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.

 

To John Lear and Sleeper: Planet Neptune - A Waterworld?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Originally posted by Irma




I really want to take issue with this.

Are you making this rubbish up as you go along?

Maybe I have looked into the wrong Hansen, Lowell, Pickering and Firsoff.


Peter Andreas Hansen 1795 - 1874

He twice received the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society and was awarded the Copley Medal for correcting earlier measurements by others on the distance to the sun, amongst many other awards.

Maybe I have this all wrong. I don't think so. I think you do.


Thanks for the post Irma.

Peter Andreas Hansen, a very respected Danish Mathematician and Astronomer (as you pointed out) proposed to the Royal Astronomical Society in 1856 that the moon was not spherical but ellipsoidal, with the longest axis directed towards earth. Based on the very slight discrepancy between the observed position of the moon and its position predicted by calculation he hypothesized that that the moons center of gravity was not at its geometric center but actually located at a point 59 kilometers farther from earth than the center of the figure.

His theory was that the hemisphere turned towards earth would be elevated above the average altitude of the moon's surface and would therefore be sterile. But he proposed that the opposite hemisphere, the hemisphere with the gravity could have an atmosphere and it was not impossible that there existed vegetation and living things.

If only one hemisphere had an atmosphere that might explain why no stars were occulted, the basis that current science uses to discount an atmosphere on the moon.

But based on Firsoff’s findings the truth is probably that the atmosphere only extends up a few thousand feet or so. (Strange World of the Moon, V.A. Firsoff, Basic Books, Copyright V.A. Firsoff 1959, pgs.129-130).

Hansen’s hypothesis was widely accepted until 1870 when Simon Newcomb came to Europe from the U.S. and ridiculed Hansen's theory not with facts but with the statement that Hansen's work was "mere speculation, unsupported by analogy, probability or observation."

Support for Hansen's theory began to crumble and in the next few years was completely forgotten.

After all, Simon Newcomb was a man of considerable import; he was a U.S. Navy Admiral and Director of the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington , D.C.


From “The New Atlas of the Universe” by Patrick Moore, Crown Publishers:


Abstract
In 1856, Peter Andreas Hansen, one of the leading mathematical astronomers on the Continent, proposed a theory of the moon which included the possibility of an atmosphere and even of life on the far side. The theory was quickly endorsed by many in the scientific community, allowing in its brief life speculation about life on the far side to flourish. It attracted the attention of such notables as Sir John Herschel and was exciting enough to play a large role in Jules Verne's fiction about the moon. The hypothesis met its end around 1870 when assumptions behind it were questioned by Simon Newcomb and others.


Those whose interests lay in supporting the belief that no one lives on the moon and that there is no breathable atmosphere on the moon are very powerful and have been active throughout the history of modern man.

That you cannot find anything about the people I named or their ideas about the moon is classic.

Winston Churchill once said, “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”

The reason that happens is that the truth is often hidden in what they think is garbage. Oh, you look like you're in a hurry. Can I help you up?

Thanks for your post and for the providing me the opportunity to discuss my favorite subject: the Moon.




posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Cheers John.

All well and good, but did they pay with their career and reputation by coming forward with these theories? No. At the time, nobody knew any better. They are still well respected for the majority of their good work.

All they were perhaps guilty of is speculating (at times, wildly!) given the information and technology at hand to them. They were then corrected when science and technology had progressed to a level that more accurate observations were possible, or more accurate theories had been introduced.

If a notable scientist came forward with these theories today, too damn right they would be thrown out of whatever organization pays their wages. If your doctor suggested a course of Leeches to cure your headache, I'm sure you'd want him stopped from practicing too.

Just because scientists thought something was feasible 100 or 200 years ago, doesn't lend any weight to it being true today.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Originally posted by Irma




Just because scientists thought something was feasible 100 or 200 years ago, doesn't lend any weight to it being true today.



Thanks for the post Irma. Oh, I see. Of course not. Orbital paths have changed, the measurement of time has changed and, hey, NASA says nobody is on the moon. What could me more weighty than that?

Thanks again for the post.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Neptune is a beautiful looking planet. So are Jupiter Saturn and Uranus. But why is Neptune blue?

As what the scientists say, Neptune's atmosphere is made up of hydrogen, helium and methane. The methane in Neptune's upper atmosphere absorbs the red light from the sun but reflects the blue light from the sun back into space. This is why Neptune appears blue. But darn! Where's the oxygen disappeared?


As John rightly says, there can be no such things as 'gas giants'. Gravity would have coagulated them into solid spheres over a period of time or the gas would have dissipated into space due to lack of it. Well some would contend that the gravity is such that the planet is in a perpetual state of equilibrium, just enough to maintain it as a gas giant! Heck! That's one in a trillion chance of it being so! And then there's Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune! All gas giants? What are the odds that this is so in one System?

