reply to post by NGC2736
haha alright man. i thought you were putting me down or something, but glad to know you werent
and truely, i wonder how many theories actually do start that way
Do you now have anything that can either scientifically or physically back up these claims? And by those terms, I mean science as it is understood by the vast majority of educated humans, or that can be physically analyzed or shown through a generally accepted medium.
The same could be applied to any of us, so we must also show some form of proof. This is the way learning takes place for most of us.
Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post NGCV2736. My signature says it, I've said it, what does it take to help you understand that there is no proof at the moment for what I am speculating or hypothesizing. NAZA holds all the cards and the data. NAZA manipulates, fabricates and air brushes the truth out of almost everything they publish.
here's an experiment you could do if you had a fairly large amateur telescope:
1. Observe Saturn's moon, Iapetus. Look it up on Wikipedia if you haven't heard of it before, but it's very unique in the solar system in that one hemisphere is very dark while the other is very bright.
2. Over the period of many days, you will notice that it will periodically get brighter and darker. This is because it is rotating and the brighter and darker hemispheres alternately face the Earth. Make note of how many days it takes for a full period of brightening and darkening.
About a century later, Sir William Herschel took the view that the discoverer's original position was the only one possible. However, Cassini's skepticism is meritorious in light of more recent data. American Professor Edward E. Barnard, in 1889, reported sudden disappearances of Iapetus while engaging in ring translucency observations. Further, in 1913, Harvard advocated more study of Iapetus because some observations had revealed sudden and large, irregular brightness fluctuations. Attempts to explain Iapetus must contend with these horns of an historical dilemma.
Observers of Iapetus have wondered how the iceous region, being shadowed from the sun, can be so intensely bright. They have wondered how the iceous surface can change so abruptly into a radically different asphaltic composition. They have wondered about unexpected flashes of light, large variation in surface reflectivity and sudden disappearance from view.
"NAZA's weak and improbable fantasies about Iapetus do little to explain these mysteries." johnlear
3. Over the course of many days, Iapetus will also move in relation to Saturn; this is because of its orbit. Take note of how many days it takes for it to make a full revolution. Of course, this method isn't completely accurate as Saturn is also moving in relation to the Earth, but over short timescales it should be a pretty good approximation.
In addition, you've applied a real astronomical method that is used by professional and amateur astronomers worldwide to measure such things as rotation periods, orbital periods of eclipsing binary stars, etc.
Of course, you could make the argument that the entire professional and amateur astronomical communities are somehow in on this secret, but I really can't help you there.