The Phobos Space Station?

reply to post by poet1b


Ermmmmm. Um. I'd take a rain check on that source.

"Creationscience"?

'Nuff said....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by poet1b

 

Ermmmmm. Um. I'd take a rain check on that source.

"Creationscience"?

'Nuff said....

You did the right thing. It's a wonderful ride on the paradoxical, cryptic and oxymoronical adventure that we all know as 'Creationism.'

The site references limestone formation and mammoths without any mention of times and dates. Odd...

The page on comets is a great example of how to draw on evidence from those lying scientists without expressing an opinion or drawing a conclusion...

From a distance, large asteroids look like big rocks. However, many show, by their low density, that they contain either much empty space or something light, such as water ice.2 Also, the best close-up pictures of an asteroid show millions of smaller rocks on its surface. Therefore, asteroids are flying rock piles held together by gravity. Ida, about 35 miles long, does not have enough gravity to squeeze itself into a spherical shape.

link

The poor guy that wrote this stuff doesn't seem to have his heart in it. Conflicted Creationist? Maybe. The writer makes a huge Creationist faux pas with this little beauty...

Within a million years, passing bodies would have stripped the moons away, so these asteroid-moon captures must have been recent.

The only time a good Creationist should refer to a 'million' is on the subject of sinners in hell. Testify!

reply to post by weedwhacker


and Kandinsky

>SNIP<

At least I provided a source. I agree, creation science is junk, I don't like the source either.

>SNIP<

How about Harvard as a source?

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

>SNIP<

And while we are at it another link from NASA.

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...


Mod Edit: Courtesy is Mandatory. Please review

[edit on 3/25/2010 by yeahright]

Originally posted by sapien82
There for in my arguement it would have internal spaces which are formations not structures !

Spaces inside Phobos can be considered formations, but if Phobos' internals are like a sponge, with many relatively small spaces, all those spaces and the material between them are the internal structure of Phobos.

Although English is not my "natural" language I think that you are giving a very restrictive meaning to the word structure.

reply to post by poet1b

The papers are not "from Harvard". Harvard acts is an online repository for scientific papers.

The first one was written in 1962 and is a nice bit of speculation for which there was little evidence. It talks about the possibility of some comets having their origins on the moons of Jupiter where the gravity would be slight enough for ice to be ejected from the surface.

The second one is about meteorites from Mars which were ejected by asteroid impacts.


[edit on 3/24/2010 by Phage]

Ok so considering the low gravity on mars and the immense size of the volcano olympus mons , just less than three time the height of everest and the largest volcano in the solar system , you think that it couldnt launch a proportionately smaller object into orbit ?

considering we dont know the evolution of phobos , it may well have started as a smaller satellite ejected from the main vent of mons, and slowly over the years space debris also ejected and further martian impactors could have exeplled further ejecta finally coalescing into the modern phobos !

As I've already mentioned it is well documented here on earth that large vent plugs cause sufficient pressure build up to launch the plug like a projectile for many miles.
So it is plausable for olympus mons a supervolcano to fire a vent plug into orbit.

Its funny that you dismiss creationism as though it were science fantasy , when millions of people on earth believe it with often blind faith that its reality, Just as millions on earth believe in physics with blind faith that its the only answer.
They teach creationism in schools , as do they teach physics in schools!

as i've stated before Heisenberg was spouting science fantasy according to the greatest mind in physics , yet he was proven right in the end !

so no matter how fantastical our theories may seem , without our imaginations we are stagnated to believe often the most simple of answers , when in reality its the fantastical and unbelievable that is the true answer !

reply to post by ArMaP


I do agree armap I am being incredibly picky , but it is not me who chose to use the word structure it was the scientists who chose too.

If I were to choose I would have went with cavernous formations or as you mentioned pocket like formations.

its all really down to the definition of the word Structure , and the word formation , I'd post the definitions but you can look them up

Now if I were a geologist I would have certainly chosen the word formation , although formation and structure can be linked

again just a tad picky hahaha, but you see my point I hope



[edit on 24-3-2010 by sapien82]

[edit on 24-3-2010 by sapien82]

reply to post by Phage


Um, still Harvard's name on it, and it is still a scientific paper. So what if it is from 1962, it's not like they didn't know about escape velocity back then.

Yeah, its just a theory, we didn't claim to have proof, jut that it is a reasonable theory, and being that Harvard publishes a scientific paper stating that this is possible, there is pretty solid backing.

What is the matter with you people?

At some point you gotta say oops, maybe it is possible.

Originally posted by yodagod

I've not seen this clip before, I find it concerning when Americans talk about developing something that doesn't belong to them.

Sure it does. There's an American flag on it, so it's ours. Isn't that how the europeans used to do it back in the day? Plant a flag and declare the new lands for the queen!

Back to the topic. I don't see anything unusual in the Phobos pictures. It just looks like a battered old rock to me.

just to confirm ESA have'nt removed my post , I just think it was just being reviewed !

The Hidden Mission Forum is staggering back to life. Keith Laney reports the mother of all crashes, but nothing whatsoever to do with "them" censoring pix of Phobos.

How many times does Richard Hoagland need to be WRONG before his disciples get it?

ESA notposting the pics because they are too busy playing with CS5 tool

CS5 content aware

reply to post by Asertus

Keith has posted at least one of the photos (I don't know if there were more than one) and the forum is still working.

Originally posted by sapien82
ESA notposting the pics because they are too busy playing with CS5 tool

CS5 content aware

Obviously you have some way of proving that what you say is true, unless you used the wrong words on your post.

[edit on 26/3/2010 by ArMaP]

reply to post by ArMaP


Its all just speculation armap , im just trying to add a little humour as to the reason for the delay !

Hey look armap that pic you linked , there are structures on phobos , theres what seems to be a GIANT N and some sort of circular structure on the bottom of phobos

[edit on 27-3-2010 by sapien82]

Originally posted by sapien82
Hey look armap that pic you linked , there are structures on phobos , theres what seems to be a GIANT N and some sort of circular structure on the bottom of phobos

Those are obviously artificial features.

Nothing wrong in adding a little humour, but you must remember that we only have your words, so it's a little harder to see if you were just joking or not.

reply to post by Aliensun


I understand what you mean now, thanks for clearing that up.

reply to post by ArMaP


It really depends on the context.

If, for example he was talking about using the 10% jpg for something like a preview or for page content on his website, then that would be perfectly reasonable..not many people are going to hang around a website with pages that take ages to load and consume high amounts of bandwidth.

Honestly, i've no idea, but it needs pointing out all the same.

reply to post by oshdra


No..end stick the of wrong!

'Erosion' doesn't require an atmosphere, or weather, as in 'weathering'.

It takes many forms, and occurs in the vacuum of space all the time.

Erosion by micro meteorites, by expansion and contraction (heating and cooling from facing then turning away from the sun), by cosmic rays, by solar particles...i've probably missed some, but you get the idea.

reply to post by sapien82


If it had been part of a volcanic eruption, there's a fairly good chance it is magnetic.

If that is so, that together with it's low gravity, would be enough for small objects to stick around (no pun intended) on it's surface, since even though Phobos has very low gravity, it would still be more powerful than fine grains and small boulders.

Your question about the declining orbit, i'm certainly no expert, but i'd say that after it's initial ejection from the below the surface of Mars, it's orbit would probably have began to decay almost right away, as it has a low mass and gravity and Mars has a much larger mass and gravity.

If we assume it's decay or fall rate is and has always remained constant @ 1.5 cm per year, and it is approx orbiting Mars at 6000Km distance, then i arrive at a figure of 400,000,000 years until impact with Mars. (Only if the decay remained constant until impact or breakup)

Of course, this 1.5cm per year won't be constant though, as the closer Phobos gets to Mars, the stronger Mars' gravitational effects will be, and the decay rate should increase proportionately. So in effect, the decay rate should be increasing in tiny amounts every year. Estimates of between 10,000,000 - 50,000,000 have been given until Phobos is no more.