@MikeB

Quote:

That not true, there's an overflow of evidence actually (like sea fossils in mountains). But this is certainly geologically accepted:

Can I get that in clear writing - you believe that there is geological evidence for a recent *global* flood, and you cite sea fossils on mountains as your evidence?

Is that correct?

@MikeB

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28prehistoric%29 It may be called prehistoric, but that's actually not that long ago and may actually be related to historically recorded events.

Your wikipedia link to 'Deluge (prehistoric)' links to 'Outburst flood', which is a slightly different concept.

And actually, this is exactly what I was just telling you about the assorted flood myths, which do occur in all mythologies, whether you like it or not.

As I said earlier, they are just stories related to the drowning of fertile coastal plains at the end of the last ice age. In events which can be called outburst floods.

And if you think your little examples from the end of the last ice age are good, read down to the bottom of that article and read about the late Messinian events in the Mediterranean basin.

Quote:

According to archaeological studies the ancestors of the Eskimo-Aleut crossed the Bering Straits between 8-10,000 years ago.

Ask yourself, why not before that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yupik#Culture

@MikeB

Quote:

Micheal Heiser is a faithful christian

You seem to assign great value to religion, and religious beliefs.
The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary does not change its content depending on the religious opinions of the person reading it.
Quote:

He did not dedicate 50 years of his life trying to understand the Summerian history and culture.

I had not spent a lifetime immersing myself in German history and culture, when John F. Kennedy said "Ich bin ein berliner" but I still smiled at the thought of this great man telling the world that he was a donut.
I do not need to immerse myself in Spanish culture from El Cid to the repeated loss of its navy to the English, in order to go into a bar and say "dos cervezas por favor" and know what I have asked for.
Micheal Heiser has spent his time translating Sumerian documents. His translations have been peer reviewed, and accepted. Micheal Heiser may not understand the Sumerian culture of 3000BC, but in all honesty, does anybody today?
Quote:

Note that the church doesn't like the fact that it is now widely known the bible stole its flood story from the Summerian Epic of Gilgamesh original. So make of it what you will.

You may find this concept difficult to grasp but I really have absolutely no interest in what the church likes, or doesn't like. The opinions of the Pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, have as little scientific relevance as your, or my opinion.
Remember item 9 on my little list?

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

You seem to assign great value to religion, and religious beliefs.

Christianity (and Islam) as a religion has been especially zealous in trying to convert the world to their religion. They (at least many of them) believe they increase they chance to go to heaven if they convert other people to their religion.

@MikeB

Quote:

Christianity (and Islam) as a religion has been especially zealous in trying to convert the world to their religion.

This is certainly a matter of historical record, it is also, however, irrelevant. Even the preacher in the Lutheran chapel in downtown Minneapolis, MN. can't be blamed because your linked "lexicon" translates Sha-mu differently than either the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, or Sitchin. (Unless of course, he's one of the Illuminati, taking orders directly from the Pope.)

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Chicago Assyrian Dictionary

In any case the Sumerian and Akkadian empires predate Assyria. Later christian and islam faiths influenced (& destroyed) a lot of historical /cultural data from within this area.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @Nimrod Quote: Chicago Assyrian Dictionary In any case the Sumerian and Akkadian empires predate Assyria. Later christian and islam faiths influenced (& destroyed) a lot of historical /cultural data from within this area.

That still does not alter the FACT that your linked "lexicon" translates Sha-mu to mean "Heart", while that absolute paragon of translation, Zecharia Sitchin translates Sha-mu to mean "Spaceship"
The source that you quoted to support Sitchin actually contradicts Sitchin.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

Oh look!

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/05/jupiters-moon-io-may-have-a-molten-core-mantle.ars

No geodynamo for Io afterall, just a bit of molten rock... No wonder it face Jupiter like our moon face earth...

Who would have thunk it?

Feel free do debit 1 from the universal gravity theory and credit +1 to the electric universe theory...

Last edited by Lou on 20-May-2011 at 05:50 PM.

@Lou

Its the magnetosphere of Ganymede that disproves the notion that somehow having a geodynamo allows moons to rotate.

