Titan may be as dry as a bone

[najab]

Steve, using that criteria set, the <b>only</b> planetary body whose composition we know is the Earth. Even the Moon, Venus and Mars (where we have landed) we only know from the top few inches of a few limited sites.

 

[Philotas]

Space is empty, but not during the creation of a solar system. How did Saturn got it atmosphere in first place?<br />And how do you know there aren`t cryovolcanoes on Titan?<br />--<br />No matter how possible it seems regarding atmospheres it`s physically IMPOSSIBLE that Titan and Venus got fissioned or expelled out Saturn. <br />You need to give clearer evidences than that Venus and Titans atmospheres theoritcally once could have had contained the same gases.<br /><br />What you`re saying is crazy, simply because it works againts all theories about gravity among other things. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chew_on_this]

It's good enough for most everyone but you apparently. And what does that amount to? A nickel and your opinion will get you a handfull of peanuts out of a vending machine.

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"Steve, using that criteria set, the only planetary body whose composition we know is the Earth."</font><br /><br />We don't even know that, according to Steve's criteria for scientific knowlege.<br /><br />Steve is playing a game. No matter what data/results/evidence he is presented with, he simply has to say there is not 100% certainty and so the evidence is not valid. Or, in the face of some "certain" data , Steve says it doesn't explain everything and so, apparently can be ignored. I am sure there is a fancy latin name for this sort of game, perhaps Steve would be kind enough to provide it for us.<br /><br />I have already posted the data (as najaB has) supporting the picture of the Huygens landing site as a plain strewn with water-ice pebbles and rocks, with near surface liquid methane present. Steve even commented on the "helpfulness" of the information before going on to ignore it in his subsequent postings claiming that 'noone has any idea' what the surface of Titan is made of.<br /><br />We do know the surface of Titan where Huygens landed is largely composed of water ice based materials moistened with methane. Steve, please do not make us post the links AGAIN!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[geos]

It's possible that we don't know much about the Gas Giants.<br />We know that their wind speeds and rotation are NOT constant. <br />We also know that they produce MORE energy than the Sun applies to them.<br />The Electric forces are billions of times stronger than GRAVITY.<br />Gravity is only known because of the motions of objects - when they may be moving for a DIFFERENT reason.

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"It's possible that we don't know much about the Gas Giants."</font><br /><br />Some, when they find they don't know much about something , strive to learn more. Others fill the void with fantastic musings which they dilude themselves into thinking of as truth. They then attepmt to convince others (often with great belligerence) that the fantasy is real in an attempt to validate it.<br /><br /><br />P.S. Not necessarily refering to you, Geos, just getting something off my chest. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Philotas]

That does not explain how Venus, of everything, got thrown out of Saturn and placed in an almost circular orbit around the Sun, just like the other terrestrial planets. Nor how Titan managed to get it`s nice circular orbit around Saturn.<br /><br />It is simply impossible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[chew_on_this]

<font color="yellow">It's a suggestion of something that the Cassini landed on. </font><br /><br />Uh, hello steve, Huygens landed on Titan not Cassini. It's these kinds of errors that throws your credibility to the wind. Get with the program.

 

[chew_on_this]

Me?...nitpick?...perish the thought. The pot calling the kettle black rears it's ugly head once again.

 

[chew_on_this]

<font color="yellow">You don't like me....</font><br /><br />Looks like we need to burp the baby.

 

[geos]

Ok Smart Guys - you all brag about what you know. You KNOW that Gravity is "the big tuna" and "drives" the Cosmos.<br />Then why doesn't ALL MATTER just collapse into a Singularity?<br />Everything is PULLING everything else? Right?

 

[geos]

Electrical forces can CIRCULARIZE orbits.<br />It is IMPOSSIBLE in a GRAVITY RULED cosmos that ANY planetary or galactic orbits occur.<br />Everything attracts everything else - crushing the Cosmos before people started noticing the Electrical nature of Atoms and Plasma.

 

[geos]

You are betting that Gravity rules everything - ignoring the fact that ALL MODELS LEAD TO SINGULARITIES ONLY - because they "decided" to ignore electricity.<br /> />>>>>>.<<<<<<

 

[yevaud]

Err, you're forgetting momentum. Lest we forget, if the big bang occurred as stated, all matter/energy created would be flung outwards at great velocities - countering that force of gravity (isn't everything we see in the universe moving away from everything else?).<br /><br />Also, don't forget that it's the fabric of what we understand to be space/time expanding, not just the matter within it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[geos]

That's a CANARD - using the motions we see today and making it part of the imagined "explosion of everything".<br /><br />Motion of THESE objects? Away from each other . . .<br /><br />Motions TODAY? In Circles - balanced by Electrical forces<br /><br />IN the GALAXY<br />IN the SOLAR SYSTEM: Sun Centered<br />IN the PLANETS: Sattelites of Planets<br />IN the ATOMS: little planets with orbiting Electrons<br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

Umm...that makes no sense. And I really don't follow how you relate that to an "Electric Universe." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Umm...that makes no sense. </i><p>Par for the course with Geos.</p>

 

[dragon04]

"Then why doesn't ALL MATTER just collapse into a Singularity?"<br /><br />As Yevaud stated, one must consider momentum. Furthermore, pick a mass for a black hole. Whether it be 1 gram or 10 billion solar masses.<br /><br />Outside the event horizon, the singularity acts like any other body. Its gravitational influence operates under the inverse square law.<br /><br />By your logic the sun should suck in all matter in the solar system.<br /><br />Yet, that does not occur. We orbit the sun, which in turn orbits the Milky Way's central black hole, and we're not being sucked in by the Great Cosmic Hoover.<br /><br />I'll let an expert in Relativity cite examples of magnetic interactions between bodies in motion. The scope of my Associate's Degree in Electrical Engineering only qualifies me to discuss electrostatic forces. Put bodies in motion, and Coulomb's Law gets thrown out the window. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[geos]

But a Black Hole can never be seen - convieniently.<br /><br />How do you explain the fact that Globular Clusters are shown to maintain their shape even though their "Galactic" Orbit sends them through the "larger" gravity of the so-called parent "SuperMassive Black Hole".<br />Now you are going to say "the Globular Cluster must have a Black Hole. Honest!!".<br />WE CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH GLOBULAR CLUSTERS AND THERE ARE NO BLACK HOLES THERE.<br />I also assume there are NO Black Holes because Electric forces rip apart these imaginary objects.<br />Like the square root of Negative 1.<br />

 

[geos]

And "how dare he try. We got a Universe that never suprises - been there done that"

 

[najab]

The simple fact is that 99.9% of what you post is complete and total nonsense.

 

[dragon04]

"How do you explain the fact that Globular Clusters are shown to maintain their shape even though their "Galactic" Orbit sends them through the "larger" gravity of the so-called parent "SuperMassive Black Hole".<br /><br />Easy. They're moving as a system. Granted, the gravitational interactions are far more complex, but with respect to the galactic core, they behave essentially like our solar system. The cluster has sufficient velocity to maintain a stable orbit.<br /><br />And as the cluster travels around the core, it obviously does NOT pass through or near the area of significant effect of the central black hole.<br /><br />It further depends on the trajectory of the cluster. Were it on the correct trajectory and indeed dip into the gravitational influence of the central black hole, it could slingshot out of our galaxy.<br /><br />We've demonstrated that idea many times. We dip a spacecraft into the gravity well of a planet on just the right trajectory, and we gain velocity upon exit from the gravity well.<br /><br />You know as well as I do (or maybe you don't) that the term "black hole" is sort of a misnomer. Very observable phenomena occur at and around the event horizon. Not all of which are in the visible spectrum, mind you, but are nonetheless observable as x-rays, etc.<br /><br />Globular clusters "maintain" their shape due to gravitational interaction between the (pick the size you want your cluster to be) constituent stars of the cluster.<br /><br />And remember that we're only seeing a snapshot when we look at one. Stars can be collected into and ejected out of the cluster over geological timeframes.<br /><br />You'll need a physicist to explain if and/or how all the stars in a globular cluster could be considered as essentially one massive body with respect to the galactic core.<br /><br />This all could be explained very nicely if we knew the exact mass, position and velocity of every star in the galaxy and you had a computer that could crunch the numbers.<br /><br />I <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[geos]

The commonly accepted view of a halo of ancient, stable Globular Clusters hovering around the Core of the Galaxy, like a swarm of bees, is just not compatible with our current understanding of the Laws of Physics. Clearly, further research is necessary".<br /><br />The same quandary applies to the relative motions of stars within each cluster. And while Johnson accurately describes the gravitational dynamic, the rule he applies is a formula for chaos. As any gravitational simulation will demonstrate, it would quickly lead to some stars being accelerated out of the system, while others would lose energy and fall to an orbit closer in. Over time, the globular clusters would largely "evaporate".<br /><br />But from another vantage point, it is not unthinkable that the stars of globular clusters are “just hanging there”, both with respect to the clusters’ own center of gravity and the gravitational center of the galactic disk to which the clusters are symmetrically linked. In the electric universe model of stellar composition and energy, stars are concentrations of highly positive-charged material. For globular clusters, such a collection of stars with no other external distorting forces in play might indeed form a stable ball-of-stars formation. In fact, the new view of the universe provides many examples of star-sized masses—even galactic clusters—in symmetrical arrangements that gravitational theorists never dreamt of (including polar alignments). And as for the spherical form of globular clusters, the cosmic electricians suggest that the best analogy may come from something as unfamiliar to astronomers as ball lightning.<br /><br />quote:<br />"Stars can be collected into and ejected out of the cluster over geological timeframes."<br /><br />NOT TRUE - Globular Clusters have the OLDEST STARS known. They have supposedly been on many Orbits around the Galaxy. Why are they still hanging together like a swarm of BEES?<br /><br />quote:<br />"but are nonetheless observable as x-r

 

[geos]

Get over this "how dare you have interest in these things" mentality.<br />People PAY to get on the Enterprise Forum.<br />People post here because they want to suck up to NASA.<br /><br />(and they are NEVER suprised at anything)<br /><br />A little bit of Duct Tape and a sprinkling of Dark Energy/Dark Matter and you can forget RCH/Bearden/Van Flanderen/Halton Arp/Wallace Thornhill/Hannes Alfven

 

[geos]

And I have the DATA that proves NASA is "full of it".<br /><br />Notice how many SUPRISES NASA finds?<br />Maybe because they clutch at straws.<br /><br />The Straw broke that Camels back a long, long time ago!!<br /><br />(no one noticed at Space.com)