@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: BrianK took 1 sentence from a large paper out of its context, quoted it in a reply to me as if I wrote it saying I had logical fallacy. His whole stragedy is to divide and conquer. A paragraph conveys a meaning. A sentence can have multiple meanings without its context. He's quite famous for this now. Bullocks! Instead of postulating how about you evidence. This is out of context becase ??? Don't know you never bothered to post why. Instead you restort to name calling, attempts to claim you never posted such a thing, and now mischarcteriziations. All are fluff untily ou can support it. Let's see you make a rational and, importantly, valid construct about how and why this was out of context.

Truth hurts it seems.
The way you did it, you presented it like the complete logic of his paper. Then presented it like I said it myself.

You clearly weren't there to take his evidence into account, only there to find 1 sentence to plaster as logically fallacy.

Next time you want to criticize a scientific paper, come back with scientific counter-evidence. Don't come back with a sentence out of context. You are like every other crackpot debunker: when you can't argue the science/math, attack something else...

@Lou

Quote:

The way you did it, you presented it like the complete logic of his paper.

The purpose of his paper was to explain how EM and Gravity are tied. His final sentence summarizing his conclusion is "The fact that gravity and electromagnetism are unified by this theory is a very strong indicator of the correctness of this model" --- So not out of context his beginning supposition and final conclusion are indeed circular as I fairly described.

Quote:

Then presented it like I said it myself.

You are clearly splitting hairs here. What you did say is this paper is correct, true, proof, and everyone must read it to understand why it's true. So yeah you did 'say it' in so far as you pushed it as the evidence. Which it wasn't either.

Quote:

You clearly weren't there to take his evidence into account,

I'm certainly open to it. In what experiments that may be reproduced by other scientists did he conduct to demonstrate his paper's postulates as valid? I do see some mathematical proofs but those are building the postulate in which we have to validate with evidence. (NOTE: I reread this paper and I don't see any footnotes indicating the experiments supporting this work? He tries to recite/rework others but meh.)

Quote:

Next time you want to criticize a scientific paper, come back with scientific counter-evidence

This is a great example of how you misunderstand the scientific process. The job of the postulator who wishes their postulate to be accepted as truth has the responsibility to demonstrate that truth with evidence. You want us to accept this until proven false. You have it backwards and thus need to use faith.

In conclusion - we can see your thought of out of context is wrong. I refered the conclusion to itself and highlighed the internal conflicts that exist. While you do have some hairs split over 'you said it' versus 'you said that it's the truth and we must all accept it'. Rightly so that you noted the fine line between the snake oil maker and the snake oil seller. You are just the snake oil salesman. And as for your later demands to prove a negative you need to work on your understanding of science and logic.

Last edited by BrianK on 23-Apr-2012 at 10:33 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 23-Apr-2012 at 10:31 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 23-Apr-2012 at 10:29 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: The way you did it, you presented it like the complete logic of his paper. The purpose of his paper was to explain how EM and Gravity are tied. His final sentence summarizing his conclusion is "The fact that gravity and electromagnetism are unified by this theory is a very strong indicator of the correctness of this model" --- So not out of context his beginning supposition and final conclusion are indeed circular as I fairly described. Quote: Then presented it like I said it myself. You are clearly splitting hairs here. What you did say is this paper is correct, true, proof, and everyone must read it to understand why it's true. So yeah you did 'say it' in so far as you pushed it as the evidence. Which it wasn't either.

Called it like I saw it.

Quote:

Quote: You clearly weren't there to take his evidence into account, I'm certainly open to it. In what experiments that may be reproduced by other scientists did he conduct to demonstrate his paper's postulates as valid? I do see some mathematical proofs but those are building the postulate in which we have to validate with evidence. (NOTE: I reread this paper and I don't see any footnotes indicating the experiments supporting this work? He tries to recite/rework others but meh.)

Why would you need footnotes for mathematical equations presented in the body?

Quote:

Quote: Next time you want to criticize a scientific paper, come back with scientific counter-evidence This is a great example of how you misunderstand the scientific process. The job of the postulator who wishes their postulate to be accepted as truth has the responsibility to demonstrate that truth with evidence. You want us to accept this until proven false. You have it backwards and thus need to use faith.

