Niburu is the topic you say?
Here's some fresh news about comets:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131218095839.htm

Quote:

Comet ISON, which disintegrated following a close encounter with our Sun at the end of November, may have been put on a Sun-grazing orbit by a star that passed near to the Solar System in the past.

...

Quote:

if the simulations are in line with what the astronomers see, then this would be a 'smoking gun' for a stellar interaction and proof that other stars can affect how planetary systems form and evolve.

Here's the summary once again in case you forgot:
http://astrologiamedicaymtch.blogspot.com/2011/09/so-it-was-creation-of-solar-system.html

I'm sure you'll have FACTS that will disprove Sitchin...actually, no, the typical "I don't believe" response will continue to be par for the course for zealots...

@Lou

I see that you still have you usual blind spots and are proudly displaying them for all to see.
1) you still have no concept of something called mathematics and are therefore incapable of recognising that the Fomalhaut system forms a trinary unit with a total mass many times that of our own Sun. Fomalhaut A is alone almost twice the mass of our own sun despite being metal deficient in comparison to Sol.
2) We know that Fomalhaut is a trinary system because, even though it is 25 light years away, we can see it. We have even been able to spot a planet in the system from 25 light years away, and now we even know of a cometary belt. And yet we are still unable to detect any sign of a close companion to our own sun. WISE was able to spot a brown dwarf at approximately 6.5 light years from us, and all sorts of little asteroids, but nothing matching your Nibiru fantasy.
3) Ancient Sumerians knew of seven wandering lights in the sky and they ascribed a day of the week to each one. Modern versions of this practice leads to planet names still being found in the names of the days of the week in some modern languages. These planets were The Sun(Utu), The Moon(Nanna), Mercury(Enki), Venus(Inanna), Mars(Gugulanna), Jupiter(Enlil), and Saturn(Ninurta). Lists of the planets were translated from Sumerian to Akkadian, and from there to later Mesopotamian, Ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin. I mention these translations and dictionaries because they are all resources that Sitchin was either unaware of or chose to ignore when he penned his second rate work of fiction. The Sumerians were unaware of the existence of Uranus and Neptune, and since they had a geocentric view of the universe didn't know that the Earth orbited the Sun. They also didn't care about Mickey Mouses dog.
4) There is a huge difference between could have been, and is. As you are so fond of saying, "If your aunt had been equipped with a dick, she could have been your uncle. She wasn't so she isn't. There is no companion star to our Sun, and all of the wishful thinking in the world will not give us one.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou I see that you still have you usual blind spots and are proudly displaying them for all to see. 1) you still have no concept of something called mathematics and are therefore incapable of recognising that the Fomalhaut system forms a trinary unit with a total mass many times that of our own Sun. Fomalhaut A is alone almost twice the mass of our own sun despite being metal deficient in comparison to Sol. 2) We know that Fomalhaut is a trinary system because, even though it is 25 light years away, we can see it. We have even been able to spot a planet in the system from 25 light years away, and now we even know of a cometary belt. And yet we are still unable to detect any sign of a close companion to our own sun. WISE was able to spot a brown dwarf at approximately 6.5 light years from us, and all sorts of little asteroids, but nothing matching your Nibiru fantasy. 3) Ancient Sumerians knew of seven wandering lights in the sky and they ascribed a day of the week to each one. Modern versions of this practice leads to planet names still being found in the names of the days of the week in some modern languages. These planets were The Sun(Utu), The Moon(Nanna), Mercury(Enki), Venus(Inanna), Mars(Gugulanna), Jupiter(Enlil), and Saturn(Ninurta). Lists of the planets were translated from Sumerian to Akkadian, and from there to later Mesopotamian, Ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin. I mention these translations and dictionaries because they are all resources that Sitchin was either unaware of or chose to ignore when he penned his second rate work of fiction. The Sumerians were unaware of the existence of Uranus and Neptune, and since they had a geocentric view of the universe didn't know that the Earth orbited the Sun. They also didn't care about Mickey Mouses dog. 4) There is a huge difference between could have been, and is. As you are so fond of saying, "If your aunt had been equipped with a dick, she could have been your uncle. She wasn't so she isn't. There is no companion star to our Sun, and all of the wishful thinking in the world will not give us one.

