PDA

View Full Version : "NASA "BREAKING NEWS" The SUN has 666 Moons (2010)"


dizzydoil
01-02-10, 01:06
ddUzN-iwo6o



IMAGES:
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/bro... (http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/01/29/behind/euvi/195/2048/20100129_191530_n7euB_195.jpg)
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/bro... (http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/01/29/behind/euvi/195/2048/20100129_103530_n7euB_195.jpg)
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/bro... (http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/01/29/behind/euvi/195/2048/20100129_122530_n7euB_195.jpg)
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/bro... (http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/01/29/behind/euvi/195/2048/20100129_134530_n7euB_195.jpg)
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/bro... (http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/01/29/behind/euvi/195/2048/20100129_140530_n7euB_195.jpg)

THESE BABIES must be HUGE if that is the case. I mean- that's an enormous zoom factor. Anything not near to the sun's surface, like Mercury, Venus, or a rock, would either blur the entire image or simply not show up in it... but these... WOW? I don't know.

patriots88888
01-02-10, 01:09
666? Hmm, the devil worshippers will love this I'm sure.

maniakatosheto
01-02-10, 01:10
WoaH?! 666! Devil number!? lol
but seriously thats a lot!

Reggie
01-02-10, 01:11
Very interesting indeed...

gabrielorie
01-02-10, 01:13
holy **** 666 moons:yik:.

Phys
01-02-10, 01:23
Wha...? Wow.

Tonyrobinson
01-02-10, 01:30
And will this change anything?

Interesting yes, Poor science classes of the future will have alot more to revise :D

SamReeves
01-02-10, 01:30
April 1st is two months away. Doh!

Real Life Raider
01-02-10, 01:32
In ancient Persian, the name of the sun is Satan.

Sorry to spook yawl! :o

miss.haggard
01-02-10, 01:33
Well ****, looks like 2012 is coming sooner than expected! Andddddddddddddddd :rolleyes:

Tonyrobinson
01-02-10, 01:36
The sun is essential the lake of fire. And 666 the number of Satan. Is the sun Hell?

AmericanAssassin
01-02-10, 01:38
I'd find it funny if the sun was hell. That would mean that hell has been keeping up alive. How odd. :p

patriots88888
01-02-10, 01:38
The sun is essential the lake of fire. And 666 the number of Satan. Is the sun Hell?

In the Summer it sure is! Blasted heat makes me sick! :mad:

tranniversary119
01-02-10, 01:40
That's weird. 666? Oh damn...

da tomb raider!
01-02-10, 01:42
It's all very interesting, but I'm not entirely convinced it's true, and in any case, I doubt anything particularly important will emerge from this.

Real Life Raider
01-02-10, 01:43
Oh damn...

We're all damned..........mwahahhahahahhah! :yah:

Hairhelmet12
01-02-10, 01:45
I smell another Apocalypse theory...

Kapu
01-02-10, 02:00
I'm think I'll wait for NASA to announce this officially.

Real Life Raider
01-02-10, 02:04
I'm think I'll wait for NASA to announce this officially.

That the sun is satan? It was announced in the Dead Sea Scrolls.......;)

b0bb13
01-02-10, 02:08
666 planets,moons and others,why not just blow one up and avoid all the chaos? XD

Sgt BOMBULOUS
01-02-10, 02:10
They find new moons in our solar system all the time. In a few months we'll have 667, and no one will care anymore.

ViNi__
01-02-10, 02:18
oh, wow! =O
sure an interesting fact :vlol:

I didn't even knew the sun had any moons :o

Sgt BOMBULOUS
01-02-10, 02:21
oh, wow! =O
sure an interesting fact :vlol:

I didn't even knew the sun had any moons :o

It doesn't. A moon, by definition, has to orbit a planet, and planets orbit stars. :D

Real Life Raider
01-02-10, 02:26
Ha ha! Confused? :cln:

Moon Definitions!! (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/moon_definition_040103.html)

Love2Raid
01-02-10, 02:31
I demand a recount.

Sgt BOMBULOUS
01-02-10, 02:32
Ha ha! Confused? :cln:

Moon Definitions!! (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/moon_definition_040103.html)

Was that directed at me? I didn't see any mention of "moons" orbiting the sun (except for AA29, and that doesn't fit the description of a moon really).

ViNi__
01-02-10, 02:43
It doesn't. A moon, by definition, has to orbit a planet, and planets orbit stars. :D

damn, I'm glad I already finished school.. these catchy thingies... :pi:

:D

Ha ha! Confused? :cln:

Moon Definitions!! (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/moon_definition_040103.html)

A bit :vlol:
too much information at this night :vlol:

Vickkyyy
01-02-10, 03:00
damn :yik:

BtoFu
01-02-10, 03:04
I demand a recount.

