Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
5604 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
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

(Uses JAVA Applet and Port 1024)
Visit the Chatroom Website

Who's Online
 42 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 ne_one:  48 mins ago
 amigasociety:  55 mins ago
 Kremlar:  58 mins ago
 Jasper:  1 hr ago
 BigD:  1 hr 8 mins ago
 BCP:  1 hr 12 mins ago
 freak:  1 hr 19 mins ago
 Barret:  1 hr 24 mins ago
 Morphix:  1 hr 28 mins ago
 Signman:  1 hr 38 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Free For All
      /  Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
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 Next Page )
PosterThread
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 25-Jul-2016 14:28:11
#321 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8093
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

If anyone other than Lou and Nimrod is following this thread. A more entertaining news type of presentation of what LIGO means is here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72AQsQ2v5cA

It's quick and simple and helps explains what happened.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 25-Jul-2016 15:49:00
#322 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8093
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Nimrod

Thought you may like this article on how to use gravitational waves to see if they enable predictions and observations of other potential phenomena. Also, I found it amusing that Lou throws out something as not found in 3 years therefore isn't real. Yet it took nearly 100 years from the prediction of gravity waves until we actually found them.

http://www.wired.com/2016/07/mining-black-hole-collisions-new-physics/

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 25-Jul-2016 19:25:41
#323 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8093
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Hey Lou - I thought you'd like a reminder that 40 years ago today (july 25th) the stunning image from the mountain range on Mars came out. A stunning example of pareidolia, a vocal group used that image to proclaim life on Mars as indicated by a being built structure. Of course, with better technology even Charlies Manson figured out the White Album wasn't talking to him - he just had a bad record player and made a wrong assumption. Likewise better quality optics added sufficient resolution such that we can now make out the group was tricked by their own eyes. A great example for science. Even our own bodies can be items of error. That's one reason why we are always open to more experimental data and different experiments.

http://www.cnet.com/news/the-face-of-mars-a-martian-mystery-turns-40/

Last edited by BrianK on 25-Jul-2016 at 07:26 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 3-Aug-2016 21:03:49
#324 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8093
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou,

Direct observations that Einstein was right.
https://mic.com/articles/150245/scientists-just-figured-out-how-black-holes-twist-space-time?utm_source=wired&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=partner#.KcE7ynEWa

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 6-Sep-2016 16:53:16
#325 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8093
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Did you see they're going to do some more testing of the propellentless EMdrive?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a22678/em-drive-cannae-cubesat-reactionless/

NASA has stated this is not useful for planetary launch, about 50,000x too little thrust. Getting them to Mars is a few months is simply false. But, if building up speed for a very long duration trip, it may be useful.

But stopping

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 8-Sep-2016 20:50:00
#326 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8093
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

With recent evidence of the Cosmic Background Radiation it appears our universe is directionless.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/it-s-official-you-re-lost-directionless-universe

The idea you posted of the torodial shape of the universe and it's self cycling won't fit into such a system as observed in the CBR


 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 13-Sep-2016 19:18:13
#327 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1181
From: Untied Kingdom

@BrianK
So the universe isn't donut shaped. What a pity, Homer Simpson will be so disappointed.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 21-Nov-2016 14:43:53
#328 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8093
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Nimrod
No doubt.


 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 21-Nov-2016 14:46:23
#329 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8093
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Did you see they're going to do some more testing of the propellentless EMdrive?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a22678/em-drive-cannae-cubesat-reactionless/

NASA has stated this is not useful for planetary launch, about 50,000x too little thrust. Getting them to Mars is a few months is simply false. But, if building up speed for a very long duration trip, it may be useful.

But stopping

....

Here's the NASA paper if you want to read it Lou: http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120 . It's my understanding that China has since withdrawn their paper.

Clearly more experimentation is needed.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 2-Jun-2017 14:18:38
#330 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8093
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

In case you've missed some recent gravity news...

Gravity waves - 3rd detection
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40120680


Dark Matter mapping.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/scientists-unveil-most-detailed-map-dark-matter-date
Yes, done through indirect observational data of relational effects. But, still a step better than the evidence we had before.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 11-Jun-2017 17:35:59
#331 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3833
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Really? "Gravity waves" is just not any different than ether. The ether concept is just incomplete because it assumes an absolute frame. Higgs and the Pion condensate don't but they are still saying you need a medium to detect a wave. Pre-relativity it was called ether. It's just a paradigm shift not a completely different concept. It continues to prove 'the vacuum' is not empty at all.

Planet 9(or whatever number is fashionable at the time) aka Nibiru, continues to behave exactly as Sitchin described...
https://www.space.com/34448-planet-nine-solar-system-tilt.html

And look humans were found exactly when Sitchin said they were created:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/variety/2017/06/10/315-000-year-old-Moroccan-fossils-shake-up-understanding-of-human-origins.html

...but go ahead keep telling me how wrong he always is...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 11-Jun-2017 17:53:41
#332 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3833
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Did you see they're going to do some more testing of the propellentless EMdrive?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a22678/em-drive-cannae-cubesat-reactionless/

NASA has stated this is not useful for planetary launch, about 50,000x too little thrust. Getting them to Mars is a few months is simply false. But, if building up speed for a very long duration trip, it may be useful.

