@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20110518/od_yblog_upshot/new-book-says-ussr-behind-roswell-ufo This is ridiculous. Even the people leaving commnets don't believe this and believe it was a real ufo. If it was the USSR who was magically deep in gene-altering and having remote controlled spacecraft 800 miles inland in 1947, I wonder what tech they have now... /fail Ofcourse if it was the USSR, I think all the documents would be declassified by now, no?

You're getting there Lou! Extraordinary claims must be supported with extraordinary evidence. There's no evidence USSR had either the biological or aeroplane design skills in 1947 which they could use to pull off such a feat. And progress says that newer and better technology in the same vein from Russia should exist.

You have 1 more layer to uncover. Demand extraordinary evidence for the little grey men (LGM) from another planet! It's certainly not as exciting as a mundane weather balloon.

Last edited by BrianK on 19-May-2011 at 03:07 AM.

@BrianK

You have provided no-extraordinary evidence why Nibiru cannot exist. You have been provided overwhelming evidence that it does.

You have been provided overwhelming evidence that magnetism plays a crucial influence in our solar system and galaxy. You have provided no extraordinary evidence that gravity (just attraction and no repulsion) is central to how our solar system or galaxy operates.

Evidence for little grey aliens exists since the very beginnings of known human civilization:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/anunnaki/anu_1b.htm
http://www.xfacts.com/

@MikeB

Quote:

You have provided no-extraordinary evidence why Nibiru cannot exist

This statement is a logical fallacy called - ad ignorantium. What you're stating is that your claim must be true because we don't know it's false. You are supporting that if we're ignorant of it's existence it therefore exists. The problem here is existence is not dependent upon knowledge.

In science the claim (Nibiru exists) isn't accepted as true until VALID evidence exists. Reading in a book that Nibiru exists isn't valid evidence. Instead we must observe Nibiru or the effects of Nibiru. And for certain you and Lou and others have provided evidence of Nibiru's existence through the effects the planet has on earth. For example, causes earthquakes on alignments. We've been able to demonstrate that the claimed effects are not correct, therefore are invalid, and therefore can't be evidence.

Quote:

You have been provided overwhelming evidence that magnetism plays a crucial influence in our solar system and galaxy

Unfortunately you have not succeeded at this. You've not been able to bring any formulas or demonstrate that magentism makes better and more accurate predictions than Newtonian Gravity, let alone Einsteinian Gravity which is even more accurate and a better predictor. Again conjecture is not conclusive.

Nibiru and magentism are you claims. It's up to you to prove the hypothesis is correct. It's not up to me to prove you guess is wrong. Though I feel I have overwhelming demonstrated that various claims of your ideas are wrong. So you're welcome as one helps you 'consider' through reason and logic.

@BrianK

Quote:

demonstrate that magentism makes better and more accurate predictions than Newtonian Gravity

As the orbits are observed empirically you can put this into a formula like the ancients did. The ancients certainly didn't need Newton's help to accurately predict a solar eclipse happening thousands of years into the future.

Then when you understand the formula, science tries to explain this behaviour based on gravity (or rather attracting force) as extensively observed on the surface of the earth. For this to work according to this logic the planets somehow need to have a certain momentum (which must not change or else the planet will develop a different orbit or plunge into the sun).

To make it all work roughly the scientists based everything on estimated mass. And of course as the mass is only estimated they can alter the estimated mass to suit the formula. Of course there is actually a relationship with mass as well as with regard to volume (the latter modern science sadly doesn't seem to understand, they know a vacuum isn't really a vacuum but they still treat it as such).

You will never get a simple one dimensional formula for understanding our solar system as many factors are involved and some things are simply beyond your understanding. As for example to why magnetism plays such a crucial part during these billions of years in establishing the current orbits, how can a fluctuating magnetic field strenght for an extremely short period of time does not influence the orbittal paths? You have been provided answers to such questions, but cannot understand or accept the meanings, so we can only agree that we disagree.

The "science" model is simply obsolete, it raises far more questions than it provides us with answers. A lot of new theories (lacking any evidence at all) are needed to support this obsolete and misleading theory.

Last edited by MikeB on 19-May-2011 at 12:37 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 19-May-2011 at 12:34 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Lou wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20110518/od_yblog_upshot/new-book-says-ussr-behind-roswell-ufo This is ridiculous. Even the people leaving commnets don't believe this and believe it was a real ufo. If it was the USSR who was magically deep in gene-altering and having remote controlled spacecraft 800 miles inland in 1947, I wonder what tech they have now... /fail Ofcourse if it was the USSR, I think all the documents would be declassified by now, no? You're getting there Lou! Extraordinary claims must be supported with extraordinary evidence. There's no evidence USSR had either the biological or aeroplane design skills in 1947 which they could use to pull off such a feat. And progress says that newer and better technology in the same vein from Russia should exist. You have 1 more layer to uncover. Demand extraordinary evidence for the little grey men (LGM) from another planet! It's certainly not as exciting as a mundane weather balloon.

Now ask yourself. If the general populace believes it really was a ufo, wouldn't it now be ok to release the info officially? They seem to be working their way up to it with the FBI file I linked in the part 1 thread...

@MikeB

Quote:

You have provided no-extraordinary evidence why Nibiru cannot exist. You have been provided overwhelming evidence that it does.

'Evidence'. You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means.

Evidence is an observation or fact, or a correct prediction, that serves to confirm a given hypothesis. You have failed to provide any observations, facts or correct predictions about anything using your 'theories', therefore they have no evidence supporting them, therefore they are rejected in favour of theories that do have evidence.


For example,

You have no evidence for Nibiru. You can't point a telescope at its predicted location and identify it, even though you claim it is now closer to the Earth than Jupiter and ten times its size.

And in my last big post, I ran through some basic geological reasons why your 'theory' is completely impossible. Did you read that?

We have plenty of reasons why Nibiru cannot exist. I'm not going to waste my time going over them again, because whenever you are presented with evidence against Nibiru, you clap your hands over your ears and tell us that because our physics does not allow Nibiru to exist, our physics must be wrong.

Instead, you choose to put your faith in proven-to-be-wrong frauds like Sitchin, madmen like Velikovsky or work so obsolete as to be completely irrelevant, like Hapgood. Its really quite amazing.

Quote:

You have been provided overwhelming evidence that magnetism plays a crucial influence in our solar system and galaxy. You have provided no extraordinary evidence that gravity (just attraction and no repulsion) is central to how our solar system or galaxy operates.

We have been provided with absolutely stuff-all evidence for your magnetism theory!

You cannot provide a single equation describing the motion of anything with your magnets 'theory', so we as rational people are forced to reject it as a scientific theory.

Our evidence for gravity is that we use its predictions to put probes out beyond the heliopause, among many, many other things. Each correct prediction we make using the theory of gravity adds further evidence to our theory, and detracts a little more credibility from your religion.

Quote:

Evidence for little grey aliens exists since the very beginnings of known human civilization: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/anunnaki/anu_1b.htm http://www.xfacts.com/

Sumerians again? But Sitchin's translations are faked!

And you have no evidence backing up any of those claims. Its just a crock of paranoid delusion. Until you can come up with something better than 'its all being covered up by the Government/Illuminati/Prince Phillip, and actually provide some hard evidence, you are just going to keep looking like the stereotypical tin-foil hat wearer.

Last edited by T-J on 19-May-2011 at 12:49 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 19-May-2011 at 12:48 PM.

@MikeB

I am uncertain as to whether you understand what the term evidence actually means.

Quote:

You have provided no-extraordinary evidence why Nibiru cannot exist.

I am also unable to provide evidence that a volcano did not erupt this morning, in the Champs Elysees in Paris, I merely assume the lack of people running around, screaming, and bursting into flames as they run through lakes of bubbling lava indicates a similar lack of catastrophe. Quote:

You have been provided overwhelming evidence that it does.