Stole my response.

http://mpovelaitis.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/sam-rockwell-moon.jpg

Solice
01-02-10, 03:08
NASA also found 99 luftballoons, but they deny it.

spikejones
01-02-10, 03:17
666 satellites may be a more proper term. And these satellites likely include all bodies counted in our solar system which just so happen to orbit the sun. Im guessing that includes the planets, the moons and other satellites of planets, and asteroids etc.

But hey, we used to have 9 planets and now only have 8. So by some technicality perhaps one of those satellites doesn't really "count". :vlol:

Johnnay
01-02-10, 03:37
you must be joking.

im thiking the thread creator thought april fools is today known as february fools day(i made that up)

TheBloodRed
01-02-10, 03:50
Well technically all the planets, comets, asteroids, etc that orbit the sun itself are moons to it. :rolleyes:

CerebralAssassin
01-02-10, 03:51
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r206/CerebralAssassin1983/Capture-1.png

can someone,in layman terms,explain to me wtf the above means....what does "gravitationally dominant" mean?apparently this is the reason why Pluto ain't a planet anymore.

Jo269976
01-02-10, 03:54
http://www.gifflix.com/files/ae08a28a4bab.gif

Johnnay
01-02-10, 03:59
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r206/CerebralAssassin1983/Capture-1.png

can someone,in layman terms,explain to me wtf the above means....what does "gravitationally dominant" mean?apparently this is the reason why Pluto ain't a planet anymore.

i think Pluto isnt a planet anymore because(i heard) that on 24th of August 2006, some people said that because they figured out Pluto is a dwarf planet and excluded it from being it.

CerebralAssassin
01-02-10, 04:06
Johnnay...I KNOW it's a dwarf planet!!:p

Solice
01-02-10, 04:24
Johnnay...I KNOW it's a dwarf planet!!:p

Did you know Mr. T became famous by tossing dwarfs?

QiX
01-02-10, 04:37
Pluto can't be counted as a planet anymore because all the planets are named after important gods of the roman mithology. The astronomers thought that Mickey Mouse's dog should be in a lower cathegory :tea:

Sgt BOMBULOUS
01-02-10, 05:03
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r206/CerebralAssassin1983/Capture-1.png

can someone,in layman terms,explain to me wtf the above means....what does "gravitationally dominant" mean?apparently this is the reason why Pluto ain't a planet anymore.

First this criteria:

-It should be the biggest, most gravitationally dominant planet in its own orbit.

They don't really expound upon this in an article I can find, but perhaps since Pluto crosses orbits (http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1596.html) with Neptune, it's considered to be subordinate (since it is many times smaller than Neptune).

I think maybe their concern is the gravitational effect each planet has on the sun - Each planet actually causes the sun to move slightly because they have a shared gravitational effect (center of mass), maybe Pluto's is so low it's negligible.

As a side note, the gravitational effect imparted on a star by their orbiting planets is the only way to determine if a star has orbiting bodies, using Doppler shift (http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/science/finding_planets.cfm). pretty interesting if you like this sort of stuff.

spikejones
01-02-10, 05:15
pluto's wiki article says:

Pluto fails to meet the third condition, since its mass was only 0.07 times that of the mass of the other objects in its orbit.

I'm guessing the fact that Pluto's and Neptune's orbital patterns overlapped, the used that fact as deciding factor that since Neptune has more mass than Pluto, Pluto got the shaft.

mass of pluto: 1.305 0.007 10^22 kg
mass of Neptune: 1.024310^26 kg

The Great Chi
01-02-10, 05:33
Do you realise if you lived on one of these sun moons, you would need a very high factor of sun cream lotion :p

spikejones
01-02-10, 05:55
lool.. what about a moon's moon?
what would you need then?

CerebralAssassin
01-02-10, 06:15
First this criteria:

-It should be the biggest, most gravitationally dominant planet in its own orbit.

They don't really expound upon this in an article I can find, but perhaps since Pluto crosses orbits (http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1596.html) with Neptune, it's considered to be subordinate (since it is many times smaller than Neptune).

I think maybe their concern is the gravitational effect each planet has on the sun - Each planet actually causes the sun to move slightly because they have a shared gravitational effect (center of mass), maybe Pluto's is so low it's negligible.

As a side note, the gravitational effect imparted on a star by their orbiting planets is the only way to determine if a star has orbiting bodies, using Doppler shift (http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/science/finding_planets.cfm). pretty interesting if you like this sort of stuff.

indeed Pluto has a very different orbit than the other 8 planets (has a different plane and passes through Neptune's orbit like you said),but I don't think that's why they excluded it.

I just found this article here (http://www.wisegeek.com/why-isnt-pluto-a-planet-anymore.htm), and it says "clearing the neighborhood" means there shouldn't be any floating debris near the planet.If Pluto is indeed a member of the Kuiper belt family,then there should be other asteroid-type objects near it.still though...this criteria is vague:p

interesting article there about the doppler effect...I liked the moth analogy lol:p yeah....detecting planets in other systems through observing them is asking for a lot....they'd have to pass through the star's line of sight...and even then sensitive equipment is required.

dizzydoil
01-02-10, 06:23
666 satellites may be a more proper term. And these satellites likely include all bodies counted in our solar system which just so happen to orbit the sun. Im guessing that includes the planets, the moons and other satellites of planets, and asteroids etc.

But hey, we used to have 9 planets and now only have 8. So by some technicality perhaps one of those satellites doesn't really "count". :vlol:
... those satellites must be huge. Each one of these moons is evidently 'x10 the Earths size'. Just look at those pictures! If we placed Earth somewhere in there it would be unseeable- or just a blur!

Aranara
01-02-10, 08:06
This is interesting :) But I do not believe in 666 and all the crap that comes with it :D

EscondeR
01-02-10, 08:12
*le sigh*

chriss99
01-02-10, 08:22
I heard that the devil's number is actually 616.
But anyway, that's interesting news. I really wouldn't like to live on any of these moons. :D

voltz
01-02-10, 08:25
I watched some of outlaw star a few years back and just the idea of using one of these as some kind of secret base intrigues me. It could have something super secret going on there right now and not even know it. :yik:

michaeldt
01-02-10, 08:26
:yik:

Ward Dragon
01-02-10, 09:10
pluto's wiki article says:

Pluto fails to meet the third condition, since its mass was only 0.07 times that of the mass of the other objects in its orbit.

I'm guessing the fact that Pluto's and Neptune's orbital patterns overlapped, the used that fact as deciding factor that since Neptune has more mass than Pluto, Pluto got the shaft.

mass of pluto: 1.305 0.007 10^22 kg
mass of Neptune: 1.024310^26 kg

That's a lot more than a 7% difference :p CerebralAssassin's wiki article says that the reason Pluto isn't a planet is because it shares its orbit with the Kuiper belt objects.

I just found this article here (http://www.wisegeek.com/why-isnt-pluto-a-planet-anymore.htm), and it says "clearing the neighborhood" means there shouldn't be any floating debris near the planet.If Pluto is indeed a member of the Kuiper belt family,then there should be other asteroid-type objects near it.

The wiki article said that there are other Kuiper belt objects in Pluto's orbit, including two other dwarf planets. Pluto is just the largest of them.

voltz
01-02-10, 09:53
Does Mercury still count as a planet? I thought it's mass was actually small enough to knock down the official count to 7?

tonyme
01-02-10, 09:55
I thought only planets could have moons :confused:

Oh well... that's pretty interesting

MyRaider4Life
01-02-10, 10:30
I thought only planets could have moons :confused:

Oh well... that's pretty interesting

Looks like the sun is a planet. :p

Punaxe
01-02-10, 12:38
How does this guy know what NASA is about to do? Seems to me that he has just been counting vague pixels for himself (http://www.casttv.com/video/ot26tf/nasa-breaking-news-the-sun-has-666-moons-link-guide-video). The only Google results on this subject are his own videos.

digitizedboy
01-02-10, 12:39
^ that's why it's ********

Trigger_happy
01-02-10, 12:52
That's what I was going to say. I'm sure NASA, with all its money and resources, could do more to announce this then get some bald guy to make a dimly lit video from his living room to tell the world about it.

He's telling porkies.

Dennis's Mom
01-02-10, 13:03
Pluto will always be a planet IMO.

And yeah, I still say "brontosaurus" too. :p

BTW, "666" is probably just the numeric Hebrew letter equivalent for Nero Caesar as Revelation was written by John the Divine during the first major Christian persecution while he was in exile on an island in a Roman prison.

The rapture "end of the world" stuff is an overwhelmingly modern interpretation of that book. I wouldn't worry about it.

Tombraiderx08
01-02-10, 13:06
Surely that cant be true, can it?

Jack Croft
01-02-10, 13:18
I think he is lying.

interstellardave
01-02-10, 13:32
I'm not sure what we're supposed to be looking at anyway... could mostly be sunspots or just minor variations in the suns' temperature.

Eleana
01-02-10, 13:52
With the amount of amateur astronomers looking at the sun, someone would of noticed this anomoly before. Small bodies orbiting so close to the sun? They either move very very fast, or would not be able to orbit at all. The person in the video is probably using the NASA name to promote this silly story.

Besides, I thought people already knew the Sun had many natural satellites? Planets, asteriods, comets? More than 666 by far.

Chocola teapot
01-02-10, 16:08
So, I have 667 moons.

rickybazire
01-02-10, 16:38
The Devil's number is actually 616. In some early books written by followers of the (fake) believe, it says so.