Quote:

The inner core of the Earth is simultaneously melting and freezing due to circulation of heat in the overlying rocky mantle, according to new research from the University of Leeds, UC San Diego and the Indian Institute of Technology. The findings, published tomorrow in Nature, could help us understand how the inner core formed and how the outer core acts as a 'geodynamo', which generates the planet's magnetic field. "The origins of Earth's magnetic field remain a mystery to scientists," said study co-author Dr Jon Mound from the University of Leeds. "We can't go and collect samples from the centre of the Earth, so we have to rely on surface measurements and computer models to tell us what's happening in the core." "Our new model provides a fairly simple explanation to some of the measurements that have puzzled scientists for years. It suggests that the whole dynamics of the Earth's core are in some way linked to plate tectonics, which isn't at all obvious from surface observations. "If our model is verified it's a big step towards understanding how the inner core formed, which in turn helps us understand how the core generates the Earth's magnetic field."

We will see how far they've come now.

But considering this:

Quote:

Over billions of years, the Earth has cooled from the inside out

Probably not that far...

Sagan on abductions

@Lou

Quote:

You admitted to accepting unproved theories and I am full of fail?

No, Lou.

I'll spell it out for you.

Gravity with its unproven hypotheses left in gives answers accurate to an incredible degree of precision.

Gravity with its unproven hypotheses left out gives less accurate answers, but ones still describing the motion of the planets and galaxies in sufficient accuracy to pinpoint the expected location of a galaxy centuries into the future, or the trajectory of a probe crossing the Heliopause 30 years after its launch.

Your EM stuff is out by a factor of several thousand without its unproven hypotheses. In short, it doesn't work.

Quote:

So this interstellar medium carries EM... So where was the all powerful gravity when Voyager 2 experience termination shock? But SUPRISE! EM was certainly there... Perhaps at 75AU gravity goes on vacation and EM clocks in overtime, eh?

Oh for goodness sake. You're just reapeating the same old unproven rubbish over and over again. You've been shown the equations that describe magnetism. You've been shown the equations describing gravity.

It doesn't work like you say.

Now, unless you've got new equations for magnetism and are willing to give us worked examples demonstrating your ideas, you have nothing further to say on the issue and I suggest you leave it be.

Quote:

Oh and don't forget to say "but you've proven nothing" even though it applies to you more so.

I will say that.

You have proven nothing.

And you know what? It doesn't apply to me, because my side of the debate has presented a mathematical model for peer review and experimental testing.

Yours hasn't. Unless you've got a worked example you'd like to walk us through?

Last edited by T-J on 29-May-2011 at 03:10 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 29-May-2011 at 03:09 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

My post and the prior from thread 1 was directed @ T-J. Perhaps you two are one and the same?

If you think I, or anyone else is abusing this forum, click the button. If not, can the accusations.

Quote:

Why are you so focussed on statues/art vs. the actual construction details which is what actually makes it literally impossible according to the 'scienctifically accepted "facts"' that civilization, which supposedly only got started ~4000BC could build such complicated structures prior to 4000BC ... especially considering that the pyramids in Egypt have been dated ~10,000BC. It seems to me that the evidence to both 'advanced civilization' and advanced knowledge is undeniable and that the notion that only cavemen were around prior to 4k BC needs to die a cold death and that somehow advanced civilizations left this planet for some reason leaving behind only structures and no actual tools other than the occassional hand tools or ignots in coal and such. The theory of 'ancient astronauts' is more plausible than cavemen cutting rocks with string and moving 130 ton stones up hill by rolling them on perfectly cylinderical small logs and lining everything up without dropping and cracking them. Sometimes, 'science' is STUPID.

'Die a cold death'? Resorting to upper case shouting? Getting angry, Lou?

You keep telling us these dates. 10,000BC for the pyramids, 14,000 BC for that Mexican ruin and so on. But you've got no evidence that these structures are that old. You reference no peer-reviewed studies establishing their ages. You can't even provide some observations to back up the claim.

You're just preaching the opinion that the pyramids are 12,000 years old. Sorry, your opinion isn't good enough.

The reason why you need to stick to the ancient astronauts BS is because you refuse to accept the archaeological evidence that humans prior to 4000 BC had intelligence. You prefer to characterise them as 'cavemen' whereas the actual evidence indicates a far greater level of ability.

If you can provide evidence that dates your structures to 40,000BC, then yes, nothing but cavemen around then. But by 4000BC, the early civilisations were already into their second or third milleniums.



Quote:

The problem with you is you look for reasons to discredit rather than evaluate the evidence presented.

The problem with you is that you cherrypick evidence that supports your initial hypothesis and ignore all contrary evidence. Then, you ignore evidence that tells the rest of us that your initial evidence was wrong, misinterpreted or just plain fake.

This is why you're still worshipping the ground Sitchin trod on, despite everything.

Quote:

The difference is the Roman empire was completely documented by human history. Also, let's be serious - their structures pale in comparison to the ancient ones.

No, Lou, lets really be serious - the Romans built things the Sumerians, Aztecs, Mayans etc couldn't even dream of. They had concrete, the Sumerians did not. Big difference, and a major technological breakthrough. And they didn't get it from space aliens.

Quote:

What's happening is your system-of-beliefs is being brought into question. If you can accept that there was an ancient intelligence that was lost 'somehow', more questions will need to be asked and them perhaps you will finally entertain more possibilities such as: humans are not the pinacle of creation.

