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.

 

Gas giant planets create moons and spit them out

page: 1
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Stars are formed at the center of galaxies, and are spit out individually or in clusters. Planets are formed inside of stars and spit out individually. And moons are formed inside of gas giant planets and spit out individually.

The storms on these gas giant planets swirl and churn and bake and form spherical masses of various elements, creating unique moons over large periods of time.

As the moons form and gain mass they don’t sink but float ever higher above the thick clouds of gas via the centrifugal force of the rapidly spinning planet and are deposited into its orbit.

Some moons don’t make it for one reason or other and fall back into the gas giant. Some crumble and become rings or other debris, which may scatter into space or fall back onto the planet or fall on other moons causing craters and adding mass to them.

The moons that do make it, continually move away from the gas giant planets and eventually escape and are flung to the outer reaches of the solar system or elsewhere in the solar system. Eventually they migrate towards the sun or get snagged by other planets, intact, or in broken parts, after cataclysmic collisions with other moons or large asteroids in the suburbs of the solar system

My .o2




posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I would be more apt to believe that planets and stars throw off little particles that later, through the accretion process, become planets and moons. Since we have never seen a star (or planet) form, your theory seems as likely as any. I don't see centrifugal force being able to lift something with a mass that large though...



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bullfrog
Since we have never seen a star (or planet) form, your theory seems as likely as any.


Sure we have!

Hubble Observations Provide Insight into Planet Birth
Hubble Reveals Two Dust Disks Around Nearby Star Beta Pictoris
Elusive Planet Reshapes a Ring Around Neighboring Star

And a whole lot more here.

Stars usually form in nebulas.
NASA's Spitzer Digs Up Troves of Possible Solar Systems in Orion

Some of these nebulas are in the galactic core region.
Journey to the galactic core

And sometimes the supermassive black hole in the galactic core flings them out to become runaway stars!
Two Exiled Stars Are Leaving Our Galaxy Forever

So that part of the theory isn't far-fetched



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Sleeper, you'd be a great sci-fi author, but not so hot as an astronomer.

Gas giants pull their moons IN, not spit them OUT.




Why do the gas planets, each with unique formation histories of their own, have satellite systems containing a consistent fraction of each planet's mass, and why is this fraction so small compared to solid planet satellites? Dr. Robin Canup and Dr. William Ward of the SwRI Space Studies Department propose that it was the presence of gas, primarily hydrogen, during the formation of these satellites that limited their growth and selected for a common satellite system mass fraction.

As the gas planets formed, they accumulated hydrogen gas and solids such as rock and ice. The final stage of a gas planet's formation is believed to involve an inflow of both gas and solids from solar orbit into planetary orbit, producing a disk of gas and solids orbiting the planet in its equatorial plane. It is within that disk that the satellites are believed to have formed.

Canup and Ward considered that a growing satellite's gravity induces spiral waves in a surrounding gas disk, and that gravitational interactions between these waves and the satellite cause the satellite's orbit to contract. This effect becomes stronger as a satellite grows, so that the bigger a satellite gets, the faster its orbit spirals inward toward the planet. The team proposes that the balance of two processes — the ongoing inflow of material to the satellites during their growth and the loss of satellites to collision with the planet — implies a maximum size for a gas planet satellite consistent with observations.

www.swri.org...


Seriously, my friend, I think you need to take a course in astrophysics. this idea is sillier than the sun having babies -- and I still haven't received my invitation to the shower. I have a lovely tank of hydrogen as a gift for the mother to be.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bullfrog
I would be more apt to believe that planets and stars throw off little particles that later, through the accretion process, become planets and moons. Since we have never seen a star (or planet) form, your theory seems as likely as any. I don't see centrifugal force being able to lift something with a mass that large though...


Depends on the power of the storm---many storms on those gas giants are huge---bigger than some planets. Many moons are small and like a monster tornado can suck up objects like cars and drop them miles away, the storms on gas giants can do a whole lot more.

