@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: And the point that his(the video creator) first point makes dozens of assumptions and has no actual basis is totally ignored... Which of the statements do you claim have no actual basis. Is it the fact that Sitchins claim to have unparallelled ability to translate has been exposed as a bare faced lie? Was it the fact that many real scholars doubt that Sitchin had any understanding of the ancient languages at all? Was it the fact that Sitchin refused to debate his "translations" with Heiser? Or was it the fact that J. Marrs would not have endorsed Sitchins book had he been aware of Heisers greater and more accurate knowledge proving Sitchin to be a fraud? These statements from the first two and a half minutes are not baseless assertions such as the ones you make, but are evidence based observations.

Apparently you gloss over how he show's a pic from Sitchin's book then compares it to completely different pics in tombs. I know, you only see and hear what you want.

Quote:

Quote: And yet when you stated gravity is stronger than EM, it was really EM 38 orders of magnitute stonger than gravity, Nice claim. Now back it up with some E V I D E N C E or be exposed as the lying hypocrite that you really are. The only time that the error factor of x10^38 was made it was Harameins calculation of the mass of a single proton. Not only was his mathematics inept and wrong but he also proudly posted an arithmetical error as proof that he was right. Real scientists check and recheck before making presentations, specifically to avoid such embarrassing failures. But of course all your sources are just wannabe heroes who are unwilling to do the work needed to actually succeed.

I see senility has finally kicked in. How quickly we forget when you asked for math and kept adamantly stating that EM was orders of magnitude weaker than gravity for pages on end. Do you not find it a co-incidence that his # was the same order of magnitude difference as the EM:g ratio? I know how easily the math is lost on you in your old age... You probably keep forgetting that QM is correct with it's energy # for the vacuum... You also keep confusing mass with weight when many times mass means energy...

Quote:

Quote: I've exposed your hypocracy on several occassions. The truth hurts. The only thing that you have frequently exposed is your own ignorance. Your own hypocrisy is matched only by your illiteracy.

Oh, I get it, this is where we play the kids game: no your the hyorcrit [Nimrod]no, you're the hypocrit[/the nimrod]

Quote:

Quote: dwarf planet Learn to read the opening line was "Fact About Pluto's Moon Charon" Charon meets the criterion you specified for a planet, yet was defined as a moon under your obsolete classification. Since neither Pluto nor Charon have cleared their orbital path then neither is a planet, but since they orbit the sun, and have sufficient mass to be able to pull themselves ito a spherical profile, they are not asteroids, hence the designation dwarf planet, or Plutoid.

I love proof that you've gone off the deep end. A dwarf planet with moons yet... How is a dwarf planet not a planet? Just as a gigantic planet is no more a planet. Size is but a scale, the unit is still PLANET. Again you seem to fail at reading and math in this case... The point about Charon is useless, it's called a moon...a moon of the planet PLUTO.

@Lou

It appears people do see auras through synesthesia

Last edited by BrianK on 05-May-2012 at 04:11 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

Apparently you gloss over how he show's a pic from Sitchin's book then compares it to completely different pics in tombs. I know, you only see and hear what you want.

No Lou. You obfuscate the simple fact that the drawing that Sitchin claims to be copied from a pyramid has no actual equivalent in the pyramid that he claims it to be from. The nearest similar image is in a pyramid a long way from the claimed source, and even that does not match the drawing that Sitchin faked as false evidence. This is further evidence that Sitchin was no more honest than Erich Von Daniken.

Quote:

I see senility has finally kicked in. How quickly we forget when you asked for math and kept adamantly stating that EM was orders of magnitude weaker than gravity for pages on end. Do you not find it a co-incidence that his # was the same order of magnitude difference as the EM:g ratio?

Resorting to your old tactic of personal insults when you have no rational or logical response to being shown to be wrong. There is absolutely no coincidence involved in a fraudster carefully cherry-picking his "facts" and fudging the mathematics to "prove" that 1+1=100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. You seem to have forgotten that I already answered this particular piece of misdirection, so which one of us is the one that has selective memory loss?

Quote:

You also keep confusing mass with weight when many times mass means energy...

Do I really? OK When and Where? Or is this another lie to try to make your own illiteracy and innumeracy look somehow less inept.

Quote:

Oh, I get it, this is where we play the kids game: no your the hyorcrit [Nimrod]no, you're the hypocrit[/the nimrod]

At this point I have to ask you the question that you asked olegil. "Is English your first language?"

Quote:

I love proof that you've gone off the deep end. A dwarf planet with moons yet... How is a dwarf planet not a planet?

Quite simply, if you keep up to date instead of sticking to the stuff that you learned at school thirty years ago. To qualify as a planet Pluto would have to meet three criteria, not pick any two out of three criteria. The reference to Charon was to show how even further out of date your definition is. Due to the fact that Charon and Pluto orbit each other about a barycentre that is external to either body. For Charon to qualify as a moon of Pluto the barycentre of the combined orbit would have to be at some point within the body of Pluto. As a result Pluto and Charon are a double dwarf planet system. The simple fact is that despite your protestations to the contrary, size does matter.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Apparently you gloss over how he show's a pic from Sitchin's book then compares it to completely different pics in tombs. I know, you only see and hear what you want. No Lou. You obfuscate the simple fact that the drawing that Sitchin claims to be copied from a pyramid has no actual equivalent in the pyramid that he claims it to be from. The nearest similar image is in a pyramid a long way from the claimed source, and even that does not match the drawing that Sitchin faked as false evidence. This is further evidence that Sitchin was no more honest than Erich Von Daniken.

First of all, there is no proof that the poster saw ALL the drawings. Sitchin himself went to libraries and museums and saw things not on display. So your poster is a weak source.

Quote:

Quote: I see senility has finally kicked in. How quickly we forget when you asked for math and kept adamantly stating that EM was orders of magnitude weaker than gravity for pages on end. Do you not find it a co-incidence that his # was the same order of magnitude difference as the EM:g ratio? Resorting to your old tactic of personal insults when you have no rational or logical response to being shown to be wrong. There is absolutely no coincidence involved in a fraudster carefully cherry-picking his "facts" and fudging the mathematics to "prove" that 1+1=100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. You seem to have forgotten that I already answered this particular piece of misdirection, so which one of us is the one that has selective memory loss?

Your answer was merely an accusation, not a real answer. Your accusations are weak because its obvious you failed to understand the math. In fact Haramein went to lengths in the lecture in December to prove all the #'s so that noobs like you couldn't accuse him of "cherrypicking"...

Quote:

Quote: You also keep confusing mass with weight when many times mass means energy... Do I really? OK When and Where? Or is this another lie to try to make your own illiteracy and innumeracy look somehow less inept.

you confuse the term all the time when doing your math then say to me "ha this is not the accepted mass"
http://www.relativisticmass.com/

Quote:

Quote: Oh, I get it, this is where we play the kids game: no your the hyorcrit [Nimrod]no, you're the hypocrit[/the nimrod] At this point I have to ask you the question that you asked olegil. "Is English your first language?"

That question to olegil was an honest one as he didn't seem to understand some of the nuances of what I was posting, only ####holes like you twisted it into an insult.

Quote:

Quote: I love proof that you've gone off the deep end. A dwarf planet with moons yet... How is a dwarf planet not a planet? Quite simply, if you keep up to date instead of sticking to the stuff that you learned at school thirty years ago. To qualify as a planet Pluto would have to meet three criteria, not pick any two out of three criteria. The reference to Charon was to show how even further out of date your definition is. Due to the fact that Charon and Pluto orbit each other about a barycentre that is external to either body. For Charon to qualify as a moon of Pluto the barycentre of the combined orbit would have to be at some point within the body of Pluto. As a result Pluto and Charon are a double dwarf planet system. The simple fact is that despite your protestations to the contrary, size does matter.

That's your definition of a planet. What you think is irrelevant to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_planet does not mention Charon, oh thick skulled one...

Last edited by Lou on 06-May-2012 at 11:22 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

First of all, there is no proof that the poster saw ALL the drawings. Sitchin himself went to libraries and museums and saw things not on display. So your poster is a weak source.

First of all there is no proof that Sitchins drawings are copies of anything and not simply made up by Sitchin to support his made up translations. If Sitcin saw these items not on display why did he never say where he saw them, and why did he not take photographs of the items so that his interpretation could be judged independently. There is only one logical explanation for the lack of evidence, and it is the same explanation for the lack of evidence for the battle of five armies recounted in Tolkiens book "The Hobbit". It is fiction

Quote:

In fact Haramein went to lengths in the lecture in December to prove all the #'s so that noobs like you couldn't accuse him of "cherrypicking"...

I not only followed the mathematics, but because he included the actual values being used, I saw the failure in it and also the failure in his arithmetic. I saw him palm the card but you choose to believe the summation rather than see what is happening before your eyes. Harameins fantasy is wrong by a factor of 10^38, and looking for something else that is 10^38 different and saying "this proves me correct" is not mathematically valid.

Quote:

you confuse the term all the time when doing your math then say to me

So you keep saying but as yet you have failed to answer the simple question. "when and where?" It is your persistent failure to answer this simple question that leads me to think that you have failed to understand the question. I chose to assume that this was failure of language rather than think that you are too dense (colloquial British English, not a reference to mass per unit volume) to understand.

Quote:

That's your definition of a planet. What you think is irrelevant to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_planet does not mention Charon, oh thick skulled one...

It is amusing that you use a link demonstrating that Pluto is not a planet to claim that Charon is irrelevant and that Pluto is a planet "oh thick skulled one". Have you ever tried reading the posts you link to?

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: First of all, there is no proof that the poster saw ALL the drawings. Sitchin himself went to libraries and museums and saw things not on display. So your poster is a weak source. First of all there is no proof that Sitchins drawings are copies of anything and not simply made up by Sitchin to support his made up translations. If Sitcin saw these items not on display why did he never say where he saw them, and why did he not take photographs of the items so that his interpretation could be judged independently. There is only one logical explanation for the lack of evidence, and it is the same explanation for the lack of evidence for the battle of five armies recounted in Tolkiens book "The Hobbit". It is fiction

Sitchin listed a source for his drawing. This poster you are championing merely said he couldn't find one matching it from public records he viewed. He doesn't mention how much access he actually has. No credentials what so ever, in fact. This is your prize source here.

Quote:

Quote: In fact Haramein went to lengths in the lecture in December to prove all the #'s so that noobs like you couldn't accuse him of "cherrypicking"... I not only followed the mathematics, but because he included the actual values being used, I saw the failure in it and also the failure in his arithmetic. I saw him palm the card but you choose to believe the summation rather than see what is happening before your eyes. Harameins fantasy is wrong by a factor of 10^38, and looking for something else that is 10^38 different and saying "this proves me correct" is not mathematically valid.

Meanwhile, his papers are published and your opinion is jack.

Quote:

Quote: you confuse the term all the time when doing your math then say to me So you keep saying but as yet you have failed to answer the simple question. "when and where?" It is your persistent failure to answer this simple question that leads me to think that you have failed to understand the question. I chose to assume that this was failure of language rather than think that you are too dense (colloquial British English, not a reference to mass per unit volume) to understand.

How about when you failed to understand that frequency is part of all energy equations when relating to mass but for large masses, its ignored since the frequency is so long which is why you fail to recognize how much "energy/mass" a proton can have?

Quote:

Quote: That's your definition of a planet. What you think is irrelevant to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_planet does not mention Charon, oh thick skulled one... It is amusing that you use a link demonstrating that Pluto is not a planet to claim that Charon is irrelevant and that Pluto is a planet "oh thick skulled one". Have you ever tried reading the posts you link to?

By your nimrodic logic, a gas giant is also not a planet...

@Lou

Quote:

Meanwhile, his papers are published and your opinion is jack.

You seem to not understand what scientific publication is. When a paper is published it's not done so because it's an inerrant Gospel. It's done so, so others can review, critique, and cast the ever present scientific skeptical eye on the work. So yes identifying errors is an important part of the analysis.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_planet does not mention Charon, oh thick skulled one...

You seem to not understand that Wikipedia is a store house of knowledge. Though while often a good reference point it's not the only reference point. Nor does Wikipedia determine what is or is not a planet. That comes from organizations such as the IAU. Just because the Wikipedia missed something does not mean it's not true.

In the last couple of posts your writing would indicate your values of material are askew from their actual use.

Last edited by BrianK on 07-May-2012 at 03:14 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 07-May-2012 at 03:04 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Sitchin listed a source for his drawing.

Sitchin listed a source for his drawing as being a wall painting in a particular pyramid. I do not know how good your understanding of the Queens English is so I will explain that people do not misplace murals at the back of a drawer or in a filing cabinet. There are photographic records of all of the items in these pyramidsavailable as both material for scholars to study, and postcards for tourists to send home. And nowhere in this vast collection of images is there anything remotely resembling the "evidence" faked by this charlatan. This is part of the reason why Sitchin was afraid to debate his findings with Heiser, because Heiser would have shown him for the Von Daniken wannabe that he really was.

Quote:

Meanwhile, his papers are published and your opinion is jack.

Yes, my opinion is meaningless, but I am not posting opinion, I have posted mathematics. The mathematics that I have posted is not a matter of opinion, it is simple and basic mathematics. Nothing more, nothing less. As to stuff being published, J. K. Rowling has been published, does that make Harry Potter a factual record of modern day life in UK?

Quote:

How about when you failed to understand that frequency is part of all energy equations when relating to mass but for large masses, its ignored since the frequency is so long which is why you fail to recognize how much "energy/mass" a proton can have?

And I repeat the challenge to show when and where I failed to understand a demonstrable and proven part of physics that covers a multiple of 10^38 in the mass/energy of a single proton. I mean real maths not the brain fevered rambling of somebody who cannot even get simple arithmetic correct, let alone mathematics. You still haven't explained how 8.7=8.9 yet.

Quote:

By your nimrodic logic, a gas giant is also not a planet...

And how do you come to that particular conclusion. A gas giant ticks all three boxes in the criteria for acceptance as a planet, unless of course you can prove otherwise.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Sitchin listed a source for his drawing. Sitchin listed a source for his drawing as being a wall painting in a particular pyramid. I do not know how good your understanding of the Queens English is so I will explain that people do not misplace murals at the back of a drawer or in a filing cabinet. There are photographic records of all of the items in these pyramidsavailable as both material for scholars to study, and postcards for tourists to send home. And nowhere in this vast collection of images is there anything remotely resembling the "evidence" faked by this charlatan. This is part of the reason why Sitchin was afraid to debate his findings with Heiser, because Heiser would have shown him for the Von Daniken wannabe that he really was.

hello, nimrod, you have yet to prove the video uploader is a scholar, hence your link is ####

Quote:

Quote: Meanwhile, his papers are published and your opinion is jack. Yes, my opinion is meaningless, but I am not posting opinion, I have posted mathematics. The mathematics that I have posted is not a matter of opinion, it is simple and basic mathematics. Nothing more, nothing less. As to stuff being published, J. K. Rowling has been published, does that make Harry Potter a factual record of modern day life in UK?

yes, you know what opinions are like, right? that's what you're full of...

Quote:

Quote: How about when you failed to understand that frequency is part of all energy equations when relating to mass but for large masses, its ignored since the frequency is so long which is why you fail to recognize how much "energy/mass" a proton can have? And I repeat the challenge to show when and where I failed to understand a demonstrable and proven part of physics that covers a multiple of 10^38 in the mass/energy of a single proton. I mean real maths not the brain fevered rambling of somebody who cannot even get simple arithmetic correct, let alone mathematics. You still haven't explained how 8.7=8.9 yet.

http://www.bearsoft.co.uk/new_site/phys/grav-mass.pdf perhaps a fellow brit can help you understand better...but probably not

you also failed to recognize how Haramein eventually derived the standard mass of the proton from the schwartzchild proton mass, but that's just one of many things that have been lost on you...

Quote:

Quote: By your nimrodic logic, a gas giant is also not a planet... And how do you come to that particular conclusion. A gas giant ticks all three boxes in the criteria for acceptance as a planet, unless of course you can prove otherwise.

its quite simple, your 3 checkboxes are meaningless to me

@Lou

Quote:

hello, nimrod, you have yet to prove the video uploader is a scholar, hence your link is ####

This is an interesting twist on the logical fallacy called argument from authority. By virtue of having a degree doesn't make what is said a truism. Truth is demonstrated with predictable and consistent evidence. In the case of Stichin the evidence is against him.

Quote:

you also failed to recognize how Haramein eventually derived the standard mass of the proton from the schwartzchild proton mass, but that's just one of many things that have been lost on you...

. One of the things that is lost to you is Haramein has yet to stand up against evidence.

Yes the 3 check boxes are lost to you. Because its far easier for you to disagree what is a planet than use the accepted definitions.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Yes the 3 check boxes are lost to you. Because its far easier for you to disagree what is a planet than use the accepted definitions.

Apparantly you haven't noticed that accepted definitions is what I have been striving against... This has been lost on you, I guess...

Last edited by Lou on 08-May-2012 at 04:09 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @BrianK [quot] Apparantly you haven't noticed that accepted definitions is what I have been striving against... This has been lost on you, I guess...

Umm if I didn't notice I wouldn't have been able to comment. But feel free to release some more of that passive agression.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Apparantly you haven't noticed that accepted definitions is what I have been striving against... This has been lost on you, I guess...

O.k. from now on I will refer to those green thinskinned fruits as "oranges" (you know the kind that supposely fell on Newton's head), cos accepted definitions are just a fraud !!!


"planet", "dwarf-planet", "moon","asteroid","comet" are just names to define/group all those millions of objects circling (our) sun(s). Offcourse you will end up with "dwarf-planets" that are allmost "planets", "asteroids" that are allmost "dwarf-planets" but randomly redefining those names will help in you in an argument just as much as calling apples oranges

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

@Lou

Quote:

Apparantly you haven't noticed that accepted definitions is what I have been striving against... This has been lost on you, I guess...

Actually it has not been lost on me that you want to change the accepted status that assertion does not equal proof, so that you can stifle scientific advancement and return to the dark ages where the word of a charismatic religious leader was deemed to be law despite evidence to the contrary. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, or how many times your high priest claims that 1+1=3.
Also you do not need a degree in advanced physics to recognise the blatant error in Harameins numerology. a seven year old can spot the fact that his numbers do not add up.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Apparantly you haven't noticed that accepted definitions is what I have been striving against... This has been lost on you, I guess... Actually it has not been lost on me that you want to change the accepted status that assertion does not equal proof, so that you can stifle scientific advancement and return to the dark ages where the word of a charismatic religious leader was deemed to be law despite evidence to the contrary. It doesn't matter what your opinion is, or how many times your high priest claims that 1+1=3. Also you do not need a degree in advanced physics to recognise the blatant error in Harameins numerology. a seven year old can spot the fact that his numbers do not add up.

In binary a 1 paired with another 1 is 3, so again your application is the problem.

@Lou

In binary:
1+1 = 10 (2)
1+10 = 11 (3)

Still wanna play ?

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

@Kronos

Quote:

Kronos wrote: @Lou In binary: 1+1 = 10 (2) 1+10 = 11 (3) Still wanna play ?

Double post

Last edited by BrianK on 09-May-2012 at 02:06 AM.

@BrianK & Kronos

Apparently you clowns can't read. When something is paired with, it is side by side.

Epic FAIL!

Last edited by Lou on 09-May-2012 at 07:05 AM.

The debunkers in the house will hate this lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOAvL1O3DyM