But stopping

....

Here's the NASA paper if you want to read it Lou: http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.B36120 . It's my understanding that China has since withdrawn their paper.

Clearly more experimentation is needed.

Acceleration in space is trivial.
Create a nuclear explosion gun (as opposed to bomb). All you need is a way to manipulate the side of the chamber facing the "barrel" to lose it's mirror/reflective properties. Here's something similar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

Once the nuclear bomb got declassified and showed that it was just an explosion of light pressure, it's funny how all this other information turns up...

Have you figured out how far behind 'accepted science' is yet? [I'll leave out the word 'your' infront of that... ;) ]

Quote:
The reference design was to be constructed of steel using submarine-style construction with a crew of more than 200 and a vehicle takeoff weight of several thousand tons. This low-tech single-stage reference design would reach Mars and back in four weeks from the Earth's surface (compared to 12 months for NASA's current chemically powered reference mission). The same craft could visit Saturn's moons in a seven-month mission (compared to chemically powered missions of about nine years).

Steel? Good god man! Imagine if they used something lighter and stronger?
Originally conceived in 1947, seemed workable in 1965...until a 'treaty' shut it down... Hmmm... Sure...all treaties are honored...right?

Last edited by Lou on 11-Jun-2017 at 06:53 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 11-Jun-2017 at 06:09 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 11-Jun-2017 at 06:07 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 11-Jun-2017 at 06:04 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 11-Jun-2017 at 06:01 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 11-Jun-2017 at 05:59 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 13-Jun-2017 18:11:57
#333 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8093
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:


Planet 9(or whatever number is fashionable at the time) aka Nibiru, continues to behave exactly as Sitchin described...
https://www.space.com/34448-planet-nine-solar-system-tilt.html

And look humans were found exactly when Sitchin said they were created:
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/variety/2017/06/10/315-000-year-old-Moroccan-fossils-shake-up-understanding-of-human-origins.html

...but go ahead keep telling me how wrong he always is...

"Researchers suggest that if this world dubbed Planet Nine exists" - really you post a source that says IF it exists, doesn't prove it exists in any way/shape/form and then claim it a success? Ya must have skipped Logic in school.

Zecharia Sitchin described Nibiru
* 12th planet . How did you make 9=12?
* Nibiru is home to an alien race called the Anunnaki - nothing you've provided shows a hint of this race existing. Let alone on the 12th planet or on the 9th from NASA.
* Nibiru, has an orbital period of 3600 years - The link to the 9th says 500 year period. Again 500=3600?
* Perfect circular orbit - again without finding the blasted thing you can't prove an orbit.
* 4x diameter of earth - again your link says 10. how does 4=10?
* Clouded in iron, rivers look red from a distance - again not found can't prove.

Again I love your leap of faith from 'could possibly exist and not found with characteristics not Nibirian' means Nibiru is real. But, opinion doesn't make fact and you have jack for facts here.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 13-Jun-2017 18:26:33
#334 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8093
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:

Acceleration in space is trivial.
Create a nuclear explosion gun (as opposed to bomb). All you need is a way to manipulate the side of the chamber facing the "barrel" to lose it's mirror/reflective properties. Here's something similar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion
Umm okay. But, as a response to a 'known' (questionable known) EM Drive mechanics here it's not a nuclear explosion. You're claiming a different mechanism.

This slow rate of acceleration may be good to reach another star. As you said acceleration in space is trivial. And that rate would compound. However, there wouldn't be sufficient distance between the earth and mars to make use of that degree of compounding effects.

Quote:
Have you figured out how far behind 'accepted science' is yet?
Again drive by and pick me up in your EM Fiero and show me. Oh you don't have one? Could be because your non-accepted science hasn't proven itself working. Science has lots to learn, and if your beliefs are real you have lots to prove. Putting new ideas on top is great and all. But, it just adds to the pile of unproven beliefs.

Quote:
Steel? Good god man! Imagine if they used something lighter and stronger?
The point that went over your head is this is the trip of a nuclear powered rock with forces very much significantly greater than the EM Drive that is 'known' (questionable known) . The problem here really isn't replacing the steel. There's no material light enough to counteract the incredibly small forces of EM Drive. They'd never get launch off the planet using an EM Drive.

Where we are today - the EM Drive has proven to do nothing. In the interim you may want to check out Halser Engines. Rumors are there is some testing going on. Thrust is significantly more than chemical rockets. Chemical are significant orders of magnitude higher than EM.


