You took the words out of my mouth R.A.F.

A.DIM, it took you as long as your second post in this thread to mention Sitchin and Nibiru so spare me this righteous stuff. If you want to make a case for a "perturber" and all that asteroid belt, "flaying of Mars" stuff I suggest you start. All you do is ask rhetorical questions in your posts and seem to ignore the points that have already been made in this thread. You mention other scientists and astronomers. The BA is an astronomer too. Did you read his posts in this thread? Or, like Vianova, is it only fun when you cherry-pick and only cite only those you feel help the agenda that you insist you don't have?

Graham Hancock, eh? I know there's a thread somewhere dealing with this woowoo. Vianova, your references are starting to go downhill in a hurry. Valles Marineris? I'm almost afraid to ask how you thing our Grand Canyon was formed. I suggest an internet search re: this Martian canyon to broaden your knowledge. Interplanetary arc? Sounds like something McCanney would be shoveling.

Phantom Wolf and others say

I'd just like to say WooWoo....

here I'll say it for you

WOO-WOO....woowooowoo...wow...what a woo woo

None of you have a sense of humor.
It was a TIME OUT, for a quick joke.
You are all tied up in knots with science fever,
take a break , and go fishing,
get some sunshine,
breath some fresh air,
laugh at life a bit.
Enjoy.

I just tried to break up the seriousness with a little fun.

Seeing how Phil will block me , as I have 2 strikes without even doing anything ,
I guess I cant cast aspersions on to specific circus entities with bright red noses that want to call me a woowoo.
Thats OK,
I dont mind being called a woowoo,
SMILE, the Colonel loves everybody.
I will stick with the issues,
and leave the Velikovskian poetry aside,.. maybe baby.

By the woo woo ways, {of which I am so wondrously endowed},

Where is my favorite orbital mechanics PhD,
Dr P.?

Newtonian orbital mechanics on the run...........
Velikovskys Venus had all the fun,


Comet Woo-woo on the way,
woo woo nibiru....................cosmic payday.
Velikovsky gets shortchanged,
At BABB he is quickly hanged.
In the Court of Cosmic Entropy.


[-X
no woowoos allowed here


Am I still good boy "bad newbie", Phil ?
You know how it is ,
Colonel Vianova and his polished boot toe,
kicking woowoobooty on GLP,
I m being pretty socially sedate here at BABB arent I , Phil ?
Im trying to be a nice guy woowoo,
Colonel Electric Universe,
like a Flash Gordon movie...woowoo cinematics
Marsden is the Emperor Ming,
John Carter of Mars is more my style.
Cometary relief.
And Phil,
thanks for your input on this thread.

speaking of woo who what the hey
my favorite SOHO picture of the comets Woo and Woo Hoo,
above and below the sun as debris particles.
http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/rea...20_2342_c3.gif
2 days after the passage of NEATV1

Huh?

No, forget I said that.

I keep forgetting this is a 'Planet X' thread. Things don't have to make sense.

Carry on.

I knew you would like it.

Vianova, I suggest you stay on target here, for one, especially about why you are so wrong about brown dwarfs. For another, you should address some of the points made here. You have addressed some, but none of any consequence.

And you do have two strikes, for the very reasons I mentioned in my first post in this thread. Stating that you posted while drinking, and then rambling, is a good way to get that third strike. Read the FAQ.

You know, if I were a nasty person, I could claim this is your admission that the Sumerians invented Nibiru. But I'm sure that's not what you're saying is it...?

Oh dear. Another poor persecuted PX'er who was only spouting their effluvia in good clean fun, never meant to offend, just can't understand what everyone's so upset about, etc etc etc ad nauseam...I can see someone of this stripe staggering into the local Republican committee meeting with a 'Kerry in '04' button and wondering why all the hoopla...apparently the concept of being appropriate to the situation isn't taught like it used to be...but enough with the social commentary, let's move to financial issues...time to put my 2¢ in.

Vianova, there have been many proponents of PX/Nibiru/the death planet of the week here over the ages, and the conversations eventually bog down in minutiae concering this ancient text or that orbit or the other webcam image...it all gets sort of tiring after awhile. I do wish someone would come up with something new for us to flex our mental muscles over.

It all boils down to the level of observable evidence, though. Point out the object. Direct us to the planetary wobble. Give evidence of the gravitational disturbance and/or light lensing of distant galaxies. Make it known to us something of the physical.

No more interpreting or theorizing or scrying or remote viewing or the like...be specific, and the sooner the better.

SHOW US PLANET X!

__________________
"If a tree is cut down in the rainforest, and is used to make paper to print a book, and the book is really bad, and there's nobody that will read it, do you still hear a sucking sound?"
Charlie in Dayton, A.AsC.

Ok Phil,
No ramblin'....
You say stick to the issue of why I am so wrong about brown dwarves...
You mean obviously, a brown dwarf possibility JUST in this solar system.

Basically,From the links supplied,
I showed that the southen hemisphere observatories of note , are for the most part under construction,the main one is burnt to the ground and the rest of them are under obvious stringent scheduling of tasks for various contactors and science projects.
"Anita Cochran,
astronomer and comet specialist at the University of Texas at Austin,
Most prominent among these, she says, is the fact that there are more observers in the Northern Hemisphere to discover comets than in the Southern Hemisphere, thus a number of long-period comets are probably escaping detection and analysis"


Not a lot of time is being devoted to
PX or brown dwarf search in any observatory, or in,

Dr Browns .,
"...20% of the unexplored sky.."

I showed distinctly how it is hard to find brown dwarfs, and their elusiveness to detection.
The existence of brown dwarfs in binary star systems,

http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pre...ases/95-48.txt
"The brown dwarf, called Gliese 229B... Estimated to be 20 to 50 times the mass of Jupiter...At least 100,000 times dimmer than Earth's Sun, the brown dwarf is the
faintest object ever seen orbiting another star."
If the dwarf formed as a binary companion,
its orbit probably would be far more elliptical, as seen on most binary stars."
Astronomers have been trying to detect brown dwarfs for three decades.
Their lack of success is partly due to the fact that as brown dwarfs age they become cooler, fainter, and more difficult to see."
"Another reason brown dwarfs were not detected years ago is thatimaging technology really wasn't up to the task,"

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sour...ndwarf_fg.html
It is now estimated that brown dwarfs are approximately as numerous as normal stars in our galaxy.

http://www.bahnhof.se/~davidgr/browndwf/bd_def.html
"..."Missing Mass". ...we have only been able to identify about 10% of the mass of the universe.... the other 90%? One theory is that it is bound up in brown dwarfs, so the discovery of vast numbers of Brown dwarfs... "

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~mmw1/
It is clear that our ideas of planet formation based upon one object, the solar system, needs some revision in the light of the newly discovered extrasolar planets and their unexpected locations close to their parent stars.


Also
Brown dwarves with planets,
and brown dwarves ejecting CMEs....
then coupled with Murray and Matese,

Murray´s research suggests that the some of the **incoming comets include a group coming from directions in space that are aligned in an arc across the sky. This arc, he asserts, could mark the wake of some large body moving through space in the outer part of the Oort cloud. A similar theme arises in Dr. Matese´s research. His study of 82 Oort cloud comets indicates that approximately 25 percent of these have an "anomalous distribution" in the sky that can best be understood if there exits some **perturbing force in the Oort cloud, i.e.,
a large, as yet undetected, body.
By analysing the orbits of 13 of these comets, Dr Murray has detected the tell-tale signs of
***a single massive object that deflected all of them into their current orbits.

"Although I have only analysed 13 comets in detail," he told BBC News Online, "the effect is pretty conclusive. I have calculated that there is only about a
***one in 1,700 chance that it is due to chance."

all this in addition to Dr Browns
"20 % of the unexplored sky,',
Certainly does not eliminate a brown dwarf out there perturberating everything that goes thru the Oort cloud, or even acting as the binary star to Sol.
Though Murray does not validate a brown dwarf but proposes a multi
Earth-mass Jupiter, Matese at least gives the idea research and mathematical analysis.

Well Phil, I guess the million dollar question is again,
{needing our orbital mechanics PhD Dr P. here},
Just what is the orbital status of Murrays and Mateses
Huge body of planetary mass,
Is it a stable orbit?
Is it also radically elliptical like Sednas ?
Does it affect Sednas orbit as Murray and Matese describe, it affecting cometary orbits ,
Could it obviously have planets/moons of its own ?
How large is large enough to affect the paths of comets across an arc of the sky?
and swing them into changing orbits towards the inner sloar system?
If there is one, could there be more?
If this is what dragged Sedna into its orbit, then the object has a radical elliptical orbit as well.

Or Phil do you belive that this planet does not exist ?
and that Sednas orbit is stable, perfectly normal, and totally unaffected by the no show brown dwarf/Jovian size planet?

that the Oort cloud is devoid of anything larger than Marsdens "plutinos" ?

Phil,
have you ever talked to Murray or Matese ?

Charlie in dayton says

Oh dear. Another poor persecuted PX'er who was only spouting their effluvia in good clean fun, never meant to offend, just can't understand what everyone's so upset about, etc etc etc ad nauseam...I can see someone of this stripe staggering into the local Republican committee meeting with a 'Kerry in '04' button and wondering why all the hoopla..."

