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.

 

Coldest place in the solar system? Right nearby

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Manjushri Bodhisattva
 


The moon rotates both of its sides to the sun just like every other planet and moon in the solar system.

Also, it is not older than the Earth. Most likely, it was once a part OF the Earth.


First off I said it only shows one Side. I NEVER said it did not rotate... In fact, The Moon is in synchronous rotation. It however Does only show one Side. As I said. Don't Put words in my mouth.

Second It is in fact older than the Earth... Your just not in the know.




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
and most likely charon has craters where the light of the sun never enters either, the same stuff for most likely every other moon out there.


Charon is no longer considered a Moon... Just like Pluto is no longer considered a Planet. They are a Binary-Dwarf Planetoid System...

"Moon or dwarf planet?

The center of mass (barycenter) of the Pluto-Charon system lies outside either body. Since neither object truly rotates around the other, and Charon has 11.6% the mass of Pluto, it has been argued that Charon should not be considered to be a satellite of Pluto. Instead, it has been suggested that they form dual dwarf planets, following the re-classification of Pluto[citation needed].

In a draft proposal for the 2006 redefinition of the term, the International Astronomical Union proposed that a planet be defined as a body that orbits the sun that is large enough for gravitational forces to render the object (nearly) spherical. Under this proposal, Charon would have been classified as a planet, since the draft explicitly defined a planetary satellite as one in which the barycenter lies within the major body. In the final definition, Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet, but the formal definition of a planetary satellite was not decided upon, leaving Charon's status unclear. (Charon is not in the list of dwarf planets currently recognized by the IAU.)

The moons Nix and Hydra also orbit the same barycenter, but are not large enough to be spherical, and are simply considered to be satellites of Pluto (or, under the alternative viewpoint, of the Pluto-Charon system).[10]"

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

"Right here in our own backyard are definitely the coldest things we've seen in real measurements."


I reckon the south pole of Pluto (and just about any other spot which doesn't receive sunlight on any other body without enough atmosphere to transfer heat) would be at just about the same temperature. We just haven't measured the temperature of those places.


I agree with that. They admit in the article that these are the first time they had real numbers and not just theoretical data for calculations.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Manjushri Bodhisattva
 

Some more fun facts...

"Unlike most satellites of other planets, the Moon orbits near the ecliptic and not the Earth's equatorial plane. It is the largest moon in the solar system relative to the size of its planet. (Charon is larger relative to the dwarf planet Pluto.) The natural satellites orbiting other planets are called "moons", after Earth's Moon."

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manjushri Bodhisattva
Charon is no longer considered a Moon... Just like Pluto is no longer considered a Planet. They are a Binary-Dwarf Planetoid System...


So why is our Moon not reclassified as a Dwarf Planetoid



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Here's what the sun looks like from Pluto, it's about 1/1600 as bright as it is from Earth I think:
members.wri.com...

It has to be freaking cold on Pluto too!



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR

Jeeze. Either way, I don't think the moon is older than the Earth.


In a sense, it is. The current theory is that the Primordial Earth was hit by a large object that grazed us (Pacific region), with the impact debris coming from the resulting chaos to form what would eventually coalesce into the Moon.

Those "rocks" of the Earth that formed the Moon are older than most of the Earth rock since Continental drift keeps melting the plates over time by getting remelted going down into the mantle. The Moon rocks got frozen in time, so to speak.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 

So the Earth is older than the moon, but the Earth rocks are younger than the moon rocks because we only count the age of the rocks from when they emerged from the earth's churning tectonic activity?

That makes sense to me.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
In a sense, it is. The current theory is that the Primordial Earth was hit by a large object that grazed us (Pacific region), with the impact debris coming from the resulting chaos to form what would eventually coalesce into the Moon.


So Sitchin was RIGHT NIBIRU did hit us before



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I never could comprehend centrigrade to Farenheit. but in my learnings of astronomy, where Uranusis, voyager 2 found it was a good 300 degrees below zero. Around NEtpune, 375 degrees below zero..pluto is estimated to be a good 420 degress below zerp Farenheit. so! for hte moons south pole to be 400 + in hte minus, thats amazing. Ide have to google in , and se if and how hydrogen would affect water/ice in space..temperature wise.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggy1706
I never could comprehend centrigrade to Farenheit.


Well add Kelvin to your list when you google... that will help clear things up for you
Absolute zero is 0K which is −273.15° Celsius and −459.67° Fahrenheit

Hope that helps you 'comprehend'




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   
If the AVERAGE temperature on Pluto is 1 degree higher than the craters on the moon then its lowest temperatures must come close to absolute zero.

What kind of instuments do they use in those temperatures?

[edit on 18-9-2009 by halfmanhalfamazing]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Very interesting considering it's always claimed that the moon isn't a habitable environment. Also if it's the coldest place in our solar system then obviously it isn't from a natural phenomenon. Look at the other planets and how cold they are because of their distance from the sun. But the moon having the coldest area at it's pole? Sounds like some sort of activity is going on there and I would not be surprised in the least if it was already hollow and being used by select personnel..I encourage anyone else to consider the same for their own sanity.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by pavil
In a sense, it is. The current theory is that the Primordial Earth was hit by a large object that grazed us (Pacific region), with the impact debris coming from the resulting chaos to form what would eventually coalesce into the Moon.


So Sitchin was RIGHT NIBIRU did hit us before


You said that not me...... The consensus is that is was a Mars's sized object, anything larger would have KO'ed the Earth. Isn't Nibiru supposed to be Jupiter sized or even bigger. I don't follow that much, I'm afraid.

The simulation of the event I saw had the striking object destroyed in the grazing of Earth. It was a pretty good hit. I will try and find the link.

news.nationalgeographic.com...
can't find it....

Another cool thing was that very early on, the Moon was much closer and orbited very fast around the Earth, actually causing tidal motion of the still molten surface of the Earth. The Moon looked HUGE in the early stages when seen from the Earth.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Interesting to note that in the lab, humans are able to achieve temperatures so close to absolute zero that they aren't even observed in nature.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join