You are using faith because you have no math to prove him wrong. You have faith that he is wrong, you don't have proof.

Quote:

In conclusion - we can see your thought of out of context is wrong. I refered the conclusion to itself and highlighed the internal conflicts that exist. While you do have some hairs split over 'you said it' versus 'you said that it's the truth and we must all accept it'. Rightly so that you noted the fine line between the snake oil maker and the snake oil seller. You are just the snake oil salesman. And as for your later demands to prove a negative you need to work on your understanding of science and logic.

In conclusion you come to conclusions on faith.

@the gang,

I'm off to Las Vegas again tomorrow morning to do more research into the 'Law of Averages'.

I hope you can hold down the fort without me for 5 or so days!

@Lou

Quote:

Why would you need footnotes for mathematical equations presented in the body?

You need footnotes to identify the experimental evidence that prove your end number is a fair and correct representation of the universe. Without evidence the formula and it's results are a postulate that need to be tested to see if they make accurate predictions.

Since we're discussing gravity I think we can use that as an example to help you understand the differences.
* Newton defined gravity under F=ma. Now his math was spot on. Science went on to provide lots of evidence that he was right. Dropped the balls and feathers in a tube to prevent air currents from that 100 story building and Newton's Formula was demonstrated as workable.....
*... Then the further evidence came in... Mercury couldn't exist under F=ma it would crash and burn into the sun....
* Along came a new postulate Einsteinian gravity. Again splendid math work. Definitely the formulas are spot on! Numbers are pretty and everything works mathematically. So science went along and started reanalyzing all the Newtonian experiments and sure enough Einstein explained them too. This built Evidence that both were workable. Later more evidence was built as Einstein's formulas enabled Mercury to exist in it's current state of the Universe.

What have here is two perfectly good mathematical workings which were postulates. Neither were evidence in and of themselves. That comes from the study of events that end up supporting, or not, the postulate. In the end because Einstein explains more we say his theory is closer to truth and continue work towards the understanding Einstein's explaination falls short on.

Now just as the Newtonian and Einstienian formulas worked great mathematically but are not evidence the same applies to Engineer Xavier Borg's work. The math may work out great but it in and of itself is not evidence. It's the postulate that needs observational support.

Getting back to the large problem Borg and you display here if one wants the postulate to be true they must use real life observations from outside of the postulate that defines X to demonstrate it's truth. Else one runs into a circular logic problem. Borg demonstrated his problem well in the final statement of his conclusion. (oh and not so conincidently why it wasn't taken out of context.)

Quote:

You are using faith because you have no math to prove him wrong.... ... In conclusion you come to conclusions on faith.

Why is my view not faith? I ask what observational data exists to accept or reject this paper. It's upon analysis of that data set that I'd choose to accept or reject the validitiy of the postulate. If nothing exists then I neither accept nor reject.

What I did note is the observational work I know of goes against this postulate. Which means the math may work all splendid but it doesn't jive when applied to the real world. So, I'd lean towards reject. As always I've asked you for the evidence outside of the pretty math postulate to show that postulate functions in the real world. And to date you have yet to provide us that observational data.

So again I ask since you're trying to claim this paper is true that you provide that observational data (aka Evidence) that shows the paper to be true. Again you cite the paper in proving the paper. A postulate can't evidence itself instead it goes in an infinite loop never proving a thing.

... In the end my present conclusion is because we lack the evidence to show Borg's true and have the evidence that goes against Borg we must reject Borg's paper. That conclusion however is transmutable you simply need to provide evidence. (Though note we've spent 60 pages asking you for that stuff ya just don't get it.)

