@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: He looks so intolerant and hostile, I didn't like him at all. I suggest to watch this video instead (the first one, by a sociology expert): http://www.wix.com/iamstillhere/sangstar1

It appears you might like the university/college stylings of debate. What you posted here has clearly more of an entertainment approach. If you want something like that try this.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/


(Fixed broken quote/ tomazkid )

Last edited by tomazkid on 01-May-2011 at 11:58 PM.

@Kronos

Quote:

There is a whole big difference between Nibiru and Tyche. The later is a boring object very far away of unknown quality, while the former is said (by you) to be some weird 2nd sun (and dark star at the the same time) sporting planets and even intellegent live coming to earth every few 1000 years to create havoc (and enlight primitive cultures about it#'s future plans). Or in short: Tyche makes enough sense to possibly exist, while Nibiru is just pure ####.

Actually the main difference is distance. Tyche is thought to be a brown dwarf star (think of it as a Jupiter-like planet with more mass) according to the scientists, just like Nibiru.

The main difference is distance and speed. Tyche (with its potential moons) is theorized to take 1.8 million years around the sun, which would be very weird for a planet of the size of jupiter but multiple times its mass. Nibiru with its moons is thought to orbit the sun around every 3500-4100 years.

The Tyche theory is much MUCH weirder actually if we compare with observation and do the math (at least if you deduct the theory of the former masters/creators of mankind living within this system, which is a weird yet interesting thought).

@MikeB

The problem is as soon as you put "Nibiru" on an orbit that actually makes sense it becomes "Tycho", read a planet/brown dwarf with little to none impact on earth.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Kronos

IMO Tyche does not exist, the orbit is just too weird. This would be by far the slowest moving planet in our solar system. That means there's as good as no momentum for a very long time at its furthest point based on modern day science.

I think it makes more sense for it to stay closer to the sun at such a speed, only able to travel further due to higher momentum.

Anyway I believe Nibiru will pass earth at great speed. This is also good, because if there is havoc it will be over fairly soon (a matter of a few days at most). Based on chinese observation I think the brown dwarf star will pass between the sun and earth as during its passing it was observed (mildly put...) by the Chinese while it was still daylight. It may become as big in the sky as the earth is as viewed from the sun, but there are also statements it can fill up 1/3 of the sky (viewed from the side of passage).

Last edited by MikeB on 01-May-2011 at 06:43 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 01-May-2011 at 06:33 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

The only thing weird about the Tyche theory is its orbit path it is believed to take . It would take 1.8 million years to orbit around the sun, which to me seems outrageously long for an orbit of a mere 15,000 AU away at its furthest point. ~0.04 km/s for a high mass object vs pluto a very low mass object moving about 74 148 times faster!

First - the physics has no problems with an object having an orbital period of 1.8 million years. You might think it sounds 'outrageous', but then, once upon a time, people thought microbes or atoms were outrageous as well.

As you like to keep saying, a round Earth was once outrageous.

Tyche's proposed orbit may well be slow, but remember that Tyche is only *proposed*, it has not been confirmed to exist. Unlikely though it is, Tyche remains far less farfetched than your notion of a planet with the proposed orbit of nibiru.

Second - If you think you can demonstrate why its impossible, please do so. Do the maths, post it up here, we'll be happy to take some actual evidence from you and use it to reject another dud hypothesis. See, we're not emotionally attached to Tyche. If it exists, that's interesting. If it doesn't, that's interesting too.

Quote:

IMO if this object actually orbits the earth every couple of thousand years, let's stick to the name Nibiru instead (nomatter if all the metrics and believes of the Sumerians was 100% correct or not). Could you agree to this?

Well, in my opinion, you're working from a false premise. *If* Tyche orbits every couple of thousand years? But there is absolutely no suggestion in the reputable science anywhere that it does.

Tyche's proposed orbit is consistent with the laws of physics. Nibiru's is not. That means that the two objects are completely different proposals with nothing in common and therefore not one logical reason exists to share names.

Besides, 'nibiru'? It runs against the theme of naming planets anyway.

Last edited by T-J on 01-May-2011 at 09:07 PM.

@T-J

"Gravity decreases with height, at a rate which near the surface of the Earth is such that linear extrapolation would give zero gravity at a height of one half the radius is 9.8 m·s−2 per 3 200 km."

How much gravity force would there be between a pretty massive brown dwarf star and the very massive sun at maximum distance?

Really tell me the answer as I'm curious.

@MikeB

Quote:

"Gravity decreases with height, at a rate which near the surface of the Earth is such that linear extrapolation would give zero gravity at a height of one half the radius is 9.8 m·s−2 per 3 200 km."

You what?

"The gravitational attraction force between two point masses is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their separation distance. The force is always attractive and acts along the line joining them from their center."

Quote:

How much gravity force would there be between a pretty massive brown dwarf star and the very massive sun at maximum distance?

Couldn't tell you. I'd need some numbers to do the maths. Unfortunately, 'pretty', 'very' and 'maximum' are not particularly widely recognised units of measurement. Bit too vague. Provide a proposal for the masses of and distances between these objects, if possible expressed in a unit I can work with.

But I fail to understand why a calculator wouldn't provide a perfectly adequate service, since the equations are freely available.

Last edited by T-J on 01-May-2011 at 10:49 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

I respect your believes as long as you can respect those of others

Respect is the admiration of others due to their abilities or achievements. I'm not sure if 'respect' is the right word for someone that accepts something to be true when the bulk of the evidence is against it. Clearly there are beliefs which are contradictory to each other and we therefore need some system to determine which is more accurate.

Science is this open and honest system. It accepts all comers and acceptance is measured by observational support and predictive accuracy.

You might see it as open to accept all beliefs. This action is clearly dishonest as not all beliefs are reflective of reality to the same degree. If we want the truth we must select those conditions which are best supported by the existing observational evidence and continue to question. Neither of those are what believers do. The problem of believers is their belief comes not from evidence but from the need to simply believe.

Which gets us back to the Magnent swag. When you have a postulate, observational evidence predominently against your guess, and no predictive abilities but claim it better than something that works should this be respected? Of should we simply acknowledge someone says this and require they get their belief backed up by evidence? If you are going to demonstrate accuracy and more truthful you can't do so without evidence or predictability.

@MikeB

Quote:

"Gravity decreases with height, at a rate which near the surface of the Earth is such that linear extrapolation would give zero gravity at a height of one half the radius is 9.8 m·s−2 per 3 200 km."

Tried to read whomever you're quoting and it didn't make sense. Force of Gravity is the product of the masses of the objects times a Universal Constant divided by the distance squared. F=Gm1m2/d^2.

Quote:

How much gravity force would there be between a pretty massive brown dwarf star and the very massive sun at maximum distance? Really tell me the answer as I'm curious.

Gravity's field is infinite. It's power decreases by the inverse square rule. Masses of the objects are whatever those two objects way. You didn't provide that so would have to if you want a number. Max distance would be if the objects were on opposite sides of the universe from each other.

What's the answer? It's Big G * the mass of the brown dwarf * the mass of the sun divided by the distance between the objects, and then divide by the distance between the objects. Your curiousiness should now be satiated.

@T-J & BrianK

What?
I didn't provide one single formula?

I made posts with no replies. No one seem to put the pieces together and simply recite their blind faith in science.

The formulas for magnetic fields are well known. One problem I have with them is that gauss is a measurement of area not volume...just as mass is simply measured at the contact point of a scale. Density and magnetism play so much into how much an object actually weighs.

Why does a block of aluminum and a block of iron weigh the same in space? Because there are no overpowering magnetic fields pulling on them in one fixed direction. On earth aluminum is not as magnetic as iron hence iron weighs more. Nothing is completely nuetral.

Why doesn't the moon spin? It has no geodynamo so it's orientation is fixed relative to the earth's magnetic field. The earth's core acts as a superconductor.

What causes wind storms on the moon? OMG! magnetic field fluctuations? Well if it happens on the moon, how do you suppose the huge windstorms the US has been hit with recently happened? Could it have to do with the recent fluctuations of the earth's magnetic field? Ofcourse not, that would make far too much sense...

What could make the earth stop spinning? A huge magnetic interference wave.

Keep searching for that gravity wave though...have faith.

What cracks me up is that in spots where the moon's gravity affects satellites differently there is also differences in the magnetic field... Who would have thunk it?

Last edited by Lou on 02-May-2011 at 12:16 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: He looks so intolerant and hostile, I didn't like him at all. I suggest to watch this video instead (the first one, by a sociology expert): http://www.wix.com/iamstillhere/sangstar1

They won't bother watching those videos.
The one on the lower left corner about Tiahuanaco clear displays OOPARTs but T-J will say that you could smelt metal if enough people farted in the same direction and there was fire near by...and that those 100,000 pound stone could be moved by laying straws on the ground up hill both ways. Let's not forget the 1000 year supply of string you need to cut the stones with that precision...

Last edited by Lou on 02-May-2011 at 01:32 AM.

The scientific establishment tends to reject, suppress or ignore evidence that conflicts with accepted theories, while denigrating or persecuting the messenger.

Par for the course here...

@Lou

You made posts with no replies?

Quote:

Why doesn't the moon spin?

The moon's rotation on it's axis is locked to it's orbital speed. It the moon really didn't spin or spinned faster we'd see the darkside. It's an illusion from our vantage point that seems the moon has no spin.

I can't speak to others reasons. My reason would have been a statement like this is so far out align with reality there isn't a point.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou You made posts with no replies? Quote: Why doesn't the moon spin? The moon's rotation on it's axis is locked to it's orbital speed. It the moon really didn't spin or spinned faster we'd see the darkside. It's an illusion from our vantage point that seems the moon has no spin. I can't speak to others reasons. My reason would have been a statement like this is so far out align with reality there isn't a point.