Infinite repetition of the same baseless assertion does not add one iota of weight to that baseless assertion.
Quote:

You have been provided overwhelming evidence that magnetism plays a crucial influence in our solar system and galaxy.

Correction: I have overwhelming evidence that magnetism exists within the solar system and galaxy, and also evidence of its magnitude.
Quote:

You have provided no extraordinary evidence that gravity (just attraction and no repulsion) is central to how our solar system or galaxy operates.

Newtons laws of motion, in conjunction with his laws of gravity, provide a workable "rule of thumb". If greater accuracy is required you may refer to Einsteins general and special relativity. These equations are able to predict planetary and lunar orbits inside the solar system, calculate satellite and probe velocities required for a successful mission, and detect planets orbiting in distant solar systems. So nothing extraordinary there then.
By contrast your own hypothesis of an electromagnetically operated universe fails on mathematics, fails on observed and measured magnetic fields, fails on axial tilts of planets, and fails on the conta-rotation of the planet Venus.
Quote:

Evidence for little grey aliens exists since the very beginnings of known human civilization:

Cue another link to somebody who has read a link from somebody who has heard about a website about Sitchin and his inability to write good science fiction. Followed by a return to the good old ooparts, the "Baghdad battery" and the Antikythera mechanism. If an archaeologist were to dig up a jar of jam he could quite easily misinterpret it as a battery, it would only require about the same level of modification as these artifacts have received. The Antikythera mechanism does not stand in glorious isolation amid a primitive caveman culture. You may possibly have heard of Archimedes, Pythagoras, or Heron of Alexandria, but seen fit to ignore their achievements. It then goes on about alien visitors because homo sapiens is too thick to pick their own noses without some superior beings, (either grey aliens or white europeans) telling them what to do. Do you have any idea of just how condescending this attitude to people is?

Remember this list at all?Quote:

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)

You fail on points 1,2,3,8,and 9

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

Last edited by Nimrod on 19-May-2011 at 01:03 PM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 19-May-2011 at 12:59 PM.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Now ask yourself. If the general populace believes it really was a ufo, wouldn't it now be ok to release the info officially? They seem to be working their way up to it with the FBI file I linked in the part 1 thread...

It would have been O.K. years ago, Maybe the reason that they didn't admit it is because it is not true. Of course that goes completely against the principle of a conspiracy theory

P.S. could you please reference your claim by repeating the link from part 1 thread. Thank you.

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

@MikeB

Quote:

As the orbits are observed empirically you can put this into a formula like the ancients did. The ancients certainly didn't need Newton's help to accurately predict a solar eclipse happening thousands of years into the future.

The Ancients did not do this. The archaeology indicates that they did not have the ability. The Sumerians' main innovation, if I remember rightly, was their use of a place value numeral system.

Quote:

Then when you understand the formula, science tries to explain this behaviour based on gravity (or rather attracting force) as extensively observed on the surface of the earth. For this to work according to this logic the planets somehow need to have a certain momentum (which must not change or else the planet will develop a different orbit or plunge into the sun).

You clearly do not understand the formulae. That's, formulae plural, because physics is more complex than a single simple equation describing everything. That is of course our goal, but we're not there yet.

Quote:

To make it all work roughly the scientists based everything on estimated mass. And of course as the mass is only estimated they can alter the estimated mass to suit the formula. Of course there is actually a relationship with mass as well as with regard to volume (the latter modern science sadly doesn't seem to understand, they know a vacuum isn't really a vacuum but they still treat it as such).

Nonsense. But whatever. The arrogance of the conspiracy theorist and self-declared genius is to declare modern science as ignorant of a simple little fact like the observation that space is not a complete vacuum.

Now, onto the 'estimated to suit the formula' rubbish - you do know that we have directly measured every planet in the solar system now, don't you? Your previous favourite planet, Planet X, was removed from the list of hypotheses when the Voyager flypasts provided accurate measurements of the mass of Uranus and Neptune and in so doing removed all the arguments in favour of its existence.

So much for 'science is stupid and can only guess', eh?


Quote:

You will never get a simple one dimensional formula for understanding our solar system as many factors are involved and some things are simply beyond your understanding.

Do you know, its the strangest thing, but I've heard almost that exact answer before. It was when I was very young and asked that question about where God came from.

Thank you for confirming once again my observation that your worldview is grounded in blind faith rather than hard evidence.

Quote:

As for example to why magnetism plays such a crucial part during these billions of years in establishing the current orbits, how can a fluctuating magnetic field strenght for an extremely short period of time does not influence the orbittal paths? You have been provided answers to such questions, but cannot understand or accept the meanings, so we can only agree that we disagree.

We have been provided with no such answers, only repeat assertions of faith. If you provided one shred of scientific evidence, we could have a discussion. But no, you refuse to provide that. We can agree to disagree, but I for one will not stop arguing against you until you drop the veil of science and are willing to portray your views as the faith in the Cult of Sitchin/Velikovsky/Lieder that they are.

Quote:

The "science" model is simply obsolete, it raises far more questions than it provides us with answers. A lot of new theories (lacking any evidence at all) are needed to support this obsolete and misleading theory.

So, because the scientific method doesn't give you the answers you want, its obsolete. Yes, that's pretty much the level of thought we've come to expect.

And your evidence for saying modern physics has no evidence to support it is... ? Right, nothing!

And lets take a simple little example. What do you think the Large Hadron Collider is for, if not for gathering evidence for advanced theories of physics? Hmm?

End of the world machine? Time travel enabler? Communications array to contact the Borg of the 21st Century... wait, wrong film.

Last edited by T-J on 19-May-2011 at 01:06 PM.

@T-J

Explain the orbit of our moon, if you can do this based on the universal gravity it will win you a nobel price (but it can't as it is false).

According to science the sun has twice the gravitational pull on our moon than the earth does (based merely on estimated masses and distance). As the moon is smaller than the earth (and less dense) it goes without saying the earth receives much more gravitational pull from the sun than it does from our moon as well.

Why are the ocean tides thus dependent on the positioning of the moon instead of which side is currently facing (or opposing) the sun?

Think about it. Universal gravity is a myth based on earthly gravity (or rather attractive) observations.

At least you don't have to worry anymore about the earth will losing its moon based on flawed theories.

Last edited by MikeB on 19-May-2011 at 01:06 PM.

@MikeB



Clearly, both bodies are in orbit around the sun, with the moon also orbiting the earth in a dual system. You can very easily read articles on the orbit of the moon, available for free on the internet, that'll do a better job of answering your loaded question than I can, if you would but open your mind.

Funny you should mention tides, though. No, really, you made me laugh. Because its frankly amazing that Nibiru is still having absolutely no impact on them. Quite amazing.

But anyway, if you stopped to think about it, the tides are affected by the sun as well as the moon. And, shockingly, we already knew that! So much for your unique genius in the field of tidal studies. Spring tides and neap tides are the result of the sun and moon's gravity 'stacking up' or cancelling out.

And 'myths'? The only myths being peddled here are the writings of cranks like Sitchin.

And yes, the Earth will eventually lose the moon.

We can directly measure the speed at which it is happening too. Direct observational evidence using laser rangefinding technology. Adding more evidence to the gravitational theory, not less.


Now, your turn: Explain the contra-rotation of Venus, using your magnets woo-woo.

And while you're at it, address (separately if you need to) the geological reasons why your Nibiru theory is bunk.

Last edited by T-J on 19-May-2011 at 01:17 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 19-May-2011 at 01:15 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 19-May-2011 at 01:14 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Explain the orbit of our moon, if you can do this based on the universal gravity it will win you a nobel price (but it can't as it is false).

Too late, it's already been done, and won. My drinking partner Albert did it years ago.

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

@T-J

Quote:

You can very easily read articles on the orbit of the moon, available for free on the internet, that'll do a better job of answering your loaded question than I can, if you would but open your mind

The moon's orbit cannot be scientifically explained and remains a mistery to science.

Quote:

Funny you should mention tides, though. No, really, you made me laugh. Because its frankly amazing that Nibiru is still having absolutely no impact on them. Quite amazing.

Why would it based on my theories even if it was as close to earth as the sun (which at this point it most certainly isn't!)?

Gravity effects should according to my theories only play a role when the planet gets really close to earth. The first effects we should notice (and maybe the only effect if the planets do not get close enough) would be magnetic interactions (such as alignments). At great distance it does influence the sun magnetically and there is evidence pointing towards such.

Last edited by MikeB on 19-May-2011 at 01:42 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

Explain the contra-rotation of Venus

Just like the tilts of planets this can possibly explained by a brown dwarf star periodically entering the solar system.

As I stated I believe the pancake shape of our solar system and galaxy is due to magnetism. The orbits are counter clockwise because the sun rotates counter clockwise itself.

Now imagine a high mass planet or "failed star" entering the solar system in between earth and Venus. This planet has its own magnetic current which is unlike that of the sun. This spiral wave will thus have a different effect on the planets orbitting the sun at one side of the planet than on the other side of the planet. Thus it may have opposite effects on the earth compared to Venus (which may have caused the rotation to slow and actually go into the opposite direction.

That's just my 1 minute guess as so far I haven't given it much thought.

@MikeB

Quote:

The moon's orbit cannot be scientifically explained and remains a mistery to science.

This is a very bold statement, and you make it without providing a single shred of evidence to support it. It is a completely baseless assertion.

Quote:

Why would it based on my theories even if it was as close to earth as the sun (which at this point it most certainly isn't!)?

Your so called theory is not a theory, and will never become a theory until you provide some form of evidence for it. Your hypotheses against the laws of gravity exist only to attempt to lend credibility to the fiction of Sitchin. They have no observational basis, no evidential basis, and no mathematical basis.
BrianK has provided astronomical evidence that your hypothesis is incorrect.
T-J has provided geological evidence that your hypothesis is incorrect.
I have used mathematics to demonstrate differences in orders of magnitude to show that your hypothesis is incorrect.

Remember this list at all?Quote:

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)

This time you fail on 1,2,3,7,8, and 9

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:

MikeB wrote: @T-J Quote: Explain the contra-rotation of Venus Just like the tilts of planets this can possibly explained by a brown dwarf star periodically entering the solar system. As I stated I believe the pancake shape of our solar system and galaxy is due to magnetism. The orbits are counter clockwise because the sun rotates counter clockwise itself. Now imagine a high mass planet or "failed star" entering the solar system in between earth and Venus. This planet has its own magnetic current which is unlike that of the sun. This spiral wave will thus have a different effect on the planets orbitting the sun at one side of the planet than on the other side of the planet. Thus it may have opposite effects on the earth compared to Venus (which may have caused the rotation to slow and actually go into the opposite direction. That's just my 1 minute guess as so far I haven't given it much thought.

I have followed every link that you have posted in support of your "The sky is falling" hypothesis, and watched every video, even that 157min40sec of rambling mindless drivel, simply because you asked us ho have an open mind. Do you think that it might possibly not be asking too much for you to read the replies, and apply your mind to the content of those replies.
In response to your electromotive solar system I suggested you look at the basic principles of operation of a three phase squirrel cage induction motor, paying particular attention to the alignment of magnetic fields. You clearly have not bothered to do so, you merely wait a short while, then repeat the same uninspired, unmitigated, unadulterated, unsupported, unscientific ignorance.

You say you haven't given it much thought. The correct phrase is "haven't given it any thought.

Last edited by Nimrod on 19-May-2011 at 02:36 PM.

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

@MikeB

Quote:

The moon's orbit cannot be scientifically explained and remains a mistery to science.

The moon's orbit can be scientifically explained, and this explanation has been confirmed by direct observational evidence.

Laser rangefinders trump baseless assertions any day of the week, mate.

Quote:

Why would it based on my theories even if it was as close to earth as the sun (which at this point it most certainly isn't!)?

But Mike, your 'theories' are not usable. They have no basis in observation and cannot be used to make any predictions about anything.

If your 'theories' aren't usable, they are wrong. And as such, not theories, merely failed hypotheses.

Quote:

Gravity effects should according to my theories only play a role when the planet gets really close to earth.

This is the easiest thing in the world to confirm - make some observations and build a mathematical model describing them. Then we can have a discussion. Until you do that, all you have is baseless assertions that are more appropriate to a cult than a discussion about science.

Quote:

Just like the tilts of planets this can possibly explained by a brown dwarf star periodically entering the solar system.

No, I don't think so.

Firstly, there is no such brown dwarf entering the inner solar system.

Secondly, in an electro-magnetically dominated system, any perturbance imposed by an outside interloper would quickly be corrected by the magnetic field. If Venus were temporarily forced to rotate backwards, it would quickly be forced back into a normal rotation by the sun's magnetic field after 'Nibiru' had passed.

In a gravitational system, however, this does not need to happen. So it can continue rotating backwards and cause no problems whatsoever. Likewise for axial tilts - a system dominated by magnetism would force tilted planets back to an upright orientation.

This clearly hasn't happened, hence we reject your hypothesis.



Also, I still haven't heard back on the geological evidence point.

@Nimrod

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/fbi-vault-reveals-ufo-roswell-files/story?id=13347754

Atleast the British government is becoming more open...

Last edited by Lou on 19-May-2011 at 02:45 PM.

@T-J

Just draw the alledged forces as factors while the moon goes round the earth as well as the sun and remember the Sun's gravitational pull on the moon is twice that of the earth according to modern science.



And as magnetism is of no effect according to you, why is its orbit tilted in the same way as the earth is tilted? Really, just think about it.

And again, why doesn't the sun have a much greater influence on the tides than the earth's moon considering its gravitational pull on the earth is many times greater? Really, just think about it.

@MikeB

Quote:

As the orbits are observed empirically you can put this into a formula like the ancients did. The ancients certainly didn't need Newton's help to accurately predict a solar eclipse happening thousands of years into the future.

I know of no formula ancients used on such a thing. Though we do see ancient writings of people quaking in fear of when the sun unexpected snuffed out (aka blocked in an eclipse) and other such surprises. And of course various cultures noticed that a light backed up in the sky sometimes. Which was Mars and which doesn't ever go backwards it's an effect from our vantage point. Which leads us to their conception that earth was the center of the universe which is why they didn't figure out Mars was an optical illusion not a reality of it's motion. I think the valid evidence is opposite to your claim.

And even Newton failed to some degree as under his system Vulcan was invented to explain Mars not spiraling into the sun. This was later dropped as there was no valid evidence of Vulcan and a new and better method explaining the orbit of the spheres exists.

Quote:

Then when you understand the formula, science tries to explain this behaviour based on gravity

You have this backwards too.

Quote:

You will never get a simple one dimensional formula for understanding our solar system

You mean the multidimensional Einstein's Gravity Field equations which are non-linear and partial differential which give better predictability than any equation right?

Quote:

The "science" model is simply obsolete, it raises far more questions than it provides us with answers. A lot of new theories (lacking any evidence at all) are needed to support this obsolete and misleading theory

Yes MikeB science is incomplete. I think the problem here demonstrates you likely lack an understanding of what science is.

And of course slipping back to your 'one dimensial formula' statement it's only IF such a thing were to exist that science would be complete. I don't think you realize how internally negating your own statements are in respect to each other.

Last edited by BrianK on 19-May-2011 at 04:14 PM.