As usual your opinion is worthless.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=372

Last time I looked at a history book, Sumer no longer existed when the Greeks and Romans started throwing planetary names around...

As usual, you love putting words in the ancient pasts' mouth.

Last edited by Lou on 02-Jan-2014 at 10:25 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Last time I looked at a history book, Sumer no longer existed when the Greeks and Romans started throwing planetary names around.

You are quite correct Lou, Sumer no longer existed. But the bit that you have difficulty with is that Sumer was superseded by Akkad, and the Akkadians kept written records. Akkad was then superseded by Babylon, and Babylon also kept written records. Babylon also absorbed the Israelites, and guess what, the Israelites kept written records of their period of captivity, and things that they learned from the Babylonians.
These written records, and also cultural cross pollination of ideas through trade as well as conquest is the reason that the Sumerian seven day week continues to this day, as does the twelve sign zodiac (The original names have changed, but not the symbols), duodecimal counting for the hours in a day, and the division of a circle into 360 degrees. And also the characteristic deities for the planet namely that Mars was not only associated with the Roman god of war, but the same planet was associated with the Sumerian god of war. Likewise all of the other deities and planets. There is an unbroken continuity of ideas that can be followed. Sitchins fantasy represents a clear discontinuity.

Something else that may interest you. A possible explanation that warrants further investigation perhaps?

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

@Nimrod

Ions, schmions, we all know aliens did it.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: Last time I looked at a history book, Sumer no longer existed when the Greeks and Romans started throwing planetary names around. You are quite correct Lou, Sumer no longer existed. But the bit that you have difficulty with is that Sumer was superseded by Akkad, and the Akkadians kept written records. Akkad was then superseded by Babylon, and Babylon also kept written records. Babylon also absorbed the Israelites, and guess what, the Israelites kept written records of their period of captivity, and things that they learned from the Babylonians. These written records, and also cultural cross pollination of ideas through trade as well as conquest is the reason that the Sumerian seven day week continues to this day, as does the twelve sign zodiac (The original names have changed, but not the symbols), duodecimal counting for the hours in a day, and the division of a circle into 360 degrees. And also the characteristic deities for the planet namely that Mars was not only associated with the Roman god of war, but the same planet was associated with the Sumerian god of war. Likewise all of the other deities and planets. There is an unbroken continuity of ideas that can be followed. Sitchins fantasy represents a clear discontinuity.

Yes, I am amused about the selective written records you choose to accept as fact. Originally, those written records were all thought to be myth because of the translator's interpretation. Eventually, someone figured out that it had to do with [omg] the stars. Funny how the bulk by the translations you accept is still considered myth, no?

Quote:

Something else that may interest you. A possible explanation that warrants further investigation perhaps?

You refuse to accept that EM is the dominant force around you, so you'd simply do the usual "I don't believe" excuse like you do with everything.

Something else may interest you:
You do realize that the earth's core is spinning in the opposite direction of the "rotation" of the planet, right?

Last edited by Lou on 04-Jan-2014 at 06:48 PM.

@any rocket scientist

You favorite engineer: Xavier Borg - has been at it again!
http://blazelabs.com/f-u-photons.asp (note the intended pun of the page name)

Actually, the whole site has been restructured better and contain MUCH more information and actual math and science than anyone here can or has provided.

Just keep repeating "I don't believe! I don't believe!" if it makes you feel better...

@Lou

Interesting postulates, but as science it's missing a verifiable prediction to prove it works better than the currently accepted theory.

"the math is prettier" just isn't a good enough argument.

