It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by stereologist
Posting a hoax video was done for what purpose?
reply to post by stereologist
I don't need to read the entirety to determine that what is posted on the site is baloney. It relies exclusively on baloney stories from well known charlatans. It is very close minded to avoid the evidence that is so easy to obtain that shows that the material is baloney. Begin with the so-called Mayan glyph which is not Mayan at all and has nothing whatsoever to do with cosmology. It goes downhill from there. The Dark Rift is a long way away as determined by astronomical observations. You certainly do not have to go off other theories since the distance has been measured.
Gravity studies and whole sky surveys tell us that no planet sized objects can be within 320AU that we do not know about. That still leaves small objects and farther out large objects. Can something sneak up on us that is planet sized or larger? No. By 8x the distance to Pluto it would be detected. Can an asteroids sneak up on us? Yes if it is small enough it cannot be detected by current instruments.
False. You are using theory as in a guess and science does not use the word theory to mean a guess. Nemesis was to have a highly elliptical regular orbit. That has been shown to be impossible. Nemesis cannot have the properties suggested. Science determined that. Tyche probably doe snot exist. Knowing that the orbit could not be highly eccentric it was given a regular orbit that is far out from the Sun. Matese et al had suggested that they would have found Tyche by now. Nothing has turned up int he WISE data. Even if Tyche exists it never comes close to the orbits of the known planets.
Because of crater counts....the existence of Nemesis is doubted. OOOOOOOOOK. lol Now.... don't get me wrong. I am not saying I THINK there is any body lurking we can't see or will see...but to say without a shadow of a doubt you know it can't happen is naive in my opinion. Not trying to hurt your feelings at all....that is not my intention I just don't see how so many people will jump on one band wagon thinking its the "one".
In 1984, Physicist Richard A. Muller postulated that the Sun has a heretofore undetected companion, either a brown dwarf or a red dwarf, in an elliptical orbit within the Oort cloud. This object, known as Nemesis, was hypothesized to pass through a portion of the Oort cloud approximately every 26 million years, bombarding the inner Solar System with comets. However, to date no evidence of Nemesis has been found, and many lines of evidence (such as crater counts), have thrown its existence into doubt. Recent scientific analysis no longer supports the idea that extinctions on Earth happen at regular, repeating intervals. Thus, the Nemesis hypothesis is no longer needed.
Yes you do...IF you want to truly be objective and KNOW how she laid all the theories out and analysed them but if you want to jump to conclusions thats fine with me. Avoiding evidence you have found that makes it baloney is not really what I was looking for.
I know where the dark rift is supposedly at. When you say it has been measured....let me see proof. If you have it...thats fine but I thought it was all speculation. Show me in a few links how they measured it and this is not a mere guess.
Hope those studies are correct.....what if they aren't?
Theory is based on a guess that has been supported by experimentation. I aint dumb!
Because of crater counts....the existence of Nemesis is doubted.
but to say without a shadow of a doubt you know it can't happen is naive in my opinion.
Do you know why they named that Planet Tyche?
Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter
Hey nghunter...so you don't think it's easier to keep something in the heavens a secret in the southern hemisphere as opposed to the northern hemisphere.
Still...you may be right because I easily found this video said to be from Scott-Amundsen, the south pole station itself.
reply to post by stereologist
The site is baloney. It relies completely on baloney made up by all of the usual 2012 suspects. It begins with the fallacy of the Aztec symbol as being Mayan. It isn't even an ancient symbol. The site goes downhill from there.
Do you want me to post a hoax site like the one you are promoting or do you want something useful?
Originally posted by artistpoet
The difference between knowledge and understanding is also interesting.
There is no end end to knowledge - The more you observe or deeper you look there more there is.
Yet in order to gain understanding one needs to step back and contemplate the bigger picture.
edit on 3-4-2012 by artistpoet because: typo
Originally posted by Flowmaster05
Originally posted by ngchunter
i41.tinypic.com...edit on 3-4-2012 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)
Forgive me for being an astronomy noob, but on the pic on the left, what do the three purple blobs surrounding the red blob mean?
Thanks for your time
Originally posted by artistpoet
reply to post by MamaJ
Thanks - You are right - it is a personal journey
Science can not prove that we each have a soul yet should I wait for science to find that proof.
Had you read it all you would know it is more than just Mayan BS. But... assume all you want. I am done trying to get you to be objective. Scanning over something is not the same thing as reading it. Period!
Hahaha! Whatever. Hoax site? Really? The one you didn't make time to read....OOOOOOOOOOK! No...I think I will dig for my own credible sites, thank you.
For laughs though... at least try to read this page about what a theory is
A theory is not based on "facts".
in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena
Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Sometimes theories are incorrect, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental objection or application of the theory, but more often theories are corrected to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made.
Scientific theories Main article: Scientific theory In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary assumptions that are motivated by empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon. A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that its content is based on some formal system of logic and on basic axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory. A major concern in construction of scientific theories is the problem of demarcation, i.e., distinguishing those ideas that are properly studied by the sciences and those that are not. Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world.
Scientific theories are constructed to explain and predict phenomena (e.g., inanimate things, events, or behavior of animals). A scientific theory can be thought of as a model of reality. According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory". The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a consequence of the necessity of using inductive logic.
Pedagogical definition In pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by official organizations of scientists a definition such as the following may be promulgated. According to the United States National Academy of Sciences, Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, Look up theory in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact. These definitions firmly mark things termed "theories" as being well supported by evidence, although scientists sometimes also use the word "theory" to describe untested but intricate hypotheses.
I could go through the same site and find quotes that say the opposite and its obvious you are so blinded by your own aroma that you cannot stand to come down from your own ego. You deem a theory based on facts is fact and I don't.