It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
is it really worth the effort? Just say yes. By the way, I am a cyborg from Zeta Reticuli, who is studying ATS for the benefit of Supreme Being Zmorrg, who resides in the center of a giant neutron star.
Originally posted by Researcher
The spacecraft are built for a purpose. They provide regional planners with information they need about their region. Experience has shown that a 150 mile square is a good size for regional planners.
If the spacecraft is in a polar orbit it eyeballs the pole 18 times a day. Who needs an update on the pole 18 times a day?
If the spacecraft is in a sun synchronous orbit it eyeballs the same track on the ground on a regular schedule. A 150 mile wide swath. But it doesn't ever cross the poles. The angle of the orbit and the angle of view of the cameras work out so that the camera does not quite see the pole in the edge of the picture. If the lens on the camera was altered slightly, you would see the poles. But this is not a priority for spacecraft designers.
Hence the tiny black dot at the poles.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Rigel
An inner sun. Yeah, hey, that's a good one. So tell me, why is it, if we have an inner sun, that these "pole holes" are always dark? Shouldn't the numerous from-space images of out planet show beams of light emanating from both poles? For that matter, why hasn't the Arctic Ocean or the Antarctic ice cap boiled away from the massive amounts of heat and radiation that would be billowing out of these holes?
Originally posted by rat256
reply to post by Rigel
an inner sun... what? I'm sorry, someone, Olaf Jensen, was clearly not paying attention in geology 101, you can call me mainstream if you like but i'm not buying that. a violent nuclear reaction going on inside the planet? ...
Originally posted by no_one817
This topic is pretty amusing. IT is simple. IF the Earth were empty, then we would simply float away. We know a limited amount of information about gravity. But what we DO know is that mass determines gravity. To keep all our feet on the planet, or even to pull something like the moon and keep it in orbit REQUIRES MASS. SImple 101 stuff. IF we agree then we argue, whats in it. A sun inside the earth? C'mon. At least come up with something like cryptonite to keep the story going. A hollow lightbulb?
Oye, ok listen up... Something with the mass that is required to give out the gravitational pull our earth is giving, would emit energy. OUR SUN DOES NOT EMIT HEAT. IT Emits energy which is then converted over to heat. thus some silly light bulb sun in our earth, that has the mass required but does not give off the energy that would go along with it, makes zero sense.
Google Video Link
Frankly I think this is a cheap excuse to dismiss any hollow earth theories.
I do find it hypocritical to say "Who needs an update on the pole 18 times a day?" when at the same time the American government has commisioned a polar antartic base for the specific reason of conducting experiments... Is this logical?