Can an object approaching the South Pole be hidden from prying eyes

Originally posted by stereologist

Posting a hoax video was done for what purpose?

A hoax video almost 3 years old, at that. Where is this thing and it's sister/wives/planets?

I suppose it must be coming from the South since it's tugging on the moon causing it to be a boat all the time.

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.

reply to post by stereologist


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.

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.

Hope those studies are correct.....what if they aren't? Either way....I think we can agree on this above for the most part.

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.

Whatever.... think what you may but a theory is not fact. Period. Theory is based on a guess that has been supported by experimentation. I aint dumb!

Again, the theory about Nemesis.... according to this...

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.[41][42] Recent scientific analysis no longer supports the idea that extinctions on Earth happen at regular, repeating intervals.[43] Thus, the Nemesis hypothesis is no longer needed.[43]

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".

Do you know why they named that Planet Tyche? Pretty interesting I would say. In regards to whether it exists and where it is exactly will be answered soon enough. The publication is due out this month and I await the results of WISE.

LOTS of hunches and guessing and theorizing. I like full blown proof. Not one to take someone's word for it unless they have created credibility with me and even then I can't jump on one band wagon... too boring anyway.

reply to post by MamaJ

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.

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.

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.

Do you want me to post a hoax site like the one you are promoting or do you want something useful?

Hope those studies are correct.....what if they aren't?

There are overlapping studies. The 320AU limit for detection of a planet sized object is for an object as small as Mars and was true in 8 years ago. By now my guess is that the constraint has been increased to even a greater distance.

Theory is based on a guess that has been supported by experimentation. I aint dumb!

You aint dumb, but you have it backwards. A theory is not a guess. A theory is based on facts that have been collected by experimentation. First collect facts. Then produce a theory to explain those facts. Then test the theory to see if it correct.

Theories in science are not guesses.

Because of crater counts....the existence of Nemesis is doubted.

That may be an additional line of evidence. A much better one is to show that Nemesis would have been involved in transfer of momentum as it passed the Sun. That would have changed its orbit causing it to change the length of its orbital period. It could not have a stable 26 million year orbit.

but to say without a shadow of a doubt you know it can't happen is naive in my opinion.

Due to the issue of how celestial objects interact it is not possible after billions of years to have an object that enters the orbits of the known planets. It is possible to have an unknown planet that remains far, far away like tens of thousands of AU away.

Do you know why they named that Planet Tyche?

Yes. Do you see why Tyche can never get close to the Sun?

One of the confusions for many people is the backwards nature of so-called theory development by many fringe authors. The authors begin with a speculation that they label a theory and then twist and mangle facts to fit the speculation. This involves unrelated material being heaped into a pile of malarkey and all is claimed to support the "theory".

Science works the other way around. You begin by collecting facts. Then a theory is proposed to bring the facts into an integrated framework.

Take any of these wacko ideas. Take the so-called facts and put them into a pile. Then try to see if there is any theme that makes describes the facts. When the exercise is performed it becomes painfully clear that the wacko idea does not make sense.

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.

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.

No, both hemispheres have many, many amateur astronomers and telescopes scanning the skies.
www.iceinspace.com.au...
assa.saao.ac.za...
www.cce.ufes.br...
www.gea.org.br...
nevoeiro.org...
www.itelescope.net...

Antarctica

Irrelevant. You don't need to be in antarctica to view the entire southern celestial sphere. Anyone anywhere in the southern hemisphere can see down to the south celestial pole. I know this is one of many things that you don't understand, but it is true.

Still...you may be right because I easily found this video said to be from Scott-Amundsen, the south pole station itself.

So you fell for absolute nonsense once again. What else is new? Do you even know what a real image from the SPT looks like? Do you even know what part of the spectrum the SPT observes in? Here's a side-by-side. One is an infrared image from the Magellan-Baade telescope, the other is an image from the SPT in the same place in space (in the part of the spectrum the SPT observes in, of course, I won't spoil the surprise of what part of the spectrum that is, I'll let you answer). Now, if you think you can identify an SPT image, do it. Which one is from the SPT and which one is not?
i41.tinypic.com...

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.

reply to post by stereologist


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!

