Drs Marsden,Murray,Matese find Velikovskys Visionary PX - Page 4

Archer17 · #91 (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vianova

Archer 17 says
Vianova could you shorten your lengthy posts..."

and then some derisive comments.

I have a business and a girlfriend.
And a rental house to remodel
I am very busy , and am ogff to the shop in Seattle for 2 days .
I have to post a lot at once

Just cut to the chase, OK? People pressed for time don't make long rambling posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vianova

You are lucky Archer, that Phil has me hamstrung with 2 strikes from the start.

Is that a threat Vianova? What makes you think you are the only one that has to adhere to the FAQ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vianova

I am sorry that your poor attention span is lacking in abilities of common comprehensive reading and analysis...your BABB observational capacity is a symptom of B ADD....

Don't make me laugh. I'm not the only one that mentioned your long-winded rambling manner. You claim to be pressed for time and post poetry! :roll: You haven't even posted in a coherent manner. Your posts are all over the place, jumping from brown dwarfs to electric craters with a bunch of links & quotes sprinkled in.

Archer17 · #92 (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 06:27 PM

Let's address Velikovsky. I'll stick to Venus. In his Worlds in Collision he makes a sweeping claim regarding Venus based on his unique cherry-picking of mythology, not astronomical evidence. His claims of a "collective amnesia" during the alleged upheavals is one of the lamer things I've ever read. I found it funny that while he relies on certain aspects of mythology to spin his yarn, he ignores others and when there is no collaborating ancient records of what he proposes, he invokes a concept of "collective amnesia." How convenient! As far as the temperature of Venus is concerned ToSeek brings up a good point. While Venus is hot, Velikovsky's explanation and facts are wrong. Velikovsky overlooks the greenhouse effect as a causative factor and blows it big time as far as the composition of the Venusian atmosphere is concerned.

R.A.F. · #93 (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyEyeGuy

...and there's a mountain of solid physical reasons to dismiss his theories.

Like when Velikovski writes about "comet Venus" passing so close to the Earth, that it stops the Earth's rotation. That's about as physically impossible as a "woowoo theory" can get.

Archer17 · #94 (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vianova

..Anither poster says
" A brown dwarf in the outer reaches of the solar system (light hours) would be very conspicuous (especially in the infra-red)..."

Not so, as a matter of fact most of the solar sysyem search for "10th planet"
or PX was from IRAs data in the 80s that apparently was faulty from the start.

Dr P. along with van Flandern, Anderson, Harrington all were in a viirtual space race to find PX
many different assignments of orbits and earth masses were applied to the
"10th planet'
All were revised many timesl
when the astronomers could not find PX with their own many timed revisions of IRAs data, they basically gave up and declared it could not exist because they could not find it,
except for Harrington whi searched for it till his death shortly before he was off to New Zealand to continue his search...

To cut to the chase here: Has Planet X or a brown dwarf in your context been found? No. All those words you type and this is the bottom line.

clairegal · #95 (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

"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.

You have posted this information twice now above and on page 3. If you are going to copy and paste information, please check what you are posting so we dont have to read the same points again.

A.DIM · #96 (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

It IS NOT about Sitchin, and whether or not I agree with him.

Well, HUH!!

Quote:

It IS about the observations astronomers are making.

But, you're using these "astronomers" observations as "evidence" that Sitchin's "theory's" are viable...so it IS about Sitchin.
Games, anyone??

How so?
I've asked a couple of times now that were there no "woowoo nonsense" associations made, would the observations by these and other astronomers lead to valid theories? OR is there a more serious problem of these scientists teaching and working as such, while also having "no common sense?"
Again, whether or not I agree with Sitchin shouldn't be the issue. You've not read him, you don't care to. I respect that. And I'm certainly not trying to change your mind.
Perhaps you can re read my post and respond to the more pertinent statements? or questions?

"balls in your court"

R.A.F. · #97 (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 07:36 PM

This is from back on page 1 of this thread...

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archer17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vianova

Well, obviously Marsden , Murray , and Matese believe it is hard to detect.

Considering their resumes that's not surprising. What do you think?

I think I've been discussing these and similar findings for almost 2yrs around here when it was once proclaimed "Impossible!," and then we progressed to "possible but unlikely," and now the discovery of Sedna coupled with exciting new technology, in my mind, is making it not only possible, but likely that another (maybe more?) planetary body resides in our solar system. How has it not been found? Well, there is that 20% yet to be thoroughly scanned. What will we find when we finally do? I daresay we discover our "perturber," the notorious planet X, or as I prefer, Nibiru.

Sure sounds like you're talking about Sitchin.

But what do I know...I haven't "read" him. :lol

A.DIM · #98 (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archer17

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?

"agenda?" Sorry, Archer, that strikes me as paranoid.

Yeah, I've read what the BA has to say. He, too, is looking for another planetary body out there and appears interested in some of the research on the matter.

And what have I ignored with "rhetorical questions" and "righteous stuff" and other such debunker's lingo nonsense? Like I said, separate my so called "Sitchin agenda" and tell me what these astronomers' observations might suggest.

But I do apologize for inserting "petty snide" remarks in your post. If I recall correctly, I'd just had to deal with my 12yr old daughter and was in some mode.

A.DIM · #99 (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archer17

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

I knew you would like it.

Me too, I love team sports! :P

A.DIM · #**100** (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

This is from back on page 1 of this thread...

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archer17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vianova

Well, obviously Marsden , Murray , and Matese believe it is hard to detect.

Considering their resumes that's not surprising. What do you think?

I think I've been discussing these and similar findings for almost 2yrs around here when it was once proclaimed "Impossible!," and then we progressed to "possible but unlikely," and now the discovery of Sedna coupled with exciting new technology, in my mind, is making it not only possible, but likely that another (maybe more?) planetary body resides in our solar system. How has it not been found? Well, there is that 20% yet to be thoroughly scanned. What will we find when we finally do? I daresay we discover our "perturber," the notorious planet X, OR AS I PREFER, NIBIRU.

Sure sounds like you're talking about Sitchin.

But what do I know...I haven't "read" him. :lol

Indeed! And it appears you barely read my quote.

EMPHASIS NEEDED

A.DIM · #**101** (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyEyeGuy

...and there's a mountain of solid physical reasons to dismiss his theories.

Like when Velikovski writes about "comet Venus" passing so close to the Earth, that it stops the Earth's rotation. That's about as physically impossible as a "woowoo theory" can get.

I know very little about Velikovsky, but are you saying here it is "physically impossible" for Earth's rotation to stop?

I'm merely wondering what will happen When North becomes South. Is this a possible scenrio for the rotation to slow to such a degree that it appears to stop?

A.DIM · #**102** (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archer17

To cut to the chase here: Has Planet X or a brown dwarf in your context been found? No. All those words you type and this is the bottom line.

And so now we should ignore these observations and speculate / discuss no further?
I mean, if we used your reasoning perhaps we shouldn't continue speculating on other astronomical phenomena that have only been observed indirectly. :-?
Where's your "scientific spirit?"

Go Team!

TriangleMan · #**103** (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

I'm merely wondering what will happen When North becomes South. Is this a possible scenrio for the rotation to slow to such a degree that it appears to stop?

You may be confusing two items A.Dim - magnetic pole flips as opposed to physical flips/stoppages. The energy that would be required to physically stop the Earth moving is massive (how much I think was calculated in another thread) while pole reversals happen every few hundred thousand years or so. I don't think a pole reversal would have an impact on the physical rotation of the Earth.

Archer17 · #**104** (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archer17

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?

"agenda?" Sorry, Archer, that strikes me as paranoid.

What's so paranoid about it? I've said this before, I can't read your mind. I base my opinion on what you post. To me your posts reflect an agenda, the agenda being the promotion of Sitchin... it's not like you post about too much of anything else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

..And what have I ignored with "rhetorical questions" and "righteous stuff" and other such debunker's lingo nonsense?

Debunker's lingo? Nice try A.DIM. You know exactly why I invoked the term "rightous," it's right in the second sentence of my quote. As far as rhetorical questions, re-read your posts. Just go to all the lines that end with question marks. Can't miss 'em.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

Like I said, separate my so called "Sitchin agenda" and tell me what these astronomers' observations might suggest.

Observations or speculation? There's a big difference here. There's also a big difference in how we both interpret what some astronomers "suggest."

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

..But I do apologize for inserting "petty snide" remarks in your post. If I recall correctly, I'd just had to deal with my 12yr old daughter and was in some mode.

Apology accepted A.DIM. I've been put in similar "modes" myself from time to time.

A.DIM · #**105** (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TriangleMan

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

I'm merely wondering what will happen When North becomes South. Is this a possible scenrio for the rotation to slow to such a degree that it appears to stop?

You may be confusing two items A.Dim - magnetic pole flips as opposed to physical flips/stoppages. The energy that would be required to physically stop the Earth moving is massive (how much I think was calculated in another thread) while pole reversals happen every few hundred thousand years or so. I don't think a pole reversal would have an impact on the physical rotation of the Earth.

I guess I'm thinking along the lines of electric motors; reverse the polarity = reverse the rotation.

The Bad Astronomer · #**106** (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John T

B
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."

If even 20% of "Alice in Wonderland" is true, it means we can walk through mirrors, talking rabbits exist, and cats can willfully disappear.

My point: you can't say "if even..." because it's a logical fallacy. If 100% of it is wrong, 100% is wrong, and Velikovsky was grossly wrong in nearly everything he said.

TriangleMan · #**107** (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM

I guess I'm thinking along the lines of electric motors; reverse the polarity = reverse the rotation.

Okay. From a planetary perspective though:

[layman]while planetary magnetic fields are a result of rotation (the rotating iron core creates the field) I don't think it is what fuels the rotation as planets with cooled cores still rotate. While the specifics of pole reversals are not entirely understood I'm not sure if it is due to the core changing its direction of rotation.[/layman]

A.DIM · #**108** (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archer17

To me your posts reflect an agenda, the agenda being the promotion of Sitchin... it's not like you post about too much of anything else.

"promotion of Sitchin" to what end?

And here of all places?

Archer17 · #**109** (**permalink**) 14-April-2004, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.DIM