Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Phobos declared ARTIFICIAL

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
First, BIN should never be used as a source.

Second, the report does not claim hollow with rooms. It's porous, with large open areas, caverns.

Third, how does anyone blindly believe this stuff?




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
DIRECTLY from ESA's website about Phobos:

sci.esa.int...




One reason to suspect that Phobos is not a captured asteroid is its density. Analysis of Mars Express radio science data gave new information about the mass of Phobos based on the gravitational attraction it exerts on the spacecraft. The team concluded that Phobos is likely to contain large voids, which makes it less likely to be a captured asteroid. Its composition and structural strength seem to be inconsistent with the capture scenario. It is possible that Phobos formed in situ at Mars, from ejecta from impacts on the Martian surface, or from the remnants of a previous moon which had formed from the Martian accretion disc and subsequently collided with a body from the asteroid belt. Data from the Mars Express OMEGA spectrometer suggests Phobos has a primitive composition, so primitive materials must have been available for accretion during its formation. The circular orbit suggests that Phobos formed in situ whilst analysis of the Planetary Fourier Spectrometer data from Mars Express also points towards in situ formation but does not rule out the possibility that Phobos is a captured achondrite-like meteor.


I wish the starship theory was true



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
Didnt Carl Sagan say any hollow body orbiting a planet cant be natural?


Had to look this up for myself. Looks like you're right.



In Carl Sagan's treatise, Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."


Huh. Interesting.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
Didnt Carl Sagan say any hollow body orbiting a planet cant be natural?


Had to look this up for myself. Looks like you're right.



In Carl Sagan's treatise, Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."


Huh. Interesting.


Much like anything else, saying can't is just asking to be wrong. Unlikely, yes, I would definitely never say can't. Moot point though, as Phobos is not hollow.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
Didnt Carl Sagan say any hollow body orbiting a planet cant be natural?


Had to look this up for myself. Looks like you're right.



In Carl Sagan's treatise, Intelligent Life in the Universe, the famous astronomer stated, "A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object."


Huh. Interesting.


Much like anything else, saying can't is just asking to be wrong. Unlikely, yes, I would definitely never say can't. Moot point though, as Phobos is not hollow.


As I'm sure Carl Sagan would say to you "a event which is impossible in a minute may be inevitable in a billion years."

While I'm sure he didn't -literally- mean it's 100% impossible for a satellite to be hollow, the chances of this particular satellite being both hollow and natural are probably around 1 out of infinity.

Also, I didn't really do my homework but it seems from my skimming that scientists are pretty much agreeing that it's a minimum of 20% hollow with a potential to be 50%+ hollow. Do you have some data to prove that statement false? Because all I see is a few bold statements with nothing to back them up. And while your opinion is invaluable, excuse me but I'll take the word of several dozen astronomers over yours.
edit on 8-12-2012 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


No, zero scientists are calling this 20-50% "hollow". They are calling it "porous". I won't insultyour intelligence by assuming you can not understand the difference.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


No, zero scientists are calling this 20-50% "hollow". They are calling it "porous". I won't insultyour intelligence by assuming you can not understand the difference.


You're making it sound like it's a simple matter of the object's density being incredibly low, which if I'm not mistaken, is not the case. They were saying there's 20 - 50+ % of open chamber inside of the external shell, yes?

So I think the size of these chambers, their location, shape, origin, and so forth are in question for a good reason - it's an anomaly that isn't easily explained by our current understanding of celestial bodies and it requires investigation at the very least.

ETA:


New values for the gravitational parameter (GM=0.7127 ± 0.0021 x 10-³ km³/s²) and density of Phobos (1876 ± 20 kg/m³) provide meaningful new constraints on the corresponding range of the body’s porosity (30% ± 5%), provide a basis for improved interpretation of the internal structure. We conclude that the interior of Phobos likely contains large voids.


Actually they are saying "hollow." In fact, they're saying "void."