If he was to say, "from this it follows that X, which we can observe and which the classical duality theory doesn't explain" then we would all be all over it. Stat.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou Interesting postulates, but as science it's missing a verifiable prediction to prove it works better than the currently accepted theory. "the math is prettier" just isn't a good enough argument. If he was to say, "from this it follows that X, which we can observe and which the classical duality theory doesn't explain" then we would all be all over it. Stat.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/12/direct-measurements-of-the-wave-nature-of-matter/

Some quotes from Einstein:

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
- Relativity doesn't fit the facts.

"The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms."
-So why hack on "Dark" crap theories to add to relativity?

"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid."
"Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone."
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking."
- RP is explainable to a barmaid, its simple, it makes sense.

Perhaps you don't like the simplicity of RP because you are bitter that you didn't think of it first?

Last edited by Lou on 05-Jan-2014 at 07:02 PM.

@Lou
Quote:

You refuse to accept that EM is the dominant force around you

I am perfectly willing to accept that EM discharges can produce a pretty show of lights, but magnetic fields remain a short range force in comparison to gravity. Also magnetic fields can be shaded or deflected, gravity cannot.

Quote:

Perhaps you don't like the simplicity of RP because you are bitter that you didn't think of it first?

When you can shine a light at the ground and get launched into orbit I will believe in RP, until then the measured values of radiation pressure are too low, These stars are still moving towards each other due to gravitational attraction, and planets still orbit stars instead of being pushed away from them to a point equidistant from all nearby stars.

The measured Radiation pressure on the Earth from the strongest source is less than 10 µPa and the radiation pressure between the stars of the Milky Way galaxy is between 1-10 fPa with the intergalactic medium going as low as 10 aPa. These levels are simplt too low to achieve the effect that you are trying to pretend that they do.

If Relativity doesn't fit the facts, find something that fits better and stop keep digging up CRAP that doesn't fit anything at all. Relativity is not maintained because Einstein thought of it. Relativity is adhered to because it remains the best theory. It predicts certain levels and types of matter and energy, and we are beginning to find the things that it predicts, in the places it tells us to look. Kaluza-Klein theory also made predictions, and the things that it predicted have still never been detected at any level.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: You refuse to accept that EM is the dominant force around you I am perfectly willing to accept that EM discharges can produce a pretty show of lights, but magnetic fields remain a short range force in comparison to gravity. Also magnetic fields can be shaded or deflected, gravity cannot. Quote: Perhaps you don't like the simplicity of RP because you are bitter that you didn't think of it first? When you can shine a light at the ground and get launched into orbit I will believe in RP, until then the measured values of radiation pressure are too low, These stars are still moving towards each other due to gravitational attraction, and planets still orbit stars instead of being pushed away from them to a point equidistant from all nearby stars. The measured Radiation pressure on the Earth from the strongest source is less than 10 µPa and the radiation pressure between the stars of the Milky Way galaxy is between 1-10 fPa with the intergalactic medium going as low as 10 aPa. These levels are simplt too low to achieve the effect that you are trying to pretend that they do. If Relativity doesn't fit the facts, find something that fits better and stop keep digging up CRAP that doesn't fit anything at all. Relativity is not maintained because Einstein thought of it. Relativity is adhered to because it remains the best theory. It predicts certain levels and types of matter and energy, and we are beginning to find the things that it predicts, in the places it tells us to look. Kaluza-Klein theory also made predictions, and the things that it predicted have still never been detected at any level.

You're being ignorant.

Mathematical proof that the electron is a spherical electromagnetic standing wave:

Let's find the 'mass' of a spherical standing wave having the same diameter and charge of the electron:

Starting from the equation for the capacitance of an isolated spherical charge: C= 4.p.e0.r
The total internal energy stored in an electromagnetic standing wave = Electric field energy + Magnetic field energy, where Electric field energy = Magnetic field energy, hence:
Total internal energy E = 2 * Electric field Energy = 2 * Magnetic field energy ... so it's enough if we solve for one of these to get the total internal energy for an electron.

