be in the solar system if it's existence is confirmed, just way out there.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
That's pretty wild.
I wrote my own mythology of creation a while back and that is exactly how I described the moon being created; by a collision with Earth of another large celestial body.
Sometimes I believe intuition is all we need to discover the truth.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

im not saying i know if its real or when its or if coming. all i said is the planet the news is talking about sounds similar to what zecharia sitchin believes the Sumerians where talking about.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: CosmicSmack
All I'm saying is no, they're not. Except I showed you that even if Sitchin's fictional 'interpretation' were correct, then this discovery would not be it.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

how have you showed that? or rather what have you show? all im saying is this new planet sounds like the planet x the internet talks about. its all speculation im not arguing for either side im just saying the ideas are similar huge planet we didt know about it. i think you are reading a bit too much into what im saying.
edit on 2-2-2016 by CosmicSmack because: had more to say



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Does this theory in any way give credence to a variant of "hollow earth" ?

Could the body of the second planet still be intact within the earth's surface, to include a somewhat circular gap around it, caused by the insertion/ outward pressure of the globe ?

That would be neat. Light source, there's the rub.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: CosmicSmack
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

how have you showed that?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

ETA: You understand that a planet that orbits the Sun once every 10,000 years or more CAN"T come through the inner solar system every 3600 years. There's more but that should suffice.
edit on 2-2-2016 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

ok lol i guess every one see things different.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: CosmicSmack
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

ok lol i guess every one see things different.


3 or 4 people have already argued this in the new planet thread. It's not just everyone "seeing things different". Some folks want it to be true so badly, they automatically assume this is that planet, despite having virtually no similarities. If you read any articles about planet 9, you'd know the orbit does not come into the inner solar system, nor does it ever even come close. Even at it's closest to the sun it is still more than triple the distance from the sun to Neptune. It's confirmation bias. Everybody sees the phrase "new planet" so they automatically assume it's Nibiru or some other fabled planet when it shares nothing in common with that myth whatsoever.
edit on 2 2 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Earths second moon!
Cruithne goes around the earth and the sun
in a very odd orbit.
this would be from the same impact of two planets.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray
Does this theory in any way give credence to a variant of "hollow earth" ?

Could the body of the second planet still be intact within the earth's surface, to include a somewhat circular gap around it, caused by the insertion/ outward pressure of the globe ?

That would be neat. Light source, there's the rub.

No takers, eh ?

I kinda like the undeveloped / parasitic twin idea.

The little globe is just inside the earth's surface, intact, with a big enough air gap around it to be lived on. And a portal or two (i.e. cracks or holes) to get to it.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

"However, after studying Moon rocks brought back by astronauts on the Apollo missions, scientists at the University of California have found that their oxygen isotopes are the same as on Earth. "

that cause we got the rock from earth...



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: stevieray
Does this theory in any way give credence to a variant of "hollow earth" ?

Could the body of the second planet still be intact within the earth's surface, to include a somewhat circular gap around it, caused by the insertion/ outward pressure of the globe ?

That would be neat. Light source, there's the rub.

No takers, eh ?

I kinda like the undeveloped / parasitic twin idea.

The little globe is just inside the earth's surface, intact, with a big enough air gap around it to be lived on. And a portal or two (i.e. cracks or holes) to get to it.


If anything it directly contradicts any notion of hollow earth. If the earth were hollow and another planet hit it head on it would shatter like an egg and no trace would be left. The collision between planets was head on, so the force of the impact was enough to completely turn both planets into magma and then remold together via gravity. Unfortunately no room for hollow earth at all unless somebody could explain how gravity would suddenly not work in that situation and why it would defy the laws of physics.
edit on 2 5 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I wasn't suggesting the earth was hollow when the impact occurred. I was suggesting that the solid earth and perhaps less solid (magma etc.) interior absorbed the second body. With enough of an air space around the smaller body for an atmosphere of sorts, and some random small openings between the two.

I didn't know we had high-level physicists and geologists here at ATS. Boy do I feel like just an average guy on the internet, spitballin '



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Swing and a miss. The scientists are right about one thing though. The rocks on earth and the moon are basically identical. We'll forget magnetism for the time being. This direct impact hypothesis is better than the other collision idea because at least this idea tries to explain why the rocks are the same. The glancing blow hypothesis make no sense at all no matter how you try to recreate the angles. But this direct impact hypothesis has a big hole it's scenario- the age of the moon.

The moon is much younger than earth.

sservi.nasa.gov...

www.space.com...

If the moon was formed after a direct impact, both the earth and the moon would be molten and would be roughly the same age. The moon would only be slightly younger as the material coalesced and reformed into a single orb.


The moon did not come from a collision. The moon was created when a series of massive phreatic eruptions threw material into space early in earth's evolution. I call these eruptions VME's. Like CME's.

Volcanic Mass Ejections.

Water and Magma mixed and exploded. Water is hydrogen and oxygen. Rocket fuel is hydrogen and oxygen. The eruption launch material into space just like we do by mixing the basic stuffs of earth in the right combinations at the right pressures. The fuel water. The rocket ship, is rock, or molten rock.

It's too bad the answer is already known. The only real mystery left is figuring out how to share the answer with the whole world.

It's all very elementary.

edit on 6-2-2016 by ericblair4891 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ericblair4891

I don't see anything in those links that claims the moon is younger than the current earth. The argument is about when the giant collision happened. The original earth was older than the moon, but after the collision happened, the 2 planets melded together into a new one. The moon and the collision are the same age. There's no reason to assume otherwise. Obviously the age of the original earth was roughly 100-200m years before the the collision happened and that's the ONLY thing older than the moon. It makes perfect sense and the new theory actually ties up some loose ends with the older theory mentioned in the articles you posted.

Plus, the amount of energy needed to put enough magma into orbit to create an object with more surface area than the USA would have to be massive, and likely caused by collision anyway, unless you can explain where the energy came from to do such a thing as well as how it got tidally locked.
edit on 2 8 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I've gone back of the articles and found that this really isn't new. This evidence of an early timeline for the moon is from the older studies which are directly related to this study. This study is the reason I said the moon was younger. I had thought a different study had concluded that the moon rocks were younger, but it's not, it is this new theory of a direct impact which changes the age. I thought someone had studied the actual rock to find an age through different means. I think the new part is that they have done a simulation to explain the identical oxygen levels. So, I was a bit mixed up. So, between the two impact theories, the direct impact makes more sense when compared to other models.

The fact is that the moon came directly from the earth. That's, I think, a given.

As, for my big volcanoes, the energy comes from heat, pressure, oxygen and hydrogen. As I explained, it's the same energy used to get rockets into orbit. The early earth's crust formed, and once water started to pool and then mix with magma, we get explosions. The moon didn't form from one explosion, it would have been maybe, hundreds, or thousands of very large eruptions.

That means there were giant volcanoes. Mars is smaller than earth yet it has a giant volcano. Scientists just found a massive old volcano in the Pacific. The early earth would have been like our sun. A very hot molten body mixing and spewing out material. Even now we have a molten earth. It just doesn't throw off as much heat as it once did. The early earth must have been in a constant eruptive state. If you get a big enough magma chamber, and you get a big pool of water, and you mix the two, you get Krakatoa, expect several million times bigger. The hole blown in the earth the forms the circular southeastern arc in Hudson Bay, must have been spectacular.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join