The moon doesn't spin (from our perspective) for the same reason a compass always points north.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Quote: BrianK wrote: The moon's rotation on it's axis is locked to it's orbital speed. It the moon really didn't spin or spinned faster we'd see the darkside. It's an illusion from our vantage point that seems the moon has no spin. I can't speak to others reasons. My reason would have been a statement like this is so far out align with reality there isn't a point. The moon doesn't spin (from our perspective) for the same reason a compass always points north.

Thanks. It's a good idea ensure your statements have the proper frame of reference. That is clearer.

Now the problem of the compass always pointing north? There are two problems here and both have to do with a frame of refernce...
*North is South! In magnetics opposite attract. The North of a compass is the actual north of the needle within the compass. Which means the compass doesn't point to magnetic north pole but really what is the magnetic south pole. And this is of course in what we call the northern hemisphere.. Which brings us to
* Southern hemisphere. The needle of the compass always points to the closet pole because it's got the dominant attraction. The compass in the southern hemisphere points to the north magnetic pole which is between Antarctica and Australia.
... In summary, (backwards to the points) a compass does not always point north. The compass will point to the closet pole so this depends upon in which hemisphere the compass is located. The other issue is where you live in the northern hemisphere the compass points to the South pole which is in the Arctic ocean by Canada.


Now what I find interesting is the suns magnetic poles flip and they do so in a manner that's far more frequent than the planets flip. Why is this interesting? If the Lou/Mike swag of 'it's all magnetics' is true then there should be some major orbital problems with our planet when the North pole swings to our equator and then opposite of where it pointed before. It doesn't appear to make a difference. In addition we have our planet and one other whose match our magnetic pole alignment. We have 2 planets where the alignment is inverted, compared to ours. We have 2 planets whose alignment is horizontal where ours is more vertical. Which I think is data against magnetism being the current driving force for planets orbiting planets.

Last edited by BrianK on 02-May-2011 at 05:22 AM.

@T-J

Quote:

Couldn't tell you. I'd need some numbers to do the maths.

Distance: 15000 AU
1 AU = 149597870.7 kilometers

Mass of the sun according to science: 332946 Earth masses
Sun mass = 2 × 10 (30) kg
Tyche: 4 Jupiter masses
Jupiter mass = 1.90 x 10 (27) kg
Tyche = 7.6 x 10 (27) kg

The figure between round brackets should be in superscirpt.

That all the numbers you need. Like you tell me all the time, now just do the math please.

Last edited by MikeB on 02-May-2011 at 07:40 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 02-May-2011 at 07:38 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Respect is the admiration of others due to their abilities or achievements.

To respect someone rights means more like: "to show regard or consideration for".

Quote:

Science is this open and honest system. It accepts all comers and acceptance is measured by observational support and predictive accuracy.

Not really, unproven theories will be picked amongst many different unproven theories. Take einstein's space-time light bending theory, without you having been taught this to be so, would you have picked that theory above mine? I think for most that wouldn't even be the case if not they know Einstein said so (the modern day equivalent of a saint).

Last edited by MikeB on 02-May-2011 at 07:53 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 02-May-2011 at 07:51 AM.

Obama announced Osamo Bin Laden has been killed, sadly this means he won't be brought to justice with a full scale investigation (such as the Bush relationship with his family).

Some think the US's main puppet within al-Qaeda may now be dead and there's now no control anymore over al-Qaeda.

A major long time enemy of Iranian government is now dead (as well as Saddam Hussein, the primary Iranian enemy of the past).

Last edited by MikeB on 02-May-2011 at 08:18 AM.

Nostradamus:

" 'Mabus' then will soon die, there will come
Of people and beasts a horrible rout:
Then suddenly one will see vengeance,
Hundred, hand, thirst, hunger when the comet will run."

Is oba-MABUS-h dead?

@Lou

Quote:

They won't bother watching those videos.

Also watch the 2nd video. Basically the scientist wonders what was of so great significance with regard to Orion to which the piramids are aligned and pointing to (The Sphinx pointing to the rising sun while the great piramids point towards Orion). You can easily find Orion due to the 3 bright stars at about equal distance from each other in an almost straight line, perpendicular to the middle of Orion's belt is Betelgeuse, a star which is one the verge of going supernova (in galactic terms).

I think the answer is likely the orbittal path of Nibiru and the Piramids signify the biggest hint towards Nibiru here on earth. This is (or was) likely the direction of where Nibiru would be located as viewed from earth.

The Egyptions believed it points to the kingdom of Osiris. Also known as the "king of the underworld" and "judge of the dead". The Sphinx points to Ra's rising point (Lord of Sky and Life).

Ancient abrahamic texts reffer to Orion as Nimrod. And talks about "evil Nimrod vs. the righteous Abraham", cataclysmic collision between good and evil and monotheism against polytheism. Nimrod has been indentified as Marduk (according to the summerians Nibiru is Marduk's star).

Nimrod also symbolizes the foundation of Freemasonry.

Last edited by MikeB on 04-May-2011 at 01:43 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 02-May-2011 at 12:42 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 02-May-2011 at 12:39 PM.