Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

alien satellite/probe article

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I wonder if aliens might have satellites spying on us the same way we have satellites around Jupiter and Saturn, and this article relates to that idea.

www.spacedaily.com...




posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


It would make a lot more sense to do it that way rather than fly around in space ships a few 100 feet off the ground gathering info.



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 

Interesting stuff, but surely probes from an advanced civilization could remain undetected by our technology. It is an interesting premise though, and one would have to consider dimensions as well as space maybe? I have read that the greys could actually be bio mechanical drones sent to gather info....or people and cows!


Peace,
spec



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 



Reread this:



The surface of Mars is still mostly unsurveyed and the researchers' confidence in the probability of no nonterrestrial artifacts is low


Now translate it back into normal English and see what they're saying....

 
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 8/11/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
This is the most interesting thread I have seen in a vey long time and suggests massive changes to our Weltanschauung (and AusWeletanschauung
) .
I wonder if that was why it was knocked off the new threads list within a matter of minutes with a bunch of single paragraph posts?

Nowhere in the post does it suggest that we are alone. In fact it constantly reinforces the opposite, from :




After taking into account a variety of potential biases, such as "the universe is teeming with life" or "life is rare,"


to




Answers to this question could include life is rare, intelligent cultures inevitably destroy themselves, intelligent beings have not gotten here yet or they are here but not revealing themselves. Even without actual contact, like us, other civilizations could be sending unpiloted probes to quietly peek at our civilization.


to (and this is without doubt the most suggestive of all)




The surface of Mars is still mostly unsurveyed and the researchers' confidence in the probability of no nonterrestrial artifacts is low.


which, when read by those speed-reaing or those not too well versed on the intricacies of language is actually stating that the probability of finding non-terrestrial artefacts on Mars is HIGH.

Hopefully more people will see this thread and it won't be succesfully buried because that really annoys me. It's a good tactic, I'll gant you that, but it is really, really annoying.

 
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
edit on 8/11/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aestheteka
This is the most interesting thread I have seen in a vey long time and suggests massive changes to our Weltanschauung (and AusWeletanschauung
) .
I wonder if that was why it was knocked off the new threads list within a matter of minutes with a bunch of single paragraph posts?

Nowhere in the post does it suggest that we are alone. In fact it constantly reinforces the opposite, from :




After taking into account a variety of potential biases, such as "the universe is teeming with life" or "life is rare,"


to




Answers to this question could include life is rare, intelligent cultures inevitably destroy themselves, intelligent beings have not gotten here yet or they are here but not revealing themselves. Even without actual contact, like us, other civilizations could be sending unpiloted probes to quietly peek at our civilization.


to (and this is without doubt the most suggestive of all)




The surface of Mars is still mostly unsurveyed and the researchers' confidence in the probability of no nonterrestrial artifacts is low.


which, when read by those speed-reaing or those not too well versed on the intricacies of language is actually stating that the probability of finding non-terrestrial artefacts on Mars is HIGH.

Hopefully more people will see this thread and it won't be succesfully buried because that really annoys me. It's a good tactic, I'll gant you that, but it is really, really annoying.


Imagine this: a clever alien society could send a probe which is nothing more than a computer program with a very simple manufacturing capability - maybe it's almost microscopic. Then over the aeons this probe would evolve itself into a population of spy satellites to keep an eye on this solar system. There could be tiny satellites around each planet sending signals to larger satellites in the kuiper belt that would send them on to the home star system. Alien school kids could be learning all about the Tyrannosaurs Rex right now.
edit on 8/11/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Michio Kaku described that exact idea of self-replicating probes as the most efficient way to explore the universe. Here is the link to the video; I'm sure many of us on ATS are pretty familiar with it, but it's still very interesting.

youtu.be...



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Aestheteka
 


Change your forum thread setting to "recent replies" to solve your irritation with new threads "falling off"...

As previously said by someone who beat me to it, Michu Kaku is a big proponent of this theory. Yes it makes a lot of sense, I could see our planet using such a process when possible...



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by wagnificent
Michio Kaku described that exact idea of self-replicating probes as the most efficient way to explore the universe. Here is the link to the video; I'm sure many of us on ATS are pretty familiar with it, but it's still very interesting.

youtu.be...


Interesting - especially the background on 2001. I never have been able to understand that movie. I can't believe people actually paid money and sat through it at theaters. But that's just me.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by cloudyday
I wonder if aliens might have satellites spying on us the same way we have satellites around Jupiter and Saturn, and this article relates to that idea.

www.spacedaily.com...


They do have a satellite spying on us and it is so obvious that no one wants to admit it. It's our Moon.

Our scientists say that the Moon was created by either a collision with another space body and then captured in orbit. Or it was created at the same time as the Earth and spun-off into orbit around Earth.

However, if it was created by a collision in space, where is the debris field where the supposed collision took place? And if it did collide with the Earth, how could it have a near perfect circular orbit? Physics would dictate that if a collision happened and the Moon was then captured by the Earth's gravity, the orbit of the Moon would be elliptical--not circular. And when the Apollo moon rocks and dust were analyzed, they proved to be older than the age of the Earth and their chemical composition was like nothing that came off the surface of the Earth.

In other words, the more we learn about the Moon the less it becomes scientifically provable that the Moon is a natural satellite.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   


Our scientists say that the Moon was created by either a collision with another space body and then captured in orbit. Or it was created at the same time as the Earth and spun-off into orbit around Earth. However, if it was created by a collision in space, where is the debris field where the supposed collision took place? And if it did collide with the Earth, how could it have a near perfect circular orbit? Physics would dictate that if a collision happened and the Moon was then captured by the Earth's gravity, the orbit of the Moon would be elliptical--not circular. And when the Apollo moon rocks and dust were analyzed, they proved to be older than the age of the Earth and their chemical composition was like nothing that came off the surface of the Earth.
reply to post by 1questioner
 


I think that it is a captured object. If you look at the earth from space from the middle of the Pacific, the ring of fire surrounds the globe and you are looking at almost all ocean.

Also, on the Moon, the Mare Imbrium area (with much younger surface features) covers a huge part of the moon. It is possible we had a 'bump', not at such cosmic speed, but enough to melt the surfaces that contacted.

The moon not being uniformly dense, and perhaps with an inner bulge of theits core towards the surface of impact, and most likely rotated to that position by coming so close to the earth.... This is why we have a 1:1 rotation with it, as the gravitational attraction of it's lopsided core prevents it from rotating on it's own axis.

I think most scientists agree today that the moon could not have come from the earth, because of the very things you mentioned about age and material types not having any matches.
edit on 9-11-2011 by charlyv because: clarity
edit on 9-11-2011 by charlyv because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


Nice find. That's the second scientific paper published in the last week whose message is basically "intelligent ET or its products could very well be on Earth by now." (These authors are an astro-biologist and a physicist from Penn State; last week it was one Harvard and one Princeton astrophysicist.)

So... WHAT the heck is going on?!? They're getting awfully close to home, aren't they? (I'm not complaining at all. I like and appreciate the open-mindedness, but am just a little surprised.)

How is it that papers like these can be published (where esteemed scientists can say things like "we cannot rule out the possibility that non-terrestrial artifacts are present and may even be observing us"), and yet many 'skeptics' still think it rational to label the UFO phenomenon as totally baseless and absurd?

The fact is, the un-stated assumption which underlies many skeptics' reasoning ("UFO's can't possibly be ET spacecraft") is gradually becoming intellectually indefensible....



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv


Our scientists say that the Moon was created by either a collision with another space body and then captured in orbit. Or it was created at the same time as the Earth and spun-off into orbit around Earth. However, if it was created by a collision in space, where is the debris field where the supposed collision took place? And if it did collide with the Earth, how could it have a near perfect circular orbit? Physics would dictate that if a collision happened and the Moon was then captured by the Earth's gravity, the orbit of the Moon would be elliptical--not circular. And when the Apollo moon rocks and dust were analyzed, they proved to be older than the age of the Earth and their chemical composition was like nothing that came off the surface of the Earth.
reply to post by 1questioner
 


I think that it is a captured object. If you look at the earth from space from the middle of the Pacific, the ring of fire surrounds the globe and you are looking at almost all ocean.