Ganymede has a magnetosphere generated by dynamo flow in its core, but is tidally locked with Jupiter, because of the gravity imposed by Jupiter's mass.

Your link talks about Io, which is actually a different object entirely. No relevance, therefore you still have no evidence.

So, feel free to credit +1 to Universal Gravity, and -1 from the unproven bunk hypothesis of the electric universe.

Last edited by T-J on 20-May-2011 at 05:57 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Its the magnetosphere of Ganymede that disproves the notion that somehow having a geodynamo allows moons to rotate. Ganymede has a magnetosphere generated by dynamo flow in its core, but is tidally locked with Jupiter, because of the gravity imposed by Jupiter's mass. Your link talks about Io, which is actually a different object entirely. No relevance, therefore you still have no evidence. So, feel free to credit +1 to Universal Gravity, and -1 from the unproven bunk hypothesis of the electric universe.

Or it's the exception that proves the rule:

"The Galileo craft made six close flybys of Ganymede from 1995–2000 (G1, G2, G7, G8, G28 and G29)[17] and discovered that Ganymede has a permanent (intrinsic) magnetic moment independent of the Jovian magnetic field.[65] The value of the moment is about 1.3 × 1013 T·m3,[17], which is three times larger than the magnetic moment of Mercury. The magnetic dipole is tilted with respect to the rotational axis of Ganymede by 176°, which means that it is directed against the Jovian magnetic moment.[17] Its north pole lies below the orbital plane. The dipole magnetic field created by this permanent moment has a strength of 719 ± 2 nT at the equator of the moon,[17], which should be compared with the Jovian magnetic field at the distance of Ganymede—about 120 nT.[65] The equatorial field of Ganymede is directed against the Jovian field, meaning reconnection is possible. The intrinsic field strength at the poles is two times that at the equator—1440 nT.[17]

The permanent magnetic moment carves a part of space around Ganymede, creating a tiny magnetosphere embedded inside that of Jupiter; it is the only moon in the Solar System known to possess the feature."

@Lou

Perhaps Ganymede is the only moon in the solar system with this feature because it is also the largest moon in the solar system?

Its actually 8% larger than Mercury.

It also has a magnetosphere three times stronger than Mercury's (hardly 'tiny' as you describe it), yet it fails to rotate, instead finding itself gravitationally locked with Jupiter. From this, we infer that gravity is dominant over magnetism in determining the motion of the Jovian satellites, and also that your hypothesis that satellites with magnetospheres can freely rotate is wrong.

As users of the Scientific Method, we have no option but to reject it.

@MikeB

You seem to have ignored my questions, so I'll try again:

Can you confirm that you believe there has been a 'recent' global flood, and that you think sea fossils on mountains is evidence of this?

And can you make any comment regarding the geological arguments against Nibiru as outlined in post #17?

Last edited by T-J on 20-May-2011 at 09:40 PM.

@MikeB

Per the Rapture, due May 21, 2011 via certain sects of Christians. The prediction comes from Harold Camping. If history is any indication he'll be wrong again. Supposedly he stated rapture would occur in the late 70s and early 80s. There's documentation in his writing "The Final Tribulation" where he claims May 21, 1988 due to events in the solar system (721 rotations of something I don't care much he was wrong again.) Having that wrong he said early Sept 1994, then late Sept then Oct, then March 1995, then Sept 1995, then April 96 then -- egads who cares at this point.

The shotgun method of guessing every march-may and every aug-nov of every year should lead people to realize this guy's a fraud. Saturday will come and go and I'm betting on the failure of Christians being taken away.

EDIT: 10 failed doomsday predictions -- though these are big one's there has been far, far more than 10. [/url]

Last edited by BrianK on 20-May-2011 at 10:54 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Perhaps Ganymede is the only moon in the solar system with this feature because it is also the largest moon in the solar system? Its actually 8% larger than Mercury. It also has a magnetosphere three times stronger than Mercury's (hardly 'tiny' as you describe it), yet it fails to rotate, instead finding itself gravitationally locked with Jupiter. From this, we infer that gravity is dominant over magnetism in determining the motion of the Jovian satellites, and also that your hypothesis that satellites with magnetospheres can freely rotate is wrong. As users of the Scientific Method, we have no option but to reject it.

