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.

 

Possible Asteroid impact on Jupiter

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Jupiter, according to Ingo Swann, has a solid core. He describes it in "Penetration" (you can find it on Scribd).

You may discount him...but he also saw the ring around Jupiter before it was discovered (among a few other things). He is, in my estimation, VERY credible.

When i was younger the consensus was that Jupiters core was metallic Hydrogen, i believe.




posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by star in a jar
Since Jupiter is a gas giant, where did the asteroid go, did it exit on the other side, break up, or did Jupiter absorb it like a sponge?



Friction and high atmospheric pressures would have broke it up long before it even got close to the core. The crater we see is called a "gaseous crater", thought to be caused by the debris of the impact, as well the impact of a large, hot, and fast object hitting the cloud structure.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
CNN - Mystery Object Leaves Huge Mark on Jupiter

It's starting to get mainstream coverage now. They think a huge Earth-Size block of ice.

Thats scary.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
I thought Jupiter was a giant ball of gas, and because of which doesn't have a surface.

Do you have a link to the article you linked to the picture.


Yeah I was led to believe the same thing.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I wonder if this is in relation to the eclips.

[edit on 7/21/09 by Ophiuchus 13]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   




heres a better picture of the impact



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Can someone explain how a gas planet has an impact site ?????? Or have I just been fed lies my whole life SMH.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Liamoville
 


an Earth sized block of ice that wasn't a comet? That doesn't match the current model, does it? Of course, the "tail" on Enceladus doesn't match the current model, either.


To those who keep saying "I was led to believe Jupiter was a ball of gas", please take a few moments to actively investigate. If you are only going off of what you were "led" to believe, then you are not actively participating in your own education. A cursory glance at some research material on Jupiter will dispel your beliefs.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Liamoville
 


an Earth sized block of ice that wasn't a comet? That doesn't match the current model, does it? Of course, the "tail" on Enceladus doesn't match the current model, either.


To those who keep saying "I was led to believe Jupiter was a ball of gas", please take a few moments to actively investigate. If you are only going off of what you were "led" to believe, then you are not actively participating in your own education. A cursory glance at some research material on Jupiter will dispel your beliefs.


Thanx I ?? if it was gas when the comet hit and had impact points a few years back. I will look deeper into my neighboring planet SATURN IS MY FAV.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 


Like i said, i believe Ingo Swanns account of Jupiter, based on the accuracy of all his other predictions. But that is not currently upheld by science, for whatever that is worth.

(something that most people ignore is that every single theory that we have ever had in the past was proven to be wrong. I don't see why the current set of theories won't end up the same).



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Liamoville
 


an Earth sized block of ice that wasn't a comet? That doesn't match the current model, does it? Of course, the "tail" on Enceladus doesn't match the current model, either.


To those who keep saying "I was led to believe Jupiter was a ball of gas", please take a few moments to actively investigate. If you are only going off of what you were "led" to believe, then you are not actively participating in your own education. A cursory glance at some research material on Jupiter will dispel your beliefs.


I don't think any current model says that there can't be very large icy bodies out there. I suspect (and so do many scientists) that there could be a lot of objects like that exist in the Kuiper Belt -- it's not impossible for one of those objects to move inward.

Plus -- more importantly -- nobody is even sure how big the object was, they only know the size of the mark that it made, which is probably larger than the original object.

...And Enceladus' "tail" is a geyser -- which may be unusual, but not something that scientists would have claimed was "inconsistent with the current model of the solar system".

I don't understand why you say that we need to re-evaulate the idea that Jupiter is a ball of gas. How does this impact or the impact of shoemaker-Levy 9 back in 1994 change that idea?

Just because scientists do not yet completely understand how an impact could make a temporary mark in the gaseous "surface" of Jupiter does not mean that Jupiter can't be gaseous.



[edit on 7/21/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoenix103
reply to post by paradiselost333
 


Still awaiting an image from someone else.

Has anyone seen any more yet?

I'll take a look tonight if I possibly can, there are so many astronomy things I've been waiting to get to and this is a fairly rare event. Here's a picture taken 9 hours before the discovery image, no impact visible yet:
img.photobucket.com...
(that's one of jupiter's moons in the image)
A few hours after Anthony posted his image on one of the astronomy forums I frequent, someone else confirmed it with a greyscale red filtered image:
www.astro-sharp.com...
It's confirmed, but I can't wait to see it for myself.
The spot is the size of earth, but shoemaker's spot was much larger than the actual comet. The impactor in this case was probably a small undetected asteroid. I say that mostly because we're not seeing multiple impact points (at least not yet, starting to look unlikely). Shoemaker-levy 9 was torn into a string of impactors by Jupiter's tidal forces. A small asteroid might have either held together better or have broke late into fewer pieces that collided virtually simultaneously.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Liamoville
 


an Earth sized block of ice that wasn't a comet? That doesn't match the current model, does it? Of course, the "tail" on Enceladus doesn't match the current model, either.


To those who keep saying "I was led to believe Jupiter was a ball of gas", please take a few moments to actively investigate. If you are only going off of what you were "led" to believe, then you are not actively participating in your own education. A cursory glance at some research material on Jupiter will dispel your beliefs.


I don't think any current model says that there can't be very large icy bodies out there. I suspect (and so do many scientists) that there could be a lot of objects like that exist in the Kuiper Belt -- it's not impossible for one of those objects to move inward.

Plus -- more importantly -- nobody is even sure how big the object was, they only know the size of the mark that it made, which is probably larger than the original object.

...And Enceladus' "tail" is a geyser -- which may be unusual, but not something that scientists would have claimed was "inconsistent with the current model of the solar system".

I don't understand why you say that we need to re-evaulate the idea that Jupiter is a ball of gas. How does this impact or the impact of shoemaker-Levy 9 back in 1994 change that idea?

Just because scientists do not yet completely understand how an impact could make a temporary mark in the gaseous "surface" of Jupiter does not mean that Jupiter can't be gaseous.



[edit on 7/21/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]


The re-evaluation would be due to the issue of what a comet is made up of. If it was an ice ball, then it should be a comet. It should have had a tail. Shoemaker-Levy had a tail.

There are reports of asteroids that begin emitting a tail, then stop. I believe that Enceladus (in the below photo) has a tail, a phenomenon that i do not believe to be caused by geysers.




Here is their explanation of the "geyser" theory:


The jets are focused on the south polar region of the moon, which was supposed to be the coldest place on a long-dead body. Enceladus is just 504 kilometers in diameter – too small to support significant internal heating. NASA scientists, however, work within a narrow frame of reference. If dynamic activity observed on planets, moons, and comets cannot be explained by solar radiation, just about the only thing left to account for it is something going on beneath the surface.


thunderbolts.info...



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Here is their explanation of the "geyser" theory:

Actually, that's a strawman. Cassini flew through through the tail and detected water vapor, carbon dioxide, as well as other volatiles. They are definately geysers regardless of whether the source is icy or liquid, and the stress Saturn's tidal forces puts on the crustal tectonics probably has something to do with their formation, just as it affects the planet's internal temperature, even at the poles.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

...There are reports of asteroids that begin emitting a tail, then stop. I believe that Enceladus (in the below photo) has a tail, a phenomenon that i do not believe to be caused by geysers.




I don't understand your problem with the idea that the plumes that are emitting from the cracks near the south pole of Enceladus are geysers. Is there a specific reason to doubt what the scientists are saying?

Enceludus Geyser Explanation

[edit on 7/21/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Jupiter, according to Ingo Swann, has a solid core. He describes it in "Penetration" (you can find it on Scribd).

You may discount him...but he also saw the ring around Jupiter before it was discovered (among a few other things). He is, in my estimation, VERY credible.

When i was younger the consensus was that Jupiters core was metallic Hydrogen, i believe.

Actually, I remember learning that Jupiter had a rocky core surrounded by metallic hydrogen, so Ingo Swann is not saying anything new.

I wouldn't discount what he said, because it is in line with what scientists have been saying about Jupiter's core for many years prior to Swann.

As for Jupiter's rings, although they were confirmed to exist in 1979, their existence was hypothesized by a few scientists before Ingo Swann "remotely saw" them...so Swann was NOT the first person to ever discuss Jupiter's rings. Furthermore, he said the rings were made of glimmering crystals, when in reality they do not glimmer and are made of rocky dust.


[edit on 7/21/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


So we have tectonic activity as one possible explanation. Then we have what JPL is saying below:


The new hypothesis attributes the imagined internal heat to “the rapid decay of radioactive elements within Enceladus shortly after it formed.” This, according to NASA, “may have jump-started the long-term heating of the moon's interior that continues today.”

"Enceladus is a very small body, and it's made almost entirely of ice and rock. The puzzle is how the moon developed a warm core," said Dr. Julie Castillo, the lead scientist developing the new model at JPL. "The only way to achieve such high temperatures at Enceladus is through the very rapid decay of some radioactive species."


From the article i linked to above.

Soylent: the particular problem i have with the theory you are proposing (from NASA, apparently one of many they have) is that it is simply nothing more than guesswork. They don't know what is driving the heat, and the heat is anomolous. Do we have thermal readings of Enceladus? Possibly ground penetrating? Not likely, but that might help answer the question.

It isn't so much that i condemn the NASA explanation. It is that there are other explanations that are just as plausible. But the average joe doesn't get to see these explanations, and is thus indoctrinated into the consensus reality imposed by the Powers That Be.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
i wonder what nassim haramein has to say about this, with his theories about sun spots and planet vortex, maybe this wasn't a impact, but a large object entering the solar system through jupiters core, that acording to haramein is a black hole, like every other planet and the sunsun



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by buick
i wonder what nassim haramein has to say about this, with his theories about sun spots and planet vortex, maybe this wasn't a impact, but a large object entering the solar system through jupiters core, that acording to haramein is a black hole, like every other planet and the sunsun


I think I would take Haramein's theories with a grain of salt. On one of his videos he thinks Comet Neat is Planet Nibiru.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

I suppose my issue is that just because scientists don't fully understand that exact mechanism that heats the below-surface liquid water on Enceladus from within the moon doesn't mean that it is NOT heated from within the moon (and "heated" is a relative term -- the water isn't necessarily that much above freezing).

What I'm trying to say is that there are many mechanisms by which the interior of Enceladus could become warm, so I have no reason to doubt the geyser theory at the moment.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join