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.

 

Was The Asteroid Belt a planet???

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   


It's just a boulder. You can see by the shadow it's just a lump of rock standing on end with large rectangular projections on the sides. There's nothing artificial about this boulder. Move along.

[edit on 9/26/2006 by mythatsabigprobe]

[edit on 9/26/2006 by mythatsabigprobe]




posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
That's what I call a 'broad brush'! Have you tried studying the picture in some detail? Probably time wasn't on your side!!


If you look carefully, you'll notice that the shadow is formed not by the object per se, but by an outcropping of some natural material resting on the side of the object. The object itself consists of clearly defined rectangles. Check out the rectangular shadow at the lower right of the object.

Then again, if you look at the bigger photograph on the previous page, you may notice that this is the only odd looking object (or rock) on the landscape! Sticks out like a sore thumb. How come no other boulders or rocks?



[edit on 26-9-2006 by mikesingh]



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Yes. The asteroid belt was a planet in the past.

The original order of the planets were:

1. Venus
2. Earth
3. Lost Planet
4. Jupiter
5. Saturn
6. Uranus
7. Neptune

All others are moons or debris from the Lost Planet.

[edit on 27-9-2006 by lostinspace]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Strengthens claims that Eros was a piece of the destroyed planet which is now the Asteroid Belt.


Great find Mike.
Our solar system bears so much evidence of a violent past that it makes ever more sense that we find more and more direct evidence. When they find 'beech sand' type material on cometary bodies i think we should do the math and start considering what the ancients tell us about the history of the planet.

Stellar

[edit on 28-9-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   


All others are moons or debris from the Lost Planet.

truly you are lost in space


all the other planets are spherical
planetary debris is not
so
do the geometry eh



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
The planetary bodies of Mercury, Mars, Pluto and possibly a few other Kuiper Belt objects belonged to a parent Planet at one time.

For example, Mercury was once a moon of Venus, Mars was a once a moon of the Lost Planet, and Pluto and Charon were once moons of Neptune.

When the major planet was destroyed or lost there was an imbalanced charge in the solar system. The moons were ripped from their orbits to satisfy the offset state and bring the charge back to equilization, but not as perfect as it was before. Compare the orbits of Mercury, Mars and Pluto to the other planets.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I'm sorry guys... no. These things don't follow with respect to the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. If something were orbiting at the asteroid belt, it would have to lose a HUGE, almost unimaginable amount of energy. I guess since its orbital mechanics, the energy is calculated as negative (convention) so it would have to gain energy. These theories don't hold up to scrutiny. If Mars were a moon of a destroyed planet, then it would still be orbiting there. The Kuiper belt is leftover objects from when the solar system formed. The Oort cloud is the same way. If you notice, all major KBO's (like Pluto) have screwy orbits. Solar wobble can smooth out or disturb orbits, so you look at Mercury with its parahelion shift and all that fun stuff. Mars, you have Jupiter screwing with it.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordOfBunnies
I'm sorry guys... no. These things don't follow with respect to the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. If something were orbiting at the asteroid belt, it would have to lose a HUGE, almost unimaginable amount of energy. I guess since its orbital mechanics, the energy is calculated as negative (convention) so it would have to gain energy.


Maybe we don't fully understand the power the planets exhibit. I believe there's energy produced by the planets that's not detectable by our instruments, just like we don't understand the existance of dark matter when in fact certain laws justify its existance. The sun and planets may connect in a way that is beyond gravetational attraction. Our own planet produces a magnetic field which stretches way beyond its physical plane, so the sun must produce a magnetic field so great that it reaches all the planets in the solar system and have an influencing in their behavior.

LoST iN SpAce - The nut BAR



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
There is a prophesy of this plantet's return and it is not from any Babylonian or Sumerian source. The prophesy does not describe its return by way of a "Death Star" approach. It reads as though the planet reconstitutes itself.

What is this prophetic source?



