You can now see NIBIRU!

page: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


No that is scientific fact. How many times does Phage need to post the peer-reviewed article that states that a brown dwarf has the same albedo as Jupiter? In other words a brown dwarf reflects light in the same manner that Jupiter would. I fail to see how posting a link to a site designed for laymen is supposed to supersede a peer-reviewed article.
edit on 28-8-2011 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 




Like another poster said, that's because while standing next to your oven, it's right in your face. Take it up with the scientists that say that brown dwarfs can only be viewed in infrared. I am not a scientist.


The other poster and you are avoiding the fact that ovens can be seen with light. Put it in your face or far away it still reflects light and can be seen.

Please tell me the name of a real scientist that states that brown dwarfs can only be viewed in IR. You are making this up and I am calling your bluff.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


That's a terrible link you provided. There are many flaws including the claim that brown dwarfs are 2x the mass of Jupiter. The claim they can only be seen in IR is also false. Brown dwarfs have been photographed using a light telescope.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Here is a photograph of a brown dwarf using a light telescope. It's a brown dwarf called Gliese 229b.

apod.nasa.gov...

and

www.astro.caltech.edu...



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


LOL! You're calling my bluff? I posted the link for where I read that. What you think about the website makes no difference to me, I could give a crap less. That's what I read, and that's why I assumed that. Quit being so paranoid. Nobody has an agenda here. It was a simple discussion that has now turned into a joke because it's not even the subject of the OP. ~SheopleNation



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
Here is a photograph of a brown dwarf using a light telescope. It's a brown dwarf called Gliese 229b.


Well, That settles it I guess. If in fact that is truly a brown dwarf. Looks like a star to me. Those beams do not represent "reflective light", they are shining on their own. Which also proves my other point that a dwarf star is not a planet much like Jupiter (which does reflect light) it's a star just like it's called. Massive contradiction bro. ~SheopleNation



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Really? Go look at stereologist's own link. You call those beams reflective light? Think about it. ~SheopleNation



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
To the 3 of you that were discussing the reflective light question. I take that back, I was wrong. When I am wrong, I will show honor and admit it. The brown dwarf is the spot at the bottom, not the star. So if that's a brown dwarf, the theory could in fact be true. ~SheopleNation



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


Let me remind you of the thread. You did not provide a link in the post in question. Now you are claiming you did. Had you actually posted a link, then I would have discussed that. You did not.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 



Well, That settles it I guess. If in fact that is truly a brown dwarf. Looks like a star to me. Those beams do not represent "reflective light", they are shining on their own. Which also proves my other point that a dwarf star is not a planet much like Jupiter (which does reflect light) it's a star just like it's called. Massive contradiction bro.

It is readily apparent that you did not read the material. The light is reflected light.

There is no contradiction. There is just your understanding of the material presented.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


This is science. There is no theory involved. There is only evidence being presented that discusses the make up of brown dwarfs, the albedo of such objects, and actual imagery of such an object in the optical portion of the spectrum.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Here I am with another correction. That first image is infrared. It was taken by the Infrared Telescope Facility in Mauna Kea, Hawaii.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
who says all brown dwarfs are the same? who says they are all at the same point in their life? who says every brown dwarf in the universe is composed of the same elements? i don't think anyone on here should act like a brown dwarf expert for as little as we know about them, let alone how hard it is to find them. the truth is, we don't know where all the brown dwarfs/black holes/etc. exist in our universe or their paths of travel. i mean, our knowledge of our solar system/our galaxy/our universe expands everyday with new surprises ahead. i guarantee a few surprises sooner than later in the near future.



posted on Aug, 28 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MadMaxZombie
 


This why most conspiracy theories fall apart, they rely too much on the argument from ignorance. Every theory goes through the same evolution. You start off with a random claim that gets more and more ridiculous as more people start looking for connections and bad science is employed. Then when all of those premises are proven wrong instead of admitting that they were wrong most conspiracy theorists fall back on the "Well, we don't know every thing so I could be right." Just because we don't know everything about the universe doesn't mean that your logic is suddenly correct and that your conclusion is automatically the correct one.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by SheopleNation
 


Let me remind you of the thread. You did not provide a link in the post in question. Now you are claiming you did. Had you actually posted a link, then I would have discussed that. You did not.


Yeah I did. Page 11, 6th post down. Maybe you need glasses. ~SheopleNation



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologistIt is readily apparent that you did not read the material. The light is reflected light.

There is no contradiction. There is just your understanding of the material presented.


It is readily apparent that you can't read. What did I just say? Do you just read the next post and respond? How about reading the latest post? It was right there on the same page. Too hard for yuh eh? Now you're just arguing to argue, because it's clear that I corrected myself. ~SheopleNation



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by spikey
 


Jupiter has recently baffled scientists by losing it's 300 year old 'great red spot'

Um... no. Check whatever article you read again. The spot is still there.


and one of it's thousands of miles wide, major 'banding rings'

This is true.


that has always been there...

Um... no. Do a little fact checking. The same belt disappeared in the 70's and again in the 90's. It reappeared each time.


Apologies, i was confusing two different facts that were swirling around my sleep deprived brain, however...

Maybe you'd be interested to learn the 'Great Red Spot' (GRS) has shrunk in size in just the period of a decade or two, estimated by NASA in 2006 at approximately a 15% reduction in it's size or roughly 1km per day...since we have been viewing the thing for the last 300 - 400 years, a decrease of this amount in just a couple of decades is significant...at the least, it's not insignificant.


May 20, 2010: In a development that has transformed the appearance of the solar system's largest planet, one of Jupiter's two main cloud belts has completely disappeared. "This is a big event," says planetary scientist Glenn Orton of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab. "We're monitoring the situation closely and do not yet fully understand what's going on."

Link: science.nasa.gov...

The SEB (Southern Equatorial Band) that has recently disappeared, also happens to be situated in the region occupied by the Great Red Spot..in fact, the GRS straddles the (now gone or obscured) SEB.

The band disappeared while Jupiter was unobservable to Earth based scopes, during it's occultation by the sun (it was on the opposite side of the sun to Earth, for quite some time) in 2009 - 2010.

Yes, the SEB has diminished before, although it is not a regular occurrence...the 'sit up and take notice' aspect for me personally, is the apparent 'acceleration' of the frequency of the cycle (if it even is a cycle).

In recent times, the fading of the SE Band has been recorded in 1973-75, 1989-90, 1993, 2007 and now a disappearance in 2009/2010- present.

Notice the speeding up or increased frequency of the phenomena?

Notice also, this increase in speed seems to correlate with the time period for the GRS shrinking...

Nobody apparently knows why it happens...the completeness of the 'disappearance' of the SEB on this occasion is strange, when this phenomena has been recorded previously, it has merely faded to greater or lesser degrees, but as far as i can tell, it hasn't dissipated as completely as it has now...couple this together with the surprisingly sudden (relatively) diminishing size of the GRS, situated in the same area, and we have a mystery.

As for my wild speculation about a potential 'wandering Brown Dwarf', it's just that...wild speculation (of course!).

It would be emitting light in the IR spectrum (and thus be hidden unless properly equipped to view such a body), and yes, it would be a massive gas giant, along the lines of a 'Super Jupiter'.

Allowing my imagination to run, and knowing that it could originate in or orbit through the Oort cloud asteroid area, it is not much of a leap to think that as a massive (gravity) object it would amass quite a following of Oort cloud and Kuiper belt bodies, shepherding them along and around itself and would have had many, many such bodies impacting it.

Look up what colour the upper atmosphere of Jupiter changes to when it has an impact... Add to that a number of these Oort cloud and Kuiper belt objects may indeed be comprised of similar materials as the 'blacker than black' planet discovered, which absorbs up to 95% (or more) of the light it receives and one could imagine a scenario where a large and massive body, such as a BD could go undetected.

Tying the Jupiter banding and GRS shrinking issues, the apparent accelerating frequency of their phenomena and speculation about a Massive Brown Dwarf mentioned above, it IS NOT as unreasonable or as outlandish a notion in suggesting a possible, if tenuous and speculatory linkage between the two, as some people would have us all imagine.

This pretty much answers another post or two below too.

Hope you found this reply informative and helpful.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SheopleNation
 

Which scientists? You don't mean the ones that say a brown dwarf has the same bond albedo as Jupiter I guess.
Under the spectrum of the Sun, a brown dwarf would have a bond albedo similar to that of Jupiter and Neptune (Fig. 9). It would shine with reflected light from the Sun just like Jupiter does.
iopscience.iop.org...

But why would you pay any attention to it this time when you ignored it the first time?



What about a BD that is not under the spectrum of a companion sun? One that for whatever reason is no longer paired or never was paired with a successful twin.

What would the bond albedo of a wandering, rapidly cooling, possibly heavily impacted Jupiter sized (although much more massive) BD be then i wonder?

But then it's really a moot point, all down to conjecture and speculation as there are so many differing classes of BD's, let alone white dwarfs etc...so a BD may not be the only massive body to consider here anyway.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
how do you see a star in outer space as cool as the human body?



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologistThis is science. There is no theory involved.


Wrong. Sure it's Science. We would have never been able to look into deep space without it, But you're mistaken when you claim that "there is no theory involved". Theory, and like Spikey said speculation, are everywhere and in between when studying Brown Dwarfs. ~SheopleNation
edit on 29-8-2011 by SheopleNation because: TypO






top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join