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: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Come on John, let's drop this immature nonsense and get down to the nitty griity. Every time someone injects anything logical and verifiable into your outlandish stories you find any reason you can not to answer them. That, in and of itself, should be a warning to all who give you even the slightest amount of credit.


I highly doubt you'd receiev anything but immature nonsense out of john lear. He wont answer any of your logical questions. I seriously dont know how he got to be a "conspiracy master", with his own forum section. Quite ridiculous really.




posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Originally posted by DaRAGE




I highly doubt you'd receiev anything but immature nonsense out of john lear.


Thanks for the post DaRAGE, but I'll have you know that there are those that will claim that I post mature nonsense also.



He wont answer any of your logical questions.
.

Herein, of course lies the problem. DaRAGE, I am respectfully requesting that you post a question that IgnoreTheFacts has posted that you feel is logical and that I have not responded to. Thanks.


I seriously dont know how he got to be a "conspiracy master", with his own forum section. Quite ridiculous really.


Sometimes I wonder that myself. I look at the stats occasionally and wonder "who is that guy".


Thanks again for your post, it is truly appreciated. :



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh

This is an example of a "running difference" image of the sun's
surface revealed by the TRACE satellite using its 171 angstrom filter.
This filter is specifically sensitive to iron ion (FE IX/X) emissions and
records a C3.3 flare and mass ejection in AR 9143 in 171Å on 28 Aug 2000.
The flare activity is caused by increased electrical activity as fast moving plasma sweeps over surface ridges, resulting in increased electrical activity on the windward side of the mountain ranges.
Courtesy: 'The Surface Of The Sun'


So now we have not one, but two models, thanks to TRACE and SOHO. The image above taken by the TRACE satellite, does seem to show a solid surface.


Ok. Do you seriously think this image is an indication that the sun has a solid surface? Please answer yes or no. Thank you!

Regards
yf



posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by yfxxx
 


Well, it SEEMS solid enough!
I don't know. Never been there! But this conclusion is derived from the analysis of data received by TRACE and partly SOHO. Remember, what we know of the sun is more of conjecture and deductions from empirical evidence from observations conducted over a period of time.

Guess we'll have to wait some more to discover the exact composition of the sun and the planets especially the outer ones. And don't forget the moons. Some of them are pretty intriguing!

Cheers!



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   
OK this is where i have to step in and ask a question. I don't know enough to be able to add much value to this discussion and i unfortunately don't have the time, between family and work, to do enough research.

BUT, and here it comes, based on the pic of the Sun it certainly looks solid. This based on the fancy filter and equipment used etc etc.

Now my point is this, it appears that some replying in this thread use information to suit their purposes. For example, it is mentioned the surface of a planet is solid, AHHHHH, but it is debunked because equipment used has shown it to be gascious (as we are also told). NOW, Equipment used shows that the Sun could have a solid surface; but now THAT is wrong too. So when does one accept the findings of such equipment? It appears only when it suits someone to do so.

So the question to those fighting the fact that the possibility that Neptune, for example has a solid surface and the Sun is ALL gas - PLEASE PLEASE make up your mind - DO you agree with equipment used to make measurements or do you NOT agree. Because then you can maintain that Neptune is all gas/water or glue, or whatever you like to believe, and then also have to accept that the Sun could be solid.

Equipment was used in both instances to make assessments but one seems to accept the findings only when it suits oneself.

Hope i made sense. But you get the point i am sure.

One can't have his cake AND eat it. Well that's about all i can add to this so far. Just an opinion - not fact - just an opinion - my own opinion - not measured by equipment but an opinion none the less.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by shearder
 


It's really quite an easy conundrum to solve. Some methods of remote detection are founded on tested and proven science, others are not. There's a good reason you won't find one mainstream scientist these days who thinks Neptune is anything other than a gas giant-because it isn't anything other than a gas giant!



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by DaRAGE
 


It really all boils down to an appeal to credentials as to where he gets his "master" status from, and, of course, credentials don't prove anything.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by totalvigilance
 


Well i don't believe scientists actually know 100% what Neptune is or isn't. As an example:
Source

Scientists believe that Neptune is made up chiefly of hydrogen, helium, water, and silicates. Silicates are the minerals that make up most of Earth's rocky crust (AHHHHHHHH), though Neptune does not have a solid surface like Earth.
So NASA is sure to add though Neptune does not have a solid surface like Earth.