Plus the moons and the makings of the moons are at the top of the clouds and don't have far to go to be slinged into orbit

The dynamics on these gas giants are way different than anything scientists understand. In fact they don’t understand anything about them.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by Bullfrog
Since we have never seen a star (or planet) form, your theory seems as likely as any.


Sure we have!

Hubble Observations Provide Insight into Planet Birth
Hubble Reveals Two Dust Disks Around Nearby Star Beta Pictoris
Elusive Planet Reshapes a Ring Around Neighboring Star

And a whole lot more here.


All speculation, nothing more. We can’t even see what is in our own solar system yet we know what is going on multi light years away in other star systems---yeah right---


Stars usually form in nebulas.
NASA's Spitzer Digs Up Troves of Possible Solar Systems in Orion


Old worn out theories with no basis other than they don’t have any better ideas or theories on how stars form


Some of these nebulas are in the galactic core region.
Journey to the galactic core

And sometimes the supermassive black hole in the galactic core flings them out to become runaway stars!
Two Exiled Stars Are Leaving Our Galaxy Forever

So that part of the theory isn't far-fetched



All stars get kicked out the nest that way---like popcorn in a kettle.

The nebulas are simply the gases that formed around the hot charcoals---stars--- that get scattered from the campfire at the center of every galaxy.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   
what you are all failing to realize is ... we don't really know. show pictures all you want, but unless we have video of the whole process, sleeper is just as accurate as 'science'.

I am not saying I agree with sleeper, but I know I don't agree with 99% of the b.s. the morons with degrees claim things happen. They are merely theories of man. We don't have direct evidence to support their claims. I am intelligent enough to take the present data and extrapolate my own theories and make them just as equally provable as anything else that is currently accepted. I don't, because it would be as much speculation as their stuff is. Well, I could put it in skunkworks, like sleeper does, but, really that is what MOST of our science is. We can't even fully explain most of the stuff we know and can repeat ... so I don't take them serious when all they are doing is analyzing light that has been manipulated, by their opinion, for billions of years ... gravity affects light as well as stuff that gets in-between (gasses, etc.).

I am beginning to think ATS stand for many things that the creators didn't intend ... such as Anti-Theory-Site, Anti-Truth-Spot ... it is no wonder the number of active members is so low currently ... the nay-sayers have chased everyone away that is a member, and scares those that want to sign up. What was that last announcement ... 4000 or 5000 active members in the last two weeks. That is sad, because this place deserves better. You people that hate on everyone else are the reason. If you have nothing constructive to say, be quiet. That is more of a statement than whining ... but I would rather you open your mind to another level, think outside what you were taught, be able to not limit yourself to only the things you already believe.

that is all.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sleeper
 


We need more free thinking like your theory, and definitely not less.

Some of the ancient mystery religions would draw the sun with a phallus because they believed the planets shot out of the sun like seed from a bull, or a man, or ... and from the sun's seed sprang all the worlds that are. It is fascinating how this very ancient belief keeps percolating and rising up in different guises. Some might read your theory about the gas giants being quite related to these ancient beliefs especially if gas giants like Jupiter are in some sense failed stars.

Many thanks for striking out there with a theory. Let the creedal scientists shoot it to hell. The world needs good stories and out of the box theories just as it needs fearless old women like me posting to ATS.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Isn't this thread just a rehash of your The sun is pregnant! thread?



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sleeper
 


Well you've got to do better than that. Otherwise your theories are just like those "worn out theories" you deride. Except those theories have a lot of empirical evidence to back them up.

Edit: confusion... no such thing as imperical, doh!


[edit on 9-9-2007 by Beachcoma]



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I dont usually post to much in sleepers threads, especially after I read his "alien for a day" blog, which to me read like a screen play instead of something that was coming from memory.
Who am i to judge though? Everything he said then and says now could be true, some of his theories make more sense than anything else ive ever heard.
Hell, i hope it is true, that would be the sh**


Planets do not get closer to the sun over the millions of years and moons dont get closer to planets either, our moon is receding at a rate of 1 inch per year, give or take.
The universe is expanding, that would lead me to believe that everything in the universe expands as well. So moons would NOT be falling back towards the planets like someone said in a previous post but they will spin away.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   


Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
what you are all failing to realize is ... we don't really know. show pictures all you want, but unless we have video of the whole process, sleeper is just as accurate as 'science'.


