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 Giants/Shoemaker Levy 9

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Gas Giants.
Shoemaker Levy 9
Below is a pretty good document from Nasa that covers a lot of the details of the impact.
Nasa Link
www2.jpl.nasa.gov...

John has long stated that these Gas Giants are not that at all but have a solid surface.

My question to you is: Shouldn’t we be able to tell from the impact if there is a solid surface and how far down from the upper atmosphere it is?

If we know the speed of the objects, the time they entered the atmosphere, and the time it took for the plumes of debris and fire to be ejected, could we determine what if anything solid was hit?

It would seem to me as a layman that if Jupiter was indeed a big ball of gas that the objects would have just been consumed and snuffed out. But instead we see plumes of fire and debris ejected back out away from the planet indicating to me that they must have hit something other than gas.

I don’t have enough background in science or math to create a real working theory but I would be grateful to hear anyone’s thoughts.




posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 10:59 AM
link   
There is a potential to wipe out a lot of ignorance about this subject with this thread. I know the answer (as much as anyone can really know anything) however I do not know how to present it in a manner that wont get torn apart by anyone with a preconceived agenda. I hope there are some folks around here that can shed unbiased light upon the physics of this event that could dispel any outrageous claims and ideas,.....or add weight to them, who knows. But without the math and science to back me up on my information, I would get called out and be unable to verify what I know scientifically. I hope someone out there can take the time to answer this properly.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   
A preconceived agenda can go on both sides of the debate. I don’t take a solid position on either side because I just don’t know. Like I said as a laymen if I didn’t have Nasa telling me in one ear that the planet is made of gas it looks like those rocks hit something.
It will be very hard to get an unbiased theory but we do have some rare real world data to play with.

If the planet did have a solid surface what would the impact data look like?
If the planet is a gas giant does the impact data match what one would expect?



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Ok well, nevermind. Too much work I guess.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Plain and simple, there is too much science and discussion involved in this topic to intelligently discuss this in a place like this. I can boil it down to laymen's terms, where it will be misconstrued by people that already have thier minds made up (based on their ignorance of computational fluid dynamics (CPD) to bother.)

I would love to refer you to a few other places online where this can be discussed without the science fiction faction inserting their uneducated and outlandish views. One you understand some basic (if there is such a thing) computation fluid dynamics, then you can return here and see if anyone wants to bother to try to keep up with you.

This forum is for looking at blurry gray pictures, pointing out the bucket excavators on the moon, estimating Venus' total population, and blaming the all knowing (but at the same time incompetent) government for hiding it all from us, lol.

The fact that no one has bothered to discuss this here should tell you something....their all to busy pointing out domes on the moon, skulls on Mars, spaceships in Saturn's rings, blue whales on Neptune, Mar's flowing water and herds of cattle, etc, to be bothered to understand science..not to mention ignoring common sense, reason and logic.

But, I admire your insight and desire to find the answers to questions you don't understand. That is the first step, the next step is to pursue those answers in a responsible manner before coming to a conclusion. I will admit, that to Joe Everybody, what you are concluding through your basic understand of physics makes sense. But, as with most things, it is more complicated than what you think. Without going into it, yes the discharge from the impact can be accounted for mathematically. Just remember, gas acts like a solid (or a semi-solid) at high speeds and when under high pressure.

You can jump into a pool from 10 feet up and have smooth landing with little potential for catastrophic results. But jump from a bridge and it's like hitting a brick wall.




top topics
 
0

log in

join