Last edited by BrianK on 24-Apr-2012 at 10:30 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Why would you need footnotes for mathematical equations presented in the body? You need footnotes to identify the experimental evidence that prove your end number is a fair and correct representation of the universe. Without evidence the formula and it's results are a postulate that need to be tested to see if they make accurate predictions. Since we're discussing gravity I think we can use that as an example to help you understand the differences. * Newton defined gravity under F=ma. Now his math was spot on. Science went on to provide lots of evidence that he was right. Dropped the balls and feathers in a tube to prevent air currents from that 100 story building and Newton's Formula was demonstrated as workable..... *... Then the further evidence came in... Mercury couldn't exist under F=ma it would crash and burn into the sun.... * Along came a new postulate Einsteinian gravity. Again splendid math work. Definitely the formulas are spot on! Numbers are pretty and everything works mathematically. So science went along and started reanalyzing all the Newtonian experiments and sure enough Einstein explained them too. This built Evidence that both were workable. Later more evidence was built as Einstein's formulas enabled Mercury to exist in it's current state of the Universe. What have here is two perfectly good mathematical workings which were postulates. Neither were evidence in and of themselves. That comes from the study of events that end up supporting, or not, the postulate. In the end because Einstein explains more we say his theory is closer to truth and continue work towards the understanding Einstein's explaination falls short on. Now just as the Newtonian and Einstienian formulas worked great mathematically but are not evidence the same applies to Engineer Xavier Borg's work. The math may work out great but it in and of itself is not evidence. It's the postulate that needs observational support. Getting back to the large problem Borg and you display here if one wants the postulate to be true they must use real life observations from outside of the postulate that defines X to demonstrate it's truth. Else one runs into a circular logic problem. Borg demonstrated his problem well in the final statement of his conclusion. (oh and not so conincidently why it wasn't taken out of context.) Quote: You are using faith because you have no math to prove him wrong.... ... In conclusion you come to conclusions on faith. Why is my view not faith? I ask what observational data exists to accept or reject this paper. It's upon analysis of that data set that I'd choose to accept or reject the validitiy of the postulate. If nothing exists then I neither accept nor reject. What I did note is the observational work I know of goes against this postulate. Which means the math may work all splendid but it doesn't jive when applied to the real world. So, I'd lean towards reject. As always I've asked you for the evidence outside of the pretty math postulate to show that postulate functions in the real world. And to date you have yet to provide us that observational data. So again I ask since you're trying to claim this paper is true that you provide that observational data (aka Evidence) that shows the paper to be true. Again you cite the paper in proving the paper. A postulate can't evidence itself instead it goes in an infinite loop never proving a thing. ... In the end my present conclusion is because we lack the evidence to show Borg's true and have the evidence that goes against Borg we must reject Borg's paper. That conclusion however is transmutable you simply need to provide evidence. (Though note we've spent 60 pages asking you for that stuff ya just don't get it.)

BrianK, if you actually bothered to click the HOME link and read thru all the pages, including the "Evidence" page...you'd see he perfectly predicts Mercury's orbit. Infact, I was the only who told you in the 2nd thread way back when that Newton's gravity alone would cause a spiralling collision. This guy even goes on to explain why the galaxies are spinning faster than they should at the outer edges without the need for dark CRAP.

Meanwhile you'd rather accept [simple] general relativity that works with only assumed constants and in relative isolation...then wonder why in a non-isolated system (aka the universe) it fails...epically!

@Lou

Quote:

This coming from the guy who for pages and pages was saying gravity is orders of magnitude stonger than EM...

The reason that I make this assertion is because it is demonstrably true. on the macroscopic scale electrical charges cancel. 1,000,000,000 atoms of Hydrogen has an equal number of positively charged protons as negatively charged electrons, and the net charge is zero. Tthe same quantity of hydrogen has a mass of 1,000,000,000 protons added to the mass of the same number of electrons, which is approximately 1/1840 that of the protons, which comes to a total of 1,000,543,478 proton masses.

Quote:

You state a formula with a fixed speed of light, only to have me remind you that it can slow down.

Learn to read Specifically learn to read the paragraph immediately previous to the one that this comment supposedly answers. I know that light can be slowed I also know by how much. If you have any e v i d e n c e to support your claim that light slows by the amount claimed the feel free to present the e v i d e n c e but be aware that Assertion≠Proof Be aware however that the simple fact that anybody can look into the night sky and see stars is evidence that Znidarsic's claim is nothing more than a steaming heap of bovine excrement.

