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: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by sleeperStars 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.


Holy smokes! You may have hit on an astonishing theory for everything....right down to elemental particles!

I guess it may be safe to assume then that moons also spit out individual items...and those individual items spit out individual items....ad infinitum.....

Talk about conspiracies....all this time the whole of creation has cleverly been hinted at in matryoshka.




posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
We need more free thinking like your theory, and definitely not less.


Hi Pellevoisin,

Some people have always been afraid of opening new doors---and old doors for that matter


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.


Somehow the whole idea of sex became abhorrent in certain cultures and religions and they set out and destroyed entire communities along with literature, statues, and concepts that explained many of the mysteries of life on this planet---via phallus symbols as you pointed out.

The world lost a huge depository of books and knowledge when the library of Alexandria Egypt was destroyed centuries ago, as well as other lesser known ones throughout Europe.


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.


Thanks fearless woman---
we could use more here like you too!



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 



Originally posted by spacevisitor
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.


Hi visitor,

Thanks for your comments!

Unfortunately it’s not new science that moves the world it’s egos and monetary grants to select and privileged movers and shakers---that don’t rock the dang boat----talk about contradictions and lack of scientific integrity----



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Hey Sleeper,

Is the recent increase in sun spot activity (global warming) due to this pregnancy?

In medievil times, the same rise in temperature happened. Do we have a two year old toddler close to the breast? LOL

This also sort of conincides with one of your posts where back in the day, our planet was purged of some nasty entities???



posted on Sep, 9 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sleeper

(useless words.)

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


Of course they don't know anything about them.
Of course you do.
Did johnlear teach you this?



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
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.


Hi John,

They have problems getting the facts right in courts of law throughout the land even with mountains of evidence and proof

So exactly what are the facts again?---



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
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?


Hi Mel,

There are many places where moons can hide and seek---because they are not moons at all. And NASA needs to be clear that a moon is going to be there for the long term before they officially report it. Otherwise they might have to explain things they don’t want to.

Moons are difficult to find because some are small, but no new recent moons, at least in human terms---but one could pop out any time---but should that happen it would overturn many concepts---will that info get out?

Why don’t more amateur sky watchers come forward? Because their brains have been sucked dry from terror---that's how info is kept away from those who shouldn't have it.


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?


No moons have crashed into planets once they become stable in their orbits and begin their procession outward.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
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


Hi Beach,

Have you ever hung around uppity scientists?----they can smart-ass with the best of them. I’m still leaning---



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.


I do appreciate that, thanks!


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.


Well my theory is that it’s BO, that’s why we here on earth tend to move away from other bodies---
---Ok no more smart-ass


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


You know as well as I do that leaving this thread will improve your credibility with people on this forum. Swimming in the cold waters with John and me is risky business.


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.


Great advice, thanks!



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse801
Hey Sleeper,

Is the recent increase in sun spot activity (global warming) due to this pregnancy?


Hi muse,

You want to know whether to get pink or blue outfits right?---me too, they only told me that it could happen.


In medievil times, the same rise in temperature happened. Do we have a two year old toddler close to the breast? LOL


There sure has been a lot of midwives floating around the big fat ball of estrogen on steroids----




This also sort of conincides with one of your posts where back in the day, our planet was purged of some nasty entities???


The purging never stopped, only slowed but they have cleaned earth’s whistle big time in the past, and possibly in the future too. But nothing huge in the cards for awhile that I’m aware of.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by sleeper

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.


This is very similar to Velikovsky's theory that Venus was ejected from Jupiter.

However, to get acceptance it needs to better explain observations than the current theory (and, ideally, the current thiery needs to be shown to be flawed).

Anyway, rather than dismiss the theory may I ask a serious question?

How does your theory explain the apparent differences in composition of the various Moons of Saturn and Jupiter? Should they not all have similar atmospheres and surface features? Why are they all so different? I don't think current orthodox theories adequately explain the differences at present. If your theory can provide a means of explaining this difference you may be onto a winner



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Anyway, rather than dismiss the theory may I ask a serious question?

How does your theory explain the apparent differences in composition of the various Moons of Saturn and Jupiter? Should they not all have similar atmospheres and surface features? Why are they all so different? I don't think current orthodox theories adequately explain the differences at present. If your theory can provide a means of explaining this difference you may be onto a winner


Each so called gas giant consists of different elements, minerals and residues which change over time due to the fact that billons of tons of dust, comets, asteroids and other junk continue to fall into them.

Each new moon is a record of a particular epoch of that gas giant---like a recipe---or record book

Trees have rings, and each ring tells us how wet or dry any particular year that tree lived through---those tree rings are also records of what minerals are in the ground.

Moons are the tree rings of the planets that spawned them.



posted on Sep, 10 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Interesting. Not sure there's any evidence that gas giants attract different combinations of chemicals over time (perhpas due to different local super novas?), so that each moon they 'birth' is differently composed. But as they say, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Sounds like a lot of detailed research needed to produce a viable hypothesis (saying something might happen is one thing, but showing that it can is another) and a mechanism for the moon's creation is needed (maybe something like the way a pearl forms perhaps?)



posted on Sep, 11 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
This is not exactly an original theory, only some details are a little off from the theory I'm familiar with.

I much prefer the electric sun model, stars are conductors of galactic currents called birkland currents, they are actually a plasma Z pinch effect.
You can actually see this effect in many nebula, astrophysicists are not generally well versed in plasma physics or electrical engineering to make the connection.
Most star systems are actually binary (or more) stars, when the electrical energy becomes too intense the star will fission and split so the increased surface area of the combined stars can reduce the current density.

Halton Arp has shown that quasars may be spawned from the galactic nucleus and expelled along the galaxy axis or through the spiral arms, these quasars then become galaxies themselves, more evidence is needed but this does seem to be the case based on observational evidence.

Planetary birthing is not a new idea, have a look at Wall Thornton's research.

www.holoscience.com...
www.holoscience.com...


"….. internal electrostatic forces prevent stars from collapsing gravitationally and occasionally cause them to "give birth" by electrical fissioning to form companion stars and gas giant planets. Sudden brightening, or a nova outburst marks such an event. That elucidates why stars commonly have partners and why most of the giant planets so far detected closely orbit their parent star."

Quote from Wall Thornton.



[edit on 11-9-2007 by squiz]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Interesting! I'd love our moon to be from Saturn or Jupiter, even though it's proven to be a piece of earth?



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Is there something I missed……I always thought from documentaries I’ve seen on tv, and from what I’ve learnt from school, that planets are formed like so……

How solar systems form

youtube.com...

how planets form

youtube.com... p1

youtube.com... p2

youtube.com... p3

youtube.com... p4

youtube.com... p5

youtube.com... p6

youtube.com... p7

youtube.com... p8

youtube.com... p9

youtube.com... p10

youtube.com... p11

youtube.com... 12

youtube.com... 13



posted on Oct, 23 2007 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by muse801
 


Hello Muse, hello Sleeper,

I remember some time ago when i was a kid in some science magazine I read there was an article about two new planets in our solar system.

The planets were in between Saturn and the sun they had names like HD2345 and YF2534 for example can remember there real names but the article said we had not seen them before because it was like looking at a candle light that was in front of a spot light 1000 miles away.

Has anyone ever herd of what I am talking about



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
I think it’s important that we don’t confuse any of Sleeper’s theories with scientific theories.

Despite the fact that the same word is used for both, a personal theory is simply an idea or postulate that a person makes up, either to explain their experience or simply for fun.

The term theory when applied to science has a stricter meaning. For example, the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory, right or wrong, are both models that are the best explanation to date of the data we have available. Both can be tested by observation and analysis of new data. Both are constantly challenged and either found sound or wanting. If they are found wanting they are modified.

Sleeper’s theories are different. They are not based on recorded observations or reproducible data (although they may be based on personal experience). Furthermore, Sleeper will not entertain demands for hard evidence. He/she invalidates science and scientific ideas with vague and unfounded claims and pseudoscientific explanations that he/she upholds by invalidating counterarguments.

In their inability to withstand testing Sleeper’s theories are indistinguishable from religious ideas. The scientific method serves no purpose in religion because religion is based on personal experience and not phenomena that can be readily observed or repeated. This is fine as long as religion isn’t trying to argue with scientific fact. It’s fine in fiction where fiction doesn’t claim to be fact.

However, if you are here searching for an approximation of truth, do yourself a favour and demand evidence. Don’t be lazy, check the ‘facts’.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by tayga
 


Hello Tayga,

Scientific theory is just a theory and is in no way the best we got, granted scientific fact has to be the key part of the theory but I am sure that with the right funding and luck a better theory would come along even if the previous one was correct...........


Question

Have our scientists ever said they have seen a moon planet or sun form?

Could scientific research help Sleeper or hurt him on this subject?

Did Sleeper explanation not sound like it had sciences behind it?

Theory=faith



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Immanuel Velikovsky / Velikovskii theorised, with supporting proof, that Venus was an ejectile comet from Jupiter which formed into a young and therefore extremely hot (in the temperature sense) planet.

He tied it into observations of early man, by claiming that the legend of Athena (who he conflates with Aphrodite and therefore Venus - with some evidence) springing fully formed from Zeus' forehead.

Athena = Venus

Zeus = Jupiter

in the Velikosvky universe.

And 2+2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2.

Still, perhaps it is true. The Velikovsky theory included predictions as to the conditions on Venus which were subsequently proven true.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
My question is, what makes this hole/gas/whatever that shoots stars and planets out? How does this form? Does "God" do it?




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join