Saturn rocking back and forth?? What if CW Leonis were really Nibiru? Link inside., page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times

Topic started on 27-7-2011 @ 09:00 AM by KSprepared

I would love to have a civil discussion on the possibilities presented in this paper.

Link:

www.scribd.com...

Life and death consequences, let's not dismiss any theory, let's instead discuss why it could or could not be correct. Thank you for your replies.

P.S. scroll down a bit to see the text, there is a small amount of blank area and a dead link at the top.

edit on 27-7-2011 by KSprepared because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 09:24 AM by KSprepared

If anyone else has a good explanation of the 90 degree tilt of Saturn, please feel free to explain it.

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 09:26 AM by Heartisblack

I've seen this, it's not pretty. I downloaded to read for later.
As for Nibiru, there wouldn't be much we could do especially if it's that damned big well...we are screwed and there's no where to run.

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 09:42 AM by OccamAssassin

This is a sham.

I admit I only flicked through the first half of this hypothesis, but the facts were so poorly laid out I had to stop reading to combat an onset of nausea.

For starters the figures given for 'equatorial diameter' and 'mass' are given in a precise form yet the density is unknown. WTF?

Surely, if the author knew so much about the physical attributes, then no doubt that the simple mathematical calculations required to calculate the density should have been a 'walk in the park'.

Secondly, gravity is actually magnetism? OK then, if the author is so sure that gravity is a farce and what we see as attractive masses can only be attributed to magnetism, then why doesn't plastic, non-ferrous ceramic, etc, float?

I could keep going...but what's the point.

Epic fail

edit on 27/7/2011 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 10:13 AM by KSprepared

reply to post by OccamAssassin

So if it is not magnetism affecting Saturn, is it gravitational? Maybe this is a common phenomenon with Saturn, or they are outright lying about the pics. I,sadly, do not have a telescope but would love to see pics from another amateur astronomer validating or debunking these photos.

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 10:21 AM by Hilltaker

reply to post by OccamAssassin

Hi,

Saturn is very dense; it's made mostly of ice and rock at its core and hydrogen and helium in its atmosphere.

Check this out: www.astronomyforbeginners.com...

Awesome math.

Thanks,

edit on 27/7/11 by Hilltaker because: Awesome math.

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 10:27 AM by WhoKnows100

reply to post by OccamAssassin

There is actually quite a bit of argument on this point.... Just one example
"It is important to understand that the reason that everything
pulls towards the center of the earth as Newton explains is not
gravity it is because all matter is magnetic on some scale much
of which is not measurable to us currently, and the core is
highly magnetized.". hubpages.com...

To be real, it's not a scientific article, but its the concept.

I've learned over the past 6 months that everything I believed in - my country, politics, TPTB - has been turned upside down.
Somebody took time to put this document together. Disinfo? Possibly. Truth? Possibilty.

I think today in our world is a time to figure out the truth. I will examine it further, but I won't dismiss it out of hand because of a concept such as this. Who knows?

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 11:26 AM by OccamAssassin

reply to post by WhoKnows100

There is actually quite a bit of argument on this point.... Just one example
"It is important to understand that the reason that everything
pulls towards the center of the earth as Newton explains is not
gravity it is because all matter is magnetic on some scale much
of which is not measurable to us currently, and the core is
highly magnetized.".

Yeah, I understand where your coming from , but I think the theory is wrong(that's my opinion...definitely doesn't make it right but its what I have deduced for myself and I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if evidence proves otherwise).

Fore-mostly, if magnetism is the elusive enigma that is missing from our incomplete gravity theory, then we would have found it in the numerous experiments done on gravity, from particle-accelerators to ISS & everything in between.

Secondly, if gravity was a magnetically based force then we could expect to see an increase(or decrease) in acceleration due to gravity when a polarised piece of ferrous metal was dropped from a height and the subsequent velocity measured at various points of the decent and the results were compared to an equal mass object made of an insulator.

Thirdly, if gravity was a magnetically based force then celestial objects would behave differently then they currently do. For example the moon should act as though it has a weaker gravitational force as it doesn't have a ferrous core like the Earth(it actually does but it is much smaller). The moon is roughly 1/6th the mass of the Earth and has been calculated to have a gravitational field 1/6th the strength of the Earth's. Current measurements show the moons magnetic field to be 1/100th of the Earth's far below what would be expected if gravity was magnetically based.

edit on 27/7/2011 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 11:34 AM by Signals

reply to post by KSprepared

Quite an impressive link and read, thanks for posting...

Need some time to digest all of this info, most interesting are the articles from the 80's, indicating the discovery of a large object.

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 11:45 AM by davidgrouchy

Originally posted by KSprepared
If anyone else has a good explanation of the 90 degree tilt of Saturn, please feel free to explain it.

From the perspective of the sun,
the earth itself seems to rock 47 degrees back and forth.
If Saturn didn't appear to have a different tilt during different periods of it's year
something would be very wrong.

Just wait 29 years and Saturn will appear to be tilted in the exact same angle as before.

David Grouchy

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 11:53 AM by KSprepared

reply to post by davidgrouchy

Ok, so is it your opinion that stellarium was inaccurately depicting what Saturn was supposed to look like from their location?

Here is the part in question:

and what they were seeing is the right view for Saturn, not the stellarium representation?

And thank you Whoknows100, that link was one I had not seen before.

edit on 27-7-2011 by KSprepared because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 12:47 PM by stereologist

This is already being discussed in another thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is what I stated about the article in the other thread.

I took a look at the article. There are some huge problems here.

1. The solar system and universe are shaped by gravity. The claim that it is magnetism are demonstrably wrong.
2. Atmospheric pressure does not add weight to objects. Actually, the air makes objects slightly lighter due to buoyancy.
3. Magnetism is not a substance. It is a force.
4. Space is not a substance either

Basically, the pdf deteriorates immediately into the sort of rubbish that makes it worthless to comment on. The basic claim is that the universe is magnetic in nature. There are no instances of objects in the solar system or the universe pushing each other apart. Everything is a force towards each other.

None of that erroneous introduction was necessary to get to the Nibiru fact sheet.

1. The author assigns 6 digits of precision to this fictional planet. Guess significant digits was not taught in that school. That's a sure sign of someone not knowing how to make up numbers.
2. Notice how the equatorial diameter is misrepresented as a range. Apparently whomever faked this sheet did not know what was meant by diameter of a prolate sphere.
3. Funnier yet us the mass which they give as 3.34 and then give you a hint that this is a number between 3 and 4!
4. The author assigns a mass and a diameter to the planet yet is unable to compute a density.
5. The next laugh is that the object can be measured down to the nearest kilometer for diameter yet they are not sure of the type of object.
6. Then it claims that this object has comets around it and asteroids. Apparently, the author does not know the meanings of these words. They should look them up before fixing all of these hideous mistakes.
7. The person who wrote this does not know the difference between speed and velocity. No surprise there.
8. There they go again with a magnetic field diameter to 10 digits of precision yet it claims that the object type is not known. It's back to the third grade for this guy. Seriously, 3rd graders learn a little about significant digits in my school system.
9. Then the object is given a very small field strength. Guess the person does not know that the only way to determine the field strength is to send a probe there.
10. Here is the best part. The wacko assigns this object to be orbiting INSIDE of the orbit of the Earth and then calls it a long period orbit.

I didn't bother with any more of this really, really stupid PDF file. The author better work harder at his 7th grade science and math classes or flunk out of school.

The write up makes no sense at all. Nearly everything in the article is wrong.

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 01:21 PM by Snippy23

Before investing too much time in this material, would it be possible to know who wrote it, and how that person or persons knows that Nibiru has 7 planets or moons, and has an equatorial diameter a little under 180,000 kilometres?

Also, if it is now closer to Earth than Saturn, and has what seems to be an equatorial diameter some 13 or 14 times that of Earth, how is it not obvious to the most amateur astronomer?

Thanks for your help!

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 01:51 PM by heineken

what does the author of this bs crap thinks to be .newton of the day

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 02:23 PM by DJW001

reply to post by KSprepared

The left/right tilt of Saturn depends on the inclination of the ecliptic relative to the observer's position at a given time. It has nothing to do with the actual orientation of the planet in space. More germane to the document in question, it also depends on whether one is using a reflecting or a refracting telescope, as the former will invert the image. The author of the article in question is just that ignorant.

Edit to add: This page should give you some idea of what is going on here.

edit on 27-7-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional material.

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 03:55 PM by KSprepared

reply to post by DJW001

Thanks, maybe it's not off by 90 degrees, maybe his tele is just inverting it and he's either not aware of it or using it to skew his data.

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 04:45 PM by luxordelphi

Thanks OP for this very interesting article. Is there any info. on the pictures - the ones attributed to Mt. Mayhill, IRAS, IRIS and blacked out portions of Google Sky? Have they been covered somewhere else? Did they just populate overnight or are they from some 'official' source attributing them to something else like distant whatevers? They are pretty spectacular.

I can relate to the ecliptic stuff because that would make sense with all the alignments and earthquakes although 'the Elenin object' was close enough to the ecliptic for rock & roll but not nearly big enough for anything, not even a ripple.

The nature of this thing is interesting but I'm not quite sure what all the talk about magnetism etc. is for. Is it because the object is calculated in the paper to be not massive enough to hold onto moons or to create storms on Saturn or? Could do with some layman's explanation on that.

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 04:48 PM by stereologist

reply to post by KSprepared

The entire pdf reads like some kid who is making up stuff as they go along. The claims that Saturn is tilted is ludicrous. If that were the case then the satellite images used in the article would not be as reported since the Cassini probe would also have been affected.

The loony claims that Nibiry is larger than Jupiter and closer to the Sun than Earth and yet we see nothing. Why is that? It's because this is a dreadfully poorly written hoax.

Look at the report. The loony can't even put together a report without all sorts of blank pages.

The loony claims that the rings were tilted without being torn apart. Does anyone here actually think that the rings are a rigid material? Saturn's rings would be torn apart!

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 05:01 PM by stereologist

Apparently the obvious hoax nature of this poorly contrived write up needs to be expanded pon.

1. The pioneer anomaly is a subtle but measurable force, ie change in acceleration, as if there is a change in the gravitational force. This has been seen with other probes and is always TOWARDS THE SUN. It has nothing to do with magnetism and is not in the direction indicated by the drawing.
2. The 1987 article is often shown by hoaxers such as Lucus. It does NOT show where Elenin was at that time. This single drawing from a small encyclopedia does not appear to have any rational explanation other than amistake on the part of the artist.
3. Then there is the comparison with a hurricane. Remember that the Nibiru page claims a magnetic field so weak it couldn't move a compass needle.
4. Next we have the loony unable to understand the difference between the heliosphere and the Sun's magnetic field. No surprise there.
5. Then it's back to Nibiru's magnetic field strength. The loony suggests that the field stops. Anyone with a basic physics course knows magnetic fields go to infinity.

Almost nothing written in the document is true. It's a huge pile of misunderstandings --- at best.

reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 05:02 PM by KSprepared

reply to post by luxordelphi

Thanks for the comment. I found this article to also be a good read outlining planetary alignments and seismic activity:

lanl.arxiv.org...

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^