How porous Phobos is was just one of the variables in figuring out how hollow it is. Meaning 0 scientists were bringing attention to how porous it is.

edit on 8-12-2012 by HairlessApe because: ETA



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


No, zero scientists are calling this 20-50% "hollow". They are calling it "porous". I won't insultyour intelligence by assuming you can not understand the difference.


You're making it sound like it's a simple matter of the object's density being incredibly low, which if I'm not mistaken, is not the case. They were saying there's 20 - 50+ % of open chamber inside of the external shell, yes?

So I think the size of these chambers, their location, shape, origin, and so forth are in question for a good reason - it's an anomaly that isn't easily explained by our current understanding of celestial bodies and it requires investigation at the very least.

ETA:


New values for the gravitational parameter (GM=0.7127 ± 0.0021 x 10-³ km³/s²) and density of Phobos (1876 ± 20 kg/m³) provide meaningful new constraints on the corresponding range of the body’s porosity (30% ± 5%), provide a basis for improved interpretation of the internal structure. We conclude that the interior of Phobos likely contains large voids.


Actually they are saying "hollow." In fact, they're saying "void."

How porous Phobos is was just one of the variables in figuring out how hollow it is. Meaning 0 scientists were bringing attention to how porous it is.

edit on 8-12-2012 by HairlessApe because: ETA


Large VOIDS. That is not hollow. Earth has large voids too. They are called caverns. No scientists has ever or will ever call Phobos hollow. I did not have to question your intelligence, you have made the answer quite plain.

ETA:

provide meaningful new constraints on the corresponding range of the body’s porosity



Meaning 0 scientists were bringing attention to how porous it is.

Really? Did you miss what you quoted?

Did you also miss this?

We conclude that the interior of Phobos likely contains large voids.

Key word likely, which means they have not discovered any voids. Based on the porosity large voids (caverns) is the most likely culprit for the readings. Sometimes I don't know why I bother.
edit on 8-12-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


k how about some information that's relevant?

SCIENTISTS ANNOUNCE CAVERNS ON MAR'S MOON? Are you seriously suggesting that's their announcement? It's not. Stop talking, please. I'm not interested in your uncanny ability to detect adjectives and add nothing of value to this conversation.

Go read a book, you lepton.
edit on 8-12-2012 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


k how about some information that's relevant?

SCIENTISTS ANNOUNCE CAVERNS ON MAR'S MOON? Are you seriously suggesting that's their announcement? It's not. Stop talking, please. I'm not interested in your uncanny ability to detect adjectives and add nothing of value to this conversation.

Go read a book, you lepton.
edit on 8-12-2012 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)


And the ad-hom attacks begin. The surest sign you lost the argument. If you add anything of value I will reply, otherwise I'm done replying with actual facts and data to your wishes that fairies and unicorns are real.

I don't need to tell you their announcement, it was public and already made. Phobos has less mass than expected, which means it most likely has substantial caverns, although at this time they have no idea what the cause is. I will await your quote of actual scientists saying that Phobos is hollow. I won't hold my breath.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TRUELIES11
Imagine the "leap" people would take with the arrival of the contents of a city sized doomsday vault on Phobos or Mars. The opposite of what people thought they should do. The idea was to find the vault, not build a vault. The next step for people with the help of a past civilization.
Seeds. Imagine where that could take you.
History. It would send people into a frenzy. That in itself would change the civilization. The change people have been waiting for.
Medicine. Can you imagine?

If people were to find such a vault on Mars or Phobos, it would in a sense be like a time machine with how the contents would inspire the civilization. It could propel the civilization thousands of years into the future.
edit on 7-12-2012 by TRUELIES11 because: (no reason given)

I have to say, your suggestion is intriguing and the type of spark for imagination that kids need to see science as something more than a crappy elective course to muddle through.


It's pretty close to what I was saying earlier and I think you're right in your take here too. 4 billion years....is the estimate I've read for Earth. Billion.....and we have written history of a thousand. Maybe even a few thousand if we want to really stretch the definition of written. Honestly and to be realistic? I don't think Man can say we have ANY true idea of what may have come and gone or transpired in our Solar System for life. That's an immense span of time and on Earth? Everything turns to dust....quick too. The lack of physical evidence of anything isn't surprising. Finding any is what would be shocking. Out there though?

