Lucus And The Return Of Planet X!

One of the interesting celestial mechanics studies being done is right here in our own backyard so to speak. Since 1969 when the astronauts placed reflectors on the moon's surface, accurate measurements have been taken of the distance from the Earth to the moon.

Ranging has also improved historic knowledge of the Moon's orbit, enough to permit accurate analyses of solar eclipses as far back as 1400 BC.

Here is an interesting detection of an anomaly. The reason that these issues are detected is that science is constantly double checking work to see if the data is correct.

However, the change in the Earth's rotational period was first measured using eclipses, of all things. Astronomers who studied the timing of eclipses over many centuries found that the Moon seemed to be accelerating in its orbit, but what was actually happening was the the Earth's rotation was slowing down.

The following article is about an effort to reexamine the telemetry data from the Pioneer spacecraft.
The Pioneer Anomaly: A Deviation from Einstein Gravity?

Heat lost to space and warming of the probe's instruments are both thought to have a part to play in altering spacecraft momentum. So could this be the answer?

Read the article because this quote is just telling you that the article is about the idea that maybe the plutonium generator's heat production affected the path of the spacecrafts.

In the following article is another type of anomaly and a possible explanation.
A Possible Answer to Flyby Anomalies

Instead of wasting time making spurious claims of second suns and new planets seen by solar observatories, people should wake up and start learning about the fascinating world around us.

reply to post by rajaten


Fortunately that was a rather short and pointless video.

It's Jupiter and 2 of the Galilean moons. What doofus labeled this Nibiru?

Hoax

WELLLL.....

I went to rabbithole2.com

Seems like your standard new-age for-profit end-of-times web-site.

(I just threw in that last hyphen for S&G)

Websites don't cost much at all..
So if they're selling something, it might as well be mackerel.

For the true believer there will never be enough proof that Nibiru is just a hoax. Time and time again the point has been made that if it did exist, amateur astronomers would have spotted it . the believers answer to that is :worldwide conspiracy, on the other side of the sun, or just ignore the facts and bull ahead. There is no way EVERY astronomer is in on it. Someone would have blown the whistle long ago. WHY can't they see this? The world is going to hell fast enough, do you have to have something to help it on it's way?

reply to post by DAVID64


sure and Russia was always a cold environment or the Sahara desert was always a desert.

LOL I wonder if people went through these arguments 10000 years ago?

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy



WELLLL.....

I went to rabbithole2.com

Seems like your standard new-age for-profit end-of-times web-site.

(I just threw in that last hyphen for S&G)

Websites don't cost much at all..
So if they're selling something, it might as well be mackerel.

OMG so skeptics don't do that stuff to and sell their stuff to the public for DVD's or books?

LMFAO

www.michaelshermer.com...

reply to post by dragnet53


The problem with the rabbits hole is that the material is based on falsehoods, and misrepresentations, and opinions labeled as facts.

No one here has made even a passing effort at trying to support the contentions of Lucus. Even Lucus himself dropped out of sight and gave up trying to support his failed claims since he knew it was to trivial to show what a scoundrel he is.

Due to the lack of evidence from anyone it seems an open and shut case that the claims of the rabbits hole are garbage.

That reminds me. Rajaten you posted a pile of dates that you said here they are and I asked you where in that material it supported the contention of a 3600 year cycle. I received no answer.

It seems clear that the claim of a 3600 is false.

reply to post by stereologist


LOL Maybe he is tired of your barrage of spam and ignorance? Ever heard of that one?

reply to post by dragnet53


oh can't forget Phil Plait's website. He sells stuff to on his interpretations on certain things. LOL

www.badastronomy.com...

He is the idol for every NASA boy on this site.

reply to post by dragnet53


Yes certain people are a waste of time.

reply to post by dragnet53


Spam and ignorance? I suppose the truly ignorant are those that do not see that Lucus is a charlatan and posts falsehoods, and misrepresentations. BTW, where is he? Oh that's right he fled in terror when the evidence was presented.

The ignorant are those that repeatedly post videos of lens flares, atmospheric effects, reflections, and misrepresented videos from NASA. The ignorant are those that are close minded to the heaping evidence that the claims of 2012 are pathetic lies.

And please look up the word spam and see what it means so that you can use it properly in the future.

reply to post by dragnet53


A reply to your self - how quaint.

Phil Plait has a website with actual information. That's pretty good. Unlike Lucus the information on Plait's site is actual scientific evidence.

reply to post by rajaten


Have you been able to show the 3600 year cycle yet. You posted a bunch of dates, but where in the dates is there evidence of a disaster?

You offered to defend the claim of a 3600 year cycle. Please show us all where this cycle is. Begin by pointing to the disasters 3600 years ago.

reply to post by stereologist


LOL really? Tell that to Jarrah White on youtube. He laughs at Plait. In fact he got owned by Joe Rogan.



[edit on 26-8-2010 by dragnet53]

reply to post by dragnet53


Jarrah White is another individual peddling nonsense. His claims are so laughable it is amazing that anyone pays attention to him. A couple of years ago someone invited me to look at one of his videos and I watched it. It was one of the first online hoaxers I watched. His understanding of science is poor. His showmanship wasn't that good either.

Do you ever watch these shows with a skeptical mind? Do you ever ask yourself, "Are these statements correct?" I expect useful critique of my posts from phage and ngchunter and hippomchippo (did I get that right?) and others, because I know I will make mistakes or overlook important issues. It's the feedback and other posts that keep me on the road to new information.

Jarrah makes a sham of the process by making obvious false statements. He works in an environment where he does not get the feedback real researchers would get. I remember one video where his nonsense had dug him a deep hole and he had to recant his lunatic claim. He did so by making another ridiculous claim even worse than the first. I wish I could recall it so that I could post this bad comedic claim of his.

Reading the posts here, I, too, can't seem to get enough of this 3600 year cycle. For me it's like Pluto - the weakness in the flesh is there, I just can't see it even though I'm looking right at it.

The date MAY have originated with Prof. Mike Baillie. A couple of sites:
'Exodus to Arthur' and 'Moses Comet by Mike Baillie'

How about those tree rings at 1628 BC. I have some small personal experience with tree rings and I like them because I think tree rings can be done on a budget whereas ice cores require a serious grant.

Earlier in this thread there was, I believe, a link to a site that showed (or maybe it was another thread) that among the recent unexplainable phenomena is the rate of radioactive decay which is no longer constant. If the rate fluxtuates with the times, anything dated using that method is suspect. Just like court cases where a judge is found to have been bribed in one, all then must be revisited.

Another familiar name, like Mike Brown, is Don Yeomans of JPL who, I read on a site 'Hale Bopp's Orbit' has calculated 55 ephemerides for this comet. The most recent orbital periods include 4000 and 3400 and 2000 years. I like 3600 years and I think I'll calculate an ephemeris that will show that.

Lastly I'm going to point out that there is no credible evidence that Lucus (Lucas) of the destroyer videos was ever on this site or more particularly in this thread. I need some credible evidence for that one.

reply to post by luxordelphi


The rate of radioactive decay is constant. You may be referring to adjustments made to C14 studies since the ratio of C14 to other carbon isotopes is not constant. The corrections to the C14 dating method are done comparing other dating methods to C14 or collecting objects of known age or collecting samples of the atmosphere that have been captured. Regardless of the manner, this is a means of calibrating the dating technique.

reply to post by stereologist

'Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements' in the Science News section of Science Daily in a story dated yesterday. The way I read it this latest reported phenomena or supernatural event is still being investigated and no solution has been found.

reply to post by luxordelphi


That's an interesting find.

From the wikipedia article on Science Daily:

Science Daily is a source for topical pseudoscience and science articles.

All that tells us is that we have to be on our toes when we look at an article. We should be doing that anyways.

Ephraim Fischbach - Purdue physics dept

1. "Analysis of Environmental Influences in Nuclear Half-Life Measurements Exhibiting Time-Dependent Decay Rates", J.H. Jenkins, D.W. Mundy, and E. Fischbach, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A (2010), doi: 10.1016/j.nima.2010.03.129.
   
2. "Evidence of Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance", J.H. Jenkins, E. Fischbach, J.B. Buncher, J.T. Gruenwald, D.E. Krause, and J.J. Mattes, Astropart. Phys. 32, 42-46 (2009).
   
3. "Time-Dependent Nuclear Decay Parameters: New Evidence for New Forces? ", E. Fischbach, J.B. Buncher, J.T. Gruenwald, J.H. Jenkins, D.E. Krause, J.J. Mattes and J.R. Newport, Space Sci. Rev., 145, 285-335 (2009).
   
4. "Perturbation of Nuclear Decay rates During the Solar Flare of 2006 December 13", J.H. Jenkins and E. Fischbach, Astropart. Phys. 31, 407-411 (2009).
   

So indeed there are publication matching the claim. What would be interesting to see the magnitude of the change in rates as well as comments from the peer review process.

Here is one of the articles from Fischbach.
Perturbation of Nuclear Decay rates During the Solar Flare of 2006 December 13
I glanced over the article and the report in Science Daily seems to match up closely. The interesting item to me is the plot called figure 1 in which we see that the differences are small. The maximum differences between the green line and the blue line are .02 on a scale of 17. That's around 0.1%.

The article is from 2009. I wonder what is being discussed. Anyone know anything more about this issue?