Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 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
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
20 crawler(s) on-line.
 120 guest(s) on-line.
 0 member(s) on-line.



You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 amigakit:  10 mins ago
 OneTimer1:  16 mins ago
 NutsAboutAmiga:  20 mins ago
 kolla:  32 mins ago
 Gunnar:  35 mins ago
 Comi:  1 hr 1 min ago
 vox:  1 hr 47 mins ago
 zipper:  1 hr 50 mins ago
 BigD:  2 hrs 54 mins ago
 OlafS25:  2 hrs 56 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Free For All
      /   Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
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 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 Next Page )
PosterThread
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 17-Dec-2012 15:49:26
#61 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
Higgs double trouble is an interesting read on how this evidence is progressing.

If you look back on my posts since August, you'd see that I mentioned them brushing those energy levels under the rug several times. Nice that science is catching up with me. ;)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 17-Dec-2012 15:53:13
#62 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Answer me this, oh worshipper of relativity: who gets to pick what clock slows down when two objects move away from each other?
Ignoring the fact that I do not worship anything or anybody (and specifically not Sitchin) the answer to your question is

nobody

because neither clock slows down when viewed in its own frame of reference.
Many years ago Robert Heinlein wrote about this fact and also covered the "twins paradox" in a novel called "Time for the stars" that used these concepts as a main plot device and gave the most easily understood explanation of this concept. Of course it was not a scientific thesis but it was one of the best "laymans terms" descriptions of time dilation at relativistic speeds.

Actually, either clock 'could' slow down because a rocket launching from earth could be viewed as the rocket pushing earth away. It's one of the issues many critics of Relativity have. There are more issues, of course...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 17-Dec-2012 18:01:16
#63 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121217091017.htm

Using this, I will deduce that an exploding star is what sent 'nibiru' off as an exoplanet to eventually be trapped into our system and that the collision of this exoplanet with the proto-earth is what sent all this material of iron60 into our system.

These are my opinions, of course, that line up with everything I choose to believe.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 17-Dec-2012 21:05:23
#64 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
If you look back on my posts since August, you'd see that I mentioned them brushing those energy levels under the rug several times. Nice that science is catching up with me. ;)
I believe my response was 'who knows' if they're brushing them off. We really need to see the experiments they're conducting. It turns out scientists didn't brush them off.

Quote:
These are my opinions, of course, that line up with everything I choose to believe.
Indeed they are. There's no evidence of Nibiru existing. No evidence that it's an exoplanet. And no evidence it was pushed out of it's solar system by an exploding star. Belief is indeed the characterization. Christopher Hitchens probably has the best response - "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 18-Dec-2012 15:10:34
#65 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

Measuring quantum gravity The opening line says it best - "no consistent quantum theory of gravity exists". It goes on to explain where/how we need to look with Physics. In short, most of the postulates need to measure single atoms and our current technology is unable to do this. In short, we need postulates that can measure groups and/or technology that can measure the even tinier fluctuations within an atom.


 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 18-Dec-2012 16:25:40
#66 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
These are my opinions, of course, that line up with everything I choose to believe.
Indeed they are. There's no evidence of Nibiru existing. No evidence that it's an exoplanet. And no evidence it was pushed out of it's solar system by an exploding star. Belief is indeed the characterization. Christopher Hitchens probably has the best response - "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Followed by no evidence that it doesn't exist, etc, and so forth, and so on.

Again, the point is lost on you.

Sitchin painted one plausible solution on how the solar system came to be as we know it from writing of people who were around before us in the 1970's. NONE of your FACTLESS opions disprove that. And science, on its own, have opened the door to confirming him, rather than DISPROVING him.

If you think back of how long humans have existed on this planet and that 'current history' is merely the last 6k years, imagine how many civilizations could have existed in this planet and already been eliminated by extinction level events? Those prior civilizations could have had superior technology to what we have today. If we've come across it, most of it would be dust so we'd never know it. The fact that this cuneiform has survived the test of time is amazing in itself and a testament to the people who wanted to preserve 'history' in that manner since, as we know, magnetic media is quite frail.

