Part 1 is here.

Happy discussion and speculation.

What if... ?

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@tomazkid

Heh. Watch out, Global Warming, the Nibiru conspiracy is catching up with you. I think the games consoles are safe for now, though.

@MikeB

Quote:

Maybe you can provide a point by point short overview per question. Once you again started to talk about "math" I kinda skipped quite a bit of your writings.

Oh, aye? Skipped over did you? Well, how is that being open and honest and reasonable? It isn't.

But I'll play along anyway. They're simple questions, really:

How does Venus have a retrograde rotation? In a magnetic-dominated system, that is impossible. Explain.

Unless you'd like to deny the physics that govern the operation of electric motors as well, but I think if you were to do that, you'd make yourself look pretty silly, because electric motors clearly work.

The Venus question is the important one. I'd also like to get a proper answer about why the Earth hasn't reacted to the halving of the Sun's magnetic field strength over the past 20 years - if magnetism really did govern the Earth's orbit, halving the strength of that governing force would lead to a great change.

And I'd also like to get a proper answer about the solar flares. As I said in the previous volume:

If the magnetic field of the sun is what drives its orbital characteristics, then the sudden massive spike in field intensity caused by a solar flare should literally move the Earth.

It does not. It only moves tiny molecular particles around in the upper atmosphere, revealing that the ultimate capacity of magnetism in the modern solar system is limited to blowing spacedust around.

It can't move planets. Gravity is the dominant force that does that.




Quote:

Even if you still don't agree, do you understand enough of my reasoning to at least allow me to not share your opinions (nomatter if a smart guy almost a hundred years ago invented some inventive excuses for Newton's theory).

Einstein isn't an 'inventive excuse' for Newton's theory. Einstein's theory completely replaces Newton's theory. As yours would replace Einstein's if you could provided any evidence to support your 'beliefs'.

And no, I do not 'allow' you to present your opinion as valid scientific theory when it lacks evidence or a mathematical proof. Whether I or anyone else chooses to 'allow' you to do that is a non-issue, though, because you currently fail to meet the dictionary definition of science.


Quote:

It's a matter of you believe light around objects such as stars and planets is bent by bending space-time (Einstein) or if you believe like me light (which is magnetic) is bent by magnetic fields.

Perform a laboratory experiment showing the bending of light by magnetism. Demonstrate that a magnetic field of the strength of Jupiters' (for example) bends light by the same amount that we can observe Jupiter bending light.

Then you'll have some evidence.

You might even be able to begin describing your observations mathematically.

Of course, your experiment will show that a magnetic field as strong as Jupiters' is still too weak to bend light as much as Jupiter does, but then you'll have the evidence of your own eyes to show you this.

Quote:

Or believing in dark matter (inventive excuse for Einstein theories, not to be confused with the stuff you flush down your toilet) or not believing in it like me. If dark matter does not exist everything falls apart like a house of cards and it was truly just a blind faith you had in some theory.

And we're back to the mocking. Where's your vaunted respect for others now?

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are a hypothesis, we're still figuring out what they do and if they really exist. There's evidence for them, in the form of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles that we have only recently become able to detect, and as we explore them, we will reveal more about the Universe.

We may even find out exactly how to unify all physics into a single Unified Field Theory. But I can guarantee you that the Theory of Magnetism does not provide the answer to the unified field question. It doesn't work on quantum scales and it doesn't explain the behaviour of the Universe.

As I said before, Science doesn't know everything. And Science knows it doesn't know everything - if it thought it did, it'd stop.

But that doesn't give you the right to drop whatever fairytale that most appeals to you into the gaps.

Last edited by T-J on 13-May-2011 at 09:50 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 13-May-2011 at 09:50 PM.

@MikeB
In order to (once again) test your hypothesis, I did a few simple calculations based on the following approximated data.
Radius of planet Earth=6400km : Radius of Earths moon=1850km
Mass of planet Earth=5.95x10^24kg : Mass of Earths moon=7.4x10^22kg
Magnetic field of Earth=0.3-0.5 Gauss :Magnetic field of moon = 0.3-0.5 milliGauss

Ratio of distances between surface and centre. Moon=0.29x Earth radius.
Ratio of masses Moon=0.0124xEarth mass
Magnetic ratio : Moon = 0.001x Earth

Using the inverse square calculations to determine the comparative attraction at the surface of the earth and the moon gives a gravity ratio of 1:0.147, and a magnetic ratio of 1:0.012

This means that a 100kg astronaut having travelled to the moon would weigh either 14.7kg using gravity ratios, or 1.2kg using magnetic ratios. The actual measured weight ratio means that the astronaut would weigh 16.6kg.

I am aware that the gravity ratio that my calculation produced does not exactly match the measured result, the error being due to my using approximated data rather than exact measurements. I would point out that the gravity approximation is much closer than the EM figure and an error on the EM scale would have caused Niel Armstrong to be the first man to land on Mars!

I would also like to draw your attention to the variation range of the magnetic field density figures for the planet Earth. Do you intend to offer this as a reason why so many Americans are overweight? And is your advice "Don't diet, emigrate"

The challenge remains to provide a mathematical basis for your hypothesis.

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

@MikeB

Quote:

It's a matter of you believe light around objects such as stars and planets is bent by bending space-time (Einstein) or if you believe like me light (which is magnetic) is bent by magnetic fields.

So you are not only asserting that Einstein didn't know his a*se from his elbow.
Quote:

Assuming of course an understanding of the basics of magnetic fields

but you are also claiming that I have been taking wages as an electrical engineer under false pretences. All based on the huge scientific proof of IMO. Well at least I am in good company.

Me and Albert relaxing

The challenge remains for you to provide a mathematical basis for your hypothesis.

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

@MikeB

Quote:

Thinking of the planets and sun as equal scale drops,

Huh?

Quote:

which kind of force would be more likely to you to be powerful enough to put things into motion in a spiral?

All 4 forces have the ability to put things in a spiral.

Quote:

Would it be a rotating magnetic field or a straight pull of this matter towards the sun (the bigger drop).

While the pull of gravity may be straight the objects are pulled through a curvature of spacetime which causes rotation.

EDIT: The above was kept very simple. Probe B measured this effect within a 0.5% accuracy. There's another effect and that is how a rotational mass changes spacetime, aka Frame-dragging, this was measured too but to a much less accuracy. :END EDIT

Quote:

Based on your education you will probably state the direct pull between this matter. But what would you answer without such biases?

You again are treading on being the example of the non-scientific as stated in your LaRouche post. Science is built upon evidence. 350 years is fairly good evidence. Doesn't mean it's perfect or can't be improved upon. Are you going to bring some valid evidence?

Quote:

Even if you still don't agree, do you understand enough of my reasoning to at least allow me to not share your opinions

Yes MikeB made it through a scientific background at college. The more better the predictor of reality the more likely it is for that Theory to be true. Which is one of the various problems with your hypothesis it makes no predictable hypothesis. It's much worse as it's not even scientific as it's unfalsible in it's present state.

Quote:

It's a matter of you believe light around objects such as stars and planets is bent by bending space-time (

A belief is one without proof. So completely wrong term to use here. I don't believe anything. I see the bulk of observational evidence is matter as the cause. I see the formulas which create predictability are based on matter and are highly correct, as we use them to find planets thousands of lightyears away. Being the bulk of the proof is matter I accept that as our most plausible theory at present and welcome more and better proof even if it's not matter.

Quote:

Or believing in dark matter (inventive excuse for Einstein theories, not to be confused with the stuff you flush down your toilet) or not believing in it like me. If dark matter does not exist everything falls apart like a house of cards and it was truly just a blind faith you had in some theory.

Ahh MikeB it is very clear you don't understand what's happening here. Dark Matter is one of several ideas of what might be going on. Einstein's gravity won't be disproven if it's not Dark Matter. Einstein's Gravity is disproven if something with better and more evidence comes along. Now that may, or may not, include Dark Matter. So the devil is really in the details.

BTW, I wanted to pass over a thank you. I have friends at Blue Origin and they busted a gut when I passed the crazy post where it's indicated they're part of a grand conspiracy.

Last edited by BrianK on 14-May-2011 at 12:47 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 14-May-2011 at 03:00 AM.

@T-J

Quote:

How does Venus have a retrograde rotation? In a magnetic-dominated system, that is impossible. Explain. The Venus question is the important one. I'd also like to get a proper answer about why the Earth hasn't reacted to the halving of the Sun's magnetic field strength over the past 20 years - if magnetism really did govern the Earth's orbit, halving the strength of that governing force would lead to a great change.

I'd like to throw in how he can explain 2 planets with magnetic alignment of the sun, and 2 planets in opposite alignment to the sun, and 2 planets whose magnetic alignment is horizontal to the sun's, and of course other objects such as Venus and the Moon which don't have a magnetic dipole. One might think in the 4 Billion years that the magnetics might just line up.

Or how about this.. The sun is a huge magentic and all the planets are kept in their orbits by the magnets and the sun's magnetic field flip flops. Now this magnetic field somehow drives the other planets but it doesn't flip flop the planet's magnetic field. And during the flip it's not like the planets respond in any way, other than a pretty light show on earth and likely others. But, magetism is a huge controlling force on the planets?

Observational support of EM being the dominant force is small enough to say it's 0.

Though I have to Thank MikeB. It's fun digging into this and my old notes and remembering how all this stuff works. The idea of EM was a 'challenge' to reanalyze what work I had out there on this. Always appreciated. Even if he is wrong as wrong can be.

Last edited by BrianK on 14-May-2011 at 03:08 AM.

Grey humor

@MikeB

Here's something for you to consider. Roswell wasn't aliens. It was mutant children sent by Stalin to insite fear in the American public. The scare tactic of fake aliens didn't work.

@MikeB

Why earthquakes aren't a sign of the end times and the same guy has good video on the scientific method ...

I'd recommend viewing the first video, then the second, and then grab 'it's all EM' and watch the 2nd again. It should help you identify how to develop and present valid evidence.

Last edited by BrianK on 15-May-2011 at 08:51 PM.

@BrianK

Thanks for the link to the video provided in post #983. I really do wish that I could be as relaxed in dealing with people as the guy in front of the camera was, but I can be a little bit abrupt from time to time.
I also enjoyed the link to "the scientific method" although I think that there are better renditions of the Harry Lime theme than the one used in the video. I am in the process of watching all of the You Tube videos produced by Potholer54, just to see how reasoned logical debate should be carried out.

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

@Nimrod

You are welcome.


@Thread
I predict an increase in UFO sightings on May 22 ,

And a humorous edit: It's all magnets

Last edited by BrianK on 16-May-2011 at 12:14 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

I predict an increase in UFO sightings on May 22 ,

Sounds like fun
Unfortunately I will be busy on that date looking to see if Harold Camping is still with us, and if he is, asking why he wasn't raptured.

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

If interested in this topic then these videos are a must see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZujoXRMhKY

@MikeB

Too long, didn't watch.

@T-J

You demand evidence. There is a lot of evidence and many obvious facts presented in those videos (nomatter the source). I recommend you to watch and to consider...

@MikeB

In post #9 BrianK included a link to understanding the scientific method. Your most recent post strongly indicates that you did not follow the advice that he gave you, as if you had you would not have posted the link that you did in post #13. I have just spent the last 157 minutes and 40 seconds, having my intelligence insulted, and feel inclined to return the compliment.

Since you evidently didn't bother to watch Brians video I will give you the "rules of evidence" that were listed as necessary to even begin to qualify a statement as a theory.
1. Base your conclusions on the evidence. Not vice versa.
2. Measure objectively, not guess selectively.
3. Back up statements with evidence. Claiming something to be a fact does not make it a fact.
4. Use large sample numbers for statistical analysis.
5. Use blind sampling for tests
6. Tests must include control groups.
7. Cite your sources of information.
8. Sources must be reliable, verifiable, and backed with evidence.
9. Opinion is not fact
10. No false evidence.(don't cheat)

So lets look at your "evidence". A video that makes many assertions and repeats them frequently, and claims its source as "Zetans". Zetans are a hypothetical space alien used by Nancy LIEder to explain voices in her head. The "research" is backed up by referencing Immanuel Velikovsky, and Charles Hapgood. Both have been clearly, frequently, and convincingly proven to be wrong, however both remain strong central planks of the conspiracy theorists pseudoscientific technobabble. To add insult to injury the video makes the following accusations against "the establishment".
"Invent something science like"(1:05:35).
"Stating assumptions as fact"(1:05:47)
"All clothed in scientific mumbo-jumbo"(1:05:50)
It is during this piece of drivel that the claim is made that universal gravity is "clearly not scientific, but abstract, and not subject to proof, or disproof".
Talk about turning truth on its head, it seems as though the makers of this video have taken Josef Goebbels teachings to heart. Quote:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State

The challenge remains for you to provide a mathematical basis for your hypothesis.

Last edited by Nimrod on 17-May-2011 at 09:01 AM.

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

@MikeB

Quote:

You demand evidence. There is a lot of evidence and many obvious facts presented in those videos (nomatter the source). I recommend you to watch and to consider...

I'm sorry, I just don't have two and a half hours to waste on Nibiru speculation from a source so completely unreliable on everything as Zetatalk.

I watched the first minute. In one minute, it had told me that 'Nibiru' causes 'polar shifts' and 'crustal shifts', and that it causes the 'magnetic core' of the Earth to be 'pushed away', causing the continents to rearrange and make ice caps form in different places.

And all of this happens every 3600 years.

In that one minute, you totally trash the entire field of geology.



Let's examine your claims.

Polar shifts:

I am going to assume this means 'magnetic polar shift'. Does this happen on a 3600 year timescale?

No. It happens on an erratic timescale, but each polar orientation is stable for millions of years. We know this because the geomagnetism of ocean crust records the orientation of the Earth's magnetic field through geological time. We can date crustal rocks and tell what the magnetic field was like at any given time.

Is it caused by a mysterious planet? Well, its not got a regular timescale, so its not orbital. And there is no candidate body extant in the solar system to cause it, so no.

Polar shifts caused by 'Nibiru'? Impossible, given your own stated characteristics of 'Nibiru'.

Crustal shifts:

I take it you actually believe the crust is pulled around the Earth by 'Nibiru'? As in, the lithosphere actually disassociates from the asthenosphere and spins independently around the globe, coming to a new position after 'Nibiru' has passed?

I'm sorry, but is this actually what you believe?

If so, please, please, please put your Charles Hapgood books away and read up on plate tectonics. Hapgood was speculating wildly before the advent of plate tectonics, and failed to provide any credible mechanism to drive his crustal shifts. He believed excess weight of ice sheets did it, but that's rubbish.

On the other hand, plate tectonics has reams of observational evidence backing it up.

The final piece of evidence that buried the competing theories was actually the geomagnetism I mentioned earlier - the ocean crust records the magnetic field through time. Since new crust is being generated at the mid-ocean ridges, the effect is similar to that of a barcode. Stripes of normal and reverse geomagnetism along the ocean floor recording the growth of the oceanic plates.

So, sudden crustal shift? Nope.

That guff about the 'magnetic core' being 'pushed away', causing the crust to split:

I think an elementary understanding of geological rifting would help here. We find plenty of impressive rifts around the Earth's surface. Unfortunately for your theory, those rifts record millions of years of geological time in their accumulated sediments, which can be dated using palaeontology, or if you don't believe in that, radiometrically. None of them are 3600 years old. All of them are orders of magnitude older.

Rifting is simply plate tectonics acting extensionally. Fault-thinning or lateral spreading due to crustal loading can explain non-volcanic rifting. Mantle plumes are the hypothesis currently leading interpretation of volcanic rifting.

These hypotheses are all testable. Indeed, they are all being tested and refined to fit the evidence we see. Your invisible planet idea? Not a chance.

And finally, the ice caps point. This is my favourite, because its the easiest to disprove.

You think that the crust shifts and moves the icecaps around, leading to a new icecap forming over the new area. As evidence, your video shows a map revealing locations in which glacial sediments have been found, but you fail to indicate that those sediments range from modern tills forming due to today's glaciers all the way back to the early Neoproterozoic. Which is about a billion years of time.

But never mind that, let's just examine the hypothesis of the icecaps being moved by 'Nibiru' every 3600 years.

Ice sheets like those over Antarctica and Greenland are not static features. They lose mass at their fringes and accumulate new ice at their centres. Each year, a new layer of ice forms on top of the ice sheet. These layers can be readily picked out by eye, separated by the dust and debris trapped between the layers. In Antarctica, ice sheet cores have been drilled in which 420,000 years worth of these layers can be clearly picked out and identified. The ice sheet goes much further down than that, but the weight of the overlying ice has deformed the layers, making it much harder to tell them apart. But the core puts an absolute minimum age of 420,000 years on the ice sheet.

That totally sinks your notion of a planet shifting the crust every 3600 years.

Now, before you suggest that Nibiru might have a longer orbital period, do you know how old the Antarctic Ice Sheet is?

35 million years, give or take.

If its orbiting like that, its simply not a cause for concern, because you yourself consider that a body in an orbit of millions of years (like Tyche) is not 'credible'. You condemn your own pet fictional planet.

So, a conclusion?

Your video is bunk. In its first minute, it makes a number of complete factual errors, suggesting that Nibiru really exists is one. Suggesting that the 'ancient texts' refer to it is another, as we have shown time and again that Sitchin's translations were fakes. Referencing the work of Charles Hapgood is pointless, as his work was proven wrong by plate tectonics. Referencing Velikovsky is frankly a joke. And then it goes on to get geology so completely wrong as to be nothing more than a sad parody of the field.

You can believe this if you want to, but its a crock of bull no more respectable than young earth creationism and flood geology. And I am not going to waste two and a half hours of my life listening to it.

Last edited by T-J on 17-May-2011 at 01:55 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 17-May-2011 at 01:44 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 17-May-2011 at 01:43 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 17-May-2011 at 01:43 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 17-May-2011 at 01:41 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

If interested in this topic then these videos are a must see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZujoXRMhKY

MikeB I admit I didn't make it past 1/2 an hour. I'm certainly interested in what evidence comes with this topic. It started fun as one could pile fallacy on top of fallacy that brings down the Nibiru house of cards they're trying to build. Then it got old. Others here went into more depth. T-J did a great job on Geological EVIDENCE.

How a small wager since you are confident. If there's an armeggedon due to a planet as you and Lou predicted this August I'll destroy all my Xbox stuff. And if it doesn't happen by 1/1/13 (giving you nearly 18 months to be right) you destroy all your PS3 and related stuff?

Last edited by BrianK on 17-May-2011 at 02:51 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 17-May-2011 at 02:43 AM.

"In this interview, Dr. Tarpley reviews the writings of John P. Holdren, the current White House science advisor. This interview conclusively exposes scientific elite’s true agenda, world-wide genocide and the formation of a global government to rule."

http://www.infowars.com/trailer-elites-plan-for-global-extermination-w-webster-tarpley/

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @BrianK Quote: I predict an increase in UFO sightings on May 22 , Sounds like fun Unfortunately I will be busy on that date looking to see if Harold Camping is still with us, and if he is, asking why he wasn't raptured.

If the rapture does occur will we left behind see gas prices fall due a drop in demand.