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.

 

Paging Nibiru Buffs & Phage! New Info (Aug 6th'11)

page: 2
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by crumpet97



Playing devil's advocate because I honestly don't know the answer, but, would a star cluster show up brighter than a planet? Why is Mercury so much less bright than a star cluster millions of miles away?
reply to post by superman2012
 
Maybe something to do with the fact that Mercury is a planet, as opposed to a star, which generates it's own light. Conversley, planets reflect light, obviously at a much lower luminosity. I don't wish to patronise you, but the simple fact is that stars are brighter than planets.



Look at Jupitor in the night sky and tell me that. Mercury being closer to Earth than a star, would reflect light which is closer to the Earth. That is why I was asking. I don't need to know that a light bulb puts out more light than a piece of glass reflecting it. It is million of miles away further than Mercury, wouldn't it show a smaller point of light? Even if it is brighter? Thanks for the tips though




posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by misscurious

To my knowledge it is impossible for a planet this size to exist in our solar system without everyone on earth knowing about it.


You mean like how Neptune, a planet 17 times the mass of Earth, wasn't discovered until 1846? Wiki

I guess that means it didn't exist until one fateful day in 1846 when it was created instantly out of no-where.

Because if we haven't seen it yet, it doesn't exist!

Just saying.


That's not really a fair comparison, on any level .. You're comparing the capability of people in the 1800s and earlier to spot something vs. our capabilities today with massive telescopes in space, shuttle missions, satellites and the whole nine yards.

At this day and age you can go out and buy your own telescope that's many times more powerful than what they were using back then.

It doesn't compare.



yet it is you who are comparing our knowledge to theirs in the 1800's assuming there could not possibly be anything yet as of now unknown...

interesting...



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hillbilly123069
reply to post by misscurious
 


Phage is the Rush Limbaugh of ATS.


Too bad Rush Limbaugh is a clown.
Just saying.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by misscurious

To my knowledge it is impossible for a planet this size to exist in our solar system without everyone on earth knowing about it.


You mean like how Neptune, a planet 17 times the mass of Earth, wasn't discovered until 1846? Wiki

I guess that means it didn't exist until one fateful day in 1846 when it was created instantly out of no-where.

Because if we haven't seen it yet, it doesn't exist!

Just saying.


That's not really a fair comparison, on any level .. You're comparing the capability of people in the 1800s and earlier to spot something vs. our capabilities today with massive telescopes in space, shuttle missions, satellites and the whole nine yards.

At this day and age you can go out and buy your own telescope that's many times more powerful than what they were using back then.

It doesn't compare.

They just spotted the Earths Trojan been there a long time I think. Always finding more moons and stuff and seeing huge asteroids after they skim us.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   


Look at Jupitor in the night sky and tell me that. Mercury being closer to Earth than a star, would reflect light which is closer to the Earth. That is why I was asking. I don't need to know that a light bulb puts out more light than a piece of glass reflecting it. It is million of miles away further than Mercury, wouldn't it show a smaller point of light? Even if it is brighter? Thanks for the tips though
reply to post by superman2012
 
Fair go. You may indeed be right, but we've got all these clever devices to measure luminosity, regardless of distance. Do you mean Jupiter?. I'm in the Northern Hemisphere, and Jupiter isn't as bright as Venus, at any point between one astronomical horizon and the other, ( Azimuths and Zeniths included). I can think of three examples of pilots dying, whilst chasing Venus. Whether that's true or not, I cannot seen a Jupiter-based incident! It's simply not the brightest planet. Jupiter sits quite low on the luminosity scale as, technically, it's not a planet. It's a gas giant. Therefore, a great deal of the light from the Sun is trapped or absorbed by the gaseous prticles that make up most of the mass of Jupiter, (its atmosphere). It's only bright because it's huge. You should have gone with Venus. Much more reflective, due to its rocky, solid mass. A 40 watt lightbulb will give out the same luminosity, no matter the distance. A 60 watt bulb, however, will give a stronger luminosity, even if further away. Do you really think this random, unproven planet is going to do all these horrible things? Despite the ABSOLUTE lack of evidence? Really? I tell you what; let's have a bet. If I can post , on this website, on the 1st January 2013, telling all the Nibiru believers that you were all wrong (and I won't be alone, will I folks?) then you all owe me £10. Each. If I'm wrong, I'll be dead, so, financially, it's win-win! A star's luminosity is measured by its mass/energy consumption and constituent elements. Thus: An orange star, such as our own, is orange, because it is mostly comprised of Iron. Whereas the brighter, blue stars contain the heavier elements at the bottom of the elemental table, therefore creating greater energy, and a blue spectral colour. (Betelguese is very, vey far away, but orange, because of its composition- it's massive. Super massive, but still composed of Iron). And you're welcome "for the tips though". Kind regards. C.


edit on 7/8/2011 by crumpet97 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/8/2011 by crumpet97 because: Addendum/Grammar

edit on 7/8/2011 by crumpet97 because: Addendum/Grammar



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Is there a problem with the NASA pics?stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov...
seems ok to me, waiting to see it brighten up anyday.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by quedup
 


I just checked out in Stellarium on the same date (1st of August 2011) and I can conclude that bright whatever it is, IS NOT the Galactic Centre. Heck, its far from it even from the angle with Mercury and the Sun. Just incase people are wondering what the galactic centre is, its located in the direction of the constellations Sagittarius, Ophiuchus, and Scorpius where the Milky Way appears brightest.
edit on 7-8-2011 by CasiusIgnoranze because: .



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Here is a video of what someone in Auckland NZ is saying is Nibiru.

I don't know what it is but take a look at this - sounds like they've seen it before in the same place. Taken on 5th Aug'11

www.youtube.com...

Perhaps someone can bring it over I don't know how to. Thanks.
edit on 7-8-2011 by quedup because: Further information



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hillbilly123069
reply to post by misscurious
 


Phage is the Rush Limbaugh of ATS.

edit on 7-8-2011 by Hillbilly123069 because: (no reason given)



Hmmm.
Is that good or bad



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   


It's a plane leaving a contrail that is being illuminated by the sunset.

Looks pretty cool, all lit up like that.

edit on 8/8/2011 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 1   >>

log in

join