In what sense? Science has evidence and knowledge based on incessant testing. Sleeper has an active imagination.

Saying sleeper's theories are as accurate as the accumulated body of scientific knowledge is like saying the daily horoscope in your local paper is as accurate as statistical analysis.

Sleeper's entertaining, I'll give him that. But this theory is so cracked it's leaking water everywhere.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Hello Sleeper, again another mind-boggling theory.
The astronomers are yet not recovered from your “the sun having babies” theory, and you already come with the next one.
For myself, I can’t imagine the reality of these theories now, because I am not knowledgeable enough to understand them correctly, but I wait and see..
Are your family roots perhaps related with a fellow with the name Copernicus?


Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Sleeper, you'd be a great sci-fi author, but not so hot as an astronomer.
Seriously, my friend, I think you need to take a course in astrophysics. this idea is sillier than the sun having babies


Your remark reminds me of Nicolas Copernicus 1473-1543

In 1530, Copernicus completed and gave to the world his great work De Revolutionibus, which asserted that the earth rotated on its axis once daily and traveled around the sun once yearly: a fantastic concept for the times.
It went against all the philosophical and religious beliefs that had been held during the medieval times.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Sleeper,

I'll bet you would have thought twice about posting this thread if you had known how many scientifically informed people there were on ATS. Mainstream science is based of scientific fact. But thanks for the post.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Science has evidence and knowledge based on incessant testing.


They also have incessant funding to play with and every now and then they need to come up with another theory to justify that funding---that is certainly scientific


Sleeper has an active imagination.


Are you saying that scientists have no imagination?


Saying sleeper's theories are as accurate as the accumulated body of scientific knowledge is like saying the daily horoscope in your local paper is as accurate as statistical analysis.


Oh because I’m an ET nut I couldn’t possibly have any credibility?---so true so true


Sleeper's entertaining, I'll give him that. But this theory is so cracked it's leaking water everywhere.


Is that your unbiased opinion or your scientific theory?---



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Well you've got to do better than that. Otherwise your theories are just like those "worn out theories" you deride. Except those theories have a lot of empirical evidence to back them up.


That “empirical” evidence is like lawyer speak, and most people could never make out the finer points that lawyers make, and then put disclaimers in fine print, at the bottom of each page they write.

Without lawyers we humans wouldn’t know the difference between right and wrong. And without physicists and astronomers we wouldn’t know that all matter in the universe came out of a small dot smaller than the one at the end of a sentence. And some day all that matters in this universe will be shoved back into that small spot---talk about your ouch factor!---that one is going to hurt---


But because a bunch of scientists say so well then it is so---


Oops, that’s impossible, there is not enough visible matter in the universe to make that happen----hey, I got an idea, lets call the missing matter “Dark Matter”---if you can’t see it just give it a name---and a theory is born---see, there are others who think like lawyers---only scientifically---



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Sleeper,

Could this be why every so often scientists say that Saturn or Jupiter has a new moon orbiting it? or "we have just discovered another moon around saturn/Jupiter?

Yeah, the theory that gravitational pull from the gas giants attracts wondering "moons" is not a bad one - but dont forget it is a "theory" because we haven't seen a moon get sucked into orbit of one of these planets, have we?

But Sleepers theory is not as outrageous as it may seem. Firstly, we do not know for sure what these gas giants are comprised from do we? Theres speculation, and supposedly NASA info (aswell as John Lears theory that they are all habitable but thats another thread).

How do we know for sure that the red spot on jupiter doesn't breed moons from it?

Now in relation to the gas giants breeding moon's theory, I guess we will all find out soon enough what these planets are made of when the Casini space probe is scheduled to crash into Saturn 7/7/08 !

