Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

are stars really stars

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 10:16 AM
link   
i was thinking last night when i was in bed and looking at the sky. the amount of stars we have and their formations.could it be that they are not stars at all but alien space stations in deep space which provide stops between the planets in the universe?




posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MUDDYFOX
i was thinking last night when i was in bed and looking at the sky. the amount of stars we have and their formations.could it be that they are not stars at all but alien space stations in deep space which provide stops between the planets in the universe?


Well, *anything* is possible Muddyfox, but I think there's sufficient evidence (and History) to show that the vast majoity of "star like" objects in the sky are, indeed, "stars" as we have been led to believe ie self-illumining spheres of gas set at vast distances from us.

www.nmm.ac.uk...:singlecontent/contentTypeA/conWebDoc/contentId/299/navId/00500300f00g



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 10:49 AM
link   
The biggest problem with this idea is the shear size the spacestations would have to be, and the massive amount of light having to be put out of them. If you figure, you can't see the international spacestation with a typical telescope, and that's in low earth orbit. These spacestations thousands of light years away, being viewable by the naked eye, would be massive. And extreamly bright.

If they were to build spacestations for refueling and the like, I would expect they would use some other kind of becan to inform spacecraft of their presence, not light. Imagine you only have enough fuel to travel 17 light years, and you're crusing for this point of light, and it turns out to be a star, not a spacestation, so you die.

If you have the tech to be building spacestations to refuel, chances are you know that there could be a mix up trying to find a starbase based on a point of light.



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 11:12 AM
link   
its only a theory dont gun me down or anything

i thought this was a place of no ignorance



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I'm not trying to gun you down, just trying to explain why I think it would be unlikely. Please don't think I was trying to gun you down, just trying to explain my logic as thouroughly(SP?) as I could.



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 11:18 AM
link   
It's also impossible for planets to form without stars according to modern scientific theory and findings.



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
It's also impossible for planets to form without stars according to modern scientific theory and findings.


That is actually incorrect. In the last year, a series of planetoids were discovered which forced astronomers to redefine what makes a planet. I'll look for the story, it came from either American Scientific or one of the many science websites I go to. I'll post the link or give a summary of the article when I find it.



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MUDDYFOX
its only a theory dont gun me down or anything

i thought this was a place of no ignorance


Many apologies if this is how I came across


I certainly wasn't trying to "gun you down" - simply expressing my belief that *most* stellar objects we see are, indeed, stars as we have been told. Hope no harm's been done?



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I know about that junglejake. But it's not conclusive where those planetoids came from. They might well be from a star that has already exploded into a supernova. The theory isn't disproven yet.



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 01:16 PM
link   
bandit do u really trust scientific theories as they could easily be decieveing us of such space phenomina

genya no harm done ur just airing ur views which is a good thing,i just dont belive scientific space theoies



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Well I've studied it over the years and it does seem sound. Untill now, scientific theories still are the best and most probable working model of the universe.

The round shape of the planets; the dust and rock on the lesser planets; the gas giants being at a certain distance; the Earth being slightly elongated at the equator; the spin of the planets. They all make sense by being formed from a star.



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
I know about that junglejake. But it's not conclusive where those planetoids came from. They might well be from a star that has already exploded into a supernova. The theory isn't disproven yet.


This is true. However, wouldn't it stand to reason that if there were a smaller nebula, which started to coelace on itself, but didn't have enough matter to form a brown dwarf, would still continue to compress? And the reason they'd be so hard to detect is the fact that there isn't neuclear fission happening on their surfaces, causing them to be dark.

That's why it took so long to discover what brown dwarves were.



posted on Dec, 10 2003 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MUDDYFOX
i was thinking last night when i was in bed and looking at the sky. the amount of stars we have and their formations.could it be that they are not stars at all but alien space stations in deep space which provide stops between the planets in the universe?


That could be what all the stars are. Of course it could also be that monkeys are going to fly out my butt.

The majority of bright stars and constellations have been known for thousands of years. And there really hasn't been any new bright stars discovered recently. So what this means is if they are spacestations they built millions of them thousands of years ago and they aren't building any new ones now. Plus the space stations would have to be gigantic, lets say roughly the size of, oh I dunno, the sun. Plus they would have to be releasing huge quantities of energy to be so bright, as much as say, like the sun. Hmmm....





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join