Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Here is a new link I found that may shed some light on 'magnetic waves' which are talked about in the Scribd:

truthdive.com...




posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
And I also do not personally think that Nibiru is behind elenin, but I do think there are a lot of inconsistencies when it comes to information regarding this comet. When there is smoke, there is normally fire, so I'm just digging a little and this forum is the best place to do it. I am able to do a lot of researching myself, but I am always seeing new things I didn't know about and the puzzle pieces just keep clicking together. If you think a gov't is not able to hide huge and potentially fatal truths from it's own people to hold on to power then you obviously are not a history buff, and I'm sure the truth is even darker because history is written by the victor and it's pretty dark as is.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by KSprepared
 


So what if diamagnetic levitation was demonstrated?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by athenegoddess
 



A pole shift is 100 percent guaranteed on 12-21-12. Whatever about Nibiru.

A pole shift as described by Hancock is impossible.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by KSprepared
 



It might come earlier than that if electric universe is the real deal and dirty snowball turns out to be bad science. /quote]
The electric universe claims have been shown to be false tie and time again.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



... affected by the object behind the Elenin object.

There is no object behind comet Elenin.


The efforts to debunk these struck me as amateurish and ludicrous and I was just voicing my frustration with those attempts.

You accept the false statements and outright lies that anything has happened. The claims of a change in Saturn are ludicrous as I pointed out. The rings cannot be tipped. Cassini would be knocked astray. The object would be visible. The list is long.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by KSprepared
 


What does this have to do with the discussion? Can you tell us how that is connected to anything being discussed?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by KSprepared
 


What are you referring to here? The tilt is an apparent motion, not a true motion.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted 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)


Wait, you said they are "facts" but just "poorly layed out" and based on that excellent review, you call it fail?

Perhaps your own post is "poorly laid out"?

"poorly laid out" "facts" are still facts, just in a layout that does not conform to your standards.

After all, YOU are the one that called them "facts", not me.

"I could keep going...but what's the point. ", so why don't you? Nothing more to add? After all why stop now since you started, or is it just as I suspect a comment jibe to fill a large vacuum of reasoned arguemnts?

edit on 28-7-2011 by JennaDarling because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Mungsmythy
 



It is obvious to me that many of you did not really read this article.

Yes I did and it is a collection of lies. I see that other people were able to see through the rather lackluster lies.

You do realize that the Saturn storm was imaged by Cassini and that would have been knocked away from Saturn were there a large enough object to affect the rotation of Saturn and you do realize that the rings would have been destroyed by a close passage of a large object.

BTW, Saturn is no where near Elenin. Saturn was no where near Saturn when it was discovered. You might want to look up the orbit of Saturn before making such obviously false statements.

Then it's on to another false claim - the electric universe theory. The electric universe theory is a failure.


Are there a few dubious statements or guesstimated calculations? YES! Does that make the entire paper irrelevant? NO!

Are there a few lies or purposeful misrepresentations? Yes. Almost 100% of the write up is a lie. If you think that there are a few correct statements then list those. Let's see if you can find 2 or 3.


Electric Universe theory is face stomping preconceived theories and laws left and right. Laws and theories that have been in place for decades.

False. The electric universe theory is a discarded claim. It simply doesn't work at any level. EM forces affect small scale/ small mass objects such as alignment of particles.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by KSprepared
 



I think NASA really is waking up to the electric universe.

Can you tell me anyone at NASA that believes in the theory? Can you show me where NASA is using that idea? Can you show me any publications that support this theory?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Mungsmythy
 



It just plain makes sense!

Why does it make sense? What is there to the claims that make sense?


The problem with science these days is that it's funded by grant. If you argue for something that is politically or socially inconvenient, you simply don't get research funds

Really? Give us an example. You probably can't. This is the claim made by charlatans to cover up for their incompetence. Hoaxers like to pretend that their field of interest is being frowned upon. If you ever get into research you will learn how ridiculous that claim is.


Anyone that funds their own research is usually cast aside and labeled as a pseudo-scientist. This is the same thing that happens in our medical community today.

Not true. Another claim made by people that do not actually do research, that use invalid methods, or whatever and then whine about it.


That said, I have no doubt there are a few key people in the science community, and certainly in NASA, that have realized for quite a while now that our model of the universe is seriously flawed.

Of course many of the models are flawed. We have been working with limited information. Scientists know that. That is presented in their work.

Example: solar system formation. Until the last decade we had a case study of 1. Now we can see more planetary systems and are seeing that ours is atypical. Scientists knew and reported that the solar system formation ideas were based on their experience of 1. New papers can work from more data.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by JennaDarling
 



"poorly laid out" "facts" are still facts, just in a layout that does not conform to your standards.


OccamAssassin's failure to use quotation marks around the word "facts" does not nullify his criticism. The document in question makes ridiculously specific claims about size and mass, but then considers the density, which is a simple calculation involving the size and mass, to be unknown. This alone suggests that person who wrote the document, is literally, a child. There are no facts, only fantasy, backed up by "evidence" that shows a complete unfamiliarity with the nuts and bolts of science. Again, this is consistent with the author being a child. What makes "facts" facts is that they can be independently confirmed by other investigators. For example, anyone can go out this evening with a pair of binoculars and look to the southwest just after sunset. The bright orange object there is Saturn. Even a pair of binoculars will give you some idea of the "tilt" of Saturn's rings. (You won't see much detail, but you can see that it is elongated.) Having noted it's tilt, you can come back inside and compare it to any number of websites or programs that indicate what that tilt should be. I can assure you they will agree. That is why it is a fact. Why have none of the people posting on this thread who seem to find this document convincing performed this simple experiment for themselves? Presumably, because they are not really interested in facts.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Iam not a debunker or a believer of Nibiru but very interesting reading...

Iam a believer for one thing : we are in a BINARY SYSTEM like other system !



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



The write up claims not a tilt of 90 degrees, but rather it claims a "tilt away form normal of almost 90 degrees"

That's a very different claim and a false one.

The claim to this is a piece of software. Notice that the image son the right do not show background stars. Thus the Stellarium images and the actual photos are not comparable.



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by KSprepared
 



I think NASA really is waking up to the electric universe.

Can you tell me anyone at NASA that believes in the theory? Can you show me where NASA is using that idea? Can you show me any publications that support this theory?


I don't know about NASA papers and all, but here is a man that is researching it and eloquently explains why there is no research into this field:

Here is the homepage, kind of messy:

www.jmccanneyscience.com...

Here is the link to archives of his radio show:

www.jmccanneyscience.com...

and this show in particular is relevant to this topic:

www.jmccanneyscience.com...

but why show you anyone doing science in this field? You will automatically dismiss him as an oddity without even looking at his work, just like he predicts you will in his show.

Sorry, need to add that this introduction is worth a look also:

www.jmccanneyscience.com...
edit on 28-7-2011 by KSprepared because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by maritimo69
 



I think you are too sure of you, we' ll see in time, your attitude is irresponsible !


Do you disagree with my definition of "fact?" If so, what is your definition of "fact?" Do you disagree that density = mass/volume? Why don't you perform the experiment I suggested before you accuse me of being over confident or irresponsible?



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Mungsmythy
 



and it seems cosmologists are just now starting to seriously look at Electric Universe for answers.

No real cosmologists consider the electric universe theory since it is so obviously false.

There are many long period comets. They come by often.
There are many alignments each year. There are many comets each year. There are many planetary alignments each year.
Many comets come close to the Earth - much closer than Elenin.






top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join