So obviously there is gravity. And gravity means there could be an atmosphere. An atmosphere could mean breathable oxygen. The formation of molecular oxygen atmospheres happens more often in the outer solar system than expected. There is earlier evidence of molecular oxygen atmospheres elsewhere in the solar system for instance above the icy Galilean moons of Jupiter.

As John rightly contends, the only gas giant in this universe is NASA and probably ESA too!

Cheers!



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from it's own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external"

said Isaac Newton in 1687.

Didn't a Mr Einstein improve on this theory slightly with his Relativity works. Just because something was once thought to be true, doesn't mean that all scientific observations since are false. Time is not constant as it was once thought to be.




[edit on 1/11/2007 by Irma]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
As John rightly says, there can be no such things as 'gas giants'


I don't think John has "cosmologist" on his resume'. There is nothing "rightly" about his opinion on planetary development.


Heck! That's one in a trillion chance of it being so! And then there's Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune! All gas giants? What are the odds that this is so in one System?


Well, you tried to answer your last question with your first statement. And you still got it wrong. The odds are obviously 4 in 9. I know, it could be argued 4 in 10, maybe 4 in 8....you get the point.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by MrPenny]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Originally posted by mikesingh



Neptune is a beautiful looking planet. So are Jupiter Saturn and Uranus. But why is Neptune blue?


Thanks for the post Mike. What is your source that says Neptune is blue?


As John rightly contends, the only gas giant in this universe is NASA and probably ESA too!


2 big whoppers!



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post Mike. What is your source that says Neptune is blue?

I didn't!!
ChocoTaco said it! Here...


Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
Bright blue, white wispy clouds...it sure looks beautiful.


Cheers!



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   
is this guy serious?
people live on the moon AND neptune?

...



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Originally posted by cheeser




is this guy serious?
people live on the moon AND neptune? ...




Thanks for the post cheeser. Yes, I am quite serious. My opinion is that
all planets in our solar system are inhabited with people just like oursleves but considerably more advanced both technologically and socially.

For more information you can check out the "Will The Real Planet Venus Please Stand Up" thread.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by cheeser




is this guy serious?
people live on the moon AND neptune? ...




Thanks for the post cheeser. Yes, I am quite serious. My opinion is that
all planets in our solar system are inhabited with people just like oursleves but considerably more advanced both technologically and socially.

For more information you can check out the "Will The Real Planet Venus Please Stand Up" thread.

Thanks for the post.


hey john,

when u say "all planets in our solar system are inhabited with people just like oursleves" do you mean humans live there or "aliens" that live in similar ways to us?.....



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Hi John. Thanks for the info re: Peter Andreas Hansen. To clarify, am I right to suppose that you don't wholly go along with his theories, though? I'm sure that various evidence of civilisation on, as it were, our side of the moon (the elevated, sterile side according to Hansen) has been discussed, too.

Or, could the relative sparcity of that evidence on the visible surface be explained by its being essentially sterile (so not much for us/whoever to get from it except the odd mineral, or whatever)? I've always found it difficult to accept (that old chestnut
) the ideas about large-scale civilisations because, despite the pictures of apparent structures and machinery on the surface, whether you believe them to be there or not, they are certainly few and far between.

But the odd research station or mineral mine is not really any different from our own planet, which has vast swathes (I think probably getting on for half, anyway) in concentrated positions at either pole where all WE can manage is the odd research station and oil well.

Just a thought. Hate to try to see your point of view, or anything, I know that's not what one is supposed to do on these boards...I'll get back to dismissing everything you say as soon as possible, honest...
LW



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
As John rightly says, there can be no such things as 'gas giants'. Gravity would have coagulated them into solid spheres over a period of time or the gas would have dissipated into space due to lack of it. Well some would contend that the gravity is such that the planet is in a perpetual state of equilibrium, just enough to maintain it as a gas giant! Heck! That's one in a trillion chance of it being so! And then there's Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune! All gas giants? What are the odds that this is so in one System?


Can you back any of this up with anything even slightly scientific?

Why must they 'turn solid' if they are to not dissipate into space?

Even the planets that are being 'observed' outside our solar system are gas giants more often than not.

How is this possible if their formation is virtually impossible?



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
There are no "water planets" in our solar system. Just like there are no ‘gas giants’ in our solar system. That is a myth propagated by NASA


No, it's the conclusion from astronomical observation availble not only to NASA, but to most nations in the world. The sizes of planets like Saturn are measurable, and so are their masses. Thus a density of the planet can be estimated and no John, it's not a rock. The absense of gas giants in the solar system is a myth propagated by Joh Lear.



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post cheeser. Yes, I am quite serious. My opinion is that
all planets in our solar system are inhabited with people just like oursleves but considerably more advanced both technologically and socially.

You are entitled to your "opinion", but in this case it is a completely uneducated and scientifically stupid opinion! Heck, I can probably get more useful "opinions" if I ask for them in an asylum!


For more information you can check out the "Will The Real Planet Venus Please Stand Up" thread.

If you replace "more information" by "more utter BS from delusional crackpots", the sentence becomes true.

yf



posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Irma
 


Dude, I have no time for laymen’s arguments. But you probably are aware that the theory of formation of gas giants is, well, just a theory. Inferences from various factors. No one knows for sure. These are all deductions using Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation as the basis to calculate the mass of planets.

By the way, even today, do we know what gravity really is? Does String theory solve the mystery or does Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG)?

Now check out what some of our astronomers have to say. Note the words, ‘perhaps’, ‘plausibility’, ‘theories’, ‘hypotheses’, etc. The bottom line is, we don’t know.


How gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn arose in our solar system and around other stars is a more nebulous question. Recent discoveries of planets orbiting low-mass stars provide fodder for either of two competing theories of gas giant formation, depending on who you ask.

The standard scenario for the birth of gas giants posits a continuation of the rocks-crashing-together process, also known as core accretion. In this view, when the growing core reaches about ten Earth-masses it starts slowly pulling in material from the wispy penumbra of gas enshrouding a young star. Eventually gas accumulation kicks into high gear, and then somehow stops, perhaps as the gas is depleted. The model is eminently plausible, argues Geoff Bryden, an astronomer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.

Astronomer Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution and his colleagues have hypothesized that solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation could account for the stunted core, if gravitational instability is at play.

www.sciam.com...


(All emphasis mine)

Cheers!



posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Dude?? Since when has this been Bill And Ted's Excellent Message Board??

Anyway that was a most informative link, well done for posting it.

A few things trouble me however.

Nowhere in that link did it say that gas giants were a 1 in a trillion rarity.
Nowhere did it mention how a breathable atmosphere forms on every one.

You also added, 'the bottom line is, we don't know'.... yet you and John seem assured beyond reasonable doubt that they all form a breathable atmosphere and a nice rocky surface for people to live on. Or is that just John?


By the way, even today, do we know what gravity really is? Does String theory solve the mystery or does Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG)?


Have you thrown this bit of randomness in here to confuse the average reader? We are not talking about String Theory or LQG.

Although 'we don't know what gravity is' as you so eloquently wrote, we can measure it, calculate it and use it to our advantage because we know how it works. If it is so poorly understood, how do think they can slingshot those Pioneer, Voyager, Mariner probes around numerous planets without totally mucking it up? Hell, they even used it to deduce that Neptune existed, before it had been directly observed. So to say that gravity is a big mystery is just a little wide of the mark.



posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Irma
Dude?? Since when has this been Bill And Ted's Excellent Message Board??

What's BATMB?
Who in the name of Jupiter's moons are Bill and Ted? Ne'er heard o' them!


Nowhere did it mention how a breathable atmosphere forms on every one.

Didn't say that, did I?



you and John seem assured beyond reasonable doubt that they all form a breathable atmosphere and a nice rocky surface for people to live on.

Didn't say that, did I?



Have you thrown this bit of randomness in here to confuse the average reader? We are not talking about String Theory or LQG.

Nope! But these try and explain what gravity could be. Like gravity waves? Does gravity PULL you down or PUSH you down?? Darn! Why is everything so complicated?



Although 'we don't know what gravity is' as you so eloquently wrote, we can measure it, calculate it and use it to our advantage because we know how it works.

Agreed!
But we still don't know what produces gravity!



So to say that gravity is a big mystery is just a little wide of the mark.

Not too wide! Whether gravity is a small mystery or a big one, it's still a mystery in that we don't know why and how it's produced!


Cheers!



posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Mike, I apologize unreservedly for lumping your views in with those of John Lear. I can fully understand why you would not want this to be the case.



Our knowledge of the internal structure of Neptune is inferred from the planet's radius, mass, period of rotation, the shape of its gravitational field and the behavior of hydrogen, helium, and water at high pressure. This cut-away view shows Neptune composed of an outer envelope of molecular hydrogen, helium and methane roughly the mass of one to two Earths. Below this region Neptune appears to be composed of a mantle rich in water, methane, ammonia, and other elements. These elements are under high temperatures and pressures deep within the planet. The mantle is equivalent to 10 to 15 earth masses. Neptune's core is composed of rock and ice, and is likely no more than one Earth mass.

www.solarviews.com...

Just thought I'd throw this in here as it might wake John from his beauty sleep. Is any of the above quoted information true? Where in all this is the breathable atmosphere? Where in all this is the surface for people to live on?



posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh


you and John seem assured beyond reasonable doubt that they all form a breathable atmosphere and a nice rocky surface for people to live on.

Didn't say that, did I?




Well, you did say....

As John rightly says, there can be no such things as 'gas giants'.


This is what made me think that you agree with John Lear's appalling theories regarding gas giants.

Again, sorry for the mix up.




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join