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   


There is a prophesy of this plantet's return and it is not from any Babylonian or Sumerian source

so what source is it then ?
LINK ?

oh you know that word Nibru
it isn't sumerian or babylonian
its akkadian
typical sitchenite
doh


[edit on 30-9-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
You're going to hate this answer!

The dirn New Testament Bible

(I inserted my emphasis in brackets)

etext.virginia.edu...

Mathew 24:29-Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken


2 Peter 3:10- But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements [of the heavens] shall melt [together] with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up [exposed mantle activity].

2 Peter 3:12:-Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the Heavens [outerspace] being on fire shall be dissolved [liquified], and the elements shall melt [together] with fervent heat?

2 Peter 3:13-Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth [repaired solar system and better functioning earth].



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
no thats a good answer
perhaps you can explain to me though at which point in the ancient world they realised that heaven was in outer space because in all the ancient cultures i've studied heaven was always on a mountaintop
this spilled over into the bible in areas where god can be found on a mountaintop
Judao christian belief was the first one that had heaven as some invisible pan dimensional place floating above the planet
what i'm asking here really is if what you say is true and these references to heaven were actually meaning outer space why didn't they use the term outer space
why use heaven which at that time specifically meant mountain
why not use the other ancient world term of "Cosmos"



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
no thats a good answer
perhaps you can explain to me though at which point in the ancient world they realised that heaven was in outer space because in all the ancient cultures i've studied heaven was always on a mountaintop
this spilled over into the bible in areas where god can be found on a mountaintop
Judao christian belief was the first one that had heaven as some invisible pan dimensional place floating above the planet
what i'm asking here really is if what you say is true and these references to heaven were actually meaning outer space why didn't they use the term outer space
why use heaven which at that time specifically meant mountain
why not use the other ancient world term of "Cosmos"



The bible writers never used the term "Cosmos" for a description of the location of the Sun, moon and stars, instead they used the common word "Heaven."

Heaven can mean something higher than us varying at different levels.
Heaven can be a place where the birds fly.
Heaven can be a place where the celestial bodies reside.
Heaven can be a place where God resides, an invisible pan dimensional realm still above our world.
The passage has to be taken in context.

Here's an example scripture taken from the Old Testament describing the Heavens as being physical outerspace.

Genesis 15:5-And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them.
[Here God is talking to Abram (soon to be named Abraham)]

etext.virginia.edu...



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace
Yes. The asteroid belt was a planet in the past.

The original order of the planets were:

1. Venus
2. Earth
3. Lost Planet
4. Jupiter
5. Saturn
6. Uranus
7. Neptune

All others are moons or debris from the Lost Planet.

[edit on 27-9-2006 by lostinspace]


dude u forgot Mercury, the Virgo planet! damn!

Actually, I've heard that the 'lost planet' was a Pre-Earth, that was like Earth, but larger and not in the exact spot it resides now. It's name was Tiamat, if you believe theres any truth in the Sumerian creation epic.

Now, Marduk the champion slew the Dragon named Tiamat, cleaving it with a sword, which is interpreted as Marduk being a planet or large meteor, or heavenly body of unknown variety. Tiamat was slain, which was the pre-Earth, a planet like Earth but much larger. So when 1 heavenly body tango'd with the other, it destroyed it, and the debris became the asteroid belt & possibly the moon, where as what was left from the grazing or collision slowly became round again, stabilized its orbit, and is what we now call planet Earth.

It's just a theory..

[edit on 2-10-2006 by runetang]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang

Actually, I've heard that the 'lost planet' was a Pre-Earth, that was like Earth, but larger and not in the exact spot it resides now. It's name was Tiamat, if you believe theres any truth in the Sumerian creation epic.

Now, Marduk the champion slew the Dragon named Tiamat, cleaving it with a sword, which is interpreted as Marduk being a planet or large meteor, or heavenly body of unknown variety. Tiamat was slain, which was the pre-Earth, a planet like Earth but much larger. So when 1 heavenly body tango'd with the other, it destroyed it, and the debris became the asteroid belt & possibly the moon, where as what was left from the grazing or collision slowly became round again, stabilized its orbit, and is what we now call planet Earth.

It's just a theory..



But what makes you believe that Tiamat was Earth? It is more likely that it was Planet X which is now the Asteroid Belt. Marduk was symbolic, meaning something big that had the power to destroy a planet. A massive weapon system unleashed by an advanced civilization?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   


Now, Marduk the champion slew the Dragon named Tiamat, cleaving it with a sword, which is interpreted as Marduk being a planet or large meteor, or heavenly body of unknown variety

perhap you can point out the part in the Enuma Elish where marduk kills Tiamat with a sword because I can't find it
and from what I have seen you just offered an opinion on something you clearly haven't actually read


if you believe theres any truth in the Sumerian creation epic.

surely you mean the Babylonian creation Epic


[edit on 2-10-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang

Originally posted by lostinspace
Yes. The asteroid belt was a planet in the past.

The original order of the planets were:

1. Venus
2. Earth
3. Lost Planet
4. Jupiter
5. Saturn
6. Uranus
7. Neptune

All others are moons or debris from the Lost Planet.

[edit on 27-9-2006 by lostinspace]


dude u forgot Mercury, the Virgo planet! damn!


[edit on 2-10-2006 by runetang]


No I did not forget Mercury. In a later posting I purported that Mercury was once in orbit around Venus. Then after the destruction of the planet between Jupiter and Earth (Mars being a moon of this former planet), Mercury was drawn to a new orbiting band closer to the sun or Venus moved outwards to find a new orbitting band in the other direction.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace

No I did not forget Mercury. In a later posting I purported that Mercury was once in orbit around Venus. Then after the destruction of the planet between Jupiter and Earth (Mars being a moon of this former planet), Mercury was drawn to a new orbiting band closer to the sun or Venus moved outwards to find a new orbitting band in the other direction.


Now lostinspace, can you provide the logic that Mercury was a moon of Venus that shot out of its orbit and found a new one around the Sun after Planet X was destroyed? I couldn't find a connection between the two.

And how did Venus change 'direction' as you contend, a direction opposite to the other planets or as we say 'retrograde motion'? Surely the destruction of Planet X could not have had such an affect on a planet 200 million miles away?

But yes, its quite possible that Mars was a moon of Planet X.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   


But yes, its quite possible that Mars was a moon of Planet X

Mars was a moon of Pluto
are you nuts
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by lostinspace

No I did not forget Mercury. In a later posting I purported that Mercury was once in orbit around Venus. Then after the destruction of the planet between Jupiter and Earth (Mars being a moon of this former planet), Mercury was drawn to a new orbiting band closer to the sun or Venus moved outwards to find a new orbitting band in the other direction.


Now lostinspace, can you provide the logic that Mercury was a moon of Venus that shot out of its orbit and found a new one around the Sun after Planet X was destroyed? I couldn't find a connection between the two.

And how did Venus change 'direction' as you contend, a direction opposite to the other planets or as we say 'retrograde motion'? Surely the destruction of Planet X could not have had such an affect on a planet 200 million miles away?

But yes, its quite possible that Mars was a moon of Planet X.


There are a few factors that made me come to this conclusion. I believe there should be a standard format to a solar system:

1. The system should be have a central star.
2. It should have signficant primary planets in different orbits around the star.
3. It should have moons in orbit around these planets.

What seems to be common in this system is that the primary planets have highly pressurized gasious atmopsheres. Earth could also have had a thick atmosphere millions of years ago. All of these planets have an orbitting moon, exept for Venus. Venus and Earth are very similar in size, Venus is 7500mi (12,100km) and earth is 7926mi (12,756km), but Venus has no moon in orbit like earth. If you were to look at photographs of Mercury and our own moon, you would notice they are practically identical in composition, cratered and grey. Mercury is a tad bit larger than our moon and it's about 3030mi(4880km) and our moon is 2160mi(3476km) in size. Mercury makes a perfect fit for Venus with the exception that's its a somewhat larger than our own moon.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Then there's another big thing, but I'll talk about that later.




top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join