Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwaihir
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Oh really? Which? Because from what I've read none of the planets in our solar system fall under this criteria, and every other planet they've even speculated upon having a liquid surface is highly unreliable and based purely on instruments that portray little to no certainty in this conclusion.
Note, I'm not subscribing to flat earth theory. I'm merely confronting the falsehoods spouted off of the top of someone's head; the first being Moses 2500 years ago, when it was closer to 4000 (3600-3800 by most estimates)
There is little to no evidence supporting the assertion that there are other verified liquid surfaced planets, as far as we know, and every single speculated-upon planet is way too far out of range to have any kind of certainty tagged to it; using faulty equipment, and vaguely rounded mathematical possibilities based upon the oscillation in the illuminosity of their parent star, to even suggest that there is a planet orbiting them in the first place. But you "know" so please elucidate for us simpletons. Did you just "intuit" it? and then in that case, what is the origin of that intuition?
|
Well, it's technically not a planet, but Titan has liquid oceans of methane.
edit: not sure how we are on this tangent, but it is fun. Perhaps we need a new flat earth / round planets / wet planets thread.