Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
24 crawler(s) on-line.
 160 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 saimo

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 saimo:  45 secs ago
 Gunnar:  6 mins ago
 DiscreetFX:  8 mins ago
 amigakit:  14 mins ago
 OldFart:  14 mins ago
 _ThEcRoW:  34 mins ago
 NutsAboutAmiga:  1 hr 1 min ago
 retrofaza:  1 hr 2 mins ago
 Rob:  1 hr 2 mins ago
 OlafS25:  1 hr 25 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Free For All
      /  Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )
PosterThread
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 22-May-2011 17:03:08
#161 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote:


@Nimrod

Quote:
Your given date for "Nibiru's" next visit is AD2900. Since you quote a 3600 year orbit, it would mean its last passage would have been 700BC.

I am not a Geologist, and would not be able to differentiate between modern peer reviewed accepted science and junk flood mythology, I will pass this one to T-J to find evidence of major geological upheavals of the type claimed at around that time. (Pole shifts, displaced ice caps, continental re-arrangements etc.)


Let's see... Was there a magnetic pole shift? Well, that should be easy to identify, let's just check the geomagnetism of the ocean floor... er, nope.

Let's check the sedimentary record - any evidence of sudden massive continent-scale faulting? Any unconformities between sediments of completely different provenance caused by sudden crustal shifting? Massive planetwide volcanism resulting from the sudden overnight rifting of every continental margin on Earth? Anything at all? No.

And the ice sheets? Are they in fact older than 2700 years? Yes. Yes they are. All we have to do is count the annual growth layers.

So, I think we can safely say that Nibiru as proposed by Mike, Lou and Sitchin did not visit in 700BC.

Considering a 3450-3600 year orbit, do you think it will show up in the same spot relative to the sun and earth every time? No. Sitchin even documented various passings that were not very eventful. A bit of common sense goes a long way...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Kronos 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 22-May-2011 17:54:43
#162 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 8-Mar-2003
Posts: 2553
From: Unknown

@Lou

If it appears differently every 3500 years then there is even less reason to believe that a sticks&stones society could predict the current passing leading to desasters.


@MikeB
When it comes to the passing of a comet/2nd sun/gas giant/brown dwarf that eruption has indeed the same relevance as a falling sack of rice.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 22-May-2011 18:39:01
#163 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
yet Brickland currents look similar to the formation of entire galaxies.

Yes, I agree, auroral Birkeland currents can look like the accretion of galaxies. In Exactly the same way that, to my untrained eye, Sharks look like dolphins. Which would you prefer to go swimming with?
The problem here is the question of magnitude. Radio transmissions are not carried on milliHertz signals, nor do you buy kiloFarad capacitors from your local Radio Spares store. It takes a lot more energy to move a small moon than it does to attract dust in space.

@T-J

I copied your method of research to find the primary source of all of these EM universe stories. They all seem to emanate from somebody called James McCanney. A self styled "professor" thrown out of Cornell space science department, he now claims to be lauded in Europe. He is an avowed supporter of Velikovsky and Sitchin, and receives glowing reviews from Zetatalk and David Icke.

@MikeB

Are you trying to say that just as "Nibiru" was able to move Chile and New Zealand without raising the tides, it can now suck lava up from an Icelandic volcano like a thick milk shake through a straw while still not raising the tide of the diet cola. (You can blame Donald McRonald for the culinary simile)

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 22-May-2011 19:00:36
#164 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
yet Brickland currents look similar to the formation of entire galaxies.

Yes, I agree, auroral Birkeland currents can look like the accretion of galaxies. In Exactly the same way that, to my untrained eye, Sharks look like dolphins. Which would you prefer to go swimming with?

So your evidence is a shark-dolphin analogy?

Quote:
The problem here is the question of magnitude. Radio transmissions are not carried on milliHertz signals, nor do you buy kiloFarad capacitors from your local Radio Spares store. It takes a lot more energy to move a small moon than it does to attract dust in space.

The real problem is we have no way of measuring remote EM fields for you to even fathom an answer...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 22-May-2011 19:20:39
#165 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
So your evidence is a shark-dolphin analogy?

My evidence is the weight of mathematical evidence that supports the status quo, together with the real world successes of everything from the space program down to basic ballistics.

Quote:
The real problem is we have no way of measuring remote EM fields for you to even fathom an answer...


Wrong!
Check BrianK's posts and you will find that he has quoted the magnetic fields of the Sun, Jupiter, Earth, etc on more than one occasion. BrianK and T-J have also listed the planets and moons that have no intrinsic magnetic field. Nobody has yet commented on the EM properties of Phobos and Deimos, two NON magnetic moons of a NON magnetic planet.

If you want to supplant the theory of gravity, present us with a BETTER theory, not a mish-mash of pseudoscience, technobabble, and paranoid conspiracy twaddle.

Last edited by Nimrod on 22-May-2011 at 07:48 PM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 22-May-2011 at 07:47 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
MikeB 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 22-May-2011 20:32:45
#166 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 3-Mar-2003
Posts: 6487
From: Europe

@Kronos&others

Quote:
When it comes to the passing of a comet/2nd sun/gas giant/brown dwarf that eruption has indeed the same relevance as a falling sack of rice.


As stated long before this massive outburst actually happening, this is what I and many other people would anticipate in such an event.

As I stated long before this truly amazing erruption I mapped the locations of volcanos. Nearest for me is a big caldera volcano underneath a lake near Bonn.

This isn't something I thought up of after this massive erruption. Extreme weather (such as hurricanes), extreme seismic activity (together with volcano erruptions and tsunamis), floodings are all amongst expectations in the case of Nibiru passing. Actually a pretty rapid pole shift (and change of axis) is not unlikely to happen in such a case, which could melt all the ice at the poles and create freezing havoc where the new south and north pole would settle.

As for tidal influences, I don't expect it to come that close. Despite that science claims the sun's gravitational pull is twice that of the earth on the moon (and thus the moon has a much weaker gravitational effect on the earth than the sun has, as the earth is much more massy than the moon), the sun's gravity has near to no effect on the tides of the earth. Strange? Yes, if you believe the official claims.

IMO only if Nibiru comes nearly as close as the moon to earth should it have significant effects on the earth's ocean tides. In solar system terms we are talking about extremely short distances.

Last edited by MikeB on 22-May-2011 at 09:28 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 22-May-2011 at 08:41 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 22-May-2011 at 08:34 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Kronos 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 22-May-2011 20:57:22
#167 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 8-Mar-2003
Posts: 2553
From: Unknown

@MikeB

Wow, you mapped the locations of volcanos !!!!!

Some volcano on iceland errupts atleast once a year, sometimes this sometimes another sometimes weak sometimes dramatic.

Nothing new, has been reported for centuries....

Hurricanes are created by warm water in the atlantic, so unless you want to claim that an undetectable heat-source could actually exist you'd better be looking at how our weather and climate work and are being changed by earthly effects.

Sure we had some big quakes, but if you put them into a statistic over the past 100years you'll see that 2011 does not really stand out here.

What might stand out is that 2 developed contries were hit these times (their were several quakes in past years in 3rd world contries with far worse effects soon to be forgotten) and that the Japan-quake triggered 2 secondary desasters (one natural one man-made) but these didn't make the actual quake more significant.


Or in other words, the seismic/volcanic activity of 2011 is within the statistic norm for such events and nothing suggests that anything special is happening.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
MikeB 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 22-May-2011 21:19:21
#168 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 3-Mar-2003
Posts: 6487
From: Europe

@Kronos

This erruption seems most similar to what we had in 8230 BC ± 50 years at this location.

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1703-01=&volpage=erupt

Hopefully it will not get as bad as that one, but an eruption of this size (much bigger than last year's likewise rare eruption in Iceland) is very rare. No, such a large eruption does not happen every decade (and certainly not every decade in Iceland).

Last edited by MikeB on 22-May-2011 at 09:22 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 22-May-2011 21:19:57
#169 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
So your evidence is a shark-dolphin analogy?

My evidence is the weight of mathematical evidence that supports the status quo, together with the real world successes of everything from the space program down to basic ballistics.

