The REAL Planet X?

[BlueAnodizeAl]

Planet X (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/14/planet.discovery/index.html)

Well ladies and gentlemen it appears we found a possible planet X. Not Nancy's but how will she spin this?

[Grand Vizier]

Actually, I think she might try to claim it's a fake, designed to draw attention away from the real Planet X which, as we all know, is maliciously lurking in the inner solar system, causing lots of bobbling and stuff.

After all, it now seems that this object is only 0.75 Pluto diameters (though we'll know for sure in 2 hours time). Hardly a smouldering brown dwarf, even if space.com says it has an unusual reddish colour.

I suppose she could claim it was one of PX's swirling twirling moons that got left behind and is now rushing to join the show...

[tngolfplayer]

Just remeber, Nancy's Planet x is actually the 12th planet according to her, which is kinda confusing, because she refers to it as PX, and the 12th planet in the same sentence. :roll:

[soupdragon2]

Could this recent discovery have anything to do with the IRAS sighting in 1983?

Typical PXP quote: "Planet X has an orbit that brings it close to the Sun every 3600 years, causing mayhem on Earth!"

If it has an estimated Sun orbit of 288 years (Is that right?) is it possible that one of these orbits runs closer to the Sun every 3,600 years or so, or is it too early to predict its precise orbit/s?

Does the BA have to eat any humble pie? Or is this new discovery, as I suspect, sufficiently different from the doomsayers claims regarding Planet X (Their 10th/12th planet depending on wether you count various moons)?

[Ut]

Technically, and this is one of my major problems with Nancy & Co., Planet X was supposed to lie just beyond Pluto, and stay there. It was proposed by Percival Lowell and had a predicted orbital eccentricity of no more than Pluto. It just sounds ominous, and was picked up by Warner Bros for Duck Dodgers. Using the name "Planet X" is just piggybacking on a popular name. Looking at http://www.nineplanets.org, William Pickering predicted a planet he named Planet Q to have a highly eccentric orbit. Why can't they discredit THAT name?

And if Planet X isn't actually shaped like an X, I'm going to be awfully disappointed.

[foxd]

I know!!! Nancy will claim that NASA switched Planet Xs on us!!!
[/b]

[Grand Vizier]

Could this recent discovery have anything to do with the IRAS sighting in 1983?


Not really - that was later characterised as an interstellar cloud, well distant from the Solar Syatem.


If it has an estimated Sun orbit of 288 years (Is that right?) is it possible that one of these orbits runs closer to the Sun every 3,600 years or so, or is it too early to predict its precise orbit/s?


I'm afraid I can't do a link, because Sedna websites seem to be popping on and off, presumably because of the imminent conference, but the orbit seems to have been partly established, needing further refinement (it has been located in historical images - and was initially detected at Palomar last autumn).

Upshot is that the object seem to be very near perihelion, which means it will not even get as far in as the orbit of Pluto, let alone the inner system.


Does the BA have to eat any humble pie? Or is this new discovery, as I suspect, sufficiently different from the doomsayers claims regarding Planet X (Their 10th/12th planet depending on wether you count various moons)?

No, no humble pie. This is not a smouldering brown dwarf on its way to the Pole Shift Kool-Aid Party (and remember, too, that Nancy claims that PX is already here!).

But having said all that, this does mean that the Inner Oort Cloud may contain a lot of Pluto-sized objects. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility, I would have thought, for one to make it to the inner solar system - of course, unless there was a direct collision with Earth (or another planet), the effects would be very slight - just a totally humungous comet, basically. Actually, that would be cool - what a sight!

[A.DIM]

Just remeber, Nancy's Planet x is actually the 12th planet according to her, which is kinda confusing, because she refers to it as PX, and the 12th planet in the same sentence. :roll:

It's not so confusing if one understands that Nancy took from and distorted Zecharia Sitchin's "The Twelfth Planet" to concoct her ideas.

The Sumerians were cultic in revering the planets, moon and sun as "gods." They had 12 central gods in their "mythological" pantheon, from whence came the "Olympian Twelve." Sitchin suggests that this number was dictated by the number of bodies in our solar system, including Nibiru, and is the reason for 12 being embedded in the sexigesimal system we use for Time Reckoning. A "bond heaven earth" if you will, or as the Sumerians called it "DurAnKi." And according to the Sumerians, it was the Anunnaki, "those from Heaven to Earth Came," who bestowed on them this Wisdom and Understanding. :o

[BAroxMysox]

http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2004-05/ssc2004-05v1.shtml

Here is a small video showing the predicted orbit. At it's closest, it looks quite far from Pluto.

[tngolfplayer]

Just remeber, Nancy's Planet x is actually the 12th planet according to her, which is kinda confusing, because she refers to it as PX, and the 12th planet in the same sentence. :roll:

It's not so confusing if one understands that Nancy took from and distorted Zecharia Sitchin's "The Twelfth Planet" to concoct her ideas.

The Sumerians were cultic in revering the planets, moon and sun as "gods." They had 12 central gods in their "mythological" pantheon, from whence came the "Olympian Twelve." Sitchin suggests that this number was dictated by the number of bodies in our solar system, including Nibiru, and is the reason for 12 being embedded in the sexigesimal system we use for Time Reckoning. A "bond heaven earth" if you will, or as the Sumerians called it "DurAnKi." And according to the Sumerians, it was the Anunnaki, "those from Heaven to Earth Came," who bestowed on them this Wisdom and Understanding. :o

Thats the part that is stupid(err, one of them anyway). From what I understand, he claims the moon and sun as two of the planets, that way it makes his little claim stick. Aside from the obvious fact that they couldn't see Neptune, Pluto, and Uranus, it seems he is still missing a few bodies. Also why the moon and not the moons of Jupiter?

This is what happens when woo woo's get an idea. :roll:

[A.DIM]

Thats the part that is stupid(err, one of them anyway). From what I understand, he claims the moon and sun as two of the planets, that way it makes his little claim stick. Aside from the obvious fact that they couldn't see Neptune, Pluto, and Uranus, it seems he is still missing a few bodies. Also why the moon and not the moons of Jupiter?

This is what happens when woo woo's get an idea. :roll:

Ah, condescension. :roll:

First off, it is the Sumerians who were cultic in considering the planets as "gods," not Sitchin. Furthermore, it should be obvious that the Moon and Sun play most important roles in the daily lives of we earthlings, not those of Jupiter. :-?

Apsu - Sun
Mummu - Mercury
Lahamu - Venus
Tiamat - 1/2 is Earth - the other 1/2 the Asteroid Belt
Kingu - Moon
Lahmu - Mars
Anshar - Jupiter
Kishar - Saturn
Nudimud - Uranus
Ea - Neptune
GaGa - Pluto

Nibiru - Planet X


Twelve.



This is what happens when people are uninformed, "woowoos" and "skeptics" alike.

[sts60]

Apsu - Sun
Mummu - Mercury
Lahamu - Venus
Tiamat - 1/2 of Earth - Asteroid Belt - the other 1/2
Kingu - Moon
Lahmu - Mars
Anshar - Jupiter
Kishar - Saturn
Nudimud - Uranus
Ea - Neptune
GaGa - Pluto

Nibiru - Planet X

Twelve.
Except that there's no way the Sumerians saw or understood the asteroid belt (occasional glimpses of Vesta aren't enough), or Neptune, or Pluto. And there's no observational evidence for Nibiru.

Counting the Earth, and including the Sun and Moon, although each are perceptually quite different from each other, that's nine "planets".

I haven't read Sitchin, and I don't know from Sumerian culture. But I just don't buy the way this 12-planet list is hammered together from disparate objects, several of which weren't visible to the Sumerians. And if super-intelligent beings from space told them about planets, they did a very selective (and incomplete) job. Why Pluto, but not Charon? or Ganymede, or Titan? Or Sedna? If moons larger than Pluto are excluded, why Luna? Why is the Sun included when it is most definitely not a planetary body?

Sorry, can't buy it, nor the loopy Nibiru, which is supposed to wreak such havoc every 3600 years. Aside to Hank - isn't this a contradiction, since you argue that we don't have any proof that it should cause big perturbations?

BTW, A.DIM and Hank, I'm not busting on y'all. I enjoy reading your posts, even though I don't reply to them much. Too bad we can't get an Apollo HB who can participate with your good humor...

[TriangleMan]

Apsu - Sun
Mummu - Mercury
Lahamu - Venus
Tiamat - 1/2 of Earth - Asteroid Belt - the other 1/2
Kingu - Moon
Lahmu - Mars
Anshar - Jupiter
Kishar - Saturn
Nudimud - Uranus
Ea - Neptune
GaGa - Pluto
Nibiru - Planet X
Twelve.

So what happens with Sedna? Doesn't that throw things off?

[tngolfplayer]

Let me clarify my comment. I was referring to Stitchin, not the summerians as woo-woo's.

[A.DIM]

Except that there's no way the Sumerians saw or understood the asteroid belt (occasional glimpses of Vesta aren't enough), or Neptune, or Pluto. And there's no observational evidence for Nibiru.
Yeah, the Sumerians only called it the "hammered bracelet" which was made of Tiamat's tail. Her head became Earth.

Counting the Earth, and including the Sun and Moon, although each are perceptually quite different from each other, that's nine "planets".

Huh?
Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto - Nibiru.
That's Twelve.

I haven't read Sitchin, and I don't know from Sumerian culture. But I just don't buy the way this 12-planet list is hammered together from disparate objects, several of which weren't visible to the Sumerians. And if super-intelligent beings from space told them about planets, they did a very selective (and incomplete) job. Why Pluto, but not Charon? or Ganymede, or Titan? Or Sedna? If moons larger than Pluto are excluded, why Luna? Why is the Sun included when it is most definitely not a planetary body?

Again, the Sun & Moon are included because they both influence heavily the lives of earthlings.
According to the Enuma Elish, GaGa (Pluto) was once an "emissary" of Kishar's but was given his own "destiny" (orbit) by Nibiru.
As far as the many other moons: keep in mind that while there was an "Olympic Twelve" in the pantheon, the "gods" also had numerous offspring, emissaries etc. Charon, Ganymede, Titan and the others may in fact be accounted for in the "myths."

Sorry, can't buy it, nor the loopy Nibiru, which is supposed to wreak such havoc every 3600 years.
This is a claim made by Nancy, NOT Sitchin.

BTW, A.DIM and Hank, I'm not busting on y'all. I enjoy reading your posts, even though I don't reply to them much.
No worries. I know well the requirements of "science" and understand how far out (pun intended) Nibiru is.

[Ut]

Furthermore, it should be obvious that the Moon and Sun play most important roles in the daily lives of we earthlings, not those of Jupiter.

But the moons of Jupiter are not only easier to see from Earth than is Pluto, they're physically more relevent, with some of them being bitter and nearer than Pluto.

I don't think it's impossible for any ancient culture to have known about Uranus and Neptune, but Pluto's almost certainly out of the question. It's definately the biggest mark against the "12th planet" notion (excluding the vigor with with some people examine flower patterns on rugs).

And of course, this ignores the fact that this planet would only have been really noticable in the sky for a short period of time. Seeing an object brighter than Jupiter would have probably been awe inspiring, but labling it a God when it only shows up once every 3000 years is a little extreme. My first instinct would probably have tried to lable it as a devil trying to break into the realm of the gods, and then being dispelled after a long stand-off of some sort.

[A.DIM]

Let me clarify my comment. I was referring to Stitchin, not the summerians as woo-woo's.

Well why not the Sumerians as woowoos? I mean, not only did they provide most of the "firsts" of Civilization but they themselves claimed "all that we know was taught to us by the Anunnaki - those from heaven to earth came." Moreover, they described the Anunnaki as real flesh and blood beings with whom Mankind interacted. So what we have here is the brilliance and ingenuity of the First Civlization coupled with claims that the "gods" were "those from heaven to earth came."

[soupdragon2]

:o

A. Dim raises some very interesting points.

And isn't Sitchin a highly rated scholar as regards the translation of other ancient texts? Egyptian stuff as well.

People have attacked him of late because his ideas have been distorted by the likes of Nancy.

His translations are only interpretations...

[TriangleMan]

And isn't Sitchin a highly rated scholar as regards the translation of other ancient texts? Egyptian stuff as well.
Per this website (http://www.facadenovel.com/sitchinerrors.htm), no.
People have attacked him of late because his ideas have been distorted by the likes of Nancy.
I think his ideas were 'attacked' the moment he published them. NancyL has definately increased discussion/debunking on this board though. Because of this, and much to A.Dim's annoyance I'm sure, a lot of discussion misattributes Nancy-Zetababble with Sitchin's work. In my posts I've tried to use "PX" to indicate Nancy and "Nibiru" if I'm referring to Sitchin.
His translations are only interpretations...
Interpretations he seems to take very seriously. I'm also not sure how well Sitchin takes to criticism of his work or whether Stichin has been willing in the past to admit mistakes in his writings and correct them. A.Dim and HankSolo would know this better than I.

[sts60]

Except that there's no way the Sumerians saw or understood the asteroid belt (occasional glimpses of Vesta aren't enough), or Neptune, or Pluto. And there's no observational evidence for Nibiru.
Yeah, the Sumerians only called it the "hammered bracelet" which was made of Tiamat's tail. Her head became Earth.
OK. But what I'm disputing is that the Sumerians called it anything, in fact that they were aware of it at all. Sitchin, if I read you right, is saying that they were aware of it because of visiting spacefarers.

Counting the Earth, and including the Sun and Moon, although each are perceptually quite different from each other, that's nine "planets".

Huh?
Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto - Nibiru.
That's Twelve.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear at all. I meant visible "planets". Without assistance from advanced technology (in this case the alleged Anunnaki), they wouldn't know about the others. And, as you already know, I don't buy that any Sumerian records are actually describing those objects, or that Nibiru exists at all (at least not as he has it).

I haven't read Sitchin, and I don't know from Sumerian culture. But I just don't buy the way this 12-planet list is hammered together from disparate objects, several of which weren't visible to the Sumerians. And if super-intelligent beings from space told them about planets, they did a very selective (and incomplete) job. Why Pluto, but not Charon? or Ganymede, or Titan? Or Sedna? If moons larger than Pluto are excluded, why Luna? Why is the Sun included when it is most definitely not a planetary body?

Again, the Sun & Moon are included because they both influence heavily the lives of earthlings.
According to the Enuma Elish, GaGa (Pluto) was once an "emissary" of Kishar's but was given his own "destiny" (orbit) by Nibiru.
As far as the many other moons: keep in mind that while there was an "Olympic Twelve" in the pantheon, the "gods" also had numerous offspring, emissaries etc. Charon, Ganymede, Titan and the others may in fact be accounted for in the "myths."
Again, OK, but the choosing of who's in the Big 12 seems rather capricious, with no correspondence to physical influences. Moreover, it seems to reflect the fact that neither Charon nor Sedna was known when he wrote this up. (Do you think Sedna is Nibiru?)

Sorry, can't buy it, nor the loopy Nibiru, which is supposed to wreak such havoc every 3600 years.
This is a claim made by Nancy, NOT Sitchin.
My mistake. Thank you for setting me straight. From reading on, I see this has happened a lot, which must be kind of annoying to you.

BTW, A.DIM and Hank, I'm not busting on y'all. I enjoy reading your posts, even though I don't reply to them much.
No worries. I know well the requirements of "science" and understand how far out (pun intended) Nibiru is.
:P

[A.DIM]

Per this website (http://www.facadenovel.com/sitchinerrors.htm), no.

:-?
Using Heiser to refute Sitchin is silly.
Have you forgotten that Heiser and Hoagland are on the "UFO Circuit" together? Besides, Heiser believes that interdimensional beings make up a "Divine Council" that has directed Mankind's affairs from The Beginning.
See here (http://www.facadenovel.com/).

Heiser refuting Sitchin is like "the pot calling the kettle black."

[TriangleMan]

Using Heiser to refute Sitchin is silly.
Heiser refuting Sitchin is like "the pot calling the kettle black."

I know - I'm sorry. I found that link online and I couldn't help myself: "ATM vs. ATM".
Consider it a case of me being 'impish'. :lol: :wink:

Soupdragon2, you might want to check out the whole site before coming to any decision on that individual's assessment of Sitchin, but if you look around you'll find all sorts of websites refuting Sitchin that might be more credible.

[soupdragon2]

I'm skeptical about Sitchin, but just as skeptical about those who dismiss him out of hand. 8)

I've seen so many different interpretations of ancient stuff, all of which claim to be the definitive.

So many interpretations just follow fashion in my humble opinion! I really don't thinks it's possible to gain academic qualifications, in fact, without bowing to prevailing trends of thought ... which may of course turn out to be wide of the mark.

[TriangleMan]

Well soupdragon2, feel free to dig deep into old threads in this PX forum. I guarantee you there's at least 150 pages of threads discussing Sitchin -and back then there were four pro-Stichin posters vs. the debunkers so those threads weren't all Sitchin-slamming like most PX threads. It made for interesting reading but it got a little heated sometimes. (Who here remembers those lively HankSolo/JSPrinceton discussions!) 8)

[Archer17]

Who's Sitchin? :wink:

[Xbalanque]

Who's Sitchin? :wink:

[-X

[Archer17]

Who's Sitchin? :wink:

[-X..What? http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/images/smiles/eusa_whistle.gif

[Archer17]

I'm skeptical about Sitchin, but just as skeptical about those who dismiss him out of hand. 8)What a coincidence! This "out of hander" is skeptical of your skepticism as well. 8)

[TriangleMan]

Well, I'm skeptical of all skepticism about skeptics being skeptical about skeptics! :wink:

[soupdragon2]

Well, sc/kepticism means different things to different folks. :wink:

In its original philosophical sense it related to the doubt that we could be certain about anything.

Personally I see it as an open minded stance - the suspension of belief and/or disbelief.

I am skeptical about the Standard Model for example, given its shortcomings in relation to mass and gravity just for starters. [-(

[Grand Vizier]

With regard to the original question - which was how will Nancy spin this?

http://tinyurl.com/3499d

I got it more or less right