Last edited by Lou on 18-Dec-2012 at 04:37 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 18-Dec-2012 at 04:34 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 18-Dec-2012 18:45:32
#67 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
Again, the point is lost on you.
Again, the point is lost on you. It is not up to science to disprove Sitchin, or any other fantasint that makes an unfounded and unverifiable assertion.

Sitchin made his assertions based on what he claimed were translations of documents. His assertioon fell at the first hurdle because his so called translations were demonstrably false, erroneous, incorrect, faulty, and just plain wrong. Add to that the simple fact that nothing that science has proved adds any weight to the fantasies of Sitchin.

The fact that the inner solar system was a shooting gallery four thousand million years ago does not mean that one of these rocks was called Nibiru, any more than the statistical certainty that there is extraterrestrial life somewhere out there proves that a Klingon battlecruiser hovered over a pair of humpback whales to protect them from a whaling ship.

Quote:
Followed by no evidence that it doesn't exist, etc, and so forth, and so on.


The evidence that will be required to demonstrate the assertions of Sitchin to have any form of credibility is quite simple really. Find where the planet and its brown dwarf star are. The claims made by Sitchin identify where it would be found and the timing ascribed to its orbit can be used to calculate its range from the Sun. As yet the evidence of its existence has not been found by IRAS, or SIRTF , or ISO, or even WISE.

This is a strong indication that Nibiru does not exist, now what indications to the contrary do you have?

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 18-Dec-2012 19:24:58
#68 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Again, the point is lost on you.
Again, the point is lost on you. It is not up to science to disprove Sitchin, or any other fantasint that makes an unfounded and unverifiable assertion.

Sitchin made his assertions based on what he claimed were translations of documents. His assertioon fell at the first hurdle because his so called translations were demonstrably false, erroneous, incorrect, faulty, and just plain wrong. Add to that the simple fact that nothing that science has proved adds any weight to the fantasies of Sitchin.

I love how you claim another man's opinion of Sitchin's translations to be fact.

Quote:

The fact that the inner solar system was a shooting gallery four thousand million years ago does not mean that one of these rocks was called Nibiru, any more than the statistical certainty that there is extraterrestrial life somewhere out there proves that a Klingon battlecruiser hovered over a pair of humpback whales to protect them from a whaling ship.

Who's talking about just the inner solar system. With one translation, Sitchin explained the earth collision theory, the source of comets, the source of the asteroid belt, the similarities and differences between the earth and the moon, the unusual tilt of the outer planets, the moon-planet Pluto, etc... And he did this in the 70's prior to knowledge of today re-enforcing his translations. All he did was research the translation to make sure any part of it was plausible and as SCIENCE has shown, it is.

Quote:

Quote:
Followed by no evidence that it doesn't exist, etc, and so forth, and so on.


The evidence that will be required to demonstrate the assertions of Sitchin to have any form of credibility is quite simple really. Find where the planet and its brown dwarf star are. The claims made by Sitchin identify where it would be found and the timing ascribed to its orbit can be used to calculate its range from the Sun. As yet the evidence of its existence has not been found by IRAS, or SIRTF , or ISO, or even WISE.

This is a strong indication that Nibiru does not exist, now what indications to the contrary do you have?

Hello Mr. Rocket Scientist. Can you show me where dark matter exists? From all descriptions of Nibiru, it's dwarf/failed star doesn't glow until it interacts with the inner solar system, much like a comet. I know you hate to be burdened with details, but your counter-claims are once again nothing more than your egotistical opinion.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 19-Dec-2012 6:34:53
#69 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Sitchin painted one plausible solution on how the solar system came to be
Plausible is key here. We could just as fairly say it's plausible that another world exists by going through a Wardrobe. What we don't do is conclude that it's the truth that a world indeed exists. Instead we rely on evidence to demonstrate we can move the plausible into the actual. A postulate that could be true (Stichin) versus evidenced to be true are very different things. That's the point that is serverly lost on you.

Quote:
NONE of your FACTLESS opions disprove that.
There has indeed been very factual responses. A recent example is how you misread an article claiming to have a sign from 300K years ago to mean Stichin was right that humans began 300K years ago. And how someone, besides me, showed you the error in your thinking. And I provided you factual articles on how human bones were found to be 100K years older than that Stichin claim.

Now I'll certainly agree I've not done the work to prove everything you say is false. But, then again if you are the one claiming to have the truth then you accept the burden of proof to demonstrate that truth. Certainly you don't expect us to treat you as some inerrent divine priest of Stichin and take you on your word. Especially when we have pointed out so many of your errors with facts.

Quote:
Those prior civilizations could have had superior technology to what we have today.
Yes many civilizations existed prior to ours. And yes they could have been leveled by extinction events. And yes they could have had superior technology. Again all postulates. What's your proof they did indeed exist and they did indeed have superior technology. Either that evidence exists or one needs to support the postulate with another postulate that they had superior recycling programs that left no trace of garbage. -- Be careful not to put a turtle on a turtle's back. That approach doesn't make you right. It simply creates more for you to evidence.

Quote:
The fact that this cuneiform has survived the test of time is amazing in itself and a testament to the people who wanted to preserve 'history' in that manner since, as we know, magnetic media is quite frail.
You have a severe reasoning problem here. While we certainly do know magnetic media is frail. You have no evidence whatsoever that cultures that used cuneiform had that knowledge. Without that knowledge there is no way they have a choice of using magnetic media. Your statement strongly implies they had a choice for magnetic media and discarded it. Again we have no evidence that choice existed for them.

Is it plausible? Sure. Is it real? Bring your evidence.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 19-Dec-2012 9:30:30
#70 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
I love how you claim another man's opinion of Sitchin's translations to be fact.
You are deliberately misrepresenting facts here. There were more than just two people in the world had access to this material offering prospective translations. People have been studying these texts for a long time now and have built up an entire library of material enabling any interested party to produce their own wording. The differences between Sitchin and all of the others is not like the differences between the King James Bible and the NIV or the ASV. Sitchins "translations of these texts relates to all of the others to the same degree that the Silmarillion relates to the Quran. Some of the words are the same, like "the" or "and" but other than that they are two entirely different concepts. Next thing you will be claiming equal validity for the "Stork" theory of conception and reproduction because you saw it in the opening scenes of "Dumbo"

Quote:
All he did was research the translation

The one thing that we can be certain of is that there was absolutely no research done by Sitchin. A few documents were cherry picked and sections of them were mistranslated and misrepresented to appear to support a work of fiction invented by the author.
Other contemporary information was ignored.
The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary was ignored.
Translations and references from other skilled readers of ancient texts was ignored.
The challenge to discuss these so called translations with scholars was ignored.

Quote:
Hello Mr. Rocket Scientist. Can you show me where dark matter exists?
Of course not, because by its very definition, if I can show it to you and describe it, it is no longer "dark" It is like (not) seeing the invisible man in films, you can see his footprints in the snow, or you can see the hat and coat that he wears to let you know that he is there, but the man himself remains invisible. You simply use the implications of his existence via indirect observation to work out where he is.

Quote:
From all descriptions of Nibiru, it's dwarf/failed star doesn't glow until it interacts with the inner solar system,
So it is a dwarf star that differs from every other dwarf star or even the definition of a dwarf star. Even Jupiter, which is too small and cool to be a dwarf star has a discernible infra red signature. A star (even of the dwarf variety) radiates energy, regardless of its proximity to other stars. Your fantasy requires not only a unique star that has no evidence to support its existence, but also a life form that is able to grow and evolve to the level of sentiience, and then advance to the capability of space travel while having less input of energy than required by bacteria and tubeworms existing and evolving around black smokers I am not saying that it is impossible merely that there is more chance that I will win the UK national lottery, the US national lottery, and the Euro millions lottery on the same week, using the same set of numbers, and that would be fairly long odds since I do not buy tickets to any of them.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 19-Dec-2012 14:41:19
#71 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2011-026

Funny how Nibiru is described as having red wings thousands of years ago and here NASA shows you a similar star...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 19-Dec-2012 14:54:04
#72 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Sitchin painted one plausible solution on how the solar system came to be
Plausible is key here. We could just as fairly say it's plausible that another world exists by going through a Wardrobe. What we don't do is conclude that it's the truth that a world indeed exists. Instead we rely on evidence to demonstrate we can move the plausible into the actual. A postulate that could be true (Stichin) versus evidenced to be true are very different things. That's the point that is serverly lost on you.

Again, the point severely lost on you is that his statements were considered impossible in the 70s are now considered plausible today. When you have evidence that contradicts him, let me know. Or you can keep doing your troll dance...

Quote:

Quote:
NONE of your FACTLESS opions disprove that.
There has indeed been very factual responses. A recent example is how you misread an article claiming to have a sign from 300K years ago to mean Stichin was right that humans began 300K years ago. And how someone, besides me, showed you the error in your thinking. And I provided you factual articles on how human bones were found to be 100K years older than that Stichin claim.

The devil's in the details. If you had a clue about Sitchin's translations, he said the first version was 300,000 years ago. The error in your thinking is you egotistically assume you know better.

Quote:
Now I'll certainly agree I've not done the work to prove everything you say is false. But, then again if you are the one claiming to have the truth then you accept the burden of proof to demonstrate that truth. Certainly you don't expect us to treat you as some inerrent divine priest of Stichin and take you on your word. Especially when we have pointed out so many of your errors with facts.

The problem you and nimrods alike is that you can't leave me to my beliefs. You feel you have to impose your OPINIONS on me when in reality your opinions are worthless to me. And you finally said something very correct: YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANY WORK TO DISPROVE ANYTHING, you just post the same old song and dance.

Quote:

Quote:
Those prior civilizations could have had superior technology to what we have today.
Yes many civilizations existed prior to ours. And yes they could have been leveled by extinction events. And yes they could have had superior technology. Again all postulates. What's your proof they did indeed exist and they did indeed have superior technology. Either that evidence exists or one needs to support the postulate with another postulate that they had superior recycling programs that left no trace of garbage. -- Be careful not to put a turtle on a turtle's back. That approach doesn't make you right. It simply creates more for you to evidence.

The proof is gigantic organized structure built to stand the test of time. The proof is knowledge of star systems, beyond just stairing at the sky. Land mass map of antartica underneath the ice... Let's face it, if they went 'green' with their technology, nothing would be left today. The signs are all there, you just choose to wear blinders.

Quote:

Quote:
The fact that this cuneiform has survived the test of time is amazing in itself and a testament to the people who wanted to preserve 'history' in that manner since, as we know, magnetic media is quite frail.
You have a severe reasoning problem here. While we certainly do know magnetic media is frail. You have no evidence whatsoever that cultures that used cuneiform had that knowledge. Without that knowledge there is no way they have a choice of using magnetic media. Your statement strongly implies they had a choice for magnetic media and discarded it. Again we have no evidence that choice existed for them.

Well, we know they had batteries...

Quote:
Is it plausible? Sure. Is it real? Bring your evidence.

Excuse me troll, but may I have this dance?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 19-Dec-2012 15:04:07
#73 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
I love how you claim another man's opinion of Sitchin's translations to be fact.
You are deliberately misrepresenting facts here. There were more than just two people in the world had access to this material offering prospective translations. People have been studying these texts for a long time now and have built up an entire library of material enabling any interested party to produce their own wording. The differences between Sitchin and all of the others is not like the differences between the King James Bible and the NIV or the ASV. Sitchins "translations of these texts relates to all of the others to the same degree that the Silmarillion relates to the Quran. Some of the words are the same, like "the" or "and" but other than that they are two entirely different concepts. Next thing you will be claiming equal validity for the "Stork" theory of conception and reproduction because you saw it in the opening scenes of "Dumbo"

Again, you just choose to believe someone else's opinion. And once again, what I like about Sitchin's is that it paints a complete all encompassing picture. This is no different the the BrianK method of pulling a sentence out of a paragraph where it loses its context. You believe the different critiques of sentences where as Sitchin presents a full paragraph of common context.

Quote:

Quote:
All he did was research the translation

The one thing that we can be certain of is that there was absolutely no research done by Sitchin. A few documents were cherry picked and sections of them were mistranslated and misrepresented to appear to support a work of fiction invented by the author.
Other contemporary information was ignored.
The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary was ignored.
Translations and references from other skilled readers of ancient texts was ignored.
The challenge to discuss these so called translations with scholars was ignored.

The only "scholars" of cuniform died about 6000 years ago. Some how I don't think your sources are that old.

Quote:

Quote:
Hello Mr. Rocket Scientist. Can you show me where dark matter exists?
Of course not, because by its very definition, if I can show it to you and describe it, it is no longer "dark" It is like (not) seeing the invisible man in films, you can see his footprints in the snow, or you can see the hat and coat that he wears to let you know that he is there, but the man himself remains invisible. You simply use the implications of his existence via indirect observation to work out where he is.

It is typical of you to demand something that is practically impossible to do then sight a 'lack of evidence' as 'proof of non-existence'. I believe that's one of those fallacy-do-hickeys BrianK likes to reference all the time.

Quote:

Quote:
From all descriptions of Nibiru, it's dwarf/failed star doesn't glow until it interacts with the inner solar system,
So it is a dwarf star that differs from every other dwarf star or even the definition of a dwarf star. Even Jupiter, which is too small and cool to be a dwarf star has a discernible infra red signature. A star (even of the dwarf variety) radiates energy, regardless of its proximity to other stars. Your fantasy requires not only a unique star that has no evidence to support its existence, but also a life form that is able to grow and evolve to the level of sentiience, and then advance to the capability of space travel while having less input of energy than required by bacteria and tubeworms existing and evolving around black smokers I am not saying that it is impossible merely that there is more chance that I will win the UK national lottery, the US national lottery, and the Euro millions lottery on the same week, using the same set of numbers, and that would be fairly long odds since I do not buy tickets to any of them.

If you knew anything about cosmology, then you'd know that practically anything is possible. Considering the size of the universe, I'd say I could win the lottery many times over and eventually find something in it that contradicts your preconceived misconceptions of what is possible...in fact this happens all the time.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AqaILCPMaY0WhHTF3h1YK..bvZx4?p=wins+two+lotteries+on+same+day&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701

Last edited by Lou on 19-Dec-2012 at 05:19 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 19-Dec-2012 17:43:43
#74 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
Again, you just choose to believe someone else's opinion.
There were more than just two people in the world had access to this material offering prospective translations. This is not a matter of me being presented with two equally valid versions of the same document, this is a fully sourced translation that is agreed in principle by the entire academic community on the one hand and a document that does not reference any of the source material, and is internally inconsistent. It is also not a matter of belief. As I frequently state belief is irrelevant Sitchins rambling and incoherent fantasy is clearly and demonstrably not based on sumerian records

Quote:
And once again, what I like about Sitchin's is that it paints a complete all encompassing picture.
As does the Silmarillion, however I do not intend to propose that J.R.R.Tolkien is the one true prophet of Gandalf, the saviour of Middle Earth.

Quote:
The only "scholars" of cuniform died about 6000 years ago.
No Lou, the last sumerian scholars may have died a few years ago but there are still scholars of sumerian language alive and well, and demonstrating that Sitchin is wrong. The reason that I point to Heiser is that he is the first step and Heiser points out the sources that demonstrate the point that both BrianK and I have been making, namely that Sitchin made it all up.

Quote:
It is typical of you to demand something that is practically impossible to do then sight a 'lack of evidence' as 'proof of non-existence'. I believe that's one of those fallacy-do-hickeys BrianK likes to reference all the time.
It is not me that is saying that dark matter does not exist, so you cannot sensibly accuse me of claiming that absence of evidence =evidence of absence. However I would point out that I am currently sitting in a departure lounge of an airport and there is a total absence of evidence for a volcano having just erupted in the middle of the runway. I take this as strongly implying that the aircraft coming in to land will not crash and burn. In direct contrast to this there is indirect evidence of dark matter in the same way that an unsupported hat and coat moving around the room in a film indicates the presence of the invisible man.

Quote:
If you knew anything about cosmology, then you'd know that practically anything is possible
By your "logic" discworld not only can exist, it does exist, and we are living on it. Although you appear to unaware there is a difference between what is theoretically possible, what is probable, and what actually is

Incidentally, the absence of evidence of a volcano on the runway has allowed the incoming flight to land, and now they are calling for my flight to board. If I continue to not believe in the volcano, while continuing to believe in the laws of aerodynamics, I should get home tonight.

Or maybe belief is irrelevant

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 20-Dec-2012 2:47:28
#75 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Again, the point severely lost on you is that his statements were considered impossible in the 70s are now considered plausible today.
Besides the Stichin followers, there is no one giving serious plausiblity to Stichin's claims of translation. For example, no one is running around finding the missing 4 planets Stichin claimed. For example, no one conceives man started 300K years ago when we have evidence of homonids being much older. An asteriod struck the earth? Was that really Stichin? Or did Stichin steal it pre-existing postulates that scientists were seeing evidence for? It's hard to say we only have Stichin to trust. The scientists are following the lines of evidence on their own accord, not because of Stichin's accuracies.

What we've seen here is you making lots of appeal to authority excuses. Because Stichin wrote it, it must be true. Even when the evidence doesn't fit, eg 300K sign existing, you try to make it fit, eg claiming man started at that exact moment because it aligns with Stichin. You default to Stichin not to proven evidence. You've presupposed the answer and are cherry picking explainations to make it work for you.

Quote:
The problem you and nimrods alike is that you can't leave me to my beliefs.
It's a good time to talk about this statement as it fits in well as a description to the above. You're taking a belief and trying to fit reality into your belief. Reality is reality it doesn't mold to your or anyone's idea of the inerrant. I'm fine leaving with your beliefs. However, when you come out spouting how your beliefs are factual and you can prove it you better bring your A game. Instead we keep getting thrown postulates and weak to non-existent evidence that your claim of truth is indeed demonstrateable. To repeat that, you've been unable to demonstrate your belief as truth. Enjoy it along side the millions of people and thousands of faiths that have existed in the hallways of humanity.

Quote:
When you have evidence that contradicts him, let me know.
There's lots of evidence that contradicts him. Finding usable human tools at sites where Stichin claimed aliens is contradictory. Matching the features of stones chiselled by those human tools to the stone work is fairly contradictory. Put it on a scale and it's all better in quality and larger in quanity than all the evidence of aliens in that same era.

Quote:
The proof is gigantic organized structure built to stand the test of time.
Unfortunately men of that area had the tools and ability to build the structure themselves. That evidence exists. What doesn't exist is a 4K year old man to ask. There is no evidence that aliens were here. There are no alien artifacts or tools.

Quote:
Well, we know they had batteries...
The Baghdad Battery is fairly old. We also have writings of people on how they used other forms of electricity for treatment of pain. No one knows what the 2amp (on a good day) battery did. But, until you can produce me the alien CPU that you claim exist you continue in your unproven and unfounded belief. The Mayans (which Stichin wrote about) didn't live by Baghdad. Does any evidence exist of a battery found in the Mayan ruins from that same era?

Quote:
Excuse me troll, but may I have this dance?
Sure is your favorite "Plausible Origin Myth" nightclub open?

Last edited by BrianK on 20-Dec-2012 at 02:47 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Niolator 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 20-Dec-2012 8:45:42
#76 ]
Super Member
Joined: 3-May-2003
Posts: 1420
From: Unknown

@All

Well have you said your prayers and paid your Niburu insurance (it might just teleport into Earth, as plausible as anything else in that story)? Tomorrow is the day the Earth will end. Maybe I´ll relocate to Tau Ceti if my insurance pays out.

Last edited by Niolator on 20-Dec-2012 at 08:45 AM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 20-Dec-2012 12:16:12
#77 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Niolator

I have my towel! Good to go.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 20-Dec-2012 14:30:43
#78 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Again, you just choose to believe someone else's opinion.
There were more than just two people in the world had access to this material offering prospective translations. This is not a matter of me being presented with two equally valid versions of the same document, this is a fully sourced translation that is agreed in principle by the entire academic community on the one hand and a document that does not reference any of the source material, and is internally inconsistent. It is also not a matter of belief. As I frequently state belief is irrelevant Sitchins rambling and incoherent fantasy is clearly and demonstrably not based on sumerian records

Your opinion of other people's opinions means nothing to me.

Quote:

Quote:
And once again, what I like about Sitchin's is that it paints a complete all encompassing picture.
As does the Silmarillion, however I do not intend to propose that J.R.R.Tolkien is the one true prophet of Gandalf, the saviour of Middle Earth.

and if my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle... wow you are so clever

Quote:

Quote:
The only "scholars" of cuniform died about 6000 years ago.
No Lou, the last sumerian scholars may have died a few years ago but there are still scholars of sumerian language alive and well, and demonstrating that Sitchin is wrong. The reason that I point to Heiser is that he is the first step and Heiser points out the sources that demonstrate the point that both BrianK and I have been making, namely that Sitchin made it all up.

Sorry, but if you weren't born into the language ... 6000+ years later, you're still assuming.

Quote:

Quote:
It is typical of you to demand something that is practically impossible to do then sight a 'lack of evidence' as 'proof of non-existence'. I believe that's one of those fallacy-do-hickeys BrianK likes to reference all the time.
It is not me that is saying that dark matter does not exist, so you cannot sensibly accuse me of claiming that absence of evidence =evidence of absence. However I would point out that I am currently sitting in a departure lounge of an airport and there is a total absence of evidence for a volcano having just erupted in the middle of the runway. I take this as strongly implying that the aircraft coming in to land will not crash and burn. In direct contrast to this there is indirect evidence of dark matter in the same way that an unsupported hat and coat moving around the room in a film indicates the presence of the invisible man.

Your cleverness is astounding... /sarcasm

Quote:

Quote:
If you knew anything about cosmology, then you'd know that practically anything is possible
By your "logic" discworld not only can exist, it does exist, and we are living on it. Although you appear to unaware there is a difference between what is theoretically possible, what is probable, and what actually is

Seriously, could you be more clever?

Quote:
Incidentally, the absence of evidence of a volcano on the runway has allowed the incoming flight to land, and now they are calling for my flight to board. If I continue to not believe in the volcano, while continuing to believe in the laws of aerodynamics, I should get home tonight.

Or maybe belief is irrelevant

Now that's real science at work folks!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 20-Dec-2012 14:58:55
#79 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Again, the point severely lost on you is that his statements were considered impossible in the 70s are now considered plausible today.
Besides the Stichin followers, there is no one giving serious plausiblity to Stichin's claims of translation. For example, no one is running around finding the missing 4 planets Stichin claimed. For example, no one conceives man started 300K years ago when we have evidence of homonids being much older. An asteriod struck the earth? Was that really Stichin? Or did Stichin steal it pre-existing postulates that scientists were seeing evidence for? It's hard to say we only have Stichin to trust. The scientists are following the lines of evidence on their own accord, not because of Stichin's accuracies.

Again, science over time is aligning with statemets he made in the 70's.
And I repeat once again, you have no evidence showing Sitchin wrong.
Here you twist words using homnid when the article I reference used HUMAN.
A troll will be a troll...

Quote:
What we've seen here is you making lots of appeal to authority excuses. Because Stichin wrote it, it must be true. Even when the evidence doesn't fit, eg 300K sign existing, you try to make it fit, eg claiming man started at that exact moment because it aligns with Stichin. You default to Stichin not to proven evidence. You've presupposed the answer and are cherry picking explainations to make it work for you.

What I've accepted is one man's all-encompassing vision of the past, where as you CHERRYPICK what ever statements from millions of random people that aligns with the version of the past you chose to believe.

Quote:

Quote:
The problem you and nimrods alike is that you can't leave me to my beliefs.
It's a good time to talk about this statement as it fits in well as a description to the above. You're taking a belief and trying to fit reality into your belief. Reality is reality it doesn't mold to your or anyone's idea of the inerrant. I'm fine leaving with your beliefs. However, when you come out spouting how your beliefs are factual and you can prove it you better bring your A game. Instead we keep getting thrown postulates and weak to non-existent evidence that your claim of truth is indeed demonstrateable. To repeat that, you've been unable to demonstrate your belief as truth. Enjoy it along side the millions of people and thousands of faiths that have existed in the hallways of humanity.

Your hipocrasy is quite transparent here. You repeatedly impose your beliefs on me with no evidence other than it being the status quo and DEMAND evidence from me. If you simply left me to my oen beliefs, you wouldn't be half the troll that you are.

Quote:

Quote:
When you have evidence that contradicts him, let me know.
There's lots of evidence that contradicts him. Finding usable human tools at sites where Stichin claimed aliens is contradictory. Matching the features of stones chiselled by those human tools to the stone work is fairly contradictory. Put it on a scale and it's all better in quality and larger in quanity than all the evidence of aliens in that same era.

There's lots of OPINION that contradicts him. You need to come to terms with the fact that all archeology is essential digggin up old shit and then forming an opion of what it was. When archeology becomes an exact science, call me rather than troll me.

Quote:

Quote:
The proof is gigantic organized structure built to stand the test of time.
Unfortunately men of that area had the tools and ability to build the structure themselves. That evidence exists. What doesn't exist is a 4K year old man to ask. There is no evidence that aliens were here. There are no alien artifacts or tools.

That's right, and the 6k+-year old man who writes in cuneiform script isn't alive either. So once again, you impose your opinion of someone else's opinion on me oh bearer of no facts.

Quote:

Quote:
Well, we know they had batteries...
The Baghdad Battery is fairly old. We also have writings of people on how they used other forms of electricity for treatment of pain. No one knows what the 2amp (on a good day) battery did. But, until you can produce me the alien CPU that you claim exist you continue in your unproven and unfounded belief. The Mayans (which Stichin wrote about) didn't live by Baghdad. Does any evidence exist of a battery found in the Mayan ruins from that same era?

Like I said before, if it was sheek to be green, you won't find any. Your guilty of your own fallacy here: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Quote:

Quote:
Excuse me troll, but may I have this dance?
Sure is your favorite "Plausible Origin Myth" nightclub open?

Sure, meet me at Brian K Boulevard!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 3
Posted on 20-Dec-2012 16:10:26
#80 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
and if my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle...
The height of intellectual debate. Quote:
Sorry, but if you weren't born into the language ... 6000+ years later, you're still assuming
This is a nice line from somebody who also states "That's right, and the 6k+-year old man who writes in cuneiform script isn't alive either." Are you honestly trying to tell us that Sitchin was over 6000 years old when he died?
The fantasist that you worship did not have an all encompassing vision of the past, he made stuff up he CHERRYPICKED a statement from a document and deliberately mistranslated the word for ziggurat as "spaceship". He also ignored the previous paragraph describing how they mixed mud and straw to make the bricks to build the ziggurat. I am not concentrating on just one carefully selected sentence, I am looking at the document as a whole. I am aware that the recently retired space shuttles had ceramic tiles on their underside for re-entry heat shielding but I somehow doubt that NASA bought them from here. and even bathroom tiles do not contain straw.

Quote:
If you simply left me to my oen beliefs
Lou, I really couldn't give a flying shiite what you allow yourself to be deluded into believing because belief is irrelevant. If you want to be a good little catholic and let the priest show you his rubric behind the choir stalls while accepting the concept of papal infallibility that is just fine by me. If you want to transfer your infatuation to believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden, or little grey homunculi at the garden of your bottom that is perfectly OK just don't try to tell me that any of that CRAP is scientific fact. At best it is a leap of faith and more likely it is the sort of anti intellectual gibberish that led to the dark ages and holy wars.

Quote:
You need to come to terms with the fact that all archeology is essential digggin up old shit and then forming an opion of what it was
Archaeology is like forensic science shown on almost any police drama series. Given the evidence at the scene, possibilities are tested and verified until the best outcome considering the balance of probabilites is arrived at. What archeaology does not do is arrive at a site, assume a particular outcome, throw away any evidence that does not support that outcome. You on the other hand assume aliens, multiply the masses of stonework by some stupid factor in order to assert that it was too big to be moved by humans, misrepresent the time factor by some stupid factor to assert that it was too far back to be covered by written record. Dishonestly claim that scientists are baffled when they aren't, and claim that all stonework on ancient sites is either diorite or even harder, and that diorite can only be cut using ultra modern technology despite the fact that diorite can be cut using sand as an abrasive agent. As much as you would like it to be otherwise, archaeology is not all about opinion. Yes Archaeologists do express opinions, but they are still constrained to keep the opinion to within the bounds of the facts. Including the fact that the Nazca plains are not the Gaza strip, and there is a difference between Gaza and Giza. The "big picture" may be pretty, but the devil is in the detail, and the detail shows that Sitchin is wrong,

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

 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 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle