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.

 

2012 - Nibiru - Constructive Onion

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   




posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 


Each piece of evidence sits in its historical setting. Here I do not mean the lens per se, but rather its discovery and its interpretation. The article you linked to with is from 1999. What have the experts in the field stated about the object since that time.

First off this is a suggestion from a single person and the response from a field of experts who say that the interpretation of this as part of a telescope in unlikely. Why? Because where are the telescopic based reports using the device - there are none.

What has been published on the issue since the suggestion was made? Nada. It was an interesting suggestion, but it appears that there was no supporting evidence. That is how science works. A suggestion is made. It is tested. The idea may or may not fly. This appears to be a dead issue. So far as people can tell the ancients did not have telescopes. Their observations were naked eye observations.

No one knows if it is a lens. It might just be jewelry or a trinket or a decoration that came off some other object.

There is no evidence that the ancients had telescopes.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


1999 huh? Lets see.. What could we have possibly had going on around babylon since 1999.... Oh yeah. A WAR. One which found untold of artifacts looted from museums, imagine how many artifact sites could have been plundered and destroyed because of this?

I think this is where you start to do your own reasearch and make up your own opinions. I think the OP speaks for itself.



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
here is a fixed link

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by theRhenn
 


I see you have no idea how research is done. The war in Iraq has little meaning in terms of the issue of whether or not the device was part of a telescope. The issue was dropped from scientific circles because the proposal was not a good proposal.

Anyone should see that the claims of the OP are rather poor. Anyone can do the research and see that is the case.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by theRhenn
Jupiter is 2.5 times more massive than all the other planets in the Solar System Combined!

If it were about 60X more massive than it is, it would indeed be a star!. More mass would cause the planet to collapse from compression under gravity. Thermonuclear reactions would take place and Jupiter would become a star with a diameter of about 100,000 miles.

Currently it's mass is 1000 times less than the sun. When you're comparing it to all the other planets in our solar system vs the sun, it's not so small. Its not a trillion times less mass, just 1000.



So you are contending that a difference of 1,000 Jupiter masses is within a margin such that you feel justified in asserting, "If it's true that Jupiter has nearly the same mass as our sun...." Yet, bizarrely, in the quoted segment above this paragraph, you make great mention of how incredibly massive Jupiter, in fact, is.

Just in case you aren't aware, 1,000 Jupiter masses is rather significant. That's nearly 320,000 Earths. When talking about the Sun, it's closer to 330,000 Earths. Even 1 Jupiter mass can alter the complexion of an entire stellar neighborhood. By your own admission, all the other planets in the Solar System combined cannot equal a single Jupiter mass, so this alone should speak volumes as to the amount of material we are talking about. A hypothetical object of 60 Jupiter masses versus Jupiter is no trifling difference, as you seem intent upon establishing.

I think you're simply playing fast and loose with relative statements about mass, completely ignoring the physical significance of those numbers.



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join