Quote:

When are you going to realize your math is always flawed?

I just knew that you would eventually claim that mathematics was wrong, and I even predicted it on more than one occasion.

Quote:

Always missing the big picture.

Is that the "big picture" that you get when you ignore inconvenient details like evidence or proof, and rely totally on the faithful, blindly accepting the assertions and postulates of the chosen ones as undeniable divine revelations from on high.

Quote:

You are using faith because you have no math to prove him wrong. You have faith that he is wrong, you don't have proof.

In a court of law an accused person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. In the scientific "court" a postulate is assumed false until demonstrated to be more true than any other postulate. As a consequence nobody has need to prove somebody else wrong, they simply have to prove their assertion to be more correct. As to your assertion that there is no mathematics capable of proving him wrong, this is entirely false. Your refusal to accept, or your inability to understand, basic mathematics is totally irrelevant.

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

@Lou

Quote:

BrianK, if you actually bothered to click the HOME link and read thru all the pages, including the "Evidence" page...you'd see he perfectly predicts Mercury's orbit. Infact, I was the only who told you in the 2nd thread way back when that Newton's gravity alone would cause a spiralling collision. This guy even goes on to explain why the galaxies are spinning faster than they should at the outer edges without the need for dark CRAP.

Lou I'd love to give you credit but alas I can't. It was reading the history of science and about paradigm shifts which brought the postulates and subsequence failures of the planet Vulcan. This was before I even started posting here.

Yes he does postulate why galaxies are faster than expected. Though, just like Dark Matter or Energy, those postulates must be evidenced. Unfortunately this is still a to do.

As for accepting relativity its, like all theories, is always with a *. That note reads 'with the current state of evidence we have available to us this is the best explanation'.

If you haven't read it the Relativity of Wrong might help your understanding of how this works.

@lou
When you return read this. I see it very applicable in this discussion.
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-paradox-paradox/

Last edited by BrianK on 25-Apr-2012 at 01:44 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 25-Apr-2012 at 01:12 AM.

@Lou

It appears a recent discovery would indicate the missing 23% of mass postulated by Dark Matter is actually everyday matter.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120425094352.htm

Last edited by BrianK on 26-Apr-2012 at 04:19 AM.

@BrianK

The article says "threatening a central pillar of current cosmological theory". Not sure if I agree with that, as most of us have never believed the dark matter theory anyway. We do live in interesting times, though

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

The article says "threatening a central pillar of current cosmological theory". Not sure if I agree with that, as most of us have never believed the dark matter theory anyway. We do live in interesting times, though

I'd agree that was definitely some political posturing instead of just publishing the event. Dark Matter isn't a central pillar. It can't be until the evidence shows that it is real. There are other there postulates which can take take the place of Dark Matter, but again we need evidence to determine which one is valid. Pretty math is just pretty math until it's able it's predictability and usability.

I found it interesting that Dark Matter said this stuff should be in X location around our galaxy. So, when we did an indepth search for Dark Matter it turned out there was stuff there. It appears we needed better/different resolution cameras and approaches to see that the 'Dark Matter' was just matter we hadn't seen.

We certainly have lots to learn about the universe still. Planets in other solar systems were only observed about a decade ago. And but a few years ago we found planets tooling around the universe on their own. Who knows what improved resolutions and approaches will bring. Perhaps all that 'Dark Matter' is simply matter we didn't observe in the correct matter...

LHC Discovers new particle.

Xi_b^*
This little guy confirms one of the fundamental assumptions on how quarks bind.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou It appears a recent discovery would indicate the missing 23% of mass postulated by Dark Matter is actually everyday matter. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120425094352.htm

There was never a doubt about matter in space not yet detected. Whether that adds up to the mystery 23% or not is still up for debate.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: BrianK, if you actually bothered to click the HOME link and read thru all the pages, including the "Evidence" page...you'd see he perfectly predicts Mercury's orbit. Infact, I was the only who told you in the 2nd thread way back when that Newton's gravity alone would cause a spiralling collision. This guy even goes on to explain why the galaxies are spinning faster than they should at the outer edges without the need for dark CRAP. Lou I'd love to give you credit but alas I can't. It was reading the history of science and about paradigm shifts which brought the postulates and subsequence failures of the planet Vulcan. This was before I even started posting here. Yes he does postulate why galaxies are faster than expected. Though, just like Dark Matter or Energy, those postulates must be evidenced. Unfortunately this is still a to do. As for accepting relativity its, like all theories, is always with a *. That note reads 'with the current state of evidence we have available to us this is the best explanation'. If you haven't read it the Relativity of Wrong might help your understanding of how this works.

