Banned
No apologies necessary CharlesEGrant, you appear to be a straight-shooter and a marksman at that. 8) What amazes me is that with all the resources available on the internet, nibirutablet has to be tripping over mainstream sources to get at what he uses to shovel this stuff. Most people, when they trip over something, look to see what it is.
Established Member
As of 12:36AM (EST) Tuesday, no post from Nirabutablet about BA's alleged comments on "no planetary bodies" to be found.
Now Nirabutablet, a question about another comment you made earlier--sorry I did not have a chance to pose this earlier. You said:
I don't see much value in combining flawed and totally unstantiated crap, which is my opinion of gentlemen's work. What i really want to know is just what database of fact and articles has been collected /created by Ms. Lieder? All I see on ZetaTalk.Com is a huge mismash of misunderstood high school science and urban legend. She covers (and is wrong about) a huge range of subjects, from evolution (different races descending from different types of apes) to gravity (a particle flow, including the repulsion force) to plate tectonics (the Atlantic Rift). There may be some facts, but I've not found them. So why did you include her on your website?Nancy successfully combined Velikovsky and Sitchin. She did so with a huge database of facts and articles that have nothing to do with aliens.
Order of Kilopi
Uh oh, Phil is on...
Member
Ahhh... well said. Phil, you're a good man and thank you for the clarification. My apologies for the turning the heat up, but this clarification is far different than the other interview. So, the problem here is not so much the possibility of a planet existing, but that it could not have an elliptical orbit the way Sitchin/Lieder descibe, right? The evidence for a celestial body causing havoc in OUR part of the solar system is clear to me. The orbits are not perfectly circular, not at all. There are times planets are closer to the sun, and times they are farther. When we look at something like the asteroid belt, that speaks for itself. Now about eliptical orbits, wasn't hale bop on a several thousand year orbit? The bottom line here, Phil, is that for this to make sence we would need another sun. Nemesis. So in your opinion, is it possible for a planet to orbit TWO suns... assuming in this situation ours had a dark twin?
Order of Kilopi
So, you are giving up on finding Phil's quote?
And, wouldn't a second sun casue significant changes in the planetary orbits?
Banned
I didn't think he'd find it .. he hasn't backed up anything he's said Musashi
Order of Kilopi
So, correct me if I am wrong, but is this what you are thinking: Circles have one focus. So one sun = circular orbits. Elipses (sp?) have two foci, so eliptical orbits equal two suns.The orbits are not perfectly circular, not at all. There are times planets are closer to the sun, and times they are farther. When we look at something like the asteroid belt, that speaks for itself. Now about eliptical orbits, wasn't hale bop on a several thousand year orbit? The bottom line here, Phil, is that for this to make sence we would need another sun
Now, this is wrong, but even if it were right, wouldn't the second sun need to be inside the orbit of the planets? I am sure you are not claiming that there is another star inside the planetary orbits, but one never knows.
Established Member
why do you keep bringing Nemesis into the discussion? are you thinking what i'm thinking: there is no way for your hypothesis to stand unless you bring forth some non-testable speculation.Originally Posted by nibirutablet
if you insist on using a second sun to back up your original claim, please provide conclusive proof which supports such sun exists, or give up on Nemesis and dig harder
[edited for spelling]
Member
I don't want to say much, but aren't the orbits eliptical because the way that the plaents formed and the Sun's Gravity tugging it?
And as the asteroid belt formed that way because Jupiter's gravity tore it up and prevented it from forming a planet , IMO
Senior Member
Like I posted Sunday afternoon...I'd like to "see" these 40 statements.
Order of Kilopi
You know, I feel sorry for astronomers that spend their time doing legitimate research - such as looking for large KBOs or speculating about distant brown dwarfs - and having their names splashed around woo-woo boards like they are now "supporters" of aliens coming to Earth or planetary doomsday scenarios. How do these astronomers handle it?
Established Member
It is possible that large bodies exist, bound to the Sun gravitationally, and yet undiscovered. Even Earth-sized bodies. But they have to be way out there, or their effects on the known outer planets' orbits would have been obvious by now. I'm not sure what you mean about the "dynamics of the article". They obviously have to be bound by orbital dynamics, because that's the way every body in the solar system is governed. If you are positing some sort of other behavior, you need to offer real evidence for something that violates physics as we know it.
As far as the "outrageous" claims of the BA, you haven't yet offered evidence of even one. Do you retract your original assertion in this thread, by the way?You may believe what you wish, of course, but without any solid evidence it's just speculation. As for PX, a large body periodically passing through the solar system and causing massive disruptions, there is no evidence for it, no matter which flavor (Sitchin, Lieder, etc.) you choose. In fact, its behavior is not physically possible, given the observed properties of the known solar system objects.I've already said, and to the best of my knowledge no one here has denied, that there may be such large objects way out beyond Pluto. Please quit pummeling this poor straw man.Send flowers to my wife and there will be some serious damage occuring in the year 2003. :-s
No, he didn't, and I really would like to know if you retract this assertion, or have the evidence to back it up.Flattery will get you nowhere :P But I really don't see the need to mention her; she can barely form a coherent sentence, let alone a coherent argument, let alone get any science right.The incident, with which I am not familiar, isn't relevant to the topic of this thread. I'm not saying you belong on the Ten Most Wanted list. I'm just illustrating a point - you were sure of something ("I'm sure everyone here fell for...") that isn't so. Similarly, you are sure of the existence of Nemesis and a periodic-catastrophe-causing rouge Planet X, despite (a) a lack of evidence and (b) very good reasons against its existence, at least in the case of PX.
One more thing - let's make sure we're on the same page when we refer to "Planet X". I mean, and I believe you have been referring to, a planet-sized object with a period of several thousand years that penetrates deep into the solar system and directly affects other planets. This is the PX described, one way or the other, by Sitchin, Lieder, McCanney, Hazlewood, and others. There ain't no such animal.
OTOH, if you are referring to a planet-sized object way out past Pluto that hasn't been discovered, but occasionally perturbs comets and sends them Sunward, well then, such a planet might exist. AFAIK, the BA has not "100%" ruled out such an object, and I repeat my request for you to back up this claim or retract it.
Established Member
TRIANGLEMAN wrote : "You know, I feel sorry for astronomers that spend their time doing legitimate research - such as looking for large KBOs or speculating about distant brown dwarfs - and having their names splashed around woo-woo boards like they are now "supporters" of aliens coming to Earth or planetary doomsday scenarios. How do these astronomers handle it?"
by issuing denials and refusing to be interviewed by kooks , thus getting label liars and covt disinfo agents which will make them more leery
its the same with appollo HBers - how many times do you hear the old lie " astronaouts refuse to do interviews"
the whole buzz punching bart thing was because buzz thought a japanese education chanel wanted to interview him so he went to the hotel and bart lept from the bushes instead
hey wait i thought buzz didnt do interviews #-o
in the case of the scientists i blame media science editors - who use the most sensational tag line of a press release as the headline to get more people to read the ` boring ` science collums even though they know its the least likley cause
the 1983 IRAS infra red " discovery " was a class example ` new planet found ` read the headline picking on just one of 6 or so possibles given equal weight in the origional statement
the woo woos are still halking about it 20 years later
YRS- APE
Member
Just on a bit of a lighter note...
That's got to be the funniest thing I've read in this entire thread! :wink:I'll say this... if anyone is considering this field (archeology, geology, astronomy, etc) as way to become rich and famous and to get chicks{...}
Established Member
Why? Women really dig archaeologists.
Established Member
Everybody knows that chemists get all the hot babes. Maybe it's not too late to change your major?Why? Women really dig archaeologists.
Established Member
Yo Ape,
After writing for a paper for some time now, I think I can clear the myth about headline writing — at least in small to medium papers — once and for all.
Copy editors, or those editors who place, fit and style the text onto the actual pages write the headlines for the stories in the paper daily. Many times — as as happened to all of us — the copy editor hasn't a clue what the subject is talking about. It is their job to read the whole piece and write a hede that capsulizes the copy into one clear and consice statement so readers who shop heds to choose what they are going to read will know what the story is about before investing their time.
There's an art to it and not everyone is good at it.
I have had many meetings with copy editors over the years to reclarify a confusing or misleading hed — as should most writers — but a lot of times this isn't possible or the writer isn't interested in the process. (Or they're not included in the process to avoid butting heads in the boardroom.)
A lot of times copy editors, in editing the text, will add or take away whole sentences, and — as has happened to me — this will change the whole flavor of a piece or even make some statements false.
Additionally, since the copy editors are the last people to see the text, their changes are law and rarely reversed — unless the writer catches it or a huge flaw is discovered before it goes to press some other way.
It isn't a perfect system and never will be.
However, it is sad that some people use such a subjective source of information as solid "proof" for their fantasies.
Order of Kilopi
Nibiru? You still out there?
Established Member
he's probably collecting more "data" to support his claim :wink:
Order of Kilopi
Now now. Politeness, folks. I disagree strongly with most of what nibirutablet/Robert is saying, but not everyone lives on the board. He may be off doing something else.
I may be a bit sensitive on this issue; at GLP the pseudoscience sector jumps all over me when I don't reply to their comments right away. But it doesn't matter; maintain a sense of decorum please. I don't mean to single you out, kanon14; I just figure this is a good time to remind people not to get too carried away.
Member
[edited per regulations]
Established Member
sorry BA if i sound too sarcastic, but hey, he went from using facts (with his own interpretaion which so far nobody agrees with) to truly speculation to support his claim. so isn't "collecting more data" what he's supposed to do if he really insists on convincing us his theory?
Posting Permissions