Hmm.. Like you suggest, if a past civilization knew it was going to be smacked by say..an asteroid or whatever and had just enough tech to explore but not enough to stop it...what would likely come to mind? A Vault... Somewhere ELSE...but where future people would look quickly enough, perhaps? I can't wait for more routine exploration and commercially as well. The more people, the less ability to hide things.
edit on 8-12-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I guess you all ignored the ESA website link and still continue to argue that Phobos is artificial, BIN is in error, there is NOTHING on the ESA website that says Phobos is artificial. NOTHING.
I dunno where BIN is getting its info, but its not ESA, who is running the Mars Express program.
Please do further research, the only one that emphatically Phobos is artificial is Hoagland.
As much as I would LOVE Phobos to be an anicent alien ship, you gotta face reality for what it is: planet ejects or captured asteroid.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
beforeitsnews.com has about as much credibility as Wikipedia for a source of information, probably a lot less.


Oh, I agree completely with everyone here who has and will point that out, but this story (Aldrin) has been out there well before this outfit got wind of it. It's not new and Aldrin has mentioned it several times. Reminds me of the John Glenn episode on Frazier.
edit on 12/8/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by babybunnies
beforeitsnews.com has about as much credibility as Wikipedia for a source of information, probably a lot less.


Oh, I agree completely with everyone here who has and will point that out, but this story (Aldrin) has been out there well before this outfit got wind of it. It's not new and Aldrin has mentioned it several times. Reminds me of the John Glenn episode on Frazier.
edit on 12/8/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


The Aldrin thing is already debunked. The actual scientists that are doing the research debunk the BIN article based on their work. Not sure why people want to believe so bad.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





No, zero scientists are calling this 20-50% "hollow". They are calling it "porous". I won't insultyour intelligence by assuming you can not understand the difference.


Actually, stating that it is likely to contain large voids doesn't translate to porous. Remember that we are talking about an object that is 22km in diameter and that being the case, should there in fact be "large voids" or as you said yourself, substantial caverns it would still be rather exciting.

The best use of Phobos regardless of how it came into orbit around Mars would be as a stepping stone for future human missions and if it came pre made with large enough voids or caverns to house mission personal and equipment that would be fantastic! Assuming of course, it's not a giant alien seed bank!



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





No, zero scientists are calling this 20-50% "hollow". They are calling it "porous". I won't insultyour intelligence by assuming you can not understand the difference.


Actually, stating that it is likely to contain large voids doesn't translate to porous. Remember that we are talking about an object that is 22km in diameter and that being the case, should there in fact be "large voids" or as you said yourself, substantial caverns it would still be rather exciting.

The best use of Phobos regardless of how it came into orbit around Mars would be as a stepping stone for future human missions and if it came pre made with large enough voids or caverns to house mission personal and equipment that would be fantastic! Assuming of course, it's not a giant alien seed bank!


Not going to debate semantics when the actual scientific report talked about porosity. Large is relative, large in this case would refer to larger than would be expected there. It is also not determined these voids exist, it is just the most likely explanation for the data. If you think something I have said is in error I would be happy to discuss it, let's please not get into a silly semantics debate.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   
So can we sell the people of Phobos some Grade AA USA debt?
Might solve a lot of problems.



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NewThor7
 


Zulu ledgend......
The Zulu peopled Mars origonally.....
There was a war in space....
The most beautiful women of the mars people were transported to earth for safety....
The vehicle in which they travelled was called a MERKIVA
Oddly enough, in Hebrw language, the word for GODS CHARIOT is the word MERKAVA
just sayin.....



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 

According to whom?



posted on Dec, 11 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 





The most beautiful women of the mars people were transported to earth for safety....


I thought men are from Mars? Oh well, I guess that explains why they valued beauty over brains!






new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join