You keep confusing yourself or everyone else to make your view look right.
I said bodies with geodynamos are free to rotate unlike the moon which has none.
Maybe it's old age.

Also clearly the details of why Ganymede always faces Jupiter like the moon has gone over your head. Ganymede's partially or unconfirmed molten (rock not iron) core means it doesn't have a strong indepent geodynamo like YOU originially insisted. It's magnetic field is 176 degrees to Jupiter's. Considering how big it is and how close it is compared to Jupiter, you'd think they'd all just smash together along with the other moons...hmmm...yet:

Quote:

Although Ganymede is in tidal lock (thus keeping the same face toward Jupiter as it revolves), its axis does tend to tilt very slightly from the true perpendicular from time to time on account of gravitational perturbations.[5] The most striking feature of Ganymede's orbit is its three-part orbital resonance or Laplace resonance with the two inner moons Io and Europa. These three satellites complete their orbits around Jupiter in the ratio 1:2:4. They also conjoin with one another at their apsides, in a mutually self-correcting manner that allows the resonance to persist. (Most such resonances are unstable and end with one or all bodies changing their orbits.)

"gravitational perturbations" is really it's semi-molten rock core changing state...which is really playing with it's magnetic field...

So "gravity" has "self-correcting" properties now huh?

@Lou

Quote:

You keep confusing yourself or everyone else to make your view look right.

But you're the one with the made-up 'theory' with zero scientific credibility or evidence, who refuses to accept the findings of peer-reviewed research and who cites the writings of known liars and frauds as incontrovertible fact.

If anyone here is attempting to deceive anyone, it is you. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, of course, and assume that you have been taken in by the real frauds at work here. But you're still peddling fraud.

Quote:

I said bodies with geodynamos are free to rotate unlike the moon which has none.

And you are wrong. Repeating your statement over and over again does not magically make it true.

Quote:

Maybe it's old age.

Oh look! A personal attack attempting to discredit an opinion different to your own. It is very interesting to note that instead of using evidence to prove your theory, you instead attempt to discredit others by accusing me of senility.

Well, I'm younger than you mate, so if I'm going senile, you're already there.

Quote:

Also clearly the details of why Ganymede always faces Jupiter like the moon has gone over your head. Ganymede's partially or unconfirmed molten (rock not iron) core means it doesn't have a strong indepent geodynamo like YOU originially insisted. It's magnetic field is 176 degrees to Jupiter's. Considering how big it is and how close it is compared to Jupiter, you'd think they'd all just smash together along with the other moons...

Yet again you're making blatant factual errors. For a start, Ganymede has a metallic core composed either of molten Fe or FeS. Iron or iron-sulphide. Gravitational data (eg. Anderson et al 1996) indicates this, as do magnetometer readings from the Galileo spacecraft (eg. McKinnon, 1997 or Kivelson, 2002).

Since it does have a metallic core, despite your protestations to the contrary, and since it also has a fully differentiated inner structure, despite your refusal to accept the evidence, it is also far and away the best hypothesis that the magnetic field is generated due to dynamo flow within the core.

So, gone over my head? No. You're just using false information.

Quote:

"gravitational perturbations" is really it's semi-molten rock core changing state...which is really playing with it's magnetic field...

I see you don't know what the word 'perturbation' means in an astronomical context. It refers to the complexity inherent in an orbit of a body when under appreciable gravitational effects from more than one other massive body.

So, Ganymede's orbital perturbations are due to the other large Jovian satellites also included in the system.

We've got it all nicely worked out courtesy of Einstein, but of course being scientists we're willing to consider alternative hypotheses.

Do you have evidence of this 'semi-molten rock core' 'changing state'? No. Do you have evidence that the existing mathematical models are wrong? No. Do your mathematical models more accurately describe the system? No. Do you even have mathematical models for us to test against observations? No.

As users of the scientific method, we therefore have no choice but to reject your hypothesis. Sorry.

