Poster | Thread |
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 25-Jul-2016 14:28:11
| | [ #321 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
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 |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 25-Jul-2016 15:49:00
| | [ #322 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
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 |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 25-Jul-2016 19:25:41
| | [ #323 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
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 |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 3-Aug-2016 21:03:49
| | [ #324 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 6-Sep-2016 16:53:16
| | [ #325 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 8-Sep-2016 20:50:00
| | [ #326 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
Nimrod
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 13-Sep-2016 19:18:13
| | [ #327 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 30-Jan-2010 Posts: 1223
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 |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 21-Nov-2016 14:43:53
| | [ #328 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 21-Nov-2016 14:46:23
| | [ #329 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| @Lou
Quote:
....
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 |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 2-Jun-2017 14:18:38
| | [ #330 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
Lou
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 11-Jun-2017 17:35:59
| | [ #331 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-Nov-2004 Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
Lou
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 11-Jun-2017 17:53:41
| | [ #332 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-Nov-2004 Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island | | |
|
| @BrianK
Quote:
BrianK wrote: @Lou
Quote:
....
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 |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 13-Jun-2017 18:11:57
| | [ #333 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| @Lou
Quote:
"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 |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 13-Jun-2017 18:26:33
| | [ #334 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
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 |
|
|
Nimrod
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 15-Jun-2017 10:29:51
| | [ #335 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 30-Jan-2010 Posts: 1223
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 |
|
|
BrianK
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 28-Jun-2017 16:49:51
| | [ #336 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 30-Sep-2003 Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
Lou
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 10-Jul-2017 19:31:21
| | [ #337 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-Nov-2004 Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
Lou
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 10-Jul-2017 19:34:17
| | [ #338 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-Nov-2004 Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island | | |
|
| @BrianK
Quote:
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 |
|
|
Lou
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 10-Jul-2017 19:37:02
| | [ #339 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-Nov-2004 Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island | | |
|
| @Nimrod
[quote] Nimrod wrote: @Lou
[quote] I took the liberty of fixing your post. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Lou
| |
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4 Posted on 10-Jul-2017 19:43:10
| | [ #340 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 2-Nov-2004 Posts: 4169
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 |
|
|