...
1 kg to get into low Earth orbit is 3.29 x 10^7 Joules
Chinese Testing of EM Drive was
750 mN (millinewtons) of thrust, and requiring 2,500 watts of power
...
How many Ems to launch that 2,800 pound Fiero? Don't forget to off-set the weight of all the EM engines and power sources themselves...



Last edited by BrianK on 13-Jun-2017 at 06:32 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 15-Jun-2017 10:29:51
#335 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1181
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou
The difference between gravity waves and the supposed Luminiferous Aether is akin to the difference between the discovery of the Proton and the Higgs Boson. For the existence of Luminiferous Aether to have been confirmed it was necessary for the Michelson Morley experiment to produce wave fringing at 0.01%. Fringing at 1% would not have proved Luminiferous Aether, nor would it at 0.01% Either of these results would have indicated a moving field which had already been discounted by earlier work by Fresnel. Likewise a peak at between 125 and 127GeV/c^2 with zero spin was predicted by Peter Higgs, so a discovery of a particle at 938MeV/c^2 would not be proof of the Higgs Boson, it would be a Proton.
A fringe at the order of magnitude required to prove Aether was NOT found while one at the order of magnitude to prove the gravity wave WAS found. Once again you demonstrate your inability to grasp the concept of orders of magnitude.

Sitchin described Nibiru as either a planet orbiting a Brown Dwarf, or the brown dwarf itself in an orbit of the sun with a 3600 year period. Such an astronomical body while not visible to the naked eye would be the brightest thing in the night sky to an infra-red sensor such as WISE. Yet neither WISE, nor any other survey of the night sky using a wide range of mthods and frequencies have found a single shred of evidence that corroborates Sitchin's failed attempt at sci-fi/fantasy writing. Likewise Sitchin's pathetic offerings as "translations" of ancient texts are internally inconsistent.
The planet in your link is speculated as being ten times the mass of earth (i.e.0.03 Jupiter masses while a brown Dwarf star would be greater than one Jupiter mass since Jupiter has less mass than a brown Dwarf star, not thirty times as much.
Once again you are clutching at straws without thinking about how easily your claims are refuted by the same understanding of the phrase "orders of magnitude"

So yes, once again Sitchin is WRONG

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 28-Jun-2017 16:49:51
#336 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8093
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

A Mars sized planet in the solar system?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/06/27/a-mysterious-mars-sized-planet-may-be-hiding-at-the-edge-of-our-solar-system/?utm_term=.be441cb0a717

For you Nibiru lovers. Another case of something that doesn't align with Sitchin's predictions. Wrong orbit, wrong size, and wrong distance. Therefore, not Nibiru.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 10-Jul-2017 19:31:21
#337 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3833
From: Rhode Island

https://books.google.com/books?id=i0xMDhUZ3E0C&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=gravity+comes+from+radiation+pressure&source=bl&ots=a57lnq3kTz&sig=Px1SqUcU9rqxNQOxIdpLNnAyDkU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihqvPMnf_UAhWCFj4KHaDeAkE4ChDoAQhAMAY#v=onepage&q=gravity%20comes%20from%20radiation%20pressure&f=false

You can preview-read thru yet another take on the gravity=radiation pressure and shadowing theory.

...as you can see, people without blinders continue to accept this mechanically correct with no spooky action at a distance theory...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 10-Jul-2017 19:34:17
#338 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3833
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
A Mars sized planet in the solar system?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/06/27/a-mysterious-mars-sized-planet-may-be-hiding-at-the-edge-of-our-solar-system/?utm_term=.be441cb0a717

For you Nibiru lovers. Another case of something that doesn't align with Sitchin's predictions. Wrong orbit, wrong size, and wrong distance. Therefore, not Nibiru.


If you recall, Nibiru is a 'system'. Aka miniature system on it's own in this binary arrangement. According to Sitchin, Pluto used to be a moon of Saturn... So yes, there should be multiple varying sized KBO's out there.

But apparently you didn't study Sitchin enough...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 10-Jul-2017 19:37:02
#339 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3833
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

[quote]
Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

[quote]
I took the liberty of fixing your post.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 10-Jul-2017 19:43:10
#340 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3833
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
12th planet . How did you make 9=12?

You do realize that 12 refers to major celestial objects that we can see and that generalizing the term 'planets' is much shorter to pronounce and type since most of those are indeed planets and technically, stars can be planets. Jupiter emits more light than it receives from the sun. In fact it is GR's failure that associates stars and large planets like Saturn and Jupiter as being gas-giants. The rest of your post is not worth addressing since it's more of the same pathetic nit-picking rather than ignoring the fact that SITCHIN said [or translated rather] we have a large object in the outer solar system and that this is now generally accepted SCIENCE.

Reality slapped people hard when the world was proven to be round...

Last edited by Lou on 13-Jul-2017 at 05:37 AM.

 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 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright 2000 - 2017 Amigaworld.net.

Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle