Poll-Planet "X"

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Seeing as his sources are translated from various ancient languages, we'll start the craps lessons now to cover the infinitely larger student fees! ;-)




posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nairod
You expect too much, I'm only ever going to provide the basics.

But you haven't presented very much of anything, other than to say that sitchin translated some text and found support for it, and that some astronomers say its possible there's some sort of planet somewhere out there.



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 07:38 AM
link   
The poem is the Enuma Elish. Check the 12th planet or genesis revisited for an indepth explanation of Sitchin's point of view on that, or the xfacts link I posted before for Jason Martell's view which is based somewhat on Sitchin's. Check out the magazine that I also gave you, or find more recent theories such as the Orpheous Theory. On the xfacts site check out the streamed video of the NASA person and so forth.

Go read Solarion's "slow motion doomsday" for further thoughts on the matter that tie in with Sitch and Velikovsky.

You've been given plenty of direction, you just want it all pasted and written here.



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   
For my money I think Planet-X once existed but its history came to an end a long time ago. Having read Sitchin's work as well as Velikovsky's research/theory I'm inclined to believe they are related. That being the case, Planet-X may in fact be Venus (which has now been captured by our solar system) or may have exploded in our solar system during an earlier pass --- causing the planetary catastrophes explained in Velikovsky's books.



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nairod
You've been given plenty of direction, you just want it all pasted and written here.

Yes, amazingly enough, I would like something in support of this idea posted to this site. Apparently, no one can find anything that actually does support it that can be posted.



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   
No, we have cited websites and we have cited entire books. That is where you should look for information



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I have many times been offered similar evidencefor similiarly extraordiary claims. Every single time they are completely wanting or utterly useless citations, books, and websites. If you could cite something, just something, from these dozens of sources that you, being someone who is familiar with these sources, consider to be a good, representative example, then I, and everyone else, can evaluate that good claim and have an idea of whether or not the sources you are talking about are worth the investment of time, or complete bunk. THe inability of someone so familiar, an so adamant that these are good sources to do anything like this indicates that the sources are garbage and the person promoting them is either irrational, uneducated, weak-minded, or overly credulous.



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Its sensible to keep one's head out of the clouds. There are more important things in life to worry about. Innocent people are being killed by evil people all over the world. Try to put a stop to that and then you'll truely be heros.

Then there are ones who think there is more than meets the eye in our realm. They want to think outside the box. Some think that our current views of science could be stuck in a lull, such as "The World Is Still Flat." Without revolutionaries there would be no real advancements. People were burned for their irrational concepts. Some who died for their beliefs, in the past were proven right after a time. They even paved the way for future development. The same is true today. Unfortunately if you think outside the scientific community's ideals you could be burned at the steak so to speak.

We need sceptics and visionaries in this world or human advancement would not take place. The visionaries are kept in check by the sceptics so fantasy doesn't take over.



posted on Oct, 8 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace
Unfortunately if you think outside the scientific community's ideals you could be burned at the steak so to speak.


Outside the 'ideals' our outside the method?


We need sceptics and visionaries in this world or human advancement would not take place. The visionaries are kept in check by the sceptics so fantasy doesn't take over.

The sceptics aren't just preventing excessive fantasy from teh 'visionaries;, the sceptics are the ones demonstrating, inventing, and reproducing the advances. I'll agree that -some- major scientific advances resulted from 'visionary' ideas, but even then this ideas were more or less the result of sceptical inquiry and the mind's systematic application of rational thinking, rather than 'falshes' of inspiration in uncontrolled environments that occured without an intellectual internal struggle.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Now I dont know when they claimed this whole anomoly thing to be miscalculated....But go there.xfacts.com... and click on the the link at the bottom that has the video.

It has Sitchen meeting with professional astronomers of the Naval obseratory in Washington regarding this planet. And they also think that there is another planet large/gravitationally strong enough to effect the orbits of the outer planets. This occured in 1990.

[edit on 16-10-2004 by kyateLaBoca]



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyateLaBoca
Now I dont know when they claimed this whole anomoly thing to be miscalculated....But go there.xfacts.com...


OMG what are you doing? Don'tyou know you aren't suposed to back up your statements here? Bad form man, bad form.

and click on the the link at the bottom that has the video.

I didn't watch the video, but I do like the paper.

"The method [encke method]relies on the fact that it is being applied only to the orbits of neptune and uranus"

I think that the rest of that portion idicates that they are assuming the existence of Planet X and seeing what portion of the anomoly on N&U would be from X. More importantly, the data he is using seems to come from 1976, which is before the Voyager probe was sent out to that portion of the System.

Yes in further reading it does seem he is doing that.

"The numerical procedure is to pick some mass and state vector of Planet X, and to integrate the above equation to each of the observed epochs, using closed formulas (not series) to compute r [...] The experimental procedure was to systematically pick masses and position factors for Planet X, to pick a constellation of velocity vectors around and including that of the circular orbit for each position and mass, such that the directions are distributed uniformally around the circular vector and the magnitudes incremented to vary the total kinetic energy in uniform specified steps"

this Board discussion seems to agree

They [harrington and others]
agreed, some with more conviction than others, that unmodeled forces were acting on Uranus and Neptune, and most of them predicted the general location of Planet X if that were the cause"

Apparently this person also agrees

Harrington published some work in 1988 but it was based on the incorrect data that was "causing" the anomoly of Neptune's orbit back in the 70's and 80's. He definately was not looking for an alien-related Zeta-planet and as far as I can tell never assumed it came into the inner solar system.This* site gives a brief summary of his work. The author of the website notes that Harrington's results, based on the incorrect data available at the time, are wrong.

*www.astro.rug.nl...

So while his paper and other studies were from after the voyager probe, they weren't using that new and accurate data.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
OMG what are you doing? Don'tyou know you aren't suposed to back up your statements here? Bad form man, bad form.


"Don'tyou" ..."aren't"... I think you mean "are." You should go back and re-edit that, and learn to proof read before posting. I could also say "bad form man, bad form" as well.

I think you misread my post as well. I was actually asking you or someone else for info on when this inaccurate data was used and when(date) they claimed to reject the anomalies. I provided a link to the video, and stated Harrington found anomalies in 1990. So anyone claiming to reject the anomalies before that date, there would be a dispute because latter astronomers did find anomalies(1990).

As far as me not "backing up my statements," if I recall correctly, when I look back to every post you made on this thread except this last one, you havent even bothered to post a single link. You've just been running your mouth. It seems hypocritical to tell someone they haven't backed up their statements(even though I posted the link with the date 1990 in the video) and then have yourself not post jack of any links. Then you finally reply back to my post and put up links, telling me I dont back up my statements.

Now don't go back and re-edit all your previous posts by inserting links


[edit on 17-10-2004 by kyateLaBoca]



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   
On a side note: The only thing worthy enough to be quoted from www.badastronomy.com forums are websites that are included from posters, which are results from professional astronomers. A lot of those people are a bunch of amateur, wana be astronomers or critics. Do you know how easy I could make an account and act like I know something about the solar system on that forum?

So why even bother to quote, "this Board discussion seems to agree." I dont really care about a bunch of amateurs agreeing. Now that second quote that you put up, which included the link for another website that had professionals(from what it looks like) get those new statistics, that was more meaningful.

Next quote:

"The numerical procedure is to pick some mass and state vector of Planet X, and to integrate the above equation to each of the observed epochs, using closed formulas (not series) to compute r [...] The experimental procedure was to systematically pick masses and position factors for Planet X, to pick a constellation of velocity vectors around and including that of the circular orbit for each position and mass, such that the directions are distributed uniformally around the circular vector and the magnitudes incremented to vary the total kinetic energy in uniform specified steps"


Now he probably did use the older statistics for planet masses, but you can't expect the above quote to be understood by everyone here on ATS. In here, He's just talking about the method in which he used to obtain the data. But this quote by itself that you posted does not suggest what data was being used. I'm not doubting you when you say he used the older measurements, but you could have atleast found a quote in which he stated which data was being used rather than posting some of his methods in measuring.

[edit on 17-10-2004 by kyateLaBoca]



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 06:52 PM
link   
There is more in the form of evidence to support the idea of planet x than most people who have responded in this thread know about. As to nancy's and hazelwood's theory, I never bought it as there never was any evidence of what they were saying was true.

I did compile the evidence of planet x, many of the links found within my post are of respectable scientists. Here is a link to my post on the evidence of planet x.

Pluto/Kuiper Express mission and the possibility of Planet X



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
There is more in the form of evidence to support the idea of planet x than most people who have responded in this thread know about. As to nancy's and hazelwood's theory, I never bought it as there never was any evidence of what they were saying was true.

I did compile the evidence of planet x, many of the links found within my post are of respectable scientists. Here is a link to my post on the evidence of planet x.

Pluto/Kuiper Express mission and the possibility of Planet X


Excellent point Muaddib



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyateLaBoca
You should go back and re-edit that, and learn to proof read before posting. I could also say "bad form man, bad form" as well.

just trying to inject some levity into the conversation and keep it light.


I was actually asking you or someone else for info on when this inaccurate data was used

It was used, apparently, in all of Harrington's studies.


. So anyone claiming to reject the anomalies before that date, there would be a dispute because latter astronomers did find anomalies(1990).

But Harrington didn't find any other anomolies. What paper are you saying covers this then?

As far as me not "backing up my statements," if I recall correctly, when I look back to every post you made on this thread except this last one, you havent even bothered to post a single link. You've just been running your mouth. It seems hypocritical to tell someone they haven't backed up their statements(even though I posted the link with the date 1990 in the video) and then have yourself not post jack of any links.
I am not the one making the claim that there is another planet residing out there. The burden to present evidence is on that theories proponents. You presented a link to a webpage that had a paper and a video about harrington. Harrington's '88 paper is the only thing that talks about the anomolies, and again those anamolies are based on the older data. The paper was written afterwards, but everyone that seems to know about the studies knows that it uses the old masses. Also, the '88 Harrington paper doesn't find anything, it assumes that planet x exists and then goes about figuring out some of its orbital and other characteristics.

I specifically went into what I saw as problems with Harrington's paper. I haven't viewed the video, because a video isn't going to cut it. If he found orbital anamolies in neptune and uranus, then he'd've put it in a paper. What paper are you saying has this information?


I'm not doubting you when you say he used the older measurements

If you think he is using the old inaccurate data then whats the sense then?



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Ed Dames, a remote viewer, was on Coast to Coast last week, and said planet X is what we should fear and will be here soon. A crock? I dont know. He's told a lot of things that have come to pass. Should I listen to this prophet of doom? I try not to. he said the whole world would lay down their arms and look to the sky and stop the fighting...all this plus a solar flair that will fry us all...
I just love good news.
If that doesnt get us, the invasion from China and Russia will, i guess.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I personally have no idea whether it exists or not. If it does, however, I tend to lean towards the Nibiru theory, that it's that big dark sun that causes mass extinctions every 26 million years or whatever.

Just b'cause that's fun to think about.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
But Harrington didn't find any other anomolies. What paper are you saying covers this then?


I'm not sure what you mean by "other anomalies." When I said, "he did find anomalies," I was refering to the anomalies that already existed from the masses that were known at the time. Its all in that video. He talks about how something is pulling on Uranus and Neptune, and how a large mass(planet X) could account for the strange orbit of those outer planets. And all of this is implied in the report or stated. He even states in the video that in that paper they hypothesized that there was tugging on the outer planets. So there is a report that claims there were anomalies pulling on the outer planets and that paper is on that site. You just have to be able to understand all the implications and the charts of his experiment. Something a real time astronomer can do, maybe even an amateur. Otherwise, if your an average joe, don't expect to be able to hunt and peck for direct statements that say, "The anomalies found were..." Science reports(bio, physics, chem) are never that simple and direct. I'm not saying I'm an astronomer and I understood the reports better then you, but from experiences in reading other science papers, its not always directly stated.


I am not the one making the claim that there is another planet residing out there. The burden to present evidence is on that theories proponents


It is a burden for a theoy to present its data/evidence. But then the burden is then handed to the person hearing the theory. It's his choice of whether he wants to accept it or not. There are many proponents and critics of Zecharia's translations. In the end it all comes down to what you believe. People still discredit evolution. Go fig.

In addition, if a theory is presented, it is a skeptic's job to present counter evidence. So if your a skeptic the burden is also on you to disprove. You presented what you felt was counter evidence, but only did so after many posts that had no links. Thats why I called you hypocritical for telling me that I didnt present any evidence even though I posted a link on my first post of this thread, when you didnt post any links from those multiple posts you made.


Also, the '88 Harrington paper doesn't find anything, it assumes that planet x exists and then goes about figuring out some of its orbital and other characteristics.


It hypothesizes planet X exist just like any other hypothesis based on the scientific method. They do look at orbital and other characteristics, but the ultimate goal is to map a region of where it could possibly be, and confirm that it does pull on the outer planets. The hypothesis of the report is that very first sentence in the middle of the top page. He states all this in the video and makes a map(although hard to see) and points to a general location of the planet from the data they found.


If you think he is using the old inaccurate data then whats the sense then?


Well I'm only taking your word for it for now, unless I see from some other place that shows otherwise. Whats the sense then? 1. Because you've made it into a big argument. I only wanted to know when they made the claim that old masses were being used. But you started bashing me for almost no reason, so I wasnt going to sit back and relax. You bash me, I'll bash you right back. 2. The focus of this argument has shifted away from whether inaccurate data was used or not to what the hypothesis of his paper is and if he did find anomalies. As stated in the video they did find some form of pulling on the outer planets, which had to accout for another planet.

And just because, Harrington used the old data and the new data showed there to be no anomalies does not necessarily disprove planet X all together. We dont know the size of this thing. Maybe if it went off far enough, it would cause minor perturbations. Minor pertubations for which anomalies can be explained for. There are still multiple translations from Zecharia Sitchen, as well as others who agree with his translations that talk about planet x. That debate can pretty much go both ways because there will always be critics and always be believers. We can save that for another time and another place.

In addition, there are also other professional astronomers that also feel there is another planet. Look at the links that were provided by Muaddib ~~~> www.abovetopsecret.com...

But can I also address the same question to you. If your so confident enough that this planet doesn't exist, then why bother?

[edit on 18-10-2004 by kyateLaBoca]



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Ed Dames, a remote viewer, was on Coast to Coast last week, and said planet X is what we should fear and will be here soon. A crock? I dont know. He's told a lot of things that have come to pass. Should I listen to this prophet of doom? I try not to. he said the whole world would lay down their arms and look to the sky and stop the fighting...all this plus a solar flair that will fry us all...
I just love good news.
If that doesnt get us, the invasion from China and Russia will, i guess.


I wouldnt worry about him or his theory, he's only trying to cash in on guest appearances.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join