It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nibiru This, Nibiru That: STOP, You've been punked!

page: 14
45
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


We've been over this many times. You do not grasp the concept of constraints and that is too bad. You have posted methods that use technologies that support the constraint of planet existence out to given distances. It does not state a planet or other object is out there, simply that it cannot be closer.

PROJECT PAN-STARRS AND THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM

Anybody can read table III to see that visual technologies push the distance out farther than gravitational studies.




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Yet that paper you gave is from 2003, and I have given the statements and papers from astronomers from 2004 and 2008, and even 2010 which say differently...


A Mars-sized body ]can be found at not less than 70-85 au: such bounds are 147-175 au, 1006-1200 au, 4334-5170 au, 8113-9524 au and 10 222-12 000 au for a body with a mass equal to that of the Earth, Jupiter, a brown dwarf, red dwarf and the Sun, respectively.

www.ingentaconnect.com...

To summarize...

A Mars-sized body CAN BE FOUND at not less than 70-85au
An Earth-sized body at 147-175au
A Jupiter-sized body at 1006-1200au
A brown dwarf at 4334-5170au
A Red Dwarf at 8113-9524au
A Sun-sized stellar object at 10222-12000au


Yet you claim that no such large bodies as stellar object could be anywhere within 25,000au?...and no planet size object could be at 320au?...


[edit on 18-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
We also have the following from 2008, and remember you paper is from 2003.


'Forensic evidence' of undiscovered planets

By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent, in Boston
Published: 5:00PM GMT 18 Feb 2008

Astronomers believe there are large numbers of both rocky planets and gas giants in the Oort Cloud, a vast cloud of comets approximately five trillion miles away - some 50,000 times the distance from Earth to the Sun.
............
Computer modelling and other astronomical clues suggest it may contain around 1,000 small planetary bodies, some of which may be the size of the Earth and Mars or larger.

Dr Alan Stern, a Nasa expert on the outer solar system described "forensic evidence" for the existence of large numbers of undiscovered planets in the Oort Cloud at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference in Boston.

Dr Stern said the angle of Uranuss rotation suggested it had been struck by an object three to five times the mass of Earth at some time in its history.

www.telegraph.co.uk...



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Time to learn. This is a gravitational study. The visual studies already have pushed out farther.

Constraint. Learn what constraint means. Learn, learn, learn.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
As I said before you quoted the Iorio paper, gravitational methods cannot exclude out as far as visual studies. See table III.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
Constraint. Learn what constraint means. Learn, learn, learn.


CONSTRAINT also means RESTRICT...or being forced within certain parameters, which is what the papers say... Yes, do learn, learn, learn....

[edit on 18-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
As I said before you quoted the Iorio paper, gravitational methods cannot exclude out as far as visual studies. See table III.


Yet AGAIN, I showed that astronomers even mention they haven't been able to seach 20% of the sky in which there could be at least a planet sized body, about Earth's size, within 70AU...and they even mention stellar objects such as gas giants, brown dwarf, and even red dwarf within the Oort cloud, which as stipulated by Stern includes Sedna, which is within 88au, and would put it as part of the Oort cloud, which appart from other research shows such object can be closer than you claim....


[edit on 18-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Again. You are wrong. You post a link to a paper by Brown and do not know that Brown has already searching 1/2 of Kupier belt. So where did you get the 20% claim?

Where Are You Hiding Planet X, Dr.

Brown?


Mike Brown: The reason I say this is that (1) We have looked at about half of the Kuiper belt by now, and the biggest thing we found is Eris.


You made the following statement

which as stipulated by Stern includes Sedna, which is within 88au, and would put it as part of the Oort cloud, which appart from other research shows such object can be closer than you claim....

We've been over this baloney many times. Sedna is not a planet, not even close.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


That's right to restrict means that if there are 2 restrictions and one says out more than 70AU and another says more than 320AU. The 320AU is the stronger constraint or restriction as you state.

Yes, learn, learn, learn.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
[edited for being a repeated post]

[edit on 18-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist

That's right to restrict means that if there are 2 restrictions and one says out more than 70AU and another says more than 320AU. The 320AU is the stronger constraint or restriction as you state.

Yes, learn, learn, learn.


No...again you show a lack of understanding of the scientific method... You need to have at least 20-50 models that coincide with the stronger constraint...yet there are as many if not more that show a weaker constraint and place such planets, and stellar objects much closer than you claim....

[edit on 18-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Wow. Back to the same mistake. It's not models its technologies. WHole sky surveys are the stronger constraint.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist


Again. You are wrong. You post a link to a paper by Brown and do not know that Brown has already searching 1/2 of Kupier belt. So where did you get the 20% claim?


....Already showed it with several other links, and excerpts which show you wrong...



But Brown said there is one unexplored region of space left, amounting to about 20 percent of the sky, that hasnt been searched for an Earth-sized object that would be orbiting at 70 AU and presumably in the main plane of the solar system. It is the region toward the bright galactic center, which is harder to search.

www.space.com...



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist

Wow. Back to the same mistake. It's not models its technologies. WHole sky surveys are the stronger constraint.


....and we have had near-Earth objects which WEREN'T detected until coming real close to Earth and you want to claim sky surveys should account for all planets, and other stellar objects within the Solar System when models say the contrary?....

[edit on 18-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


This is the typical straw man argument that you post.


....and we have had near-Earth objects which WEREN'T detected until coming real close to Earth and you want to claim sky surveys should account for all planets, and other stellar objects within the Solar System when models say the contrary?....


This statement would seem to invalidate all of your references as well except for one simple issue. The issue is detecting planets and none of these objects were planet sized or even close to being planet sized.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Your quote is from 2004. I quoted him from 2009. Thanks for showing us where the 20% came from. He covered 30% in 5 years. That suggests that unless Brown has come up with a more efficient method he should have the Kuiper belt covered by 2018 or maybe earlier. Isn't that amazing? I'm impressed.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by gamma 49
ANSWER THIS:

1. WHY IS GOOGLE SKY BLOCKED?


Its not blocked. Like google earth, there are bits missing from the mosaic of images.



2.WHY IS WISKI SKY BLOCKED ALL SIGTHS ARE ON THE SAME DECLANATION


?



3. WHY ARE ALL NASA SIGHTS BLOCKED


Well thats a pretty silly answer



4.WHY IS SOHO OFF LINE


SOHO is on and off all the time....its not due to Nibiru



5.WHATS WITH ALL THE MAJORE QUAKES


Its called tectonic activity....google it




6 THE POLLS MOVING 200 MILES


LOL!!!!!

You mean poles right? And that hasnt been a sudden movement, its taken hundreds of years



7 SEVERE WEATHER


Google meteorology




8.VOLCANOS GOING OFF


Again due to tectonic activity

9.INCREASED UFO ACTIVITY



10. ALL COUNTRYS IN THE WORLD BUILDING UNDERGROUND SHELTERS
AND SEED VAULTS


As far as I know, only a couple of countries have done this. Link your source



AND ONLY THE MOST IMPORTANT FACT THE ANCIENTS, ALL RELIGIONS SPEAK OF THE DARK STAR. THE BIBLE, KOLBRIN BIBLE,ENOCH,SUMARIANS,EGYPTIANS,MAYON,
HOPI,AZTEC,ABORIGINI,AND THE PETROGYLPHS FOUND ONLY IN THE HIGH PLACES OF THE WORLD DEPICTING THE SAME FIGURE A SPIRAL 7 PLANETS AND THE HORNED DESTROYER,AND NO THEY DIDN'T HAVE FAX MACHINES TO SEND COPIES OF THE SAME FIGURE CARVED AROUND THE WORLD. THEY ALL SAW THE SAME THING.

AGIAN WHY IS IT SO HARD TO BELIEVE THAT EARTH HAS A BIANARY TWIN
80% OF THE NORM IN OUR GALAXY IS BIANARY OUR TRIANARY SYSTEMS.

THE RABBITS HOLE .COM SHUT DOWN LUCAS HAD AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF METERIAL AND ALL WAS 100% TRUTH.


Why is your caps lock on?


you havnt really solved anything.

so google have small sections blocked....why???

you just put a ? for that other sky thing he mentioned...which means like me..you have no idea what it is..so you cant comment on it.

why is NASA blocking things silly? because they always do it? then the question remains....why???

why is soho on and off all the time? did they tell you it wasnt because of nibiru?

sure tectonic plate movement causes quakes...perhaps he means whats causing the extra movements than normal.

ok so the polls have been moving over a couple hundred years...no need to slate his spelling just to try and make his theories sound less plausible.

how would googling meteorology solve anything? if a cosmic source was affecting our weather..then a meteorology google search would really help you. you solved nothing here.

volcanic activity.....see above for earth quakes.

increased UFO activity...you had no answer at all for that one.

so only a few countries are creating underground storage facilities with no clear explanation...the question is still WHY???

and he mentioned ancient civ's and religions and all you had to comment on was his caps?


what do i think about nibiru? probably not true...but im open to the idea and dont slate someone for believing in it.

what do i think of you? ignorant to the max...and you really didnt answer or solve any of his questions.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

what do i think of you? ignorant to the max...and you really didnt answer or solve any of his questions.

Pretty harsh conclusion after a long winded post of virtually no content.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist

This statement would seem to invalidate all of your references as well except for one simple issue. The issue is detecting planets and none of these objects were planet sized or even close to being planet sized.


Yet you forget that these objects are NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS.... Humm, I wonder what's the difference between not being able to see NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS and objects, planets, and even large stellar objects such as a brown dwarf, or a red dwarf somewhere within the Oort cloud.... Talk about "invalidated claims" and "red herrings"...

[edit on 18-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Yet I gave quotes for 2008 and even papers for 2010... BTW, do you know what the difference is between an OPINION of a scientist/astronomer, and what the evidence says?... There are many scientists who are Christian, as well as Jewish scientists, and scientists who BELIEVE in one religion or another, or follow a path of life... Do you understand the difference between their BELIEFS and what the evidence says?.... When an astronomer claims "we should have been able to see such objects" is an OPINION, meanwhile models say a different thing...

[edit on 18-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join