Originally posted by stereologistSo here is the problem in a nutshell. There isn't going to be an unknown planet entering the orbits of
the known planets because the uncertainty is infinitesimal. Any possible error is so small that it is of no consequence.
Note that my thing is more TWZ and I am new to this Nibiru idea. Haven't made up my mind about that either but as always I remain open-minded.
Your point is true, ASSUMING a few things:
1. That our models of the universe are correct. They might not be. They could be slightly wrong, they could be completely wrong. If they are slightly
wrong then the possibility is tiny, if they are completely wrong then who knows what could happen.
2. That the officials aren't lying to us. They might be.
3. That the planet would be travelling using "normal" means. Again, going with remote possibilities - it could be "cloaked" by some form of alien
technology or other means. It could be travelling at FTL speeds and/or using a "wormhole". Not saying I believe these things but its possible.
Those are the nitwit tales from bad movies. That is not how scientists work. That is not what science is about.
No that's not how scientists work and its not what science is about. Its what the dogma is about and it is perpetrated through everything from bad
movies, through the MSM and into our every day lives. Result? Everyday, normal people believe science to be all of those things. If a scientist
doesn't give something the tick of approval, then people don't believe it. If a controversial theory comes out and a few scientists in key official
positions say its not true, then it gets forgotten about or becomes maligned as some crazy alternative theory that only "whackos" believe. e.g. You
coming into our threads and arguing that 2012 can't possibly be true because it doesn't fit your current world view.
That's a laughable claim. Please start opening your mind and reading my posts and learning. I don't make any of those claims because they are
laughable at best, actually anyone saying that is stupid and I have never said any of those things. So please don't tell lies such as me,
stereologist, having said any of those things. Only a liar would claim that I said any of that.
Your argument as I understand it, is that none of these 2012 ideas could possibly be true. The argument you use is they either contradict scientific
theories or that there are no peer-reviewed, widely accepted scientific papers showing it to be true. Am I wrong on this?
Assuming I am on the right track, then the latter could potentially be because the dogma of science does not allow there to be any peer review of
these ideas. If a scientist comes out with a controversial paper, they are shouted down by other scientists all over the world who don't believe it
could be true. Straight away those scientists are being biased. Why? Because they are entrenched in their own beliefs as well as their own research
which says that can't possibly be true, so they don't even look into it. A scientist is supposed to consider any theory, yet scientists are entrenched
in the dogma that keeps science rigid, when it is supposed to be fluid. Therefore, new ideas can be crushed and pidgeon-holed as a crazy, fringe idea
before they have a chance to be discussed openly in the public forum.
As for the former - as I said, our current theories could be wrong and that idea is fundamental to scientific theory. So you can't use contradicting
current theories as a basis for why it can't happen - you have to test the old theories again in light of new evidence to see if they still stand up.
How many Governments do you think would give scientists money to look into 2012? Besides private research that's where the money comes from. The only
scientists willing to give it a good look are instantly ridiculed and their careers are effectively ruined.
Now, in relation to 2012, the evidence is largely anecdotal. The problem, in a nutshell, is that science is built from the ground up to ignore
anecdotal evidence, eliminate subjectivity and promote only the cold, hard, physically observable facts (Some of the softer sciences are better at
this e.g. Psychology and Sociology). Therefore, evidence which supports 2012 is thrown out as rubbish by people like you, who demand hard facts.
Therefore, no unbiased research happens into it. Therefore people like you can throw out the evidence. Around and around we go...
THERE CAN BE NO HARD FACTS UNTIL AFTER THE DATE HAS PASSED.
Can we agree on this one simple point at least? You can run all the simulations and make all the predictions you want, but we won't know until the
date comes and goes. That comment cuts both ways, but I am not claiming 2012 as 100% true while you are claiming it to be 100% false.
This is my whole point - you will find no satisfaction here because we are talking about completely different things. Science in its current form
cannot possibly describe anything even remotely close to what we are talking about here. It encompasses religion, science, anecdotal evidence,
intuition, emotions, thoughts, history, alternate concepts of time and space. Science does not and in its current form can not even begin to touch on
these subjects, because by its very design it denies they exist (e.g. religion) or sweeps their existence under the carpet as though they don't exist
(intuition and emotion).
So coming into the 2012 forum and using science as a way to discredit it will not work. Move on, we get your point, there's nothing for you here, so
move on. Unless you do have another agenda for being here?
edit on 9-3-2011 by Cecilofs because: (no reason given)