This, being part of the so called "Lucifer Project" to try and creat a 2nd sun out of the Gas giant by detonating a huge thermonuclear warhead inside the atmosphere.

I have an old thread on that particular project here from a while back but I thought I'd bring it up as it "may" have some relevance -

www.abovetopsecret.com...


"October 18th, 1989, Space Shuttle Atlantis launches with the Galileo space probe. The probe is powered by 17.2lbs of Plutonium 238.

September 21st, 2003, Galileo is destroyed with a controlled impact with Jupiter.

October 19th, 2003, A mysterious black spot appears on Jupiter.

The spot is 7,900miles in diameter.....roughly the size of the earth.

Due to extreme pressure of Jupiters Hydrogen atmosphere, the nuclear payload triggered a chain reaction.

The largest weapon ever made was the Tsar bomba, 50 Megaton Nuclear bomb. The fireball was 2.8miles in diameter.

The Galileo space probe produced a blast 2821 X bigger than the Tsar Bomba.

October 15th , 1997, The Cassini space probe launches.

The probe is powered by 72.3lbs of Plutonium 238, the most ever launched into space.

On the 7/7/08, Cassini will impact Saturn causing an even larger blast.

With an atmosphere composed almost entirely of Hydrogen, there are theories that Saturn will become a second sun.

The effects on the earth of a "saturn Star Formation" are unknown.

The theory is that a constant radiation shower will hit the earth, lasting many weeks and killing millions.

The effects will become visible about 28days after impact. "




Unfortunately the link to my original source has expired.

Anyway, Sleepers theory is not as far fetched as some would make it out to be. For those knockers.....prove it otherwise......for now it is a theory and not a bad one at that unless a better theory comes along. This is how mankind progresses; someone comes up with a theory, scientists try and either prove and/or dispell it and along the way other discoveries are made.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by sleeper

As the moons form and gain mass they don’t sink but float ever higher above the thick clouds of gas via the centrifugal force of the rapidly spinning planet and are deposited into its orbit.

My .o2


So I can take a big stone and release it and it will not fall toward earth but float ever higher in the air via centrifugal force into the orbit?

That's cool. Simplifies space travel a lot.. causes other problems thought..
You should resist to jump up in the future. Too risky! You might end into an orbit around earth.



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   
sleeper,

All I'm saying is if you want to make your theory more convincing, you need to do better than back it up with more opinions or smart-ass remarks


This is skunk works. I'm entertaining your idea. Otherwise I would not have gone through the trouble of looking for supporting evidence for your "galaxy spits out stars" idea.


Originally posted by sleeper
And without physicists and astronomers we wouldn’t know that all matter in the universe came out of a small dot smaller than the one at the end of a sentence. And some day all that matters in this universe will be shoved back into that small spot---talk about your ouch factor!---that one is going to hurt---



Apparently the observational evidence is suggesting that the Big Crunch may not pan out. It seems that everything is flying away from everything. So now they came up with a new theory. Yeah, you guessed it, it's called The Big Rip. Anyway they came up with this idea from observation of distant galaxies which all appear to move away from us at a very high speed. This is fact, as it has been observed. They call this force that counteracts gravity "dark energy," simply because they've no idea what it is.

I bring this point up to lend support for your theory of the planets moving further away. If you shoot me again I'm leaving this thread for good



Originally posted by sleeper
Oops, that’s impossible, there is not enough visible matter in the universe to make that happen----hey, I got an idea, lets call the missing matter “Dark Matter”---if you can’t see it just give it a name---and a theory is born---see, there are others who think like lawyers---only scientifically---



That's basically it. But a little bit more refined than your description up there. It's not just one thing, it's a collection of stuff. But even those are still assumptions. Think of it like "terra incognita" where "dragons be here" on those old maps. Heh.

Anyway, you gotta work on your theory, refine it quite a bit more to make it more believable. Right now it's really crude, with plenty of holes. And without any supporting evidence to back it up, it will remain a speculation, not theory. Remember that.

So are still gonna be a smart-alec with me?



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist
 



Thank you for your comments FreeThinker----



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join