Heavy Mass Object In-Coming?

page: 41
77
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelligence101
 



When are all you "ATS scientist" gonna finally pop your deluded bubble and realize that you don't know jack ****. Neptune does this, Pluto does that, the sun can't do this. You don't know nothing, all you know is what you've read and what you choose to believe. When **** goes down I bet it's going to be almost instantaneous and all you science freaks are going to sit there like "that shouldn't have been able to happen" and it's gonna be too late. Science wants to give answers for everything yet we still know absolutely nothing. The two main questions are still theory's, big bang theory and theory of evolution. Until I see science explain these two with facts I'm gonna let science take a back seat to my brain.


Try taking an introductory course in science to learn how it works.

1. There are lots of facts supporting the big bang theory such as the relative motion of galaxies and the cosmic background
2. Evolution is a fact. There are theories to explain that fact.

What I see is that you don't much about these areas and rather than learn why certain ideas are well established you find it easier to pretend that no one knows. Just because you are not familiar with the material does not mean others are not familiar.

To say we know absolutely nothing is beyond ridiculous. You are using a computer that was constructed not by chance, but by engineering using advanced math and a detailed knowledge of the interactions of particles in matter. Just because there are so many exciting concepts to work out and understand does not mean that people have not already learned a tremendous amount about the world we live in.




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


You are mixing properties of Nemsis with properties of Tyche. The blog does the same. It references an article which is a report on Tyche that is a little mixed up as well.

Nemesis is no longer considered a possibility.
Tyche's prospects are dimming rapidly as the WISE data has not turned up anything.

It is not the norm for stars such as our Sun to have brown dwarf companions. It is clear that there is no luminous companion to our Sun.



Oh, I'm sorry. I get confused with all these mythological hypothetical not-yet-found bodies out there that scientist have a need to name.

So......just pretending there's a monster in the Atlantic ocean, let's call it Bob. And if there's another monster in the Indian Ocean (of course, we're speculating) let's just name that unfounded creature, Bill!!!

Who does that?...except perhaps people who need to keep things straight in case, things come into fruition?

edit on 5-4-2012 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Correction: I have calculated Mayan calender. It uses 5 18- and 20- digit increments. By extrapolating from the start of their calender, I calculated 21/12/2012 to be 00-00-00-00-13, not 00-00-00-00-00. The calender does not end in 2012, it still has alot of years to go. Make the calculation yourself, the material is in Wikipedia.



I never said I believe things are 'timed' to a tee. Especially knowing how man has manipulated time. Our calendar used to start on April 1st (hence: April Fool's day)
So I'm not holding anything to any specific date or time.

I just know (feel?) that there's our binary twin out there and eventually it'll be, in here!



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


It seems like your implying that the fact that scientists give names to these hypothetical planets is evidence that they exist. If that's the case feel free to point out Vulcan in the night sky. I mean 19th century astronomers believed there to be a planet between the Sun and Mercury named Vulcan so it must exist.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Your monster analogy is wrong. The reason for using different names is because the proposed objects have very different properties.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelligence101
When are all you "ATS scientist" gonna finally pop your deluded bubble and realize that you don't know jack ****. Neptune does this, Pluto does that, the sun can't do this. You don't know nothing, all you know is what you've read and what you choose to believe. When **** goes down I bet it's going to be almost instantaneous and all you science freaks are going to sit there like "that shouldn't have been able to happen" and it's gonna be too late. Science wants to give answers for everything yet we still know absolutely nothing. The two main questions are still theory's, big bang theory and theory of evolution. Until I see science explain these two with facts I'm gonna let science take a back seat to my brain.
edit on 5-4-2012 by Intelligence101 because: (no reason given)


Uh, yeah. Nice to see yet another brainiac employing the "until science is absolutely infallible and can explain EVERYTHING, I'll toss it out altogether. At my convenience. But only when considering pet theories. But you know, I'll continue to use my cell phone. And computer. And car. And toilet. And furnace. And, you know, every imaginable modern convenience that owes its origins to the very foundations that science has established. But you know, aside from all of those wonderful things, SCREW SCIENCE!! Because it can't, like, tie together completely disparate theories like biogenesis and cosmology and evolution."