-

My references for the internal structure of Ganymede:

Anderson, J. D., E. L. Lau, W. L. Shogren, G. Schubert, and W. B. Moore. 1996.
Gravitational constraints on the internal structure of Ganymede. Nature 384,
541–543.

McKinnon, W. B. 1997. Galileo at Jupiter—Meetings with remarkable moons.
Nature 390, 23.

And because the chances of you actually bothering to go to your local library to read those articles are slight to nil, the Kivelson (2002) article is freely available and draws on the conclusions of the older papers to investigate the induced magnetic field of Ganymede further out in its structure:

http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/ICRUS1572507.pdf

And look - here's some folks who in 2004 modelled the magnetic field of Ganymede: http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~cpaty/2004GL021220_Paty.pdf

And here's Ms Kivelson and some friends doing it again with a different method in 2008: http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/309-20082007JA012748.pdf

No coverup. Just evidence disproving your hypothesis.

@Lou

Oh, and by the way, I was interested as to what source you've been quoting from. I was intrigued by the fact that your block of text was similar to but subtly different from the wikipedia article on Ganymede, so I cut and pasted it into google to see if I could locate your original source.

Isn't the Information Age wonderful? We youngsters are able to do this sort of thing to quickly track down useless bits of fluff, you see.

Do you know what source I discovered?

BrianK, you'll probably like this.

Creation Wiki.



Well, at least now I know where the blatant factual errors are coming from.

Last edited by T-J on 21-May-2011 at 02:07 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

Maybe it's old age.

I do not want to confuse you, but I am the geriatric around here, and I already admitted that my age was irrelevant. The only other comment I will make on age is that you are now not in a position to argue that "age brings wisdom" to T-J, nor are you able to argue "out of touch with the latest information" to me. So maybe we can lose the personal insults.

Quote:

I said bodies with geodynamos are free to rotate unlike the moon which has none.

From T-J's posts. Ganymede has a geodynamo. Ganymede is locked. Ganymede contradicts your hypothesis.

Back to my little list:
I will give you the same list, and challenge that I have given to MikeB
Quote:

1. Base your conclusions on the evidence. Not vice versa. 2. Measure objectively, not guess selectively. 3. Back up statements with evidence. Claiming something to be a fact does not make it a fact. 4. Use large sample numbers for statistical analysis. 5. Use blind sampling for tests 6. Tests must include control groups. 7. Cite your sources of information. 8. Sources must be reliable, verifiable, and backed with evidence. 9. Opinion is not fact 10. No false evidence.(don't cheat)

The challenge remains for you to provide a mathematical basis for your hypothesis.

Last edited by Nimrod on 21-May-2011 at 08:39 AM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

Nibiru on swiss banknote:

@BrianK

Quote:

10 failed doomsday predictions

A US economy crisis (and eventual collapse) was predicted several times before it actually happened. Out of a 1000 predictions, only 1 being right is enough I think.

To determine the validity of a claim you will have to look at the signs. The financial crisis for the US was preceded by a lot of signs, for example. It was well anticipated.

Currently we also see a lot of signs with regard to worldwide earthquakes, floodings, strange weather behaviours/fluctuations, etc. This happens to coincide with timelines of various "prohecies".

@MikeB

Quote:

A US economy crisis (and eventual collapse) was predicted several times before it actually happened. Out of a 1000 predictions, only 1 being right is enough I think

There's a big difference between predicting an economic crisis and predicting an economic crisis on a certain day of a certain month of a certain year. Accuracy counts!

And there's a dependency upon frequency of prediction. Would you trust your weatherman if 1 day out of 3 years he got the weather right? Would you demand they give him a raise for doing a good job? You may but I'd say you're failing to act rationally. Instead you're operating on faith of the weatherman.

Quote:

To determine the validity of a claim you will have to look at the signs

Well no. First we have to get the language translation and interpretation of meaning correct. (Stichin for example fails on this.) And next we have to demonstrate the culture really knew what they were talking about.

Will there be a doomsday? Certainly the earth will end. When will that date be? No one's got it right though many have ideas.


@THREAD

The Rapture occurred! I contend all worthy Christians are gone.