Poor persecuted PXer ?
You have got to be kidding.
I could care less.
I just want to see if anyone here will take the latest ideas by Murray and Matese and give them some consideration as evidence that this solar system is FAR from being fully understood, and defined.
That Velikovskys cometary Venus is not so far fetched after all..
The implications by Murray and Matese and Marsden are astounding ,and the reaction here at BABB was expected.
Thus the merry go round of poetry and drink last night.

I think LOTS of objects swing thru the solar system, and that there have been lots of large and small objects thru here in near misses, and collisions.
including dramatic events,

One look at Shoemaker Levy hitting Jupiter makes that fairly clear.

Solar CMEs hitting NEATV1...
Martian polar caps melting, and ancient oceans on Mars...,
Huge objects in the Oort cloud affecting cometary orbits...,
Huge Helical spiral waves generated in CMEs..,
Brown dwarves with planets and even CMEs...,
Sedna with an unexplainable orbit...,
all indicate that the astronomy now, wont be the steadfastly certain science tomorrow.

Newtonian Orbital Mrechanics on the run.
Velikovskys Venus has all the fun.

"I can see someone of this stripe staggering into the local Republican committee meeting with a 'Kerry in '04' button "

I will be fishing for 4 pound rainbow in the N central Wa state mountains,
when they impose the draft, and declare martial law.

man oh man...
Bush vs Kerry
Clown vs Clown
3 ring war
Iraq Iran N Korea
but China owns the circus tent.

and the awesome image of Valles Marinares
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...viking_big.jpg

I think it was Archer 17 giving me grief about Interplanetary arc and Valles Marineris..
your example of the grand canyon is not a tectonic plate feature , it is an erosional topography. some have implied it to be a possibility of arc strike, as the valles marineris fissure lets say, but I dont.

Howver the tectonic plate theory can explain some of theMartian planets long gash, but not all, and erosional features and volcanic depositonal and catastrophic influences do not add it all up either .
Interplanetray arc is a possibility as shown here

Electric craters

"For example, British amateur astronomer Brian J. Ford published a paper some years ago in which he presented a strong case for the idea that most of the craters on the moon are marks left by electrical discharges on a cosmic scale
9. He backed up his arguments with a report on laboratory experiments in
which he had used spark-machining apparatus to reproduce in miniature such otherwise-mysterious features of the moon as craters with central peaks,small craters preferentially perched on the high rims of larger craters, and craters strung out in long chains. "

VELIKOVSKY AND ELECTRIC UNIVERSE

And Velikovsky pointedly asks: "When we measure the age of the universe, why
do we assume that at creation the heavy elements like uranium predominated
and not the simples ones, hydrogen and helium? It is philosophically simples
to assume that all started- if there ever was a start- with the most
elementary elements. A catastrophic event or many such events were necessary
to build uranium from hydrogen. Although the radioactive clock cannot be
disturbed by heating or hitting, it can be disturbed by discharges of
interplanetary potentials..."

The cosmologist will, of course, reply: "We do assume that the heavy elements
have been built from the lighter ones, starting with hydrogen; it starts in
stars like the sun, and the ultimate creation of the heaviest elements take
place in supernova explosions." But Velikovsky's point-and it's a good one-
is that no theorist stops to consider the atomic-fusion possibilities of the
electric discharge; the uranium-lead ratios found in the rocky materials of
the universe may just as easily reflect a partial conversion of lead to
uranium as a decay of uranium to lead. But of course the stumbling block
here is the continuing resistance of theorists to the idea that electrical
discharges have taken place, or ever could take place, on a cosmic scale.

http://www.holoscience.com/news/failed_star.html

NASA´s latest observatory, designed to see the most violent and stunning cosmic phenomena, captured something unexpected. The Chandra X-ray Observatory, orbiting in space about one-third of the way to the moon,
***saw the first-ever flare from what´s known as a brown dwarf, or failed star.

"We were shocked," said Dr. Robert Rutledge of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, CA, the lead author on the discovery paper to appear in the July 20 issue of Astrophysical Journal Letters. "

The energy emitted in the brown dwarf flare was comparable to a small solar flare, and was a billion times greater than observed X-ray flares from Jupiter.
***The flaring energy is believed to come from a twisted magnetic field.
"This is the strongest evidence yet that brown dwarfs and possibly young giant planets have magnetic fields, and that a large amount of energy can be released in a flare," said Dr. Eduardo Martin, also of Caltech and a member of the team.

http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~mmw1/
"MA409 is about the formation of planets and brown dwarfs through Woolfson´s ´Capture Theory´, in which massive interstellar clouds are tidally disrupted and induced to fragment by encountering a compact star in a young stellar cluster...
.Spiral waves are generated, travelling both inwards and outwards from the planet´s orbit. Those moving outwards carry angular momentum that is deposited when the energy in the spiral wave is dissipated...



NOW TELL ME
if this russian research is geared towards solar fusion-electric universe and plasma discahrge...?

Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball Lightning

http://balllightning.narod.ru/hvewd.html

Formation of plasma column and/or mushroom-shaped object

Now check out the reference

Emelin S.E., Pirozerski A.L., Egorov A.I., Stepanov S.I., Bychkov V.L. Ball lightning modeling via electrical discharge through the surface of a weak water solution. //Submitted to the 10th Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball Lightning (RCCNT&BL –10), Dagomys, 2002, and to international conference
** "Abnormal effects in physics of high densities of energy (macro and microcosmos)", Yalta, 2002.

then go to

http://balllightning.narod.ru/wdemf.html

and you will see little dome shaped lightnings from a test tube

Russian Conference on Cold Nuclear Transmutation and Ball Lightning

http://balllightning.narod.ru/golub02/mw/wires11e.html
great pics here !

"Investigation of long-living plasma formations...The burning of metal wires by electric current of medium magnitude, at proper choice of the discharge conditions, results in generation of long-living plasma formations. "


Now go back and see the helical electromagnetic solar plasma CMEs in the link supplied earlier{if it still works}
this starts with 2 comets hitting the sun and the subsequent wild CME
http://mars.012webpages.com/Sohomovie.html
scroll down to the last 2 lasco pics for the CMEs




i

It sure does sound confusing especially when the real "confusion" appeared to remain with the late Carl Sagan and not Velikovsky.

BA wrote:

"5) I don't know if Velikovsky was insane, but he was certainly wrong. You quoted Einstein: "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance". The irony of this is supreme: I have studied Velikovsky, quite a bit. I read "Worlds in Collision", and several books and websites discussing his theories. I wrote a chapter in my own book about his theories. I have studied his physics, and came to the conclusion that his theories are ludicrous. That was not a jump to a conclusion; that was after months of research."

Fair enough!

However, perhaps "ludicrous" might be a little strong in my view, because even Carl Sagan remarked in 'Broca's Brain' that "... if even 20% of the legendary concordances that Velikovsky produces are real, there is something important to be explained."

No doubt the majority of posters on this site will also agree with your conclusions, many without even having read the book 'Worlds in Collision' themselves!

I think we should consider nevertheless that 'Worlds in Collision' took around ten years to compile and write and was eventually published by Macmillan's in 1950, which as you know started a huge furore, with the astronomer Harlow Shapley and others taking the lead...some of whom equally had not even read the book or prior manuscript.

So Velikovsky's thinking on the subject actually began in the early 1940's.
This at a time when astronomers of the day were satisfied that Venus, due to its closer proximity to the sun, was just slightly warmer than the Earth.
Counter to this notion, Velikovsky proposed at that same time (1950) that Venus must still be very hot, because of the circumstances of its recent birth and subsequent career.

Amongst other predictions, this turned out to be correct.

Obviously you have derived your conclusions based on "months of research" as the chapter in your book declares (Worlds in Derision?)

Carl Sagan wrote 'Worlds in Collusion'?

Actually the book is definitely entitled 'Worlds in Collision', because I checked.

John

But if the mechanism is incorrect then the prediction is not right. If I were to say that the Sun is a ball of fire because it is made of coal am I "correct" because I got the first part right even though my reasoning was completely wrong?

WHAT IN THE WORLD does Carl Sagan have to "do" with Velikovski stating that hydrocarbons and carbohydrates are the same substance???

Perhaps John T is saying that the hydrocarbon/carbohydrate criticism originated with Sagan's critique but that Sagan was incorrect?

Indeed.

Sagan critisized Velikovsky's apparent misunderstanding in 'Problem Five' of 'Scientists Confront Velikovsky' and again in his book 'Broca's Brain'.

I won't copy out the quote, but it appears that Sagan was confused between two sub-chapters which explain different events.

"Naptha" deals with an earlier period when liquid petroleum fell from the skies, burning in many places, as reported by many ancient sources.

The chapter "Ambrosia", deals with a later period, following the near collision, when the hydrocarbon gases still remaining in the atmosphere were converted into carbohydrates.
This substance, now called "manna" subsequenly fell from the skies as morning dew and as reported by many ancient sources, was edible.

It seems to me by reading the critisizm, that Sagan thought both events occurred together, hence the remark that the Israelites "must have eaten the motor oil."

Where did Velikovsky actually say that hydrocarbons and carbohydrates are the same substance?[/i]

Vianova,

Brown dwarfs have been difficult to find because they are much fainter than ordinary stars (even red dwarfs). They are also light years away (the nearest we've found so far is 12 light years away). A brown dwarf in the outer reaches of the solar system (light hours) would be very conspicuous (especially in the infra-red).

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the