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.

 

War of the Worlds (nibiru)

page: 9
142
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


Nothing leads to the failed claim that:


Anything that would be comprised of THIS 'planetoid' would be a bigger planet, itself


There is nothing to suggest this. Please take the time to understand that nothing you have posted suggests that there was a larger planet formed by the asteroid belt.

NOTHING supports your contention that the asteroids were ever part of a planet.

There is not enough mass around to form a planet. End of story.




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Comets have a solid part called a nucleus. These are not large enough to add a substantial amount of mass.

Comet nucleus

Most cometary nuclei are thought to be no more than about 10 miles (16 kilometers) across. But we do know of cometary nuclei up to 40km across.


There simply isn't enough matter around to form a new planet unless you scraped together every last drop is a huge volume of space and put it all together. That space volume goes out twice the orbit of Neptune.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
i dont care much about y'all stupid posts but i know when i was looking through my own totally inept magnitude of my nighttime telescope i could see the four moons of jupiter, you sickos are all #ed up on all types of crazy come to australia and see the vision from our nights sky. hmmpff #ing weirdos ofcourse you can see the moons.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


The existence of a dwarf planet which is rather small compared to a planet's mass, plus the other 3 larger rocks in the asteroid belt, plus all of the rest of the material in the asteroid belt is still 99.95% shy of a planet sized object.

There is not enough mass around to form a planet. End of story.

No matter how much screaming you do there is a basic failure on your part to show that there is enough material around to form a planet.

There is a basic failure on your part to understand that the immensity of the force necessary to eject 99.5% of a planet from the solar system.

Your arguments are vacuous and without merit. You've shown nothing whatsoever to substantiate your claim of the asteroids representing a destroyed planet.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Incorrect. The fact that a dwarf planet already exists in the area of the asteroid belt, is evidence enough that a planet existed previously - by mere fact of its presence - in the area of the asteroid belt. End of Story.

[No one said the planet had to be as big as Jovian planets or even as big as the terrestrial ones - you can keep giving %s ALL day]

What are you not getting?

And, I'd love for the person who star'd your post to step forward and defend why they did so, since you have, at no time, supported your claims or refuted mine - otherwise, I'm going to assume that is yourself with another ATS account (pretty pathetic).



And, what about the other post?







edit on 9/21/2010 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


Perhaps if you did more research? Wiki is easiest, but by no means the end-all and be-all authority. Just handiest.....


The asteroid belt.... (skip)....

More than half the mass of the main belt is contained in the four largest objects: Ceres, 4 Vesta, 2 Pallas, and ....10 Hygiea. These have mean diameters of more than 400 km, while Ceres, the main belt's only dwarf planet, is about 950 km in diameter.


950 km in diameter. Check your solid geometry textbooks, and compare that spherical volume to the diameter of the Moon, for example, to see just how TINY Ceres actually is. Moon is 3,467 km diameter....so Ceres is roughly ~1/4 the size of our Moon....as the Moon is roughly ~1/4 the size of Earth.

Continuing:


The remaining bodies range down to the size of a dust particle. The asteroid material is so thinly distributed that multiple unmanned spacecraft have traversed it without incident. Nonetheless, collisions between large asteroids do occur, and these can form an asteroid family whose members have similar orbital characteristics and compositions. Collisions also produce a fine dust that forms a major component of the zodiacal light. Individual asteroids within the main belt are categorized by their spectra, with most falling into three basic groups: carbonaceous (C-type), silicate (S-type), and metal-rich (M-type).

The asteroid belt formed from the primordial solar nebula as a group of planetesimals, the smaller precursors of the planets. Between Mars and Jupiter, however, gravitational perturbations from the giant planet imbued the planetesimals with too much orbital energy for them to accrete into a planet. Collisions became too violent, and instead of sticking together, the planetesimals shattered. As a result, most of the main belt's mass has been lost since the formation of the Solar System. Some fragments can eventually find their way into the inner Solar System, leading to meteorite impacts with the inner planets. Asteroid orbits continue to be appreciably perturbed whenever their period of revolution about the Sun forms an orbital resonance with Jupiter. At these orbital distances, a Kirkwood gap occurs as they are swept into other orbits.


en.wikipedia.org...


There's lots more.

It is a common misconception re: the Asteroid Belt, and the strong wish (not based on actual science) that it indicates the remnants of a former planet.




edit on 21 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Formatting



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


"Perhaps if you did more research? Wiki is easiest..."

EXCUSE ME - where the hell are you people coming from?! Wiki IS My source. If you had done YOUR research, you would have seen that I have referenced at least HALF of the citations you just did as support for MY argument. (starting with THIS ONE)

While everything you are saying above (and, which I have already posted myself) is true, of course, explain to me where anything *I* have said is incorrect.

You and Stereo are arguing about how small Ceres is! So What?! It is STILL a (dwarf) planet: Remove ALL of the other asteroids - ALL of them - there is STILL a dwarf planet orbiting the sun in between Mars and Jupiter.

What the F, man? This is the most ridiculous back and forth I may have ever seen on this site.


Time to go play golf - y'all have fun in this circle jerk. I'm done.




edit on 9/21/2010 by SquirrelNutz because: Removed insults to idiots and added links



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


The existence of a rock in the asteroid belt with a size that is incredibly small compared to the a planet in no way suggests that there was a larger object there.

The fallacy that you have been clinging to is that a small rock implies it was part of a larger rock. I have pointed out this fallacy every time you have repeated it.

I have never suggested a Jovian sized planet. That is a straw man argument of no importance. That is a silly attempt to misrepresent my statements.

I have maintained that there is not enough material in the asteroid belt to form even an object the size of the Earth's moon! The moon is 1 1/4% of the Earth's mass. The asteroid belt is .05% of the Earth's mass.

The asteroid belt is 4% of the moon's mass. That means we'd need 25 times as much mass as the asteroid belt to make the moon. The moon is not planet sized!



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


Well....if you'd been more clear. I suppose you could consider Ceres to be a "planet", in the "proper" place per the pattern seen by the others....but, didn't you read the Wiki articl??

The matter that was accumulating there (some 4-5 billion years ago, as the Solar System was undergoing formation) wasn't 'allowed' to be sufficiently stable in that orbital area for accrecition to be achieved to any extent. Surely, it is possible that enough material was there at one time in the early years of formation, but it's long gone. You can just look up at the Moon to see where some of it (a tiny, tiny fraction) went.

Ceres, and the other three, are puny reminders of what COULD have been, if not for Jupiter's massive size and pertubations.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


You have posted a few items. Inserted some logical fallacies. Misunderstood the label dwarf planet. Inserted a straw man argument.

Still you have not given any evidence that there was a planet where the asteroid belt is found.

There is not enough mass to form a planet. End of story.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Look guys, it's real simple (ride is delayed to course, so I have about 20 minutes)...

Here is my (possible) scenerio:

For the sake of Stereo's argument, let's assume at one point that a planet roughly the size of the moon (hell, HALF the size) existed between Mars and Jupiter.

Okay, with me so far?

Now, an impact from an outer-solar object obliterates this planet and itself into 10s of 1000s of smaller pieces - this object need not be more than 1/4 of the size of our 'fictional' planet itself for complete annihilation**

Now, if my math is correct - and, it is - then we have a bunch of debris equating to roughly 62.5% of our moon's mass.

Still with me?

Now... I think it's fair to assume that a collision of that magnitude would send a great deal (and, for purposes of this argument/scenario, the majority) of that debris in all directions**, MUCH of which may...
1) drift off into space and out of our solar system (Kuiper belt, anyone? - okay, let's not go down that rathole)
2) fall into the sun and disappear forever
3) are absorbed (cleared) into the other surrounding planets

So, for all intents and purposes say 90-95% of the material is shedded from the belt region.

Now, what are we left with? 5-10% of 62.5% of the Moon's mass, or about 3-6% of the original material (BOTH objects) - starting to sound like anything, Stereo?

That's right - ~4% of the moon's mass which is the # you keep throwing around for whatever reason.