BrianK,

I am glad you are finally starting to see that the theories you have blindly accepted are in need of MUCH refinement. For accepting them as they are means you have nothing to learn.

As for your link, I find the following text rather inaccurate:
Quote:

Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that persuaded the clever Sumerians to accept the generalization that the earth was flat; that if you somehow evened out all the elevations and depressions, you would be left with flatness.

It was "modern people" of the middle centuries that thought the earth was flat. The ancient civilizations all knew it was round. Just goes to show that you can't believe everything you read on the internet...

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: This coming from the guy who for pages and pages was saying gravity is orders of magnitude stonger than EM... The reason that I make this assertion is because it is demonstrably true. on the macroscopic scale electrical charges cancel. 1,000,000,000 atoms of Hydrogen has an equal number of positively charged protons as negatively charged electrons, and the net charge is zero. Tthe same quantity of hydrogen has a mass of 1,000,000,000 protons added to the mass of the same number of electrons, which is approximately 1/1840 that of the protons, which comes to a total of 1,000,543,478 proton masses.

So if you are standing in the middle of 2 gigantic "masses" where the net "gravitational" effect is 0 but a magnet perpendicular to you pulls you by your belt buckle, then would you say EM is stronger than gravity? Your logic is CRAP.

Quote:

Quote: You state a formula with a fixed speed of light, only to have me remind you that it can slow down. Learn to read Specifically learn to read the paragraph immediately previous to the one that this comment supposedly answers. I know that light can be slowed I also know by how much. If you have any e v i d e n c e to support your claim that light slows by the amount claimed the feel free to present the e v i d e n c e but be aware that Assertion≠Proof Be aware however that the simple fact that anybody can look into the night sky and see stars is evidence that Znidarsic's claim is nothing more than a steaming heap of bovine excrement.

Correction about your logic being CRAP: your logic is bovine excrement.

Quote:

Quote: When are you going to realize your math is always flawed? I just knew that you would eventually claim that mathematics was wrong, and I even predicted it on more than one occasion.

I never said "mathematics" is wrong. I said your application of mathematics is wrong. Apparently your reading comprehension is also bovine excrement.

Quote:

Quote: Always missing the big picture. Is that the "big picture" that you get when you ignore inconvenient details like evidence or proof, and rely totally on the faithful, blindly accepting the assertions and postulates of the chosen ones as undeniable divine revelations from on high.

Apparently you were looking in a mirror typing the section above...

Quote:

Quote: You are using faith because you have no math to prove him wrong. You have faith that he is wrong, you don't have proof. In a court of law an accused person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. In the scientific "court" a postulate is assumed false until demonstrated to be more true than any other postulate. As a consequence nobody has need to prove somebody else wrong, they simply have to prove their assertion to be more correct. As to your assertion that there is no mathematics capable of proving him wrong, this is entirely false. Your refusal to accept, or your inability to understand, basic mathematics is totally irrelevant.

Again your logic is bovine excrement. For the longest time you sat here stating there was no math behind the fact that what you perceive as gravity was nothing more than a side-effect of EM, then I supply the math and now all you can do is spout bovine excrement. You should exit the thread, you have nothing meaningful to add to it.

@Lou

Quote:

There was never a doubt about matter in space not yet detected. Whether that adds up to the mystery 23% or not is still up for debate.

You mean we need EVIDENCE? Perhaps you're learning?

Quote:

I am glad you are finally starting to see that the theories you have blindly accepted are in need of MUCH refinement. For accepting them as they are means you have nothing to learn.

And after my high hopes you pulled out the rug.

IF one really understands the science they also understand the areas for improvement and refinement. Certainly scientists knows this as continue to search for the ultimate unified theory.

Quote:

It was "modern people" of the middle centuries that thought the earth was flat. The ancient civilizations all knew it was round. Just goes to show that you can't believe everything you read on the internet

Sumerian writings indicate the sky is a round bowl resting upon a flat earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anu

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Perhaps you're learning?

When will you?

Quote:

Certainly scientists knows this as continue to search for the ultimate unified theory.

Yes, even Einstein was unhappy with general relativity and that's why he persued a unified theory...which has since been done by Brandenburg and the like...

Quote:

Quote: It was "modern people" of the middle centuries that thought the earth was flat. The ancient civilizations all knew it was round. Just goes to show that you can't believe everything you read on the internet Sumerian writings indicate the sky is a round bowl resting upon a flat earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anu

I can't believe you had the gall to reference a site blatantly telling you that it is about "Sumerian mythology". A page written by religious zeolots of today. Did you really expect facts?
Very few cultures believed the earth was flat.

I find the title of this article very amusing:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/saturns-moon-phoebe-may-be-pluto-like.ars

Here's a good summary of the Enuma Elish as translated by Sitchin and others:
Quote:

Six thousand years ago, astronaut/pioneers from the planet Nibiru dictated Enuma elish--the Creation Epic--to the Sumerians (folk who dwelt ten thousand years ago in the what’s now modern Iraq). The Sumerians wrote on clay tablets what the Nibirans told them about how our solar system formed. The Creation Epic says Solaris, our Sun (then a solitary star) first created a planet the Nibirans called Tiamat. Tiamat was the proto-Earth. It orbited Solaris counterclockwise. Next, Solaris, called Apsu, created Mercury and propelled Mercury with water and gold to Tiamat. Planet-pairs formed: Venus with Mars, Jupiter with Saturn, Uranus with Neptune. These planetary partners, say the Enuma elish, orbited the Sun counterclockwise, the same direction Tiamat followed. Tiamat lacked a partner-planet, but one of her moons, Kingu, enlarged. Kingu prepared to partner with Tiamat. Then Kingu could orbit the Sun, rather than Tiamat. But, four billion years ago, before Kingu could attain planetary orbit around Solaris, Nibiru invaded the Solar System clockwise. The gravitational pull of Nibiru pulled a piece of Neptune into space. That’s how Neptune’s moon, Triton, formed. Triton, unlike other moons in the System, orbits its planet clockwise. As Nibiru pierced our Solar System, Nibiru lost three of its moons but Nibiru gained four from Uranus. Nibiru tore four moons from Uranus. Not only that, but Nibiru's passing also tilted Uranus’ orbit. Nibiru pulled Gaga, Saturn’s largest moon, into clockwise orbit (between Neptune and Uranus). We call Gaga Pluto. On one of Nibiru’s orbital perigees around Solaris (four billion years ago), one of Nibiru's moons slammed into Tiamat and gouged out huge chunks. These chunks of Tiamat careened into space. The huge gouge in Tiamat where Nibiru’s moon hit is now the Pacific Basin. The chunks of Tiamat that exploded into space are now asteroids and comets. What's left of Tiamat is our present Earth. In the Pacific, waters and life-seeds of Nibiru and Tiamat evolved together. Nibiru's gravity took with it all Tiamat’s moons except Kingu, the moon who, just before Kingu invaded, readied himself to claim an orbit around Solaris. Nibiru’s invasion left Kingu lifelessly orbiting Earth, rather than Solaris. Tiamat's other moons became satellites of Nibiru. Nibiru stabilized into a clockwise orbit, equal to 3,600 orbits of Earth around the Sun until 10, 900 B.C.E., when Nibiru arrived earlier, due to increasing drift from Solaris of Uranus. Uranus’ gravity sped Nibiru’s orbit. As a result of this close encounter between Nibiru and Uranus, one of Nibiru’s moons, Miranda, was captured by and became a moon of Uranus as Nibiru and Uranus pulled at each other. From 10,000B.C.E. on, Nibiru’s revolution sped to 3450 Earth years; which makes Nibiru’s next return 2900A.D. [Sitchin, Z., 2007, The End of Days, pages 315 - 317]. In the Creation Epic, the Sumerians knew and wrote of an advanced civilization on a planet in a different solar system. They had the concept of a pulsar, the star around which Nibiru had orbited before that star collapsed. The Niburan astronauts, the Lords, had their Sumerian scribes write--only lately being confirmed by our scientists--of the composition and movement of the astronomical bodies of Solaris' system. The Lords told the Sumerians that there was water on asteroids, comets, Neptune, Uranus, Venus, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, also on the rings of Saturn and Saturn's and Jupiter's moons as well. Our astronomers recently confirmed what the Lords dictated. The Sumerian Creation Epic lends compelling evidence for the extraterrestrial settlement of Earth by Nibirans, the human astronauts who came to be regarded as the gods of Earth. “The Sumerian tablets describe the planet Nibiru as ‘a radiating planet’ symbolized by a cross to indicate the planet of crossing” by its clockwise orbit around our sun "but also to indicate radiation in the form of heat emerging from the planet. The thick atmosphere” due to volcanic action, protects Nibiru against the long cold periods while deep in space as well as the hot periods when it is closest to the Sun. It would ultimately be their wounded atmosphere that brought the Nibirans from their planet to Earth.” [Tellinger, M., Slave Species of god, 2006, page 88] Millennia passed after Nibiru and the solar system stabilized around Solaris. “Sumerian tablets describe Nibiru as ‘a radiating planet symbolized by a cross to indicate the planet of crossing [between Mars and Jupiter] but also radiation in the form of heat emerging from the planet.” Its “thick atmosphere protects Nibiuru against the long periods of cold while deep in space when the planet is farthest from the Sun as well as hot periods when it is closest to the Sun. It would ultimately be their wounded atmosphere that brought the Anunnaki [Nibiran mining expedition personnel] from Nibiru to Earth.” [Tellinger, M., 2006, Slave Species of god, page 88] Life on Nibiru evolved a technologically-sophisticated, long-lived Homo Sapiens, the humans of Nibiru. Life on Nibiru evolved a technologically-sophisticated, long-lived Homo Sapiens, the humans of Nibiru. “Our level of development in the 21st century must be very close to that ofthe Anunnaki when they first arrived on Earth.” [Tellinger, M., 2006, Slave Species of god, page 98] The Nibirans fought disastrous nuclear wars, but then unified under a single, planet-wide kingship. The King of Nibiru, 500,000 years ago, King Lahma, confronted environmental disaster. Nibiru was losing its atmosphere, critical to heat regulation and survival. King Lahma vacillated. Should he nuke the volcanoes to renew the atmosphere? Or send miners to Solaris' Asteroids, where probes showed gold? His scientists told him that they could powder and spread gold to hold Nibiru’s atmosphere. Lahma spent centuries pondering options while the planet's precious oxygen bled into space. [Sitchin, Z., The Lost Book of Enki pages 32 - 33]

As you can see, the Sumerians knew the earth was round (@BrianK) but more importantly, that Pluto was once a moon of Saturn. This would explain why Phoebe and Pluto are cousins.

Yeah, I know, just a mere co-incidence...

@Lou

Quote:

When will you?

Note I am open to your evidence. But, ya gotta stop throwing postulates out and calling them evidence.

Quote:

Yes, even Einstein was unhappy with general relativity and that's why he persued a unified theory...which has since been done by Brandenburg and the like...

Many people have created various Unified Theories. To date none has had sufficent evidence to take out a strong lead position.

Quote:

As you can see, the Sumerians knew the earth was round (@BrianK) but more importantly, that Pluto was once a moon of Saturn. This would explain why Phoebe and Pluto are cousins.

Alas Stichin's interpretations have been discarded as flights of fantasy. None-the-less if you audit what you provided nothing is saying 'round earth' or 'sphere earth' or any of the such? I read it twice, decided instead to allow you to highlight the lines that says that. Most of this is describing how the planets were created isn't showing us what shape they believed these planets to be.

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Apr-2012 at 08:27 PM.