Yours is also being brought into question, and you're failing epically at critically examining it. If you can set aside your absolute faith that this mysterious alien knowledge was lost 'somehow', you will see that your side has even bigger questions to answer. You'll understand that without evidence for this 'lost knowledge', sane people can't just accept your word.

Unfortunately, you'll not be doing that. You're too far gone in your new faith of Sitchinism.

Quote:

Science/technologies' greatest discoveries we discovered by accident. If everything happened by the book, nothing new would be found. If you believe in a book then you are bound to it.

Name the holy book of science.

You can't, because it has no holy books. It only has evidence, with which we weigh hypotheses.


Quote:

Yes, right now I am believing Sitchin's tales...but that is only because it puts some cohesion into what I have been contemplating all along since my late teens. Sitchin's books makes for one cohesive story from the creation of this solar system to the beginnings of know human history. Until 'science' proves him wrong, he is only wrong because someone else has a different opinion.

Newsflash - Science Proves Sitchin Wrong! See post 172 for geological evidence disproving Nibiru.

And as for his linguistic 'skills', lets just say that if one person says one thing, and every other person in that field says a different thing, don't you think the one person might not just possibly have reason to go back to the drawing board and check? Of course, Sitchin can't do that, but surely his supporters could? Both of you?

Quote:

For instance, you lok at a picture of a tomato that has degrades over the years, someone might think it's an apple, someone else a cherry. What ever! Individual pictograms don't change the big picture.

Yeah, cute story. Trouble is, you and Sitchin are pointing at that picture of the tomato and going 'Spaceship! Spaceship!'.

And then you expect to be taken seriously, while making personal attacks against people who don't agree with you.

Quote:

Until someone shows me a better big picture, it's a Picasso to me.

Why can you not accept that making a pretty picture, or stitching together a compelling narrative, is of absolutely no relevance in accepting or rejecting a scientific hypothesis?

Individual pictograms define the big picture! If each individual pictogram has a different interpretation that's actually accepted by actual linguists who can actually read Sumerian, then perhaps, just perhaps, Sitchin's 'clever story' might just possibly be wrong?

And just maybe, if there's no archaeological or geological evidence in favour of Nibiru, and if no geochronology supports your story, perhaps it never happened?

If you can't accept that, then I return to my better story - Last Thursday, You created the Universe, and You will destroy it Next Thursday, to test Yourself.

No loose ends in that story, so by your own criteria, you cannot reject it.



Quote:

I know you like to harp on MikeB about Post # 172 in this thread, but back in the original thread, I mentioned Tiahuanaco as an OOCity...which ofcourse you ignored like the plague. Infact, its inhabitants when it was discovered by the Spaniards didn't even claim to be its builders. It's estimated at 17,000 years old... and has stones that were diamond-cut as well as staples that were molded in place using molten metal. Not bad for cavemen, eh? Oh and co-incidentally, Sitchin does mention such a vast city being built in the western hemisphere by the Niburians.

Lou, its estimated at 17,000 years old by people who don't know a damn thing about geochronology. Like all your so-called 'Ooparts', its nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim.

Why can't you accept that claims made without evidence aren't worth anything?

People like Von Daniken are estimating Tiahuanaco at that age because it needs to be that age to fit their stories. They've written those stories before ever seeing any archaeology.

They use those stories to tell us that the ruins 'must' be 17,000 years old, and then say that because they've got '17,000 year old ruins', their stories must be correct.

Surely you can see the circular logic here? Surely you understand that it isn't valid?

For your information, geochronology drawing on a range of data sources including but not limited to pollen stratigraphy, insect palaeoecology, Andean glacier histories and deep sediment cores from the bed of Lake Titicaca indicate that the site was first settled around 1500BC, flourished as a prime-mover in the region between 300BC and around 300AD, and had largely collapsed by 1000AD, because of a regional climatic variation operating in South America that reduced local rainfall to the point where their irrigation systems couldn't make sustainable use of the decreasing water resources.

So, 17,000 years old? Only in von Daniken's fantasies.

Last edited by T-J on 29-May-2011 at 03:08 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Probably not that far...

So, now you're rejecting the notion that the Earth cooled from a previously warmer state?

Whatever. But since you see fit to continue to horribly mangle the field of geology, would you like to address the geological evidence against Nibiru presented in post 172?

@Lou

Quote:

The difference is the Roman empire was completely documented by human history. Also, let's be serious - their structures pale in comparison to the ancient ones.

If Roman history were not so well documented Sitchin and Von Daniken would by now have claimed this aqueduct in the south of France to be 10,000 years older than it is, and of alien origin.

Quote:

Today farmers use GPS to farm land in straight lines. Did you notice in the arial view how perfectly straight that city was? Even if it was built in 0 BC, it would not be possible to make a city so perfect.

Built by the Romans, still in use today

Roman roadbuilders did not use GPS, and their roads are a little bit longer than a farmers field. I will admit that King Street, between West Deeping and Kates Bridge, in the second road image has been resurfaced since the Romans left, but the line is still that which the Romans laid down. Straight, square, and plumb are not difficult things to achieve using a couple of sticks, a length of string, and a piece of chalk.

Last edited by Nimrod on 29-May-2011 at 09:38 AM.

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

@T-J

Quote:

So, now you're rejecting the notion that the Earth cooled from a previously warmer state?

No wonder you would blindly believe everything as being told if this person won a nobel prize...

I make it even simpler, by highlighting the relevant part I was referring to.

"Over billions of years, the Earth has cooled from the inside out"

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Quote: You admitted to accepting unproved theories and I am full of fail? Your EM stuff is out by a factor of several thousand without its unproven hypotheses. In short, it doesn't work.

Let me spell it out for you - you are not using the formula correctly even though I spelled it out a few pages ago.

Quote:

Quote: So this interstellar medium carries EM... So where was the all powerful gravity when Voyager 2 experience termination shock? But SUPRISE! EM was certainly there... Perhaps at 75AU gravity goes on vacation and EM clocks in overtime, eh? Oh for goodness sake. You're just reapeating the same old unproven rubbish over and over again. You've been shown the equations that describe magnetism. You've been shown the equations describing gravity.

Oh, so the Voyager 2 wiki lies then?

Quote:

It doesn't work like you say.

You only think it works the way you say.

Quote:

Now, unless you've got new equations for magnetism and are willing to give us worked examples demonstrating your ideas, you have nothing further to say on the issue and I suggest you leave it be.

You were oblivious to them.

Quote:

Quote: Oh and don't forget to say "but you've proven nothing" even though it applies to you more so. I will say that. You have proven nothing.

CD's replaced broken records ages ago you know.

Quote:

And you know what? It doesn't apply to me, because my side of the debate has presented a mathematical model for peer review and experimental testing. Yours hasn't. Unless you've got a worked example you'd like to walk us through?

LOL @ gravity: Peer reviewed with unproven theories! Now that is science!

All electric universe theories have been proven in a lab with plasma. But I know you like to ignore that.

@Lou

I realise that this question was directed at T-J, but, unlike you, he is not an expert in all things. I will leave Geology to him and take the question about EM
Quote:

Let me spell it out for you - you are not using the formula correctly even though I spelled it out a few pages ago.

Let me spell it out for you. is no more relevant than or even

If you think otherwise then fill in the values that you are applying for the rate of change of the magnetic field involved in getting the moon to orbit the Earth, and what gravity figure g you think applies. Once you have done that cross check your own calculation using values for Mars and either of its moons, Phobos and Deimos. It is your story, so it is up to you to show mathematical proof that you are right. There is no point acting like a spoiled three year old and stuffing your fingers in your ears while screaming "I'm right, all of the rest of the world is wrong!"
If you want to learn how it is done, read Astrophysics post about ISM and IGM. This post does not claim to be total answer to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, it merely claims to have identified a different solution to the gaps in Einsteins equations, and shows the logical steps leading to this conclusion. He also acknowledges that it takes more than one source and thirty seconds to get a new theory accepted. If his assessment is correct then science has made another step forward, if not science has at least closed off another blind alley. Your ideas are so far out they aren't even wrong.

Quote:

Quote: Now, unless you've got new equations for magnetism and are willing to give us worked examples demonstrating your ideas, you have nothing further to say on the issue and I suggest you leave it be. You were oblivious to them.

Let me spell it out for you again. You are using the formula incorrectly.

Quote:

CD's replaced broken records ages ago you know.

Just as science replaced religion. Von Daniken is not God. Sitchin is not the Pope. Religious adoration of a Deity, I can accept. Religious adoration of a convicted fraudster, or a failed second rate translator, is beyond comprehension.

Quote:

All electric universe theories have been proven in a lab with plasma

No they have not. If they had science would have accepted them but they have never been demonstrated under any form of scientific controlled conditions. It is not science that turns its back on knowledge and discoveries. It is not scientists who preach unquestioning obedience and acceptance of dogma, nor have scientists ever claimed to have all of the answers to all of the questions, all of the time.
If "all electric" works, what power levels are needed to enable an electromagnet to raise 1 kg of granite and hold it against 1g of downward acceleration?

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

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Quote: Why are you so focussed on statues/art vs. the actual construction details which is what actually makes it literally impossible according to the 'scienctifically accepted "facts"' that civilization, which supposedly only got started ~4000BC could build such complicated structures prior to 4000BC ... especially considering that the pyramids in Egypt have been dated ~10,000BC. It seems to me that the evidence to both 'advanced civilization' and advanced knowledge is undeniable and that the notion that only cavemen were around prior to 4k BC needs to die a cold death and that somehow advanced civilizations left this planet for some reason leaving behind only structures and no actual tools other than the occassional hand tools or ignots in coal and such. The theory of 'ancient astronauts' is more plausible than cavemen cutting rocks with string and moving 130 ton stones up hill by rolling them on perfectly cylinderical small logs and lining everything up without dropping and cracking them. Sometimes, 'science' is STUPID. You keep telling us these dates. 10,000BC for the pyramids, 14,000 BC for that Mexican ruin and so on. But you've got no evidence that these structures are that old. You reference no peer-reviewed studies establishing their ages. You can't even provide some observations to back up the claim. You're just preaching the opinion that the pyramids are 12,000 years old. Sorry, your opinion isn't good enough. The reason why you need to stick to the ancient astronauts BS is because you refuse to accept the archaeological evidence that humans prior to 4000 BC had intelligence. You prefer to characterise them as 'cavemen' whereas the actual evidence indicates a far greater level of ability.

Actually, you were the one who characterized them as cavemen in the original thread. I only use the term to remind you of your error.

Quote:

If you can provide evidence that dates your structures to 40,000BC, then yes, nothing but cavemen around then. But by 4000BC, the early civilisations were already into their second or third milleniums.

Well you are making progress. I see you now accept civilization prior to judeo-christian beliefs...

Quote:

Quote: The problem with you is you look for reasons to discredit rather than evaluate the evidence presented. The problem with you is that you cherrypick evidence that supports your initial hypothesis and ignore all contrary evidence. Then, you ignore evidence that tells the rest of us that your initial evidence was wrong, misinterpreted or just plain fake.

Here is a fallacy. You think that is something is found in an area determined to be of age X that it continues to exist in complete isolation. Therefore when you find object of age Y in the same area that it disproves the possibility of the first object to be of age X where X>>Y.

Quote:

This is why you're still worshipping the ground Sitchin trod on, despite everything.

You continue to ignore my views on Sitchin and make these ignorant and abrasive assertions. I could just as easily say that you worship the ground that Newton trodded on. After all, you continue to recite his passages.

Quote:

Quote: The difference is the Roman empire was completely documented by human history. Also, let's be serious - their structures pale in comparison to the ancient ones. No, Lou, lets really be serious - the Romans built things the Sumerians, Aztecs, Mayans etc couldn't even dream of. They had concrete, the Sumerians did not. Big difference, and a major technological breakthrough. And they didn't get it from space aliens.

Amazingly the romans had to use concrete because they weren't strong enough or had enough string to cut the hundreds of ton stones that the earlier civilizations did. More amazingly those bigger stones required less maintenance over the years and weren't held together by plaster but by interlocking design.

Yeah, pretty amazing how stupid and weak those Romans were compared to the Aztecs and Sumerians actually.

Quote:

Quote: What's happening is your system-of-beliefs is being brought into question. If you can accept that there was an ancient intelligence that was lost 'somehow', more questions will need to be asked and them perhaps you will finally entertain more possibilities such as: humans are not the pinacle of creation. Yours is also being brought into question, and you're failing epically at critically examining it. If you can set aside your absolute faith that this mysterious alien knowledge was lost 'somehow', you will see that your side has even bigger questions to answer. You'll understand that without evidence for this 'lost knowledge', sane people can't just accept your word. Unfortunately, you'll not be doing that. You're too far gone in your new faith of Sitchinism.

So you say I have a faith in Sitchin...would you like me to accuse you of having faith in the bible or koran?

Quote:

Quote: Science/technologies' greatest discoveries we discovered by accident. If everything happened by the book, nothing new would be found. If you believe in a book then you are bound to it. Name the holy book of science.

LOL! Your tone towards me is very insulting and degrading. Luckily I'm not the type to file AR's like some people. I feel your tone just amplifies your weak character.

Quote:

Quote: Yes, right now I am believing Sitchin's tales...but that is only because it puts some cohesion into what I have been contemplating all along since my late teens. Sitchin's books makes for one cohesive story from the creation of this solar system to the beginnings of know human history. Until 'science' proves him wrong, he is only wrong because someone else has a different opinion. Newsflash - Science Proves Sitchin Wrong! See post 172 for geological evidence disproving Nibiru.

fyi: geological science is not an exact science

Quote:

And as for his linguistic 'skills', lets just say that if one person says one thing, and every other person in that field says a different thing, don't you think the one person might not just possibly have reason to go back to the drawing board and check? Of course, Sitchin can't do that, but surely his supporters could? Both of you?

At least here you use a more appropriate term: supporter. I agree with the possibility of what is said in his books. I can do this without being labelled a 'worshipper'. You agree with the physics 101 book that your school made you pay for. Its as simple as that.

Quote:

For instance, you lok at a picture of a tomato that has degrades over the years, someone might think it's an apple, someone else a cherry. What ever! Individual pictograms don't change the big picture.

Quote:

Yeah, cute story. Trouble is, you and Sitchin are pointing at that picture of the tomato and going 'Spaceship! Spaceship!'. And then you expect to be taken seriously, while making personal attacks against people who don't agree with you.

Actually if you re-read your post, I think you'll find that you could look in a mirror and repeat that statement.

Quote:

Quote: Until someone shows me a better big picture, it's a Picasso to me. Why can you not accept that making a pretty picture, or stitching together a compelling narrative, is of absolutely no relevance in accepting or rejecting a scientific hypothesis? Individual pictograms define the big picture! If each individual pictogram has a different interpretation that's actually accepted by actual linguists who can actually read Sumerian, then perhaps, just perhaps, Sitchin's 'clever story' might just possibly be wrong? And just maybe, if there's no archaeological or geological evidence in favour of Nibiru, and if no geochronology supports your story, perhaps it never happened? Perhaps it didn't. However, it's the story I prefer to read. Quote: [quote]I know you like to harp on MikeB about Post # 172 in this thread, but back in the original thread, I mentioned Tiahuanaco as an OOCity...which ofcourse you ignored like the plague. Infact, its inhabitants when it was discovered by the Spaniards didn't even claim to be its builders. It's estimated at 17,000 years old... and has stones that were diamond-cut as well as staples that were molded in place using molten metal. Not bad for cavemen, eh? Oh and co-incidentally, Sitchin does mention such a vast city being built in the western hemisphere by the Niburians. Lou, its estimated at 17,000 years old by people who don't know a damn thing about geochronology. Like all your so-called 'Ooparts', its nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim.

That's your opinion.

Quote:

For your information, geochronology drawing on a range of data sources including but not limited to pollen stratigraphy, insect palaeoecology, Andean glacier histories and deep sediment cores from the bed of Lake Titicaca indicate that the site was first settled around 1500BC, flourished as a prime-mover in the region between 300BC and around 300AD, and had largely collapsed by 1000AD, because of a regional climatic variation operating in South America that reduced local rainfall to the point where their irrigation systems couldn't make sustainable use of the decreasing water resources.

The people living there said some other people built it. As for the weather changes, perhaps that happened as of 500BC which would have been Niburu's last estimated visit.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou I realise that this question was directed at T-J, but, unlike you, he is not an expert in all things. I will leave Geology to him and take the question about EM Quote: Let me spell it out for you - you are not using the formula correctly even though I spelled it out a few pages ago. Let me spell it out for you. is no more relevant than or even If you think otherwise then fill in the values that you are applying for the rate of change of the magnetic field involved in getting the moon to orbit the Earth, and what gravity figure g you think applies. Once you have done that cross check your own calculation using values for Mars and either of its moons, Phobos and Deimos. It is your story, so it is up to you to show mathematical proof that you are right. There is no point acting like a spoiled three year old and stuffing your fingers in your ears while screaming "I'm right, all of the rest of the world is wrong!"

This must be where you try to show everyone that your epeen is bigger than mine.

Let's get this straight. I from the beginning said there where holes in the concept of gravity. I said EM is the prevailing force in the universe. I said that it's not simple to calculate the effects of EM on composite bodies and even quoted Einstein in that with regards to special relativity. I even showed how science accepts that EM can exist in empty space.

Now someone comes along and throws you some actual data and now you resort to personal attacks. Classy.

Quote:

If you want to learn how it is done, read Astrophysics post about ISM and IGM. This post does not claim to be total answer to the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, it merely claims to have identified a different solution to the gaps in Einsteins equations, and shows the logical steps leading to this conclusion. He also acknowledges that it takes more than one source and thirty seconds to get a new theory accepted. If his assessment is correct then science has made another step forward, if not science has at least closed off another blind alley. Your ideas are so far out they aren't even wrong.

I see how it's done alright. Someone comes along and agrees with my ideas and shows some evidence so your change your tactics to belittlement of me directly.

Quote:

Quote: CD's replaced broken records ages ago you know. Just as science replaced religion. Von Daniken is not God. Sitchin is not the Pope. Religious adoration of a Deity, I can accept. Religious adoration of a convicted fraudster, or a failed second rate translator, is beyond comprehension.

This is simply back-handed discrediting at it's finest. This is where you say that because I agree with Sitchin, I must be wrong about EM...because clearly one must follow the other.

Quote:

Quote: All electric universe theories have been proven in a lab with plasma No they have not. If they had science would have accepted them but they have never been demonstrated under any form of scientific controlled conditions. It is not science that turns its back on knowledge and discoveries. It is not scientists who preach unquestioning obedience and acceptance of dogma, nor have scientists ever claimed to have all of the answers to all of the questions, all of the time. If "all electric" works, what power levels are needed to enable an electromagnet to raise 1 kg of granite and hold it against 1g of downward acceleration?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation
I'm not going to do your excersizes like a pet. The formulas are there for you to see that the math behind it does indeed exist.
This knowledge has lead to things such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_bearing
By the way, I've yet to see any results manipulating gravity directly...
from the anti-gravity wiki:
Quote:

space, deformed by massive objects, that causes 'gravity', which is actually a property of deformed space rather than being a true force.

I never said I have all the answers, I said what I agree with and explained why I don't agree with yours.
The case for gravity gets weaker and weaker so please do continue in your attempts to belittle me because it seems that's the best you can do to counter my opinions.
FYI: Neither you nor T-J will change my opinion.

Oh and by the way, the analogy with the mechanic and transmissions that went over your head was this: Cars, just because you are a mechanic doesn't mean you know everything there is to know about cars. Hence, just because you are an electrical engineer doesn't mean you know everything there is to know about EM. It was not an attack, just a matter of fact.

Last edited by Lou on 29-May-2011 at 06:34 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 29-May-2011 at 06:33 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

LOL! Your tone towards me is very insulting and degrading. Luckily I'm not the type to file AR's like some people. I feel your tone just amplifies your weak character.

Still resorting to personal insults then. I could make some sort of matching response to that, but I have been asked not to.
Quote:

Quote: Your inability to read has reached new heights Quote: Coincidently if my aunt had a ####, she'd be my uncle. Quote: probably the fact that it's different enough to contain advanced life forms...although after reading your last couple of posts I'm beginning to question that...

It was as a result of these comments by you that I entered an AR that was accepted. Not all of these comments were directed at me but I felt that your attitude was abusive. Please feel free to compare my response to your posts with my response to both posts made by Astrophysic.
I will freely admit that my comments about Sitchin and VonDaniken have been robust, but every one of them has been backed up by referenced sources. Sitchin had no recognised relevant linguistic qualifications, nor did he refer to accepted dictionaries. Von Daniken was caught falsifying evidence, and was thoroughly debunked in 1976 by Ronald Story
Quote:

Quote: Lou, its estimated at 17,000 years old by people who don't know a damn thing about geochronology. Like all your so-called 'Ooparts', its nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim. That's your opinion.

Having read T-J's posts, I suspect that he has the backing of scientific research, possibly something to do with Geology. But of course, you think that I am T-J

Quote:

Now someone comes along and throws you some actual data and now you resort to personal attacks. Classy.

Two questions.
1. What data?
2. What personal attack?

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_levitation I'm not going to do your excersizes like a pet. The formulas are there for you to see that the math behind it does indeed exist. This knowledge has lead to things such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_bearing By the way, I've yet to see any results manipulating gravity directly...

Until such time as you see fit to prove your assertions, they have no relevance. It is not my place to do your job for you.
I have attended lectures given by Eric Laithwaite, the somewhat eccentric inventor of MagLev and developer of the linear induction motor. I do actually know what Magnetic levitation is, and more to the point, what it isn't. Magnetic levitation is not the force responsible for maintaining the orbits of celestial bodies. This is not a statement of opinion. It is not a statement of scientific theory. This is a statement of electrical engineering practicality.

Quote:

The case for gravity gets weaker and weaker so please do continue in your attempts to belittle me because it seems that's the best you can do to counter my opinions.

Despite the weaknesses in Einsteins theories, gravity is still stronger than your EM (pun not intended, but highly appropriate). If you can find any personal attack by me, against you, please point me to it. If it matches the comments of yours that are at the beginning of this post I will happily enter an abuse report against myself. It would almost be worth it just to confuse the moderators.

Since you have started to answer T-J's Geology points to MikeB, in post #310, I will look forward to his response.

Last edited by Nimrod on 29-May-2011 at 07:47 PM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 29-May-2011 at 07:40 PM.

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

What to expect during a Nibiru passing.

Wordwide earhquakes similar to this in 2004:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPj41JySMLk

Tsunamis at most coastal areas worldwide similar to this in 2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3AdFjklR50

In areas near volcanos like this recent event:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cURGAID7OXQ
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/05/24/lok.iceland.fine.ash.itn?iref=allsearch

Near some Nuclear plants depending upon local government like this recent event:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgnORheNsrU

At sea there will be many whirlpools (which sadly still puzzle scientists) such as this recent one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyhqWD2G5Yc

Tornados and hurricans:
Recent tornado,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT7CtF5ljxY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=779O5EjZn1o

Cyclone from 2004:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unV5KcSrY-I

You will have to use your imagination to combine the above for various areas. I assume there will not be a nuclear winter due a supervolcano erruption (I am an optimist!).

@Lou

Quote:

Let me spell it out for you - you are not using the formula correctly even though I spelled it out a few pages ago.

Lou, you're missing the point. When we leave out 'Astrophysicist's undetectable 99.999% plasma inter-stellar medium, your formula gives answers that are out by a factor of 1000 or greater. If you think I'm using your formula wrong, it falls to you to demonstrate how this is.

You can do this by plugging values from observations and experiment into your formula and working it out.

You will achieve nothing by accusing me of stupidity.

Quote:

Actually, you were the one who characterized them as cavemen in the original thread. I only use the term to remind you of your error.

What?

When I use the term 'caveman', I use it to highlight how even the most 'primitive' of humans is still endowed with an intelligence and a cunning that will allow remarkable things to be achieved with very little.

When you use the term 'caveman', you seem to be using it to indicate the insulting stereotype of the idiot savage. Of course, I shouldn't be surprised that you'd have that view of 'cavemen'. You do after all believe that all the civilisations prior to modern Western civilisation were too stupid to have achieved what they did independently, and were therefore established by space aliens.


Quote:

Well you are making progress. I see you now accept civilization prior to judeo-christian beliefs...

Lou, I have never denied civilisation prior to Judeo-Christian beliefs. My whole point has been that human civilisation has developed on its own prior to them. And that it didn't need space aliens to achieve.

You're asking us to believe that that prior to Judeo-Christian civilisation, what could possibly be broadly termed 'Western Civilisation', everything that ever happened was due to aliens providing the 'primitives' with the answers. This is frankly the worst kind of European (or 'Western', if you prefer) Exceptionalism, and simply isn't borne out by the archaeology or the observations we can make.

Quote:

Here is a fallacy. You think that is something is found in an area determined to be of age X that it continues to exist in complete isolation. Therefore when you find object of age Y in the same area that it disproves the possibility of the first object to be of age X where X>>Y.

It is possibly to apply a number of geochronological methods to determining an object's age. The most effective and expensive are radiometric, you simply measure the decay of isotopes found within the item you are dating, or preserved in context with it. If you're directly dating an object, its easy. You just run the test and determine how much decay has occurred. If not, you need to rely on the principle of stratigraphy. If you want to deny stratigraphy, fine, but you'll need to provide an alternative.

We aren't finding objects of age Y near objects of age X. We're finding objects you claim with no evidence to be of age X, preserved in sediments we can demonstrate to be age Y, with radiometric dating of the object showing it to also be of age Y. But you're still claiming it to be age Y. Why is this?

Quote:

You continue to ignore my views on Sitchin and make these ignorant and abrasive assertions. I could just as easily say that you worship the ground that Newton trodded on. After all, you continue to recite his passages.

You couldn't very easily say that, because I don't actually worship Newton. I don't hold his work up as incontrovertible fact. If I did, I would consider Einstein and Hawking to be heretics and apostates of the worst order.

I'd probably have much the same attitude towards them that you show towards mainstream, credible linguists, archaeologists and scientists.

Quote:

Amazingly the romans had to use concrete because they weren't strong enough or had enough string to cut the hundreds of ton stones that the earlier civilizations did.

No, Lou. The ancient civilisations used the sisal string and the simple mechanical methods to move the massive stones because they didn't have enough technology to use concrete.

Once concrete was available, it was the preferred material because it is so much easier to use. Yes, its higher maintenance, yes it falls apart much more easily. But its so much easier to build in the first place. Much like we now use steel frames with plate glass to build structures with planned end-of-life phases only a century away, if that. Requires much more maintenance than earlier structures, and we now even plan controlled disassembly at end-of-life, so they're hardly long-lived.

But its a lot cheaper and easier to build with. We don't use it because we've lost the knowledge of concrete any more than we've lost the ability to move huge rocks around. Its just easier not to, once you've developed the technology.

Quote:

So you say I have a faith in Sitchin...would you like me to accuse you of having faith in the bible or koran?

You can accuse me of anything you like. But I've never read the Quran and I gave up on the Bible halfway through the Old Testament when things got a bit bloodthirsty for my taste.

Whereas you have read Sitchin, and seem to treat his words as incontrovertible fact, simply because your opinion is that he tells a good story. Is this any different from a Muslim or a Christian sticking to their holy books because they help them make sense of their lives?

No.

Quote:

LOL! Your tone towards me is very insulting and degrading. Luckily I'm not the type to file AR's like some people. I feel your tone just amplifies your weak character.

Pot? Kettle? Furthermore, I dispute your assertion. I will repeat my request regardless - what is the holy book of science?

Quote:

fyi: geological science is not an exact science

In post 172 you will find evidence disproving Nibiru that does not need to be exact. The facts are that there are millions of years in between magnetic reversals, with no pattern linking them to anything operating on a 3600 year timescale. And there are millions of years worth of ice on top of Antarctica, so no crustal shifts happening either. And there are millions of years of sedimentation deposited in rifts both modern and ancient, disproving the notion that the continents are rearranged by a Nibiruian catastrophe. These are all lines of evidence that are accurate, and that can disprove Nibiru without needing to be precise.

But for your information, certain aspects of geological science are very exact. Precise as well as accurate. They include such areas as radiometric dating, the premier method with which we've disproved all those ooparts you like to talk about.

Quote:

At least here you use a more appropriate term: supporter. I agree with the possibility of what is said in his books. I can do this without being labelled a 'worshipper'. You agree with the physics 101 book that your school made you pay for. Its as simple as that.

We don't buy our school textbooks on this side of the pond, old boy.

And its simpler than that - until you demonstrate how your mathematics proves your opinion, it'll remain just an opinion, and nothing to do with science.


Quote:

Perhaps it didn't. However, it's the story I prefer to read.

Why not read something with a bit more substance to it? Tolkien's prehistory of the world was much better-written than Sitchin's, with fewer plot-holes. And if it is just a 'story', and by that I mean a work of fiction, why does it have any relevance to the fields of Earth Science or Astronomy?

Quote:

Quote: Lou, its estimated at 17,000 years old by people who don't know a damn thing about geochronology. Like all your so-called 'Ooparts', its nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim. That's your opinion.

No, its not my opinion. Its a fact that your 17,000 year figure is unsubstantiated. Its also a fact that anyone believing in that claim would have to be ignorant of geochronology. Or to have denied it, whichever.

The evidence shows the city to be first settled in 1500BC, developing into an urban centre between 300BC and 300AD, and fading out until collapsing by 1000AD. Do you want to stick to the 17,000 years old claim?

Quote:

The people living there said some other people built it.

The archaeology tells us that the people living there were conquered by the Inca. Interestingly enough, it was this Inca conquest, and the Inca policy of enforcing Quechua language and their own religion worshiping the sun in the form of their god Inti that destroyed the Tiahuanaco culture, not the later Spanish conquest. But regardless, of course the Inca told the Spanish that someone else built it. The Tiahuanaco people built it! And they did so between 1500BC and 1000AD.

Quote:

As for the weather changes, perhaps that happened as of 500BC which would have been Niburu's last estimated visit.

You can't just handwave the whole thing with a half-baked 'perhaps' statement. We know how the weather changes operate. We've got 25,000 years of palaeoecological proxy data demonstrating how that climatic cycle works. It isn't on a 3600 year timescale, so it isn't to do with 'Nibiru'.

And, no, the weather changes didn't happen in 500BC. They happened over the late 900s AD. You can trace the changes in climate by studying the Andean glaciers or the sediments of the bed of Lake Titicaca. The ice preserves air bubbles with the then-atmospheric composition. The sediments preserve all manner of palaeoecological data we can use to tightly constrain climate conditions, and since lakes deposit annual layers of sediment thanks to annual variations in river inputs and such, we can do this with a resolution of +/- a year or two.

I will concede that since this aspect of geology is indeed not an exactly precise science, we can't tell you whether the rains first failed in 962 or 963. But the data remains accurate, it can and will tell you the rains became progressively less and less reliable over the latter half of that century, and that they didn't fail around 500BC. Indeed, in 500BC, the Tiahuanaco people were still an agricultural village with 200 years to go before their settlement would become a major trade centre and from there regional hegemon.

Quote:

I'm not going to do your excersizes like a pet. The formulas are there for you to see that the math behind it does indeed exist.

Well, that's very mean spirited of you. BrianK in particular has given you walkthroughs of the accepted Gravitational and Electromagnetic mathematics. Surely the least you could do is give us a walkthrough of your alternatives?

Unless, of course, you can't.

Quote:

This knowledge has lead to things such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_bearing By the way, I've yet to see any results manipulating gravity directly... from the anti-gravity wiki: Quote:space, deformed by massive objects, that causes 'gravity', which is actually a property of deformed space rather than being a true force.

Why then has this knowledge not led to satellites put into orbit using magnetic induction?

And as for your quote from 'the anti-gravity wiki', that surely is a matter of semantics. Einstein's whole point was that massive objects deform space-time, with gravity being the name given to the response of other massive bodies to that distortion.

If you want to declare gravity 'merely a property of deformed space', fine. I fail to see the revelation there, or the implication that therefore EM does everything.

That distortion in space-time still accounts for the vast majority of the forces acting on bodies in space, whether or not you choose to call it a 'real force'.

Last edited by T-J on 30-May-2011 at 12:53 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 30-May-2011 at 12:38 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

No wonder you would blindly believe everything as being told if this person won a nobel prize... I make it even simpler, by highlighting the relevant part I was referring to. "Over billions of years, the Earth has cooled from the inside out"

Mike, I will ignore the personal attack, but I will make an observation about the comment as a whole - you have a terrible habit of playing coy with people when you think you're right.

Its not an intellectually honest practice and is not conducive to a constructive debate. It actually only serves to annoy people.

If you've got a point to make, make it. If not, drop it.

Now, I imagine that you are, in your own condescending way, taking issue with the phraseology of the statement. Perhaps you think that because the author is saying 'from the inside out', he is saying that the Earth is cooler at its core than it is at the surface? He isn't saying that.

He's in fact saying the the flow of heat that cools the Earth is from the inside out. The core remains hotter due mainly to pressure and radiogenic heat, but the fact remains that the direction of heat flow is outward. Hence 'from the inside out'.

And while we're still on geology, will you please address the points raised in post 172?

Last edited by T-J on 30-May-2011 at 12:55 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

What to expect during a Nibiru passing. Wordwide earhquakes, Tsunamis at most coastal areas worldwide, volcanos,Nuclear plants, At sea there will be many whirlpools,Tornados and hurricans: You will have to use your imagination to combine the above for various areas. I assume there will not be a nuclear winter due a supervolcano erruption (I am an optimist!).

Don't forget there are other causes to all those events too. All of these are predicted based upon the earth itself. When you have multiple hypotheses you have to weed all hypothese to select the ones that are the cause. You've failed to demonstrate Nibiru is real, a brown dwarf, has a 3750 period, has/had an alien lifeform that is/was more intelligent than humans, or if it's having any sort of interaction at present. We'll just have to sit back and see if you can bring any observational evidence of the cause, aka Nibiru as you claim it to be.

You need to realize we care enough about you to be concerned that you're living in a state of irrational paranoia. We want you to enjoy your life and not be afraid of the Boogeyman.

@T-J

Quote:

It actually only serves to annoy people.

Maybe you should investigate your own writing style within this thread and reflect. I can handle you with gloves on but you need to chance your approach to your comments first.

Quote:

He's in fact saying the the flow of heat that cools the Earth is from the inside out

The earth did not cool from the inside out. It retained heat from the inside out.

@BrianK

Quote:

Don't forget there are other causes to all those events too.

Most such events have many different factors. I just wanted to point out that during a passing such events should be very common.

I just used recent examples so that people can start to form an idea what such an event may be like for where they live.

Nomatter if you believe in Nibiru or not, just by watching those videos will help to increase the chance of surivival (lessening the element of surprise).

Quote:

You need to realize we care enough about you to be concerned that you're living in a state of irrational paranoia.

You don't need to worry about me. I always see new oppertunities and I lived a good life in general. I am curious rather than anxious.

@MikeB

Quote:

What to expect during a Nibiru passing. Wordwide earhquakes, Tsunamis at most coastal areas worldwide, volcanos,Nuclear plants, At sea there will be many whirlpools,Tornados and hurricans: You will have to use your imagination to combine the above for various areas. I assume there will not be a nuclear winter due a supervolcano erruption (I am an optimist!).

A nice collection of disaster videos, but the only thing that they bring to mind is Colin Powell making his presentation to the UN justifying the invasion of Iraq.
An entire verbal edifice constructed of supposition, scaremongering, and innuendo, but carefully devoid of substance, that was put forward as justification for a sequence of actions.

As I have already stated, there are enough real threats and dangers out there, without wasting time, effort, and resources, panicking about a work of fiction.

The geological record that T-J keeps referring to keeps track of these type of events. Inspection of these records would very quickly identify any of these incidents happening either individually or collectively. Statistical cluster analysis of this record would very quickly identify any periodicity, even if as you state not every cycle would produce strong readings. A 35 million year record like the Antarctic ice field would show something, if there were anything to show.

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

@MikeB

Quote:

Most such events have many different factors. I just wanted to point out that during a passing such events should be very common.

The problem is there is simply too many unknowns. We don't know Nibiru will come close enough to earth to cause any of this. Nor do we know if Nibiru is massive enough to cause this. In fact we don't even know if Nibiru exists. You should really respect people more than to push FUD at them.

If people want to be scared of the universe I'd prefer to direct them to Death from the Skies . At least this way people can be afraid of things we known rather than unknown Boogeyman around the corner.

Elenin is one better at least we have a fairly good estimate of size and orbit. Though Lou likes to frighten us with a higher probability of impacting earth. Elenin's probability of earth impact is more accurate when rounted very slightly to 0. Because it's the truth. Elenin will be nothing but a pretty firey streak in the sky.

I've no urge to see failures of people's understanding to the degree they can convince themselves to take their own life when Halley's Comet arrives or sell all their belongings when a May 21 occurs.

Last edited by BrianK on 30-May-2011 at 04:01 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 30-May-2011 at 03:58 PM.