So now we're left with a few huge chunks (4 of which contain 50% of the remaining debris' mass - this is the most amazing stat to me), one of which is Ceres. Ceres is large enough that it begins to round under its own gravity, by definition becoming a dwarf planet, the only sizable remnant of the planet that previously existed in its place.

Not THAT far fetched of an idea.


**Pre emptive 'giant impact theory' rebuttal: I realize the commonly accepted theory (by me, as well) for the moon's creation suggests that when two large objects collide as I described above, that this is ONE of the possible outcomes (but, certainly not the only)






edit on 9/21/2010 by SquirrelNutz because: Spelling / Grammar



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I really wanted to thank you for starting this thread. It's got me, my husband and our 2 sons (aged 11 and 14) out looking at the night sky again and we haven't done that in quite awhile, for one reason (excuse) or another. We had a really big storm here last night so couldn't see anything but clouds.

I have no idea about Nibiru and confess I've never really looked at it in any depth - I've skimmed the surface and get the gist of the idea but that's about it. Now I'm a little more intrigued, curious and interested in finding out more.

Thanks again for getting us off the sofa and out looking at the night sky - the dogs are also loving the long, moonlit walks!



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


I think you Planet X, Nibiru, Dwarf blah blah blah people need to sit down and get your stories straight. The original theory has been so skewed it's branched off into utter nonsense. First year in Planetary Physics it was taught there was no planet in the asteroid belt. EVER. Jupiter's gravitational pull was so immense that via the start of any formation disrupted it and it was torn apart. The effects of Jupiter's pull can still be witnessed by the giant cracks on it's moon Europa. So let's clear that up...there never was a planet present. In fact, many scientists believe several of Jupiter's moons could've been remnants of objects that existed in the Asteroid belt and were pulled within orbit around Jupiter. Now, I'm not disputing that there wasn't enough mass present to create a planet at one time in the asteroid belt which leads me to postulate something rather interesting. If, there was the probability of a planet forming in the asteroid belt, it may of had the opportunity to do so as Jupiter was still in the process of being formed itself...I'm going on a side tangent sorry. Anyways, Neo tracks many Asteroids, they haven't been hesitant to calculate objects on collision courses with Earth yet...so if there was any threat...I'm sure you could find it there.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


You begin by starting with a sub-planet sized mass, much, much less than a planet sized mass and then you cook up some numbers and then you end up with up with what - the destruction of an object.

The problem is that you began with an object that was not a planet. It was a lunar mass object. At least that larger than Pluto.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I saw these two little stars as well. And I thought it was weird that I hadn't noticed it until lately.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


You begin by starting with a sub-planet sized mass, much, much less than a planet sized mass and then you cook up some numbers and then you end up with up with what - the destruction of an object.

The problem is that you began with an object that was not a planet. It was a lunar mass object. At least that larger than Pluto.


Okay. I'll agree with that. Now, what.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


You begin by starting with a sub-planet sized mass, much, much less than a planet sized mass and then you cook up some numbers and then you end up with up with what - the destruction of an object.

The problem is that you began with an object that was not a planet. It was a lunar mass object. At least that larger than Pluto.


Okay. I'll agree with that. Now, what.


Can you provide un-altered pictures of this object please...



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Has anyone at all thought about linking or attempting to link 'Teahuanaco', Bolivia with Jupiter instead of our own moon? Teahuanaco literally translates to 'City of the Doomed Moon'. Nowso, I can see you alien theorists eyes widening over this, however, I have my own theories that are based in true geologic fact about how Teahuanaco became to be...I just thought the OP would appreciate something else to contemplate, just in case I'm wrong and Jupiter has more to do with it. Possibly start with Incan astronomy of Jupiter and what they 'knew' about it? Who knows, there may be something there. From one researcher to another, 'try to connect some dots man!' ;-)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Just want to go on record: last night I was able to see the 'moons' of 'Jupiter' with a pair of VERY cheap binoculars and an almost full moon blazing right next to them. My witness associate was pretty sure he saw them with the naked eye. Naked-eye viewing of 'Uranus' tomorrow night with the moon full and blazing and very close to 'Jupiter' is next on the agenda. Then I'll be calling 'Ripley's.'



new topics

top topics



 
142
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join