Do you want me to post a hoax site like the one you are promoting or do you want something useful?

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.

The rest of your writings I won't even bother quoting. The proof is in the pudding and you have your own pudding. Eat it up....

For laughs though... at least try to read this page about what a theory is. en.wikipedia.org...

A theory is not based on "facts". A theory in general can be termed as a tool. Either way... its not facts or based on facts.

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

Beautifully written! I totally agree. There is no way in my mind (key words...my mind) to halt my own personal journey of learning and jump on a specific band wagon.

The deeper one digs the more he finds.

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 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

I may spoil my question to luxor by answering this question, but it means there's low signal strength in that area (the purple areas specifically).

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.

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.

Hahaha! I always like your posts... just wanted to tell you so.

No.... I would say not to wait on anything concrete from Science just yet in regards to the soul. Again.... proof is in the pudding. I'm eating it up.

I truly LOVE Science.... but I think they have been held back for way to long. Its time for them as a whole (bless them as I know some want to be the deal breaker) to either put up or shut up. They have to tie in with others as the bigger picture requires it.

reply to post by MamaJ

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!

It is more than Mayan BS. It is all sorts of BS. I don't need to assume it is BS> I can see it is BS from the start ot the false claims about the Mayans, and to the universe.

You are not trying to get me to be objective. Your request is for me to accept the obviously false claims of a dubious website. I didn't scan over the website. I read it till I was disgusted. You asked me to reach retching levels a second time. I did.

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.

I did read the hoax site you posted a link to - until I had reached my stupid statement limit for the day.

So please learn what the Dark Rift is. Learn how the ancients did not know what it was. Learn how the distance to the Dark Rift is measured.

For laughs though... at least try to read this page about what a theory is

You might try reading that yourself. Sorry I posted a dumbed down version here.

A theory is not based on "facts".

There you are wrong again.

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.

The link you provided says you are wrong. Apparently you did not read the link you provided.

reply to post by MamaJ


It is true what you say - science needs to tie in with other noble arts
As happened in Alexandria Constantinople and the courts of the Rennaisance
Art Geometry Mathematics Philosophy Physics Poetry Mythology Astronomy Astrology etc are all intertwined and connected to the bigger picture.
Ancients understood this and all shared to enrich the other

The one big question I wanted answered is why people so often claim that an object approaching directly at the South Pole could only be seen from the South Pole.

So far no one has answered.

Is this just being copied from some videos or websites without considering the merits of the argument?
Does it have to do with no easily seen southern polar star?
Is there something foreboding about the SPT?
Is the nature of the SPT observations a bit hard to understand and thus makes for the story easier to swallow?
Is the lack of an indigenous population part of the mystique?
Is it simply the mystique of Antarctica?

reply to post by artistpoet


Actually, the ancients did not meld science with other disciplines because science did not exist back then. The idea of science is relatively new. It has proceeded to divorce itself from many of the issues that have hampered scientific inquiry.

BTW, astrology is not scientific.

reply to post by stereologist


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.

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.

Here is what it says (the link I provided you) about Scientific theories.

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.[7] 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.[6] 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.

Also states....

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.

But... you chose to quote this....at the very bottom which I concluded BS..... lol..... So.... your theory of a theory is BS to me. Sorry.

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,[9] 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.[10] 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.

reply to post by MamaJ

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.

You're allowed to be wrong. That's okay with me.

Your first quote uses "observable phenomena" instead of the word "facts". These observable phenomena are the facts that the theory explains.

In the second quote the facts are called "observations."

That is 2 quotes supporting my position. Thanks for pointing out you are wrong. Well done!

reply to post by MamaJ


The gist of this is that Stereo doesn't go in for all that new agey/cosmic/consciousness "baloney," and anyone even remotely familiar with your posts knows that you do.

You guys are just 2 ships passing in the night with nary a tooted horn in acknowledgment. He's never going to even entertain reading links to new agey information.

Just my 2 pence.

reply to post by ColAngus


I do read them ColAngus, but with the understanding that they are likely to be riddled with falsehoods, outright lies, unsubstantiated claims, and pointless hoopla.

It is interesting at times to see how outlandish a claim can be made by people and easy it is to dispense nonsense to the gullible.