@Lou

A 3600 year orbit doesn't just turn into a 10000 orbit because it has zero eccentricity.

Also, if the orbit is circular, it will never come any closer to us so cannot be the mythical "Nibiru".

_________________
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

As usual you didn't even read the article. It requires a change at genetic level, changine a pressure sensitive ion channel into a magnetically sensitive one, by combining its genes with that of an iron-hoarding protein.

_________________
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:

Again, for the benefit of your incompetency, a highly elliptical orbit would bring it down to the 3600 year range.

You still fail to grasp the basic facts of the report you linked to. It is not that they have "found" a planet and are now trying to calculate its orbit. They have postulated a planet that could explain certain irregularities in the orbits of several other bodies.
Quote:

The researchers, Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown, discovered the planet's existence through mathematical modeling and computer simulations but have not yet observed the object directly.

In order to achieve the required results the hypothetical body needs to fit the following parameters.
1 A mass approximately ten times that of the earth
2 An orbit of no less than 10,000 years, and no more than 20,000 years.
The parameters for "Nibiru" do not match this specification in any way, shape or form.

It seems that you are not the only one that has difficulty with the intricacies of the English language. Quote:

If Nibiru's orbit of 3600 years was circular rather than elliptical, it would have an orbit of about 10,000 years.

A 3600 year orbit is always a 3600 year orbit, never a 10,000 year orbit regardless of it being elliptical, perfectly circular, or even triangular or a figure of eight.
And I thought Sitchin was supposed to have translated the orbit duration from his supposedly extensive knowledge of Sumerian not had it calculated by his idiot brother.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: Once again Brian, you fail at reading further: Quote: Orbit Update After speaking with my father, Amnon Sitchin, brother to Zecharia Sitchin, PhD in Aeronautical and Mechanical Engineering, and also the person who calculated the orbit of Nibiru for my uncle Zecharia, I found an interesting piece of news based on some additonal calculations he did this week: If Nibiru's orbit of 3600 years was circular rather than elliptical, it would have an orbit of about 10,000 years. Yes, you heard that right. I don't know whether the CalTech astronomers based their estimated orbital period on a circular or elliptical orbit. However, this tidbit means that I should not dismiss this planet as being Nibiru based on this estimated orbital time frame. I obviously need to learn more about planetary motion and astronomy to make any conclusions myself. I'm hoping that we can learn more and either find that this is Nibiru or that the search for this new planet helps us find Nibiru too. J.Sitchin - January 27, 2016

Ahh, Sitchin's son is trying to moving around the goal posts. Daddy Sitchin translated the length of years of travel from the ancient writings. While all other scientists don't agree with Sitchin's translation. It appears Jr. Sitchin's calculations indicate Daddy read those numbers wrong as well.

Next time you're talking to Sitchin let him know CalTech based their estimates on a highly elliptical orbit. So, while he'd like to map a new time period onto a new circular orbit it wouldn't be the same orbit as the CalTech planet. So we'll just chuck Jr. Stichin's junk to the waste side due to the dissimilar orbits.

Last edited by BrianK on 10-Mar-2016 at 08:33 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 10-Mar-2016 at 08:31 PM.

We caught 2 Black Holes colliding. It's starting to change the direction of physics. A good read on how we detected them, what we know from it and where we may be headed.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-black-hole-collision-that-reshaped-physics/

And there's a new postulate of the composition of Dark Matter - could it be mini-black holes? If so their creation likely stamped a record on the Cosmic Background Radiation and that would be something we can find.
http://www.space.com/32295-super-heavy-dark-matter-particle-proposed.html

@Lou

Thought you may like this. This guy's a good engineer. He believes gravity is pressure.
http://jalopnik.com/supercar-mad-scientist-christian-von-koenigsegg-explain-1768952150

Wow! Signal - appears to not be aliens.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2016/apr/14/alien-wow-signal-could-be-explained-after-almost-40-years

Always good to see the reason, but a bummer we still haven't found anyone to talk to. Hopefully they'll be wanting 'To Serve Man'.

@Lou

Quantum Theory appears to be sick... Perhaps even on its death bed.
http://www.wired.com/2016/05/new-support-alternative-quantum-view/

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Ahh, Sitchin's son is trying to moving around the goal posts. Daddy Sitchin translated the length of years of travel from the ancient writings. While all other scientists don't agree with Sitchin's translation. It appears Jr. Sitchin's calculations indicate Daddy read those numbers wrong as well. Next time you're talking to Sitchin let him know CalTech based their estimates on a highly elliptical orbit. So, while he'd like to map a new time period onto a new circular orbit it wouldn't be the same orbit as the CalTech planet. So we'll just chuck Jr. Stichin's junk to the waste side due to the dissimilar orbits.

I think you're missing the point. When you see something at a distance, you see it there and then assume a highly circular orbit and make your calculation.
Newer articles have since postulated that it's an exoplanet (like Nibiru) and that it's orbit is not circular (like nibiru) which is why it's also in a retrograde orbit (you know, like Nibiru).

So again, the original 10000-20000 year orbit is a BROAD guess based on a circular orbit. It's not like they even attempted to narrow it down considering the 10,000 year gap between the high and low "guess".

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160607081320.htm

Oh look, some more of the technology described in the 1947 Roswell crash becomes closer to reality...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quantum Theory appears to be sick... Perhaps even on its death bed. http://www.wired.com/2016/05/new-support-alternative-quantum-view/

I have mentioned pilot wave theory before, but when I do that, you dismiss it. When you find it first yourself, it seems totally valid.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Thought you may like this. This guy's a good engineer. He believes gravity is pressure. http://jalopnik.com/supercar-mad-scientist-christian-von-koenigsegg-explain-1768952150

Gravity being pressure is the only thing that makes sense. Only a nimrod believes otherwise. By the way, 'gravity waves' (which people confuse with gravity) were discovered in the almost exact method that was used to discover luminous aether in the Michelson–Morley experiment. Funny, right? ;)

@Lou
They still haven't actually found the planet yet, the details are what scientists have calculated would be the sort of planet that would explan the movements of certain KBO's. As I already explained, they are not trying to plot the orbit of a rock they have found, they are using the putative 10,000-20-000 year circular orbit as a guide for where to look for a postulated planet. So the fantasy devised by failed sci-fi writer Sitchin will never fit the postulate under any circumstance being the wrong size, the wrong mass, and the wrong orbit.

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

@Lou

If "Gravity being pressure is the only thing that makes sense" why don't you explain why these two white dwarf stars are not moving apart since they are two bright objects in the darkness of space.
And breaking news!!! The Michelson Morley experiment completely failed to detect the fringing needed to prove the presence of Luminiferous Aether. And vastly more sensitive equipment has continued to fail to detect any fringing of the sort predicted at any level.

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

@Lou

Quote:

I think you're missing the point. When you see something at a distance, you see it there and then assume a highly circular orbit and make your calculation. Newer articles have since postulated that it's an exoplanet (like Nibiru) and that it's orbit is not circular (like nibiru) which is why it's also in a retrograde orbit (you know, like Nibiru).

There's no point here to miss? Even if I assume your explanation is true the problem you have is no one has seen anything. The orbit of Planet-9 is from a mathematical/computer simulation. Not an actual observation.

And again it's not Orbital. Here are CalTech's own words about the orbit of the supposed Planet 9 object they modeled. “bizarre, highly elongated orbit.” -"http://earthsky.org/space/solid-evidence-for-a-9th-planet-say-caltech-astronomers"

Last edited by BrianK on 10-Jun-2016 at 04:28 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: @BrianK Quote: BrianK wrote: @Lou Quantum Theory appears to be sick... Perhaps even on its death bed. http://www.wired.com/2016/05/new-support-alternative-quantum-view/ I have mentioned pilot wave theory before, but when I do that, you dismiss it. When you find it first yourself, it seems totally valid.

In science the theory that 'wins' is that theory which works the best. Pilot Wave doesn't win until it can explain more cases with a a greater degree of accuracy than the other theories, including Quantum. Pilot Wave isn't the only player out there.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: I think you're missing the point. When you see something at a distance, you see it there and then assume a highly circular orbit and make your calculation. Newer articles have since postulated that it's an exoplanet (like Nibiru) and that it's orbit is not circular (like nibiru) which is why it's also in a retrograde orbit (you know, like Nibiru). There's no point here to miss? Even if I assume your explanation is true the problem you have is no one has seen anything. The orbit of Planet-9 is from a mathematical/computer simulation. Not an actual observation. And again it's not Orbital. Here are CalTech's own words about the orbit of the supposed Planet 9 object they modeled. “bizarre, highly elongated orbit.” -"http://earthsky.org/space/solid-evidence-for-a-9th-planet-say-caltech-astronomers"

In the picture in that link, you can see it's very close to circular (as no orbit is circular) where as those other objects had elongated orbits. There words do not match their diagram.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou They still haven't actually found the planet yet, the details are what scientists have calculated would be the sort of planet that would explan the movements of certain KBO's. As I already explained, they are not trying to plot the orbit of a rock they have found, they are using the putative 10,000-20-000 year circular orbit as a guide for where to look for a postulated planet. So the fantasy devised by failed sci-fi writer Sitchin will never fit the postulate under any circumstance being the wrong size, the wrong mass, and the wrong orbit.

You must really hate life right now. All this planet 9 stuff must feel like a good kick in the balls.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou If "Gravity being pressure is the only thing that makes sense" why don't you explain why these two white dwarf stars are not moving apart since they are two bright objects in the darkness of space. And breaking news!!! The Michelson Morley experiment completely failed to detect the fringing needed to prove the presence of Luminiferous Aether. And vastly more sensitive equipment has continued to fail to detect any fringing of the sort predicted at any level.

The short answer is nimrod.

Both experiments were the same. Modern tech leads to better precision. What you ignore about the Michelson-Morley experiment is that it was inconclusive and that nimrods will interpret it to suit their needs.

Last edited by Lou on 10-Jun-2016 at 09:29 PM.

@Lou
What you refer to as "All this Planet9 stuff" is a hypothesis concerning a possible ninth planet.
The requirements are that it have a 10,000 to 20,000 year orbit and a mass ten times that of the earth, and that its orbit is 20 billion miles from the sun at its closest, therefore will never approach the inner planets like the Earth. Compare this with Sitchin's fictional "PlanetX" which is a Brown dwarf with a few accompanying planets on a 3,600 year orbit that passes closer to the sun than our own planet.
These two "planets" are as similar to each other as a bicycle is to an Airbus A380.
IF the hypothesised planet is found and confirmed it will NOT be the planet described by Sitchin, nor will it be inhabited by gods or wannabe gods of any description.

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