SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The puzzling appearance of an ice cloud seemingly out of thin air has prompted NASA scientists to suggest that a different process than previously thought -- possibly similar to one seen over Earth's poles -- could be forming clouds on Saturn's moon Titan.
Located in Titan's stratosphere, the cloud is made of a compound of carbon and nitrogen known as dicyanoacetylene (C4N2), an ingredient in the chemical cocktail that colors the giant moon's hazy, brownish-orange atmosphere.
...
"The appearance of this ice cloud goes against everything we know about the way clouds form on Titan," said Carrie Anderson, a CIRS co-investigator at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study.
...
The first step in the proposed process is the formation of ice particles made from the related chemical cyanoacetylene (HC3N). As these tiny bits of ice move downward through Titan's stratosphere, they get coated by hydrogen cyanide (HCN). At this stage, the ice particle has a core and a shell composed of two different chemicals. Occasionally, a photon of ultraviolet light tunnels into the frozen shell and triggers a series of chemical reactions in the ice. These reactions could begin either in the core or within the shell. Both pathways can yield dicyanoacteylene ice and hydrogen as products.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @04:04PM
I used to get so excited about Titan and Europa: finally, a place with a reasonably non-deadly atmosphere, and another one that may harbor a salty ocean.
More than a decade back, while a student in my teens, I heard the story about the biodiversity eruption during the Cambrian: exotic, spooky and mysterious "monster-like" animals like the Anomalocaris. I immediately did the extrapolation and placed in my mind's eye similar organisms under the "ices of Europa". I like art, so I tried sketching those and then did some math to scale them to the "gravity" field of Europa: "they would have to be bigger", I reasoned.
In retrospect, those years were not a waste: after all, this was part of the journey that made me able to see past this Copernican garbage, and helped me get rid of (at least) part of this constant and systematic brainwashing.
A lot of people still falls for this "space" hoax, but thankfully this is coming to an end. It will be amusing to watch the desperate last measure of NASA Circus et al. to "confirm alien life" soon- or even bow to some "alien overlords".
When this happens, bear in mind this easily proven fact: the Earth IS NOT a spinning ball, trivially proven with a telescope and a gyroscope.
Alternatively, you can keep swallowing the blue pill, and continue believing whatever you were programmed to believe.
(Score: 1) by DannyB on Friday September 23 2016, @06:17PM
I read your post.
Let me kindly offer some expert advice.
When you make a hat for yourself, it is best to use TWO layers of aluminum foil instead of a single layer. You would think this would only double the effectiveness of an aluminum foil hat. But it actually increases the effectiveness more than six times. The reason is that a resonance effect develops between the two layers at exactly double the frequency of the government's invisible brain lasers. Also, if you form TWO antennas on the top instead of the usual one, it further increases the effectiveness by an additional 37 %.
Hope that helps.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @08:07PM
I can tell that you are trying to "serve" a smart ass remark. I do not blame you. Here is why:
You have a reflex reaction programmed to you since you first saw the spinning ball Earth model at your school. "1+1=2, and the world is a globe", I believe it was. Furthermore, you have been meticulously programmed to ridicule whoever thinks otherwise. Since childhood, you have been "rewarded" and considered to be "the smart kid in class" when you recite and regurgitate whatever crap you are fed. Hey, you are no football captain but who cares: you know stuff those blokes do not get, right? The more you repeat to the letter, the better, plus you are always allowed to make fun of (and vent some of your frustration towards) anybody that thinks otherwise, especially that football captain that scored that hot cheerleader you eyed once. Perhaps you are even one of those who believe Nicola Tesla was "a crank", because someone told them so.
You are missing the obvious point: you can, today, if you choose to put your money where your mouth is, perform experiments yourself that will show you beyond any doubt that there is no curvature of the Earth consistent with that of a convex sphere 6397km in radius, and that the Earth is stationary.
Or you can keep pumping your ego by mocking claims instead of actually investigating them, and get trashed on munching blue pills in front of your TV. Sorry, in front of your internet.
Hope THAT helps.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @08:16PM
Since you appear to have performed said experiments and come to this conclusion that we are still and not a globe please kindly enlighten us with this knowledge. And when I say enlighten I mean provide your own hypothesis, the (multiple) tests you completed to test said hypothesis, and the outcome of those tests that prove w/o a doubt your beliefs. The reason I say 'provide your own' is I want your interpretation, not a link to some website known for its wild ride theories and ignorant proposals. Provide your data, your explanation, and lets see if it holds up. It is one thing to say what you believe and it is another to prove it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @08:37PM
You misunderstand: what I am prompting for is to do YOUR OWN experiments. Your OWN. I am not on any mission to prove anything to you.
Even if I did link you with my data, what good would it be for? You do not know me any more than the other sources that you mock, and you have not investigated those sources either. What would then prevent you from mocking yet another source? The personal invitation of taking you by the hand from soylentnews and pointing you there would make such a big difference for you? Or perhaps you have an itch for debunking?
To reiterate: I am not asking you to take for granted my experiments, or NASA's story, or ANYBODY'S story. It defeats the purpose.
Your telescope. Can you see objects behind the "curve"?
Your gyroscope. Does it keep its orientation to the "fixed" stars?
Your thermometer. Is it warmer under the moon's light, or under the moon's shadow?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 23 2016, @08:59PM
Peer review is why I ask. Nowhere in my post did I state I want to debunk or mock. But data that is not peer reviewed and/or proven/verified isn't worth the zero's it's encoded in. Your data and (meticulous) notes on what you did and your findings will provide a base for others to review, perhaps replicate your tests, and allow them to come to their own conclusion either in favor or against.
As for 'mocking' other sources, I have not done that either. I did mention however I don't want information/links to sites/people who have a proven history of crying wolf or placing obviously false information in their blogs as gospel as their reputation is already soiled. If you are not one of those people then provide what you have and let it be viewed under the microscope.
While I may not agree with what you said I unfortunately do not have access to what makes you feel/believe the way you do. I have an open enough mind (at least I like to think) that reviewing your data would allow me to see what convinced your otherwise. If I decide I agree with your conclusion then you have gained a convert. If I decide I do not agree then you have at least opened a dialog with someone who was curious enough to want to understand your point of view and join into the discussion. Discussion and debate are what make us capable of understanding each other and accepting each other regardless of belief, but then again maybe the internet is the wrong place for that kind of philosophy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @12:58PM
Peer review is why I ask. Nowhere in my post did I state I want to debunk or mock.
Fair enough, I apologize for my tone, then.
Personally, I have no intention now to publish my findings and I do not own a website, something that is very likely to change in the future.
If I decide I do not agree then you have at least opened a dialog with someone who was curious enough to want to understand your point of view and join into the discussion. Discussion and debate are what make us capable of understanding each other and accepting each other regardless of belief,
I agree, and this is the top reason why I am both considering of opening an account here on soylentnews (where I also assume I will be tagged 'Troll' on sight) and also gathering all my data and experiments somewhere that they can be reviewed.
Until that happens, you will find that there is a thriving community of people that question modern astronomy, others doing their own experiments welcoming peer review, and others that welcome with open arms anybody willing to debate in favor of modern astronomy.
Examples include:
Six hour gyroscope test here; [youtube.com]
Live (as in initially transmitted live) stratospheric weather balloon footage here; [youtube.com] (and very many recorded ones elsewhere)
Review of the heliocentric and stationary geocentric model here; [youtube.com]
Flat Earth theory in mainstream TV here [youtube.com]
Curvature laser test here; [youtube.com] --and please compare this with Steven Hawking's one here [youtube.com], especially since you claim to be all for peer review.
Footage of INSAT [youtube.com], allegedly rushing towards geostationary park at several km/s that makes a sharp, 90+ degree turn. This is a very cheap-made copy of NASA's smoke and mirrors technique.
The only flat vs globe earth debate (that I know of) that was actually completed in a civilized fashion here; [youtube.com]
High-framerate footage of free-falling springs here; [youtube.com]
And very many interviews and testimonies including industrial valve experts, civilian aviation pilots, military pilots, submarine pilots, sniper trainers, artillery experts, surveyors etc., accompanied with many red flags by NASA et al such as 24/7 footage missing from the ISS, "ISS visible" even though in the shadow of the Earth, "taping over" telemetry data, loosing footage, lack of 24h Sun over the Antarctic, impossible eclipses, the list is endless.
Personally I have been an "astrophysicist" for more than a decade. I am well-versed into the math of how "gravity" and "satellites" are supposed to behave, and cannot be easily deceived by it. I always saw NASA's websites as a text-only resource to look for publications. When I saw the ridiculous footage of the ISS and what they actually tell kids I was shocked. For the academy, I have seen how these people work from a front-row seat and for myself. I have seen how they construct theories and how they struggle to cook the parameters to work out. They pretentiously dismiss the fact that gravity has never been proven, and act as if they do not understand the impossibility of surviving the thermosphere. There is no wiggle room and deviation or there is no grant, period. When there is an eclipse most would see it on google rather than looking out of their window. Most would sell their soul for a front cover in 'Nature' or 'Science', and 'Nature' and 'Science' set the pace for what research is and is not.
Realize there are three physical places that you can have access to, and that can settle this debate once and for all. Those are the North Pole, the Antarctic, and Space.
ALL three are currently under lockdown.