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Your monster analogy is wrong. The reason for using different names is because the proposed objects have very different properties.




But they're hypotheticals.

How do THEY know they have different properties if they haven't even been found????
Who names something that's not even present?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


It seems like your implying that the fact that scientists give names to these hypothetical planets is evidence that they exist. If that's the case feel free to point out Vulcan in the night sky. I mean 19th century astronomers believed there to be a planet between the Sun and Mercury named Vulcan so it must exist.



Not sure what your point is.

Then Nibiru should be accepted until proven likewise. That's how NASA is going about this after all isn't it?


I personally have more respect and trust in ancient cultures than I do modern day science.

Modern day scientists still has to answer to the Elite!! Not so in ancient times.

Don't believe me? Canadian scientists now have to avow to their government!!
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
But they're hypotheticals.

How do THEY know they have different properties if they haven't even been found????
Who names something that's not even present?


Dude, please quit with the "if they've even entertained the notion, then it must have merit".

They're addressing different properties because they're fundamentally different hypotheses. A binary star system is fundamentally an entirely different scenario than a single star system with an as-yet discovered planet in the outer solar system. Even if you don't know a lick about science, you should be able to grasp that.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


"2. Evolution is a fact. There are theories to explain that fact. "

How can you have a fact backed by a theory?? Are you even aware of what you're writing??
Educate yourself before you attempt to educate others.

And big bang is a theory. period.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by camus154

Originally posted by Human_Alien
But they're hypotheticals.

How do THEY know they have different properties if they haven't even been found????
Who names something that's not even present?


Dude, please quit with the "if they've even entertained the notion, then it must have merit".

They're addressing different properties because they're fundamentally different hypotheses. A binary star system is fundamentally an entirely different scenario than a single star system with an as-yet discovered planet in the outer solar system. Even if you don't know a lick about science, you should be able to grasp that.




My point is:

Nibiru and its properties have been around 6000 years before NASA decided to start naming phantom bodies with pretend names.

Case closed.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by camus154

Originally posted by Human_Alien
But they're hypotheticals.

How do THEY know they have different properties if they haven't even been found????
Who names something that's not even present?


Dude, please quit with the "if they've even entertained the notion, then it must have merit".

They're addressing different properties because they're fundamentally different hypotheses. A binary star system is fundamentally an entirely different scenario than a single star system with an as-yet discovered planet in the outer solar system. Even if you don't know a lick about science, you should be able to grasp that.



Wow. You seem more dense than a black hole!


Let me ask you this:

If there was a binary star (which in all probabilities, IS) then, why can't it have other bodies too?
Why can't Tyche or Nememsis have an entire system unto itself?


You see, Nibiru has been proposed to be our binary twin and with this binary twin: Nibiru comes its own orbiting planetary bodies. A planet or two along with their own moons.


Why are we arguing? Because I attach my faith with the ancient and yours with NASA? Seems we're coming out with the same hypotheticals.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
If there was a binary star (which in all probabilities, IS) then, why can't it have other bodies too?
Why can't Tyche or Nememsis have an entire system unto itself

You see, Nibiru has been proposed to be our binary twin and with this binary twin: Nibiru comes its own orbiting planetary bodies. A planet or two along with their own moons.



Actually, no. Nibiru wasn't supposed to involve any binary system whatsoever. That's where all this name business actually does matter, see? Nibiru was proposed by some fruitcake of a lady who to this day swears some hidden planet will usher in the Day of Reaping, much to the masturbatory strokes of Christians and circle jerk doomsdayers everywhere. Originally this was supposed to happen in 2003, but obviously THAT didn't quite pan out, so hey....maybe the Mayans had it right, yeah? Yeah, I mean, why not? And oh by the way, it's absolutely COINCIDENTAL that 2012 was the next best guess that just so happened to fall within the time frame of the people shouting about the end of the world to begin with. Yeah? Because, you know, in the grand scheme of things, a mere one or two hundred years is like a split second in Universe Time, and oh, how lucky these people are that the Rapture will occur within their own life times....yeah?

But that's just a coincidence, after all. I mean, out of all the epochs the universe--and indeed, this very planet--will ever bear witness to, we just happen to be Oh So Lucky to be within spitting distance of The End.

How Remarkably. Convenient.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



But they're hypotheticals.

How do THEY know they have different properties if they haven't even been found????
Who names something that's not even present?

The properties are defined to explain the observations. In the case of Nemsis a 26My orbit was based on a mistaken idea that extinctions came in 26My intervals.
The properties of Tyche are based on comet data.

That is how the properties are known. No one says there is a planet out there for no reason at all. There is a reason given and then properties are derived to provide an explanation to a phenomena.

Lots of things get a name before they are found. Can you say Higgs boson?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



Then Nibiru should be accepted until proven likewise. That's how NASA is going about this after all isn't it?

NASA did not come up with this idea. NASA is not directly looking for these things.

Nibiru has impossible properties. It cannot exist.


I personally have more respect and trust in ancient cultures than I do modern day science.

Then why do you believe in Nibiru when no ancient culture mentioned it?



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by remrem
 



How can you have a fact backed by a theory?? Are you even aware of what you're writing??
Educate yourself before you attempt to educate others.

And big bang is a theory. period.

I am using these terms as used in science. Theories are based on facts.

Try looking up the meaning of science, scientific theories, and facts, and get back to me.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



Nibiru and its properties have been around 6000 years before NASA decided to start naming phantom bodies with pretend names.

Nibiru is a modern fiction. The properties are impossible. A highly eccentric orbit is not stable.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



If there was a binary star (which in all probabilities, IS) then, why can't it have other bodies too?
Why can't Tyche or Nememsis have an entire system unto itself?


You see, Nibiru has been proposed to be our binary twin and with this binary twin: Nibiru comes its own orbiting planetary bodies. A planet or two along with their own moons.

You are describing an impossible situation. Planets are only bound to stars because of gravity. The planets in a system you describe would not have stable orbits and would probably be ejected from the system or swallowed up by one of the stars.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



If there was a binary star (which in all probabilities, IS) then, why can't it have other bodies too?
Why can't Tyche or Nememsis have an entire system unto itself?


You see, Nibiru has been proposed to be our binary twin and with this binary twin: Nibiru comes its own orbiting planetary bodies. A planet or two along with their own moons.

You are describing an impossible situation. Planets are only bound to stars because of gravity. The planets in a system you describe would not have stable orbits and would probably be ejected from the system or swallowed up by one of the stars.


I hear you and again, appreciate your stance however, what you're citing is science by yesterday's standards and books.
As of a few weeks ago, 'gravity' is being reconsidered and reexamined.

So I don't go by 'scientific laws' anymore. They're way too limiting to ones brain! Today's science mimics yesteryear myths.


Have you ever heard of the orphan planets?
If not, you may want to read up on that because that blows the 'planet-needing-a-star' myth right out of the water.

IMO gravity comes from within. The core. And works in conjunction with the electromagnetic field. The Sun plays into too only I'm not sure its part. Gravity does NOT come from a moon. That's caveman thinking. Especially when they find out (or rather: announce) the Moon isn't natural



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



Nibiru and its properties have been around 6000 years before NASA decided to start naming phantom bodies with pretend names.

Nibiru is a modern fiction. The properties are impossible. A highly eccentric orbit is not stable.


Nibiru is a modern fiction? We might have the name wrong but I assure you the Annunaki have been around longer than our manifested planet has.

See? This is what science, school and religion does to perfectly good people. It churns out nothing but closed minded brainwashed obedient members of the flock.

I am not directing this to anyone specifically but if the wool fits, fleece it!





new topics
top topics
 
77
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join