Total internal energy E = 2 * Electrical Energy = 2* (1/2QV) = QV ... where V=Q/C
Total internal energy E = Q^2/C ... substitiuting for C, we get
Total internal energy E = Q^2/(4.p.e0.r), Substitiuting for Q=electron charge=1.602E-19 Coulombs, r=classical electron radius= 2.8179E-15 m, and e0 = permittivity of free space = 8.854E-12 F/m
Total internal energy E = 8.18735E-14 Joules
Using E=mc^2, we get
Electron standing wave mass = 9.1096E-31kg ... which is the known electron mass.

This clearly shows that what we call electron mass is nothing but the electromagnetic effect of a spherical standing wave.

Last edited by Lou on 05-Jan-2014 at 08:39 PM.

Quote:

Something else that may interest you. A possible explanation that warrants further investigation perhaps?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/seismologists-offer-explanation-for-mysterious-aerial-light-orbs-preceding-quakes/

EM. Anyone else shocked? Pun intended.
After all, only EM has the power to move the earth.

Last edited by Lou on 05-Jan-2014 at 08:43 PM.

Cold Fusion course to run again at MIT
http://coldfusionnow.org/mit-iap-cold-fusion-101-to-run-again/

Do note that Jeremy Rys is mentioned.

@Lou



Now go on to provide a verifiable prediction which the classical model fails on. You know, "be better".

Edit: This in reference to post 591.

Last edited by olegil on 06-Jan-2014 at 03:06 PM.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou Now go on to provide a verifiable prediction which the classical model fails on. You know, "be better". Edit: This in reference to post 591.

RP shielding explains the mass defect in the nucleus of an atom.
The classical model is epic fail.

Also...
EMRP Gravity Theory eliminates dark matter

If one applies Newton's law of gravity, or even the latest refined theory of Einstein's laws of gravity, to the way galaxies spin, one will quickly stumble into a big problem: the galaxies should be falling apart. Galactic matter orbits around a central point because according to the known laws of gravity, its mutual gravitational attraction creates centripetal forces which exactly balance the centifugal forces. But here is a hunch : there is not enough mass in the galaxies to produce the observed spin, and we're not off by a small percentage, there should be about nine times the existing matter.
It was in the late 1970's when, Vera Rubin, an astronomer working at the Carnegie Institution's department of terrestrial magnetism in Washington DC, spotted this anomaly for the first time. This missing mass was termed dark matter. The best response from physicists was to suggest there is more stuff out there than we can see. The trouble was, nobody could explain what this "dark matter" was, and nobody could find any trace of it anywhere. Although researchers have made many suggestions about what kind of particles might make up dark matter, there is yet no consensus. It's an embarrassing hole in our understanding which can only be solved by accepting the EMRP gravity theory, even at the expense of invalidating some of the currently most established theories. Astronomical observations suggest that dark matter must make up about 90% of the mass in the universe. The missing 90% of dark matter is obviously a direct consequence of a false assumption which has been dragging along for many many years, the assumption of the existence of true universal constants, like c anf G. That ALL constants are a function of the local intensity of background EM radiation is yet another prediction that comes straight forward from EMRP. The density of vacuum together with all its parameters, such as its refractive index, are variable on a universal scale, and are simply playing tricks on astronomers who rely on the false assumption. There is simply no missing mass at all!

GR is just a specialized case of EMRP Gravity where for local space you make certain parameters constants (c, G).

Last edited by Lou on 07-Jan-2014 at 06:24 AM.

@Lou

From what I can find, RP shielding tries (in so far as any postulate can try anything) to explain that gas giants are really rocky planets, just so big that the mass disappears due to said shielding.

Now, THIS is something those proposing the postulate should go about proving. If Jupiter (or even better, Saturn, with its rather fluffy density of 0.7) is a rock with an abnormally low gravity (or rather, mass), it should be possible to send a probe there and verify it. I mean, you can't really argue with evidence that size.

I honestly don't see that the classical model of the atom, mass defect / binding energy and all, is a fail, considering it explains stuff like nuclear bombs and power plants.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@Lou

Quote:

Do note that Jeremy Rys is mentioned.

In the article, yes.

Quote:

Cold Fusion Now’s Jeremy Rys attended the course in 2013 and videod the lectures throughout the week.

Not sure why you would think that would be the significant part here, though.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou From what I can find, RP shielding tries (in so far as any postulate can try anything) to explain that gas giants are really rocky planets, just so big that the mass disappears due to said shielding. Now, THIS is something those proposing the postulate should go about proving. If Jupiter (or even better, Saturn, with its rather fluffy density of 0.7) is a rock with an abnormally low gravity (or rather, mass), it should be possible to send a probe there and verify it. I mean, you can't really argue with evidence that size. I honestly don't see that the classical model of the atom, mass defect / binding energy and all, is a fail, considering it explains stuff like nuclear bombs and power plants.

A comet went straight into Jupiter in 1994. Jupiter laughed. I posted pictures making this point over a year ago.
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/sl9/

Last edited by Lou on 08-Jan-2014 at 01:12 AM.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @Lou Quote: Do note that Jeremy Rys is mentioned. In the article, yes. Quote: Cold Fusion Now’s Jeremy Rys attended the course in 2013 and videod the lectures throughout the week. Not sure why you would think that would be the significant part here, though.

His youtube account is: AlienScientist
Ring a bell?

Last edited by Lou on 08-Jan-2014 at 01:10 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

EM. Anyone else shocked? Pun intended. After all, only EM has the power to move the earth.

You really need to stop putting the cart in front of the horse and learn the difference between cause and effect. Get a geologist to explain plate tectonics to you, you may then realise that ionisation that sometimes occurs in the region of seismic activity is an explanation for "lights in the sky" that do not involve little green men.

Quote:

RP shielding explains the mass defect in the nucleus of an atom.

If that is the case you will be able to post a link to the peer reviewed equations that demonstrate the assertion to be accurate.
Quote:

EMRP Gravity Theory eliminates dark matter

If that is the case you will be able to post a link to the peer reviewed equations that demonstrate the assertion to be accurate.
The reason that GR can be shown to be incomplete is that GR makes precise predictions. These predictions have been shown by scientists to be inaccurate according to our current state of knowledge. The scientists haven't just been sitting around doing nothing since the late 1970's, and neither have engineers. Due to the precision of the observations further predictions were made as to where the "missing" energy and matter could be found. As a result some of the "missing" components are already being exposed using equipment that engineers build for scientists, under the direction of scientists to advance science. Now that we know where to look for them, dark matter and energy are being revealed that help to fill the gaps. Feel free to post the mathematical equations that can explain using RP, why these two stars are not heading away from each other. According to your hypothesis the stars in SDSS J0651 should indeed be moving directly away from each other, yet they will soon merge. Or is it that they just don't believe, because their school books are old

I am not denying the existence of RP, we know the RP of intergalactic space from calculations, we will soon be getting direct measurements of the RP of interstellar space to match and confirm the calculations for the RP of interstellar space, and we know what the RP from the Sun is on the Earth and at the point at which the RP from the sun drops below the level of interstellar RP. We can even calculate how much smaller the diameter of the sun would be were it not for the RP within the sun.

Quote:

A comet went straight into Jupiter in 1994. Jupiter laughed. I posted pictures making this point over a year ago.

Yes Lou, you posted information about a comet hitting a gas giant There is a (not very) subtle hint in the text of the article " the effects of the comet impacts on Jupiter's atmosphere have been simply spectacular"

Quote:

His youtube account is: AlienScientist

And the relevance of this earth-shattering revelation is?
So now we know his name, So what.
I know that you learn something every day, but why can't it be something useful? To me he will always be Richard Cranium (abbreviated to dick head)

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