Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Where Are All The ELENIN Conspiracy Theorists Now?

page: 20
20
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



Yes the name of the dwarf star is irrelevant

That's false. Each name is assigned to a hypothetical object with different properties.

You are mixing apples and oranges and apparently don't understand how confused you are.




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



The cycle of mass extinctions has not been disproved,

Actually it has. Is it 26My, 54My 62My or something else.?

The site is from 2005 and is just another in a long line of different values. There is no agreement that extinctions are regular.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by mockrock
 




Not true, over the last ten years there has been an increase beyond that we cannot say either way, due to the increase in detection.

That's simply false. There has been no change in the last decade and no evidence of an increase in large quakes, the more easily detected quakes, before that.


If you only consider quakes of 9.0 or larger since 1900; and also consider that before the Indonesian quake occurred 40 years had elapsed since a 9.0 struck, the six year span between the Indonesian and Japan quakes indicates an increase in frequency of occurrence.

2 quakes/6 years -vs- 2 quakes/40 years

en.wikinews.org...



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


To quote the paper that article is discussing in regards to causes:


6. A companion star(s) to the Sun could trigger periodic comet showers. However a 62 Myr orbit is unstable to perturbations from passing stars. The interaction of two or more short period companions could generate a longer periodicity (e.g. through beats), but our simulations showed that mutual perturbations would likely destroy any regularity.

7. Planet X is a hypothesized large planet that perturbs the Kuiper Belt and could yield periodic comet showers on the right time scales. No evidence for it exists.


Source



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


If you're discussing quakes, then you're 100% wrong. I've done the actual math to determine whether or not there has been an increase in earthquakes. The results were that there has been no significant change in the number of earthquakes or the magnitude.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 



If you only consider quakes of 9.0 or larger since 1900; and also consider that before the Indonesian quake occurred 40 years had elapsed since a 9.0 struck, the six year span between the Indonesian and Japan quakes indicates an increase in frequency of occurrence.

2 quakes/6 years -vs- 2 quakes/40 years


That is the sort of thinking that has people confused on random issues. Quakes appear to be random on a worldwide basis. They do not happen at regular intervals as you point out. That does not mean anything about their rate in the short term. Magnitude 9 quakes are rare enough that their rate of occurrence can be discerned by examining short intervals of time relative to their occurrence.

The USGS lists 5 quakes of M9+ since 1900. That's hardly enough data to illustrate a trend let alone demonstrate that the events are random in nature.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by mockrock
 



The point was to show that the Nibiru/Nemsis theory is just that a theory which should not be derided as a hoax..


Nibiru is a hoax. It's a fiction created by Sitchin.

Just like Capt. Kirk's communicator was created as fiction, but you probably carry a similar one on you right now.

ET phone home!

edit on 7-10-2011 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 


So you're saying that Motorola is going to build a planet that has a 3600 year orbit and causes mass catastrophe on Earth? That doesn't sound like a very good business model to me.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 


Just because someone makes up a story and there ends up being a similar real life event in the future that is similar does not mean that the original story foretold the event.

That's like claiming that the apple story in genesis is about some modern food poisoning story today.
edit on 7-10-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by consciousgod
 


Just because someone makes up a story and there ends up being a similar real life event in the future that is similar does not mean that the original story foretold the event.

That's like claiming that the apple story in genesis is about some modern food poisoning story today.
edit on 7-10-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)


You have no proof that Nibiru is a Stichy hoax. So you claim Stichy made up the Nirbiru story from imagination and not uncovered facts? If so, what you are saying is that if Nibiru shows up in our sky that it was not a foretold event. Just because? So you will deny the evidence even if it where staring you in the face because you believe it untrue?

I think you don't know either way. You just have an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 


No evidence that Nibiru is a hoax? How about the fact that the Sumerians didn't even have the word nibiru. It doesn't appear until the Akkadians where it meant a point of crossing, such as at a river. It didn't take on an astronomical meaning until the Babylonians where it referred to the highest point of ecliptic. Occasionally it would refer to a planet if it appeared in this position. This was usually Jupiter or Mercury. The sole reason Sitchin hypothesized another planet is because of cylinder seal VA 243. However, Sitchin completely misinterpreted this seal. What he claimed was a model of the solar system were just stars in the sky. We know what symbols the Sumerians used for the Sun and the planets. None of these appear on VA 243. Instead we see the symbol for star.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by hotbread
 


Well it WAS only a theory.

Theories are not put forward as facts.


sorry, but you don't know the definition of a theory. A theory is a fact that has been tested or proved.

From Wikipedia :

in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. In this modern scientific context the distinction between theory and practice corresponds roughly to the distinction between theoretical science and technology or applied science. A common distinction sometimes made in science is between theories and hypotheses, with the former being considered as satisfactorily tested or proven and the latter used to denote conjectures or proposed descriptions or models which have not yet been tested or proven to the same standard.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 



You have no proof that Nibiru is a Stichy hoax. So you claim Stichy made up the Nirbiru story from imagination and not uncovered facts? If so, what you are saying is that if Nibiru shows up in our sky that it was not a foretold event. Just because? So you will deny the evidence even if it where staring you in the face because you believe it untrue?

I think you don't know either way. You just have an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.

Not only did Sitchin make it up as so eloquently stated by XCalibur254, but Sitchin gave properties to the planet that are impossible. A highly eccentric orbit is not stable. The same reason that Nibiru is not physically possible is the same reason that Nemesis was dropped. You can't have an eccentric orbit that is stable and passes through the part of the solar system where the known planets orbit.

Now its silly to claim that anyone would deny a new planet in the sky. What can be done is to determine how far away an unknown planet would have to be to avoid detection. For as large as Sitchin claimed it would have to be farther than 2100AU to avoid detection. It would always have to be that far out. A smaller object, say a Mars or Earth sized object could be as close as 320AU and avoid detection.

The Kuiper belt has been surveyed and nothing more than Pluto sized objects was seen.

Don't expect to see anything out there staring you in the face.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 



You do not know the definition of "generally understood."

Someone once "theorized" the world was flat and it was generally understood to be true.
This was without anyone knowing for certain.

They were wrong.
What is generally understood to be and what is can be two different things.

A theory is - out side of established fact.
The components of the theory may be provable but until the entire process is also provable it is still just a theory.

In 2007, Max Mayfield

Mayfield began his forecasting career with the United States Air Force in 1970, after graduating from the University of Oklahoma with a bachelor's degree in mathematics, serving as a first lieutenant until 1972. In 1972, Mayfield joined the National Weather Service as a satellite meteorologist. Mayfield earned his master’s degree in meteorology at Florida State University in 1987, becoming a hurricane specialist. Max became the director of the National Hurricane Center in January 2000 after the retirement of Jerry Jarrell.[1] Mayfield is the current chairman of the World Meteorological Organization's Regional Association-IV, which supports 26 members from Atlantic and eastern Pacific countries. He is one subject of an upcoming documentary titled New Orleans Story concerning Hurricane Katrina, which is currently in post-production.[2] Mayfield stepped down from his position as Director of the National Hurricane Center in January 2007


Mayfield received Gold medals for his work during Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and Hurricane Isabel in 2003. He received a silver medal for work done during Hurricane Gilbert in 1988. In 1996, the American Meteorological Society presented Mayfield the Francis W. Reichelderfer Award for his service in coordinating the National Hurricane Center's hurricane preparedness training for emergency preparedness officials and the general public. Mayfield also received an Outstanding Achievement Award at the 2000 National Hurricane Conference for developing and expanding training opportunities for state and local officials. At the 2004 Interdepartmental Hurricane Conference, he received the Richard Hagemeyer Award for his contributions to the United States' hurricane warning program. Also in 2004, he received an Emmy Award for extraordinary contributions to television by someone not normally eligible for Emmy awards. In 2005, Mayfield became ABC's person of the week after Hurricane Katrina. He also received a Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Service in 2005.[1] The Saturday before Katrina hit, Mayfield personally called the mayor of New Orleans to emphasize how serious the threat was to the city. He told TIME magazine, "This was only the second time I called a politician in my life. I wanted to be able to go to sleep knowing I had done everything I could do." The next morning, Mayor Nagin finally called for a mandatory evacuation


Max Mayfied (and up until then he was the one everyone turned to because he had been right so many times before) predicted 10 years of severe Hurricane Activity from 2007 - 2017.

He warned anyone who would listen the next 10 years was going to be the worst hurricane season on record. Not only would the number of named hurricanes increase drastically their span and severity would be similar to what we had seen with super-storms Hugo, Andrew, Marilyn and Katrina.

I bought accordion hurricane shutters ($5000) a generator ($850) and they are still brand new and I will bet I am not the only one in FL that did but we have had the mildest hurricane seasons - everyone of them - since he made that prediction.

Now how can I be mad? Should I demand an apology from Mr Mayfield?
Max Mayfield is peaceably retired, and un-accosted. Imagine that?

The point being ...
(which I tried to express jokingly but find hard nosed up tights taking literally)

FOR GODS SAKE - GROW UP, MOVE ON - LET IT GO.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 



You do not know the definition of "generally understood."

Someone once "theorized" the world was flat and it was generally understood to be true.
This was without anyone knowing for certain.

They were wrong.
What is generally understood to be and what is can be two different things.

At the time that people thought the world was flat it is possible they also did not understand the difference between truth and fact. The idea that the world was flat was a workable model for the situations of interest. As people began to move about more they realized that the flat world model was incorrect.


A theory is - out side of established fact.

Here you provide a definition of theory, a definition that is not the way it is used in science.

Hellhound604 provided a definition that is used in science. For whatever reason you have decided to take a path unlike the one used in science and pointed out in this thread.


The components of the theory may be provable but until the entire process is also provable it is still just a theory.

Here you continue on to suggest some essence of proof, which must also be taken to be some part of your non-scientific definition.

Let's suppose that the idea that the world was flat was a theory. It wasn't in the modern scientific sense since there was no science back then in the sense we use it today. Predictions based on a flat Earth were correct. Even today a flat Earth is often a valid assumption for many things we want to do today such as surveying and making local maps. Would ancient people have been misled by a flat Earth theory? No. Would a city map maker be misled by assuming a flat Earth? No.

As people began to travel they were misled. It became apparent that something was wrong. The facts did not support the flat Earth theory.

You make a claim related to weather predictions. You try to compare the predictions of a complex system with something else. Here the discussion is about the possibility of unknown planets. The systems are far less complex than weather. Unlike mistakes seen on a regular basis as to precipitation or not, gravitational and observational studies of the heavens can be done with great precision. There are no oops, sorry, thought there might be an eclipse this month and there wasn't. Eclipses and planet positions in general are known with amazing precision. You might wonder how it is known that the Moon moves away from the Earth a few centimeters a year despite the 2 being such rough objects. The Earth moves away from the Sun 15cm a year. These are predicted and measured phenomena.

There is no Nibiru out there and when people say there is there is no excuse such as you post for predictions for the weather.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


There is no Nibiru out there?

I am sorry...are you out there?





new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join