Quote:
The real problem is we have no way of measuring remote EM fields for you to even fathom an answer...


Wrong!
Check BrianK's posts and you will find that he has quoted the magnetic fields of the Sun, Jupiter, Earth, etc on more than one occasion. BrianK and T-J have also listed the planets and moons that have no intrinsic magnetic field. Nobody has yet commented on the EM properties of Phobos and Deimos, two NON magnetic moons of a NON magnetic planet.

If you want to supplant the theory of gravity, present us with a BETTER theory, not a mish-mash of pseudoscience, technobabble, and paranoid conspiracy twaddle.

It is 100% clear from this post that you just don't get it.

How many un-manned craft to we have traversing the galaxy in perfectly predictable paths?

Intergalactic travel needs an understanding of galactic movements and their coordination that is as of yet not understood.

But wait! We understand gravity! Surely that's all we need!
False.

You want me to provide formulas for things far away that won't be measured until you actually get there. While I can't do that, it's a fact that formulas for gravity as you perceive it are useless because they are all based on 'constants' relative to this star system.

Perhaps once Voyager 1&2 leave this star system, they will run into this 'dark matter' eh?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 22-May-2011 23:30:57
#170 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
For now, to me, it's worth watching, particularly since it's orbit isn't consistent making the possibility for an impact greater and considering that Honda will be in close proximaty to it and earth at the end of the summer.
You are right the probability is higher. Though in the end the probability is so incredibily small we can say the chance of either is 0 and therefore it isn't a concern.

Quote:
By the way, no one has explained to me why Newtonian gravity doesn't work when examining the orbits of other star systems without adding "dark matter" outside of the solar system?
Again Dark Matter is one of several hypotheses. NASA has demonstrated it's able to find planets by using gravity so gravity finding orbits in other star systems has indeed been a successful prediction.

EDIT: I just provided MikeB a name for his logical fallacy I thought I'd step back and share the wealth if you will. This fallacy is called Tu Quoque. It literally means 'you too'. What you are attempting to do is claim your wrong must be right because another's idea is wrong too. Of course thats all wrong as two wrongs don't correct anything they simply make 2 wrongs. or a bit more friendly read the previously posted comments just after this edit. :END EDIT

I want you to realize that even if we give you the benefit of doubt here it still does not remove the responsibility for you to prove through valid evidence and predictability that you guess is the right one. Something neither you nor MikeB have been able to come close to accomplishing. A formula that makes a prediction might be a good start.

Last edited by BrianK on 23-May-2011 at 01:57 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 23-May-2011 0:13:54
#171 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
While I can't do that, it's a fact that formulas for gravity as you perceive it are useless because they are all based on 'constants' relative to this star system.
I seriously hope you meant to say the constants relative to gravity and EM are relative to this universe. Cuz as your above statement is nothing but absurb.

Quote:
Perhaps once Voyager 1&2 leave this star system, they will run into this 'dark matter' eh?
Have you ever heard of MOND? It uses gravity that we know now and has no need for the HYPOTHESIS of dark matter or dark energy. We've already stated the science is ongoing. I'd like to think EM fills in the cracks but alas with no formula or testability it's fairly worthless in the Lou/MikeB form.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
T-J 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 23-May-2011 0:47:02
#172 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 31-Aug-2010
Posts: 596
From: Unknown

@MikeB

Quote:
As stated long before this massive outburst actually happening, this is what I and many other people would anticipate in such an event.


But Mike, these events are not in the least bit unusual - they will happen with no Nibiru at all! They are perfectly normal.

You don't need to invent fictional planets to explain something as normal as volcanism at a mid-ocean ridge. Occam's Razor, old boy.

Quote:
As I stated long before this truly amazing erruption I mapped the locations of volcanos. Nearest for me is a big caldera volcano underneath a lake near Bonn.


One, this eruption is not 'truly amazing', it is geologically routine. Two, you are of course referring to the Rodderberg. Its not a 'caldera volcano' because that term does not exist. Rodderberg in fact formed a 'maar' after its last eruption, a particular type of crater that characterises eruptions due to groundwater coming into contact with magma. The last activity here was a phreatomagmatic eruption about 250,000 years ago. Geophysics indicates the thing is now extinct. Note 'extinct', not dormant.

Quote:
This erruption seems most similar to what we had in 8230 BC ± 50 years at this location.

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1703-01=&volpage=erupt

Hopefully it will not get as bad as that one, but an eruption of this size (much bigger than last year's likewise rare eruption in Iceland) is very rare. No, such a large eruption does not happen every decade (and certainly not every decade in Iceland).


Yes, they do happen every decade, and Iceland is one of the most volcanically active regions on Earth, so if they'll happen anywhere, they'll happen in Iceland.

Your example there rated a 6 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index. For comparison, this recent one is estimated at a 4 by all the sources I can find. Eyjafjallajokull ranked a 4 as well, but that's because of its unusually high dense-rock-equivalent tephra output. At no single point did it exceed the requirements of a VEI 3 eruption.

VEI 3 eruptions have an expected frequency of about once per year. VEI 4 eruptions, about once every 10 years. VEI 6 eruptions can be expected once a century.

You earlier quote the Grimsvotn eruption as being called 'cataclysmic', and yes, 'cataclysmic' is the description Wikipedia chooses to apply to VEI 4 eruptions. I think they're over-egging the pudding, since we can't really have a cataclysm every ten years. But whatever, I guess if you're standing on it when it goes off, it is pretty cataclysmic.

Do you understand, though, that VEI 4 is only halfway up an 8 point scale? Above 'cataclysmic', we have 'paroxysmal' (lovely word), 'colossal', 'super-colossal' and 'mega-colossal'.

I'll start to pay attention at 'colossal', since that's Krakatoa level, and would be a major humanitarian issue for the immediate area. At 'super-colossal' I will start to be concerned for next year's crop around the world, because then we enter the range of 1815's 'Year Without a Summer', which would require coordinated global efforts to avoid regional mass starvation.

At 'mega-colossal', you might just start to have some evidence for unusual goings on, if you also had evidence of the existence of your fictional planet. Unfortunately, you don't have that evidence. And the evidence against super-colossal eruptions being caused by a 3600-year invisible planet is simply overwhelming.

Quote:
Actually a pretty rapid pole shift (and change of axis) is not unlikely to happen in such a case, which could melt all the ice at the poles and create freezing havoc where the new south and north pole would settle.


This is why I am beginning to suspect you are immune to rational debate. Did you read any of the reasons why this stuff is completely disproved by rather basic geological evidence?

Pole shifts as you describe them do not happen. Geomagnetic reversal is a known phenomenon, see the Brunhes-Matuyama Reversal for the most recent one (780,000 years ago). But there has never been an event where the lithosphere has disassociated from the asthenosphere and spun freely around it. There has never been an event where this has led to the transportation of ice sheets out of the polar regions, nor has any land ever been cataclysmically brought into the polar regions to face 'freezing havoc'.


The evidence is quite simple - firstly, the crust does not rift catastrophically every 3600 years due to 'Nibiru'. We know this, because none of the rifts we can observe date to 3600 years ago, and all of them contain millions of years worth of sedimentation built up in them that we can date with palaeontology, or radiometrically if you don't believe in fossils.

Secondly, the crust does not suddenly shift across the surface of the Earth in catastrophic events, it moves around slowly due to plate tectonics.

How do we know this? Amusingly enough, some of the earliest evidence came from geomagnetism - in thermal remnant geomagnetism, igneous rocks record the orientation, inclination and declination of the Earth's magnetic field while they are semi-molten. Although mostly paramagnetic, they do contain trace elements of ferrous oxides that respond to the Earth's magnetic field. While the rock is warm, these are free to re-orient due to the local field. But once they cool beyond a certain point (known as the Curie Temperature), their crystalline lattices become strong enough to lock these trace ferrous oxides into their then-current orientation, forming a record of the declination, inclination and orientation at the time of that rock's formation.

This is all very useful in determining the latitude of the rock at its time of cooling, and allows us to trace the motion of continents across the Earth's surface through geological time. This, it must be noted, does take geological time, not a few days every 3600 years.

And finally, the ice sheets point. Easiest piece of evidence to understand that you'll ever dome across. We have a 35 million year old ice sheet sitting over Antarctica, reliably dated by radiometric methods. Even if you don't believe in those, you can still count the annual growth layers and find an absolute minimum age of that ice sheet of 420,000 years, just by looking at ice cores.

Taking that minimum possible age, why would 'Nibiru' pass by 116 times without affecting a polar shift, only to suddenly do so now? And taking the scientifically accepted age of 35Ma, why would it pass by 9722 times with no effect, only to suddenly do so now?

I now no longer need to ask you to address the points raised in post #17. Instead, I would like to insist you address the points contained in this post.

Last edited by T-J on 23-May-2011 at 01:00 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 23-May-2011 1:53:31
#173 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@MikeB

Quote:
As stated long before this massive outburst actually happening, this is what I and many other people would anticipate in such an event.

This isn't something I thought up of after this massive erruption. Extreme weather (such as hurricanes), extreme seismic activity (together with volcano erruptions and tsunamis), floodings are all amongst expectations in the case of Nibiru passing.
Another logical fallacy here. This is called an Arguement from Final Consquence. Simply put you have reversed cause and effect. You claim that because you see extreme activity (an effect) that the correct cause must be Nibiru. Note there are other possible causes

Quote:
As for tidal influences, I don't expect it to come that close
We know that the water moves due ot the influence of the moon and the land and lava does not. It's logically inconsistent to claim a more flexible medium (water) is not moved when the more rigid medium (land) can be.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 23-May-2011 4:03:23
#174 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

MOND?

So now the rules change based on speed? More ridiculous 'theories'!

Something far more interesting was posted by the lone commentator:
http://holographicgalaxy.blogspot.com/

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 23-May-2011 4:04:51
#175 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

[quote]EDIT: I just provided MikeB a name for his logical fallacy I thought I'd step back and share the wealth if you will. This fallacy is called Tu Quoque. It literally means 'you too'. What you are attempting to do is claim your wrong must be right because another's idea is wrong too. Of course thats all wrong as two wrongs don't correct anything they simply make 2 wrongs. or a bit more friendly read the previously posted comments just after this edit. :END EDIT

So you are admitting to gravity being wrong then? Well, atleast you are making progress!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
MikeB 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 23-May-2011 5:10:19
#176 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 3-Mar-2003
Posts: 6487
From: Europe

@BrianK

Quote:
Another logical fallacy here. This is called an Arguement from Final Consquence. Simply put you have reversed cause and effect. You claim that because you see extreme activity (an effect) that the correct cause must be Nibiru. Note there are other possible causes


No. I researched the potential of Nibiru as I found endless hints towards its existance in many ancient literature. Based on this I came to the conclusion it is more likely Nibiru actually exists. Historic stories also tells us what kind of effects to expect (some of the effects being constant with every passing, some effects may be unique or more trivial to a specific passing), the approximate time cycle and much more.

Then I compared historical literature with modern historical findings and documentations. Based on this I can easily come to the conclusion a lot of the non-scientific assumptions (such as the Summerians would have a terra- or egocentric viewpoint of the universe) which I know is fake. IMO the ancient Greek scientists also didn't really believe in a geocentric universe, but at the time were put under pressure not to advocate such ideas (politics).

Quote:
It's logically inconsistent to claim a more flexible medium (water) is not moved when the more rigid medium (land) can be.


I did not claim gravity cannot move water, please reread. What I stated is that the gravitational pull of the Sun according to the theory of universal gravity is much greater on the earth than the moon has on the earth. Yet the moon causes evident ocean tides while the sun has near to no influence. This isn't logical (because it is not true). Also the orbit of the moon around the earth is not logical based on the claims of universal gravity (because it is not true).

Like it or not, we live in a magnetically driven universe with repulsive (,neutral) and attractive forces. I can (as I have) present you a model of a working universe, modern science does not (Newton and Einstein are at the foundation of understanding modern science, uplifted by politics to a legendary almost untouchable status, it's quite a bit like the situation with the Greek scientists I talked about earlier).

Last edited by MikeB on 23-May-2011 at 05:13 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 23-May-2011 8:04:23
#177 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@MikeB

Quote:
No. I researched the potential of Nibiru as I found endless hints towards its existance in many ancient literature.
So Ancient stories have more validity than more recent discoveries. In that case I suppose our recent understanding of the weather is wrong because the Norse believed that during a thunderstorm, Thor rode through the heavens on his chariot pulled by the goats Tanngrisni ("gap-tooth") and Tanngnost ("tooth grinder") The rumbling of his chariot wheels was thunder, while sparks struck from the clouds, by the goat hooves were seen as lightning.

Quote:
Historic stories also tells us what kind of effects to expect (some of the effects being constant with every passing, some effects may be unique or more trivial to a specific passing), the approximate time cycle and much more.
Your "historical evidence" and "ancient literature" are nothing but the ramblings of a failed science fiction writer by the name of Zecharia Sitchin. Compare the fiction of Sitchin with the geological evidence as listed by T-J in posts #17and #172. Sitchins fantasies are as relevant to what happened in the real world as those of J. R. R. Tolkien, in his sagas of "Middle Earth", but are sadly much less entertaining.

Quote:
IMO the ancient Greek scientists also didn't really believe in a geocentric universe,
And your evidence is? Did I ever tell you that Opinion is NOT Evidence. Heliocentrism was a minority discredited opinion. The majority view was that Geocentrism "made more sense" and experimentation was discouraged. This is a matter of written historical record.

Quote:
I did not claim gravity cannot move water, please reread.
What you are being asked is how a force, any force, can be large enough to cause tectonic shifts, while remaining too small to cause tidal shifts. Feel free to refer to this force as gravity, electromotive force, or even mental telekinesis. The important detail you are being picked up on here is once again orders of magnitude. It takes less effort to move water than land.

Quote:
I can (as I have) present you a model of a working universe,
You have presented an image, nothing more. A projection using smoke and mirrors, without a single mathematical equation to support it. You would think that your source James McCanney would understand the requirements of mathematical evidence and produce equations, or maybe he does, which explains the lack of equations. Equations would prove that the EM forces are too weak by several orders of magnitude to achieve the results ascribed to them.
This is not merely opinion this is an observable, demonstrable fact.

Last edited by Nimrod on 23-May-2011 at 08:18 AM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 23-May-2011 9:48:26
#178 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@T-J

Quote:
But whatever, I guess if you're standing on it when it goes off, it is pretty cataclysmic.
The term that I would prefer is "embarrassing"

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 23-May-2011 11:06:39
#179 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Quote:

BrianK wrote:
MOND?
So now the rules change based on speed? More ridiculous 'theories'!
Ahh looks like you never it made it to actually look at and consider the Einsteins multivariable differential equations relating to gravity. It, of course, is based on speed and frame of reference. And works better than any other theory when determining how the planets are presently orbiting the sun.

You really want to harp on Dark Matter -- feel free but understand killing it off in no way kills off Gravity and inserts electromagnetism.

Quote:
So you are admitting to gravity being wrong then?
Nice try.. No. Just giving you som education that your tactic is a logical fallacy. Claiming another to be wrong too doesn't make your wrong acceptable.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Posted on 23-May-2011 11:17:58
#180 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
So you are admitting to gravity being wrong then?
Nice try.. No. Just giving you som education that your tactic is a logical fallacy. Claiming another to be wrong too doesn't make your wrong acceptable.

Isn't it logical fallacy telling me I'm wrong because I can't prove that I'm right or wrong?

Why does gravity need dark matter to be right and our solar system is the magical exception to the 5/6 rule?

http://weeklyworldnews.com/headlines/19023/gravity-doesnt-exist/

Seems those space probes aren't always where 'we' thought...
http://www.space.com/448-problem-gravity-mission-probe-strange-puzzle.html

Last edited by Lou on 23-May-2011 at 11:30 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 23-May-2011 at 11:21 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle