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

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

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

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

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

Who's Online
8 crawler(s) on-line.
 118 guest(s) on-line.
 2 member(s) on-line.


 amigakit,  zErec

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 zErec:  48 secs ago
 amigakit:  3 mins ago
 BigD:  12 mins ago
 OlafS25:  18 mins ago
 retrofaza:  32 mins ago
 kolla:  47 mins ago
 edwardsjethro:  1 hr 38 mins ago
 joeyunderwood:  1 hr 40 mins ago
 Sikharubel:  1 hr 43 mins ago
 Musashi5150:  2 hrs 5 mins ago

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

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )
PosterThread
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 14-Nov-2011 18:05:26
#921 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Gravity, if it exists, is supposed to be attractive. How does a "rubble pile" form into a 33% hollow heavenly body? Considering the impact craters on the surface of Phobos, you would think it would have suffered some internal damage that would have affected the internal structures that maintained its hollow nature.

It sounds a bit like you believe Phobos to be a type of spherical donut with a missing jelly filling? Phobos is a material that has hollows throughout the material. Like a pumice stone. When the pumice stone is impacted the cells may fracture, supposedly there's a significant layer of dirt on the surfrace from impacts. Also a cellular material collapases closer to the impact and cells farther way are unlikely to be effected as the close cells absorb the force.

How was phobos made? It's something we're working on understanding. One postulate is they are captured asteriods. If so this sort of structure comprises about 5% of asteroids. The particular creation of phobos is probably similar to those other 5%.

BrianK, you yourself per your own view tell me EM is much weaker than Gravity and let's not even mention the scope of Strong and Weak, which seemly are only nuclear-level forces, even though we already know Weak is EM... now you mean to tell me your physics is wrong and that Strong and Weak can affect how heavenly bodies are formed? You are coming off as a person who spreads disinformation now.

Quote:

Quote:
Can you show me how any other force has contributed to hollow heavenly bodies?
Creation of anything depends upon the forces within the system, weak/strong/em/gravity. The theory is really yours that gravity was the ONLY force at work. So more rightly you need to demonstrate to us how other forces didn't operate in this instance.

No, not in this case. You made the claim that it was other forces. My claim is that its artificial.

Quote:

Quote:
Your point? Wasn't "Star Wars" fictional?
My point is Hillary's statement had nothing whatsoever to indicate she knew of any sort of government conspiracy covering up aliens. It was simply wrong to include it as it clearly did not in anyway support your postulate of Visitors. And yes Star Wars is fictional. But, maybe not perhaps that hidden object photographed by a radio telescope with right angles is really the Death Star. (Oops that was round next.)

If you follow the conspiratists, a faked alien invasion is the final round of the master plan to establish an NWO...

Quote:
As for the Phoenix Lights they have been explained as flares. Here's one recent article. http://news.discovery.com/space/phoenix-ufo-lights-mystery-solved-111104.html -- What I do agree is that some people these items were certainly U.nidentified. One makes a leap of faith that it's LGM when the evidence hasn't been sussed out and other postulates need review. Don't forget the properties of the LGM must be proven in order for us to demonstrate it really is LGM. Otherwise you're assigning unknown properties to an unknown entity, which is fairly useless if you want a solid conclusion.

With this, it's laughable how quickly you accept disinformation.
Look at the Jerusalem UFO case. MUFON has been suspect/infiltrated for a while now:
http://www.unknowncountry.com/insight/trouble-mufon
The 'Phoenix Lights' explanation was not sky divers, multiple witnesses reported being under it. 'It' even was tracked on radar across the state. I guess sheep will believe anything these days...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 14-Nov-2011 18:09:08
#922 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Niolator

Quote:

Niolator wrote:
@BrianK

Many people, including renown scientists, have suggested that Phobos is actually the remnants of an ancient alien base. That´s why it is so hollow. Sometimes I almost believe they are right. The Russians strong interest in Phobos makes one wonder if they know something about the moon that common people don´t. What is this? Their tenth attempt, or so, to make a deep survey of Phobos? Only some flyby probes have been successful.

I especially like how the Russians saw a gas emitted from Phobos before one of their satellites sent to it in the 80's mysteriously disappeared. Funny how BrianK assumes their space program degenerated since then...

I mean the Russians can man space stations, but Phobos, where they've been before, is just over their heads now...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 14-Nov-2011 19:03:22
#923 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
BrianK, you yourself per your own view tell me EM is much weaker than Gravity
Sorry but you've mischaracterized my position. I'll repeat - the current state of science has worked out there are 4 fundamental forces making up the universe. Within any interaction it's a question of which amount of force and direction on how the interaction proceeds.

Quote:
now you mean to tell me your physics is wrong and that Strong and Weak can affect how heavenly bodies are formed?
Of course they do silly. For example Strong forces hold together atomic nuclei. It's very strong and very short distanced. If the atoms themselves didn't exist gravity couldn't interact with them.

I know you want a SuperUnified Theory of EM explains it all but again evidence and predictability are needed. Why? Without those things even if your idea is true you cannot, at present, demonstrate it is true. Making EM is everything fairly useless.


Quote:
If you follow the conspiratists, a faked alien invasion is the final round of the master plan to establish an NWO
Ooh the real alien invaders probably won't like that.

Quote:
With this, it's laughable how quickly you accept disinformation.

I accepted nothing. I demonstrated there are other postulates. These other postulates have known characteristics which can be tested and provide evidence. Important factors in proving something is indeed true.

I know you like to default from from it's U.nidentified therefore it must always be aliens. But these aliens are not proven to exist. That the aliens use light in this manner is unproven. You have assigned an unproven to exist characteristic of an unproven to exist being. Your leap of faith may be true but it's unproven and unproveable. Fairly useless unless you own stock in Tin Foil Manufacturing companies.

BTW: One of the local New Age book stores had this in stock: http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Einsteins-Unified-Field-Electro-Magnetism/dp/1935487426/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321297593&sr=8-1 --- I skimmed it and couldn't find any well defined equations to define this EM is everything universe. ... Falsifibility is one of the first necessary conditions of any postulate. Seems at least in this work he didn't make it off the ground, let alone to a first rung.

Last edited by BrianK on 14-Nov-2011 at 07:08 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 15-Nov-2011 0:04:30
#924 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
BrianK, you yourself per your own view tell me EM is much weaker than Gravity
Sorry but you've mischaracterized my position. I'll repeat - the current state of science has worked out there are 4 fundamental forces making up the universe. Within any interaction it's a question of which amount of force and direction on how the interaction proceeds.

You have failed to show me how those fundamental forces can lead to a hollow asteroid.

Quote:
Quote:
now you mean to tell me your physics is wrong and that Strong and Weak can affect how heavenly bodies are formed?
Of course they do silly. For example Strong forces hold together atomic nuclei. It's very strong and very short distanced. If the atoms themselves didn't exist gravity couldn't interact with them.

See my response above.

Quote:

Quote:
If you follow the conspiratists, a faked alien invasion is the final round of the master plan to establish an NWO
Ooh the real alien invaders probably won't like that.

Quote:
With this, it's laughable how quickly you accept disinformation.

I accepted nothing. I demonstrated there are other postulates. These other postulates have known characteristics which can be tested and provide evidence. Important factors in proving something is indeed true.

I know you like to default from from it's U.nidentified therefore it must always be aliens. But these aliens are not proven to exist. That the aliens use light in this manner is unproven. You have assigned an unproven to exist characteristic of an unproven to exist being. Your leap of faith may be true but it's unproven and unproveable. Fairly useless unless you own stock in Tin Foil Manufacturing companies.

Actually it's universally accepted that life must exist outside of this planet. I also have said that the triangular ufos are indeed ours. You just seem to be making a misleading blanket statement about my beliefs and what I have presented.

Quote:
BTW: One of the local New Age book stores had this in stock: http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Einsteins-Unified-Field-Electro-Magnetism/dp/1935487426/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321297593&sr=8-1 --- I skimmed it and couldn't find any well defined equations to define this EM is everything universe. ... Falsifibility is one of the first necessary conditions of any postulate. Seems at least in this work he didn't make it off the ground, let alone to a first rung.

It's a matter of record that he defined G in it so clearly your skimming fell short of the mark. He did so using the components of the hydrogen atom which ofcourse is the basis of most matter.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 15-Nov-2011 12:21:41
#925 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
For that matter, wouldn't gravity have caused the "open space" to not be open at all? Gravity must have taken the day off when making Phobos...
The clue comes in the term "Rubble piles". If there was infinite gravity at the centre of Phobos, then yes the force of gravity would pull the irregular shape of Phobos into a perfect sphere, collapsing any and all cavities. Phobos is an aggregation of smaller boulders, with overall dimensions of 27 × 22 × 18 km meaning that there is insufficient gravitational force produced to do what you suggest. Had the Martian moons been larger, or made of a denser and more massive material then they would have pulled themselves into a more spherical shape as you suggest
If you look at the picture of a pile of rubble to the right, you will notice that there are gaps, or cavities in between the individual boulders, this despite the simple fact that this particular pile of rubble is subject to a far greater gravity than that generated by Phobos. In the case of Phobos, larger component parts, and a lower local gravity will result in larger cavities.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 15-Nov-2011 14:20:25
#926 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
You have failed to show me how those fundamental forces can lead to a hollow asteroid.
11/12 is Carl Sagan day. So being in proximity I'll add the cooresponding quote..."If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." —Carl Sagan ... And ask what 'step' do you want to use as the starting point.

Quote:
Actually it's universally accepted that life must exist outside of this planet.
And yes it's statistically likely life exists else where. That in no way demonstrates it's as smart or able to make it to earth. You must find that life and discover it's properties then we can start talking about if that life was a potential Vistior. Some extrophile bacteria clearly aren't driving to earth.

Quote:
I also have said that the triangular ufos are indeed ours. You just seem to be making a misleading blanket statement about my beliefs and what I have presented.
While a significant and vocal group claim this to be Visitors you believe there is no alien involvement? What evidence do you have the lights are ours?

Quote:
It's a matter of record that he defined G in it so clearly your skimming fell short of the mark.
I saw the description of G but no formula. If so, then well good then there's something testable.


 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 15-Nov-2011 14:24:13
#927 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Phobos is 1/3 hollow. The signals from it hint at large cavities not an even porous structure. The apparent surface damage would/should have made those large internal cavities collapse.

Then when you consider its highly odd orbit for a "potentially captured satellite", it does make for quite object of interest...

Quote:
Recent images from Mars Global Surveyor indicate that Phobos is covered with a layer of fine-grained regolith at least 100 meters thick; it is hypothesized to have been created by impacts from other bodies, but it is not known how the material stuck to an object with almost no gravity.

Zomg! Gravity failing to explain something again? Wouldn't this fine-grained regolith have filled in the cracks so-to speak?

You see, what you have here is a *theory*, but from the observations, its not a good one...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ErikBauer 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 15-Nov-2011 15:01:46
#928 ]
Super Member
Joined: 25-Feb-2004
Posts: 1141
From: Italy

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote:
@Nimrod

Phobos is 1/3 hollow. The signals from it hint at large cavities not an even porous structure. The apparent surface damage would/should have made those large internal cavities collapse.

Then when you consider its highly odd orbit for a "potentially captured satellite", it does make for quite object of interest...

Quote:
Recent images from Mars Global Surveyor indicate that Phobos is covered with a layer of fine-grained regolith at least 100 meters thick; it is hypothesized to have been created by impacts from other bodies, but it is not known how the material stuck to an object with almost no gravity.

Zomg! Gravity failing to explain something again? Wouldn't this fine-grained regolith have filled in the cracks so-to speak?

You see, what you have here is a *theory*, but from the observations, its not a good one...



Hem... high impact speed?
I mean... dust adheres to my pc's fans and they have almost no gravity at all...

I imagine a high speed moon, such phobos is, to act something like a vacoom cleaner around Mars' orbit: interspace dust and fragments are attracted by planet's gravity just to collide with phobos, and it's high speed makes them 'glue' to it's surface, like dust on a pc's fanor a car's glass (and Phobos is faster than both, so figure out).


EDIT: replaced VENT with FAN




Last edited by ErikBauer on 15-Nov-2011 at 03:05 PM.

_________________
God created Paula so that Allister Brimble and Dave Whittaker could do music

Check my Amiga gameplays (ITA)!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 15-Nov-2011 17:29:24
#929 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@ErikBauer

I agree! Dust seems more affected by static electricity than gravity.


The concepts of gravity are flawed. First the galaxies formed because of gravity but amazingly the outer edges of galaxies defied the laws of gravity so bull-dark matter was invented. Then when galaxies we shown to be moving apart, bull-dark energy was invented.

If you argue about the big bang theory and all the dark *bull* they they piled ontop of it, you are ostracized in the scientific community.

This dark stuff keeps piling up... I guess the scientific establishment is ok with that though since they have these magic shovels that can bury landscapes on earth and have cleaned our solar system of all this dark *stuff*...

Last edited by Lou on 15-Nov-2011 at 05:33 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 15-Nov-2011 18:46:54
#930 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Phobos is 1/3 hollow. The signals from it hint at large cavities not an even porous structure. The apparent surface damage would/should have made those large internal cavities collapse
I fear your knowledge is old. In the 50s, by Shklovsky, it was indeed thought to be hollow. Since that time newer evidence has resulted in the finding that the hollow phobos postulate was not true. Samuilovich Shklovsky's discripencies were found to not exist by the late 60s / early 70s. It's not like very satellite failed to Phobos. Those have measured improved resolution and quality create better evidence and we learn more.

Phobos has since been determined to be about 30% hollow. That hollowiness is created from small millimeter scale pockets of hollow to up to about a 1m in diameter. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL041829.shtml No longer is Phobos thought to contain significantly large hollow areas. And at the same time our observations have removed the postulate of an artifical creation. Aka no Visitors there either. Being it's material is that which comprise about 5% of asteroids it indeed makes quite an object of interest.

Quote:
Wouldn't this fine-grained regolith have filled in the cracks so-to speak?
Gravitation has to contend with other forces. And even itself. Assuming the gravity at the top of the crack is the same as the gravity where the object (dust) rests then the dust won't move. Why? Gravity reduces at distance according to the inverse square law. So the gravity from the crack on an object 1m away would be less than the gravity from the ground of that object. The larger amount of gravity wins.

Quote:
You see, what you have here is a *theory*, but from the observations, its not a good one
Actually the problem isn't theory. It's Lou's misapplication.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 15-Nov-2011 20:31:13
#931 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Phobos is 1/3 hollow. The signals from it hint at large cavities not an even porous structure. The apparent surface damage would/should have made those large internal cavities collapse
I fear your knowledge is old. In the 50s, by Shklovsky, it was indeed thought to be hollow. Since that time newer evidence has resulted in the finding that the hollow phobos postulate was not true. Samuilovich Shklovsky's discripencies were found to not exist by the late 60s / early 70s. It's not like very satellite failed to Phobos. Those have measured improved resolution and quality create better evidence and we learn more.

Phobos has since been determined to be about 30% hollow. That hollowiness is created from small millimeter scale pockets of hollow to up to about a 1m in diameter. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL041829.shtml No longer is Phobos thought to contain significantly large hollow areas. And at the same time our observations have removed the postulate of an artifical creation. Aka no Visitors there either. Being it's material is that which comprise about 5% of asteroids it indeed makes quite an object of interest.

your link says this:
Quote:
We conclude that the interior of Phobos likely contains large voids.



Quote:

Quote:
Wouldn't this fine-grained regolith have filled in the cracks so-to speak?
Gravitation has to contend with other forces. And even itself. Assuming the gravity at the top of the crack is the same as the gravity where the object (dust) rests then the dust won't move. Why? Gravity reduces at distance according to the inverse square law. So the gravity from the crack on an object 1m away would be less than the gravity from the ground of that object. The larger amount of gravity wins.

If you accept that gravity exists, which apparently you do, then here's how it works: under my feet is 99.999999999999999% of the mass of the earth centered somewhere in the earth's core. I (if you believe in gravity) am generally attracted to the earth's core. So what you are saying is that Phobos has magical gravity and that dust on what you claim is a porous rock would not be attracted to its center of mass...


Quote:

Quote:
You see, what you have here is a *theory*, but from the observations, its not a good one
Actually the problem isn't theory. It's Lou's misapplication.

Yes, I see how you modify gravity to suite your needs...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 15-Nov-2011 21:40:23
#932 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
We conclude that the interior of Phobos likely contains large voids.
Larger is ~1 meter. Clearly not the large cavity that Shklovsky postulated.

Quote:
If you accept that gravity exists, which apparently you do, then here's how it works: under my feet is 99.999999999999999% of the mass of the earth centered somewhere in the earth's core. I (if you believe in gravity) am generally attracted to the earth's core. So what you are saying is that Phobos has magical gravity and that dust on what you claim is a porous rock would not be attracted to its center of mass...
Alas if you want to play the game of misunderstanding and mischaracterization then certainly you're a GEM God!

But, let's get to reality. You claimed gravity would make everything would fall into the crack. It clearly would not if you used the working definitions. You cannot modify gravity to suit your needs.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 16-Nov-2011 0:38:46
#933 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/u-s-and-russian-crew-blast-off-for-space-station-1321288103-slideshow/russian-soyuz-tma-22-spacecraft-carrying-iss-crew-photo-044608860.html

Shock! Horror! The Russians know how to get things into space!!!!!

This is breaking news!!!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 16-Nov-2011 0:47:04
#934 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
We conclude that the interior of Phobos likely contains large voids.
Larger is ~1 meter. Clearly not the large cavity that Shklovsky postulated.

That's simply not what was in your link. 1 meter is not a "large cavity" to me. I suppose it would be if I was 6" tall...but alas, I am not...

Quote:

Quote:
If you accept that gravity exists, which apparently you do, then here's how it works: under my feet is 99.999999999999999% of the mass of the earth centered somewhere in the earth's core. I (if you believe in gravity) am generally attracted to the earth's core. So what you are saying is that Phobos has magical gravity and that dust on what you claim is a porous rock would not be attracted to its center of mass...
Alas if you want to play the game of misunderstanding and mischaracterization then certainly you're a GEM God!

But, let's get to reality. You claimed gravity would make everything would fall into the crack. It clearly would not if you used the working definitions. You cannot modify gravity to suit your needs.

Yes, I claimed this because there is no atmospheric resistance on Phobos to make dirt pile up and not fill cracks. Amazingly, the surface of Phobos has no cracks...I guess the dirt did it's job on the exterior but not the interior as it formed supposedly over time... I mean god (not that I believe in such things) forbid it be static electricity that holds the dust there on the surface...

Back to reality indeed...
So lets get this straight, big-bang-believing-scientists are puzzled over the fact that dirt/dust can stick to Phobos which by their big-banging-gravitational calculations is too small to produce such an effect...and you are actually admitting its "other forces" (aka all that's really left is EM) and are upset with me that I'm laughing at gravity...


Meanwhile...behind the facade of this innocent looking bookstore...

Last edited by Lou on 16-Nov-2011 at 12:50 AM.
Last edited by Lou on 16-Nov-2011 at 12:49 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 16-Nov-2011 2:43:01
#935 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Shock! Horror! The Russians know how to get things into space

Enough with the mischaracterization. Undoubtably there are failures getting things into space. http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2001/03.html
From 1980-1999 the Russians had 50% of the world's failures... Russia has had their failures http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Russia_sends_astronauts_back_to_space_after_mishaps_999.html

And here's some probabilities of failure... None are 0% strange that!
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Bayesian_launcher_reliability.htm


 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 16-Nov-2011 14:41:27
#936 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Shock! Horror! The Russians know how to get things into space

Enough with the mischaracterization. Undoubtably there are failures getting things into space. http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2001/03.html
From 1980-1999 the Russians had 50% of the world's failures... Russia has had their failures http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Russia_sends_astronauts_back_to_space_after_mishaps_999.html

And here's some probabilities of failure... None are 0% strange that!
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Bayesian_launcher_reliability.htm

Here's a more interesting picture:
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2001/03_table_1.html

As you can see, the Russians know how to get things into space. When you the isolate their missions to Mars/Phobos, the success rate comes no where near their average.

I am starting to see a trend. You like to write things off as "failures happen" without looking at unusual co-incidences just the same way as you write-off ufo ALL sightings as "could have been anything explainable" without looking at/caring about specific details that make them obviously controlled crafts.

Let's paint a picture. In the morning, I start my car everyday. One day, my car doesn't start. Failures happen. I agree with you here. One day, I start dating a new girl. I drive to pick her a couple of times. One day, I come out to my car and my tires are slashed. You would count that in the grand scheme of things and write it off as a random occurrence where as I would attribute it to her stalker-of-an-ex-boyfriend. Tell me: Do you also have 1.8 kids? You seem to be a man that lives by the mythical "law of averages"...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 16-Nov-2011 15:01:08
#937 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Amazingly, the surface of Phobos has no cracks...I guess the dirt did it's job on the exterior but not the interior as it formed supposedly over time
Image from the Viking of Phobos with clear lines on the surface. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010818.html So you're arguing that these aren't cracks? To me a crack is a breakage in a surface that's not large or deep enough to seperate the object. These lines would be a type of crack. They're clearly not filled up else Phobos would have a perfectly smooth surface.

Quote:
I mean god (not that I believe in such things) forbid it be static electricity that holds the dust there on the surface
An interesting postulate. Now you need evidence that the dust has an opposite polarity to that of the surface and in sufficent quantities to offset the distance from the height debris is spewed from an impact.

Too bad the Russian probe didn't make it. We have LOTS of work yet to be done on bodies in our own neighborhood. Having dust and being able to do experiments on it, such as to determine it's electric charge, would build evidence. Depending on what the evidence shows it should point us in a particular direction.


Quote:
As you can see, the Russians know how to get things into space

You've created a strawman. No one said they didn't.

What I stated was Space Shots are imperfect and there can be problems. (No need to introduce unevidenced conspiracies or unevidenced aliens shooting down Mars rockets when the mundane will do.) The Phobos mission used Zeit2SB rocket. The core of this is the Zeinit 2M. Look at my links for the Bayesian statics and you'll see the reliability is about 77%. Clearly within my claim that things can go wrong with space missions.

Quote:
You like to write things off as "failures happen" without looking at unusual co-incidences
Here's the trend. -- I repeatedly demand evidence for your claims. The evidence we do have is a historic 77% success rate of this type of rocket for Russia. We have another failure which shouldn't be completely unexpected. If 'someone doesn't want us to get to Phobos' has yet to be demonstrated by any sort of evidence. A 'co-incidence' at best asks a question. You still need evidence to support that it's not a co-incidence and instead is some sort of nefarious work from an party with their own agenda.

Quote:
You would count that in the grand scheme of things and write it off as a random occurrence where as I would attribute it to her stalker-of-an-ex-boyfriend.
Actually neither. I'd ask what evidence we have that leads us to one conclusion or another. Does the stalker have a record of this behavior? That coincidence would tell us to investigate that option even more. Does the neighborhood have a history of slashed tired from local punks? That coincidence would tell us to investigate that option even more. -- The problem I think you've clearly defined. You'd attribute it to something without taking the next step and building more evidence to support your view. If I choose not to investigate I'd say something such as 'It was most likely X' and not claim I know. A significant difference from you saying you know it's a stalker and failing to have any collaborating evidence.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 16-Nov-2011 19:19:22
#938 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Amazingly, the surface of Phobos has no cracks...I guess the dirt did it's job on the exterior but not the interior as it formed supposedly over time
Image from the Viking of Phobos with clear lines on the surface. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010818.html So you're arguing that these aren't cracks? To me a crack is a breakage in a surface that's not large or deep enough to seperate the object. These lines would be a type of crack. They're clearly not filled up else Phobos would have a perfectly smooth surface.

The almost perfectly parallel grooves on it's surface are fairly smoothened thanks to the dirt/dust pile up... However these same grooves, if they were cracks, they'd run deep and that means the interior of Phobos would be more filled in. They clearly do not since Phobos is 1/3 hollow STILL. This does not help your argument...

In fact, these grooves are interesting to the people who are interested in Phobos...

Quote:

Quote:
I mean god (not that I believe in such things) forbid it be static electricity that holds the dust there on the surface
An interesting postulate. Now you need evidence that the dust has an opposite polarity to that of the surface and in sufficent quantities to offset the distance from the height debris is spewed from an impact.

Too bad the Russian probe didn't make it. We have LOTS of work yet to be done on bodies in our own neighborhood. Having dust and being able to do experiments on it, such as to determine it's electric charge, would build evidence. Depending on what the evidence shows it should point us in a particular direction.

But we've seen these effects when we launched a missile at a comet... Generally speaking, what's the difference between a comet, a small satellite and an asteroid? Orbit.

Quote:

Quote:
As you can see, the Russians know how to get things into space

You've created a strawman. No one said they didn't.

What I stated was Space Shots are imperfect and there can be problems. (No need to introduce unevidenced conspiracies or unevidenced aliens shooting down Mars rockets when the mundane will do.) The Phobos mission used Zeit2SB rocket. The core of this is the Zeinit 2M. Look at my links for the Bayesian statics and you'll see the reliability is about 77%. Clearly within my claim that things can go wrong with space missions.

Quote:
You like to write things off as "failures happen" without looking at unusual co-incidences
Here's the trend. -- I repeatedly demand evidence for your claims. The evidence we do have is a historic 77% success rate of this type of rocket for Russia. We have another failure which shouldn't be completely unexpected. If 'someone doesn't want us to get to Phobos' has yet to be demonstrated by any sort of evidence. A 'co-incidence' at best asks a question. You still need evidence to support that it's not a co-incidence and instead is some sort of nefarious work from an party with their own agenda.

Quote:
You would count that in the grand scheme of things and write it off as a random occurrence where as I would attribute it to her stalker-of-an-ex-boyfriend.
Actually neither. I'd ask what evidence we have that leads us to one conclusion or another. Does the stalker have a record of this behavior? That coincidence would tell us to investigate that option even more. Does the neighborhood have a history of slashed tired from local punks? That coincidence would tell us to investigate that option even more. -- The problem I think you've clearly defined. You'd attribute it to something without taking the next step and building more evidence to support your view. If I choose not to investigate I'd say something such as 'It was most likely X' and not claim I know. A significant difference from you saying you know it's a stalker and failing to have any collaborating evidence.

The problem I have with your logic is that for you, the mundane reasoning will always do...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 16-Nov-2011 19:56:43
#939 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
This does not help your argument...
I see no way these help your arguement that the inner 1/3 of phobos is hollow. Seems to me you're playing a semantic game calling a groove a crack.

Quote:
The problem I have with your logic is that for you, the mundane reasoning will always do...
I can understand that you are enjoying banging your head.

Yup my 'mundane' reasoning of seeing an item, slashed tires, and instead of leaping to the first and most convenient conclusion I require a call to the police to case the crime scene and find the evidence. Previously you had given a court example. Let's do that again. Lou goes to court and says bad stalker did it. Bad stalker says Lou's lying. Lou says stalker is lying. Court says Lou do you have evidence and you stand there like a deer in the headlights. ... Compare this to Brian goes to court and says stalker did it. Stalker says Brian's lying. Court asks Brian where's the evidence. Brian says here's Officer Krupkie's report with photographs of the crime scene including a license plate from the stalker's car w/ date/time stamp from a neighborhood watch camera, a knife found under the car with stalker fingerprints, and the testamony from the stalker's Mom saying stalker told her he'd get that no good new boyfriend as he disappeared for 6 hours unexplained. .....Probably says Brian will have a much better chance at putting the stalker in jail. Lou gets to as the stalker walks.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 17-Nov-2011 0:43:51
#940 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
This does not help your argument...
I see no way these help your arguement that the inner 1/3 of phobos is hollow. Seems to me you're playing a semantic game calling a groove a crack.

Quote:
The problem I have with your logic is that for you, the mundane reasoning will always do...
I can understand that you are enjoying banging your head.

You were the one who said the grooves were cracks not me.

Quote:
Yup my 'mundane' reasoning of seeing an item, slashed tires, and instead of leaping to the first and most convenient conclusion I require a call to the police to case the crime scene and find the evidence. Previously you had given a court example. Let's do that again. Lou goes to court and says bad stalker did it. Bad stalker says Lou's lying. Lou says stalker is lying. Court says Lou do you have evidence and you stand there like a deer in the headlights. ... Compare this to Brian goes to court and says stalker did it. Stalker says Brian's lying. Court asks Brian where's the evidence. Brian says here's Officer Krupkie's report with photographs of the crime scene including a license plate from the stalker's car w/ date/time stamp from a neighborhood watch camera, a knife found under the car with stalker fingerprints, and the testamony from the stalker's Mom saying stalker told her he'd get that no good new boyfriend as he disappeared for 6 hours unexplained. .....Probably says Brian will have a much better chance at putting the stalker in jail. Lou gets to as the stalker walks.

No, you would assume it was random neighborhood incident...

ps, blades don't leave fingerprints on tires...

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

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