Also, on the Moon, the Mare Imbrium area (with much younger surface features) covers a huge part of the moon. It is possible we had a 'bump', not at such cosmic speed, but enough to melt the surfaces that contacted.

The moon not being uniformly dense, and perhaps with an inner bulge of theits core towards the surface of impact, and most likely rotated to that position by coming so close to the earth.... This is why we have a 1:1 rotation with it, as the gravitational attraction of it's lopsided core prevents it from rotating on it's own axis.

I think most scientists agree today that the moon could not have come from the earth, because of the very things you mentioned about age and material types not having any matches.
edit on 9-11-2011 by charlyv because: clarity
edit on 9-11-2011 by charlyv because: (no reason given)


Do you realize that there is not one scientifically peer-reviewed computer simulation that can account for the circular orbit of the Moon using the captured scenario?

In fact, there is not another moon that we can see that has a near perfect circular orbit. They all that have elliptical orbits.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 1questioner
 


Not really....after years of examination, the impact theory is the most viable and plausible.


They do have a satellite spying on us and it is so obvious that no one wants to admit it. It's our Moon.



No, the Moon is quite natural.....and, was formed well in the beginning of the Solar System, as the planets were coalescing into spheres.


Our scientists say that the Moon was created by either a collision with another space body and then captured in orbit.


The material from that collision of Proto-Earth with another large proto-planet (possibly about the size of Mars) flung a ring of debris out into orbit....this accreted gradually and was sufficient in mass to form the spherical shape of the Moon. Over 4 1/2 billion years a go there was a lot of junk in the Solar System, and many meteor impacts resulted.

The Moon, as it collected and cooled, was in a closer orbit then....the mass of Earth and the Moon combine to orbit about a common barycenter. This center has shifted over time, as the Moon has gradually spiraled farther away...the Moon "robs" the rotational energy of the Earth, to give it the impetus to raise its orbit higher. The Earth's period of revolution on its axis was quite a bit faster than it is today....many billions of years ago.


Origin of the Moon:



Moon Formation (on Vimeo)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by 1questioner
 


Not really....after years of examination, the impact theory is the most viable and plausible.


They do have a satellite spying on us and it is so obvious that no one wants to admit it. It's our Moon.



No, the Moon is quite natural.....and, was formed well in the beginning of the Solar System, as the planets were coalescing into spheres.


Our scientists say that the Moon was created by either a collision with another space body and then captured in orbit.


The material from that collision of Proto-Earth with another large proto-planet (possibly about the size of Mars) flung a ring of debris out into orbit....this accreted gradually and was sufficient in mass to form the spherical shape of the Moon. Over 4 1/2 billion years a go there was a lot of junk in the Solar System, and many meteor impacts resulted.

The Moon, as it collected and cooled, was in a closer orbit then....the mass of Earth and the Moon combine to orbit about a common barycenter. This center has shifted over time, as the Moon has gradually spiraled farther away...the Moon "robs" the rotational energy of the Earth, to give it the impetus to raise its orbit higher. The Earth's period of revolution on its axis was quite a bit faster than it is today....many billions of years ago.


Origin of the Moon:



Moon Formation (on Vimeo)


Thank you for the video. However, with all due respect, are we to believe that 100% of the debris caused by this collision coalesced into making the moon? I would be happy to believe this collision scenario if there was some evidence of a debris field (some rocks or some dust) still in orbit. But no, there is no debris from this supposed collision in orbit around the Earth. For this scenario to work 100% of the debris had to be gathered up to form the moon. That stretches credibility.

The astrophysicist quoted gave her theory. However, her model is not peer-reviewed and is not universally accepted. Also, the rocks they talk about having some similar characteristics to the Earth's crust are but a small sample and selectively chosen of the rocks brought back. By far most of the rocks brought back showed highly unusual characteristics. Primarily they found titanium-rich rocks. A heavy metal that shouldn't be on the surface and certainly wouldn't be if a molten ball of debris coalesced into the moon. The heavier elements would have naturally sunk toward the core of the moon as the moon gathered mass and gravity just like the rocks on Earth formed when they coalesced.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by 1questioner
 





Do you realize that there is not one scientifically peer-reviewed computer simulation that can account for the circular orbit of the Moon using the captured scenario? In fact, there is not another moon that we can see that has a near perfect circular orbit. They all that have elliptical orbits.


The universe was not built on computer simulations, however there are many that can account for circular orbits of the moon. These simulations assume that earth and moon approached each other going the same direction and close to the same speed.

And other moons not having nearly perfect circular orbits?, well I can name 12 of them out of the 64 moons of Jupiter.....



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by charlyv
reply to post by 1questioner
 





Do you realize that there is not one scientifically peer-reviewed computer simulation that can account for the circular orbit of the Moon using the captured scenario? In fact, there is not another moon that we can see that has a near perfect circular orbit. They all that have elliptical orbits.


The universe was not built on computer simulations, however there are many that can account for circular orbits of the moon. These simulations assume that earth and moon approached each other going the same direction and close to the same speed.

And other moons not having nearly perfect circular orbits?, well I can name 12 of them out of the 64 moons of Jupiter.....


I stand corrected with my phrasing. I really meant to say that we cannot see any moon with the exact orbital mechanics of our moon. That means both a near perfect circular orbit and a geo-synchronous rotation.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by 1questioner
 



I really meant to say that we cannot see any moon with the exact orbital mechanics of our moon. That means both a near perfect circular orbit and a geo-synchronous rotation.



Oh? First., "geo-synchronous rotation" is not the phrase you wish, when describing our Moon. Just "synchronous"....putting the modifier "geo" in front means something else....well, it could be argued as 'correct' in a way (since "geo" refers to Earth) - - but, it is imprecise and causes confusion.

Synchronous Rotation

Compared to:
Geosynchronous Orbit


.......is an orbit around the Earth with an orbital period that matches the Earth's sidereal rotation period.



Now. Actually, our Moon's orbit is not nearly perfectly circular....depends on how you define "nearly", I suppose:

Orbit of the Moon


Distance at perigee ~362600 km (356400-370400 km)
Distance at apogee ~405400 km (404000-406700 km)


That's a variation in the ellipse of over 40,000 kilometers. or, roughly 10% off of circular.


Finally, there is a list of other tidally locked bodies in the Solar System:
List of known tidally locked bodies

Randomly choosing from the above list, let's look at Europa (Actually, not random'...I like Europa because it was featured in the Arthur C. Clarke sequel to "2001: A Space Odyssey". The book, and film "2010").

From the Wii source, regarding Europa:

Europa orbits Jupiter in just over three and a half days, with an orbital radius of about 670,900 km. With an eccentricity of only 0.009, the orbit itself is nearly circular.


"nearly circular"......and, only 9 one-thousandths eccentricity. Compared to our Moon's roughly 10%.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by 1questioner
 



However, with all due respect, are we to believe that 100% of the debris caused by this collision coalesced into making the moon?


Probably not 100% of it. But, doesn't have to be. Much was likely flung out farther, and may have settled in to a more distant orbit around Earth....over time (it's been over 4 1/2 billion years, after all!!) those objects could have been perturbed, and eventually came back to impact.....both Moon and Earth.

Time, is what is at work here. Lots and lots of time.........



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I'm thinking that it makes sense that we haven't found any hidden probes, BECAUSE THEY'RE HIDDEN!


And I consider it unlikely that we would even be able to find them if they were properly hidden because if the aliens were in a habit of doing this kind of thing, they'd be really, really good at it. We're still better off looking for some kind of alien radio signal. We still haven't learned to hide those ourselves, and I figure our changes of getting lucky and finding some other foolish, Berserker-attracting broadcaster still might be pretty good.

edit on 10-11-2011 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join