Now i am not saying that Neptune actually HAS a solid rocky surface. I "believe" it could have based on info they have given - it IS possible. NASA cannot absolutely and 100% prove what it consists of. Hell the closest they got was with Voyager 2. Yeah, they have theories and formulas but as we know, scientific fact has changed of the years and is constantly changing with "advances" and new "discoveries".

I believe they know more than they are sharing and also don't know everything - and no, neither do i or you.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by totalvigilance
It really all boils down to an appeal to credentials as to where he gets his "master" status from, and, of course, credentials don't prove anything.


LOL It all boils down to to crowd appeal, not credentials... the believers come to hear the great stories... the seekers of truth come for the tidbits of true leads to follow... the debunkers swarm to his side to do battle... and the rest all gather around for the good show...

That's what make a Master.... just look at all the 'love John' threads the skeptics start.. your all hooked







posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by totalvigilance
It's really quite an easy conundrum to solve. Some methods of remote detection are founded on tested and proven science, others are not. There's a good reason you won't find one mainstream scientist these days who thinks Neptune is anything other than a gas giant-because it isn't anything other than a gas giant!


So how come skeptics are allowed to make wild and crazy statements and pawn them off as facts without having to back them up?

Foul I say Unfair...

I bet I can find LOTS of mainstream Planetary Scientists who would tell you you are full of it



Trace amounts of water is visible in Neptune's upper atmosphere, but astronomers believe the ratio of water increases as you pass down through the cloud tops. Planetary scientists have theorized that water could exist deep down in Neptune's solid core, in an ionic state, where temperatures are thousands of degrees Kelvin. But there might be a spot higher up, where temperatures are cooler (less than 800 K) and pressures more reasonable (less than 20 kbar) then vast oceans of liquid water could form.


Universe Today

Funny that a simple google search under "Neptune solid core" shows that many believe this to be so... I love the "oceans of water" report though

[edit on 7-11-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


HEHEHE... oh i love this post Z!!
Yeah, he has a following whether they like it or not, they go and read and take in everything he says. They make an effort to go to these sorts of threads.

Yes, John has a following - as do you lol

Keep it coming.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 02:39 AM
link   
OK now maybe it is just me - yes?

However, i looked atthe pic on this site and what seems to be the case is that a full on view reveals a thinner "gas" atmosphere and some different colouring below that. Possibly a solid surface? OR it may be an icy surface? Hell who knows. Just thought i would share it.




posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Are there conflicting stories about Neptune?

There seems to be differences of "opinion" from different sources.

Source

According to data gathered from here on Earth and the Voyager spacecraft, Neptune is probably too dry and too warm for these oceans to form. Wiktorowicz and Ingersoll calculated that there's less than a 15% chance of oceans on Neptune. But as Neptune cools over time - perhaps in a billion years or so - the chance of water oceans increases to 40%


Now is it an "Ice" giant or is it warm? Wouldn't ice form if it were too cold? Here they are saying it is too warm...

Can anyone explain the conflict? Or is it me again?



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by shearder
 


I basically tried to start the same thing a few pages ago, forget it. They enjoy putting the cart before the horse. Many have NO understanding how the data is collected, how to interpret it, and what it means. They just see a cool picture online and conclude their own, ignorant, opinions concerning what it shows.

Like I said earlier (and obviously I am not alone here on this thought) I think it would behoove everybody to possibly back up the speculation a little bit and take a few minutes to better understand the science, measuring instrumentation, techniques and calculations behind determining what a planet in our solar system is primarily made of and it's mass.

It can get a little complicated, but it is worth looking into if your going to argue that Neptune is a water world among other things.

But you should understand a little behind how this stuff is determined, and be able to tell us why you disagree.....it's called deny ignorance, right? Without this basic knowledge, your all encouraging ignorance, or at least ignoring ignorance.

I realize it's a lot more fun to sit there and point your finger at the "man" and accuse them of pulling the wool over your eyes, lol. Any 12 year old can do that, and anyone who wants to believe in a lot of the stuff posted in this section wont bother to let little things like facts get in the way. But by doing so, your doing nothing more than exposing your ignorance, and hurting what you want to believe in, by believing in it blindly. At least learn some facts about what your assuming, don't be afraid...it won't poison your mind. Hell, you might find out information that only solidifies your belief or even confirms it. But you don't know what you don't know.

I'm just sayin', well......Deny Ignorance.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Good God Almighty! There are so many scientists propounding so many different theories, that it screws the mind! Water world, hot/cold Neptune, solid surface, gas, ice ball, solid core, liquid core, steaming hot surface, blah, blah and more blah!

The darn fact is that scientists and self proclaimed experts can’t seem to arrive at any one conclusion based on absolute irrefutable scientific evidence of what the heck Neptune is really composed of. Why only Neptune? This applies to all the planets, except mother Earth!

So we’re really going round in circles. Till irrefutable evidence deduced from scientific studies and analyses with proprietary equipment regarding the composition of planets is laid on the table, I feel it’s a waste of time as it’s nothing but pure speculation.

Cheers!



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Hey mikesingh - that's the point i was making. It's hot, it's cold etc. There is no conclusive evidence of what it is or isn't. And as you rightly state, why only Neptune.

Not sure if we will ever find out in our lifetime though
pity.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 06:16 AM
link   
We don't really know much more about our own planet so the possibilities are indeed endless with nothing but 'educated' conjecture to go on.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   
A few things:

I don't know what Neptune is. The only thing that bothers me is that people are coming in here saying Neptune has to be gaseous because plenty of astronomers can see it. Well, I have a question for you all:

How does astronomers seeing Neptune through a telescope and performing size and mass calculations tell anyone it's made of gas? Spectroscopy doesn't say it's gaseous, either. Spectroscopy can only tell you what the outermost shell of atmosphere is made of. Neptune is larger than Earth and its atmospheres may have a lot more layers.

If you were on Mars and tried to do a spectroscopic analysis of Earth's atmosphere, what would you see? You'd see Nitrogen, probably no Oxygen. Why? Because the top of the Earth's atmosphere is almost entirely made of Nitrogen. All the Oxygen's smashed down against the surface. How do you all know Neptune's atmosphere isn't the same? Neptune's uppermost atmosphere may be made of Helium, Hydrogen and Methane or whatever scientists think it's made of, but what about right on the surface? It could be almost completely Oxygen just like on Earth!

So:

Spectroscopy proves nothing but that's on the very top of the atmosphere. Gas giant planets are a THEORY - no one has proven if they are truly gaseous and no one knows what lies beneath the clouds. All scientists know from Earth observations through telescopes are a few things:

- Neptune is larger than Earth
- Through Earth's atmosphere, Neptune appears primarily blue (as you can see this using any good telescope)
- Neptune is much further from the sun than Earth
- The outermost shell of the atmosphere is different from the Earth's

We know nothing about what's on the surface, nothing about it's lower atmosphere composition, nothing about its core (if there even is a core), nothing, nothing, nothing for sure.

That's why it's so fun to speculate.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Curious if one could determine roughly if a planet is gaseous or solid by estimating it's gravitational pull? Using the solid earth as an example, you should be able to tell if a planet the size of Neptune is solid or not by it's gravity?

Drinking at 9am on a weekday and posting on ATS. Nothing good can come of this.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
How does astronomers seeing Neptune through a telescope and performing size and mass calculations tell anyone it's made of gas?


Let me make a wild guess... By calculating it's density?
Does that ring the bell? That density is 1.638g/cm3. There can only be a small hard core in that planet (and nobody is arguing with that possibility). According to modern theories, even Saturn has a small rocky core. When talking about "gas giants" etc, this surely doesn't mean that the planet doesn't have one, it only means that it's a very different planet from Earth-like worlds like Venus and Mars.

I think this is an important point to make. Neptune is a very strange place compared to Earth. John Lear's point that people "live there like they do on Earth" is without merit.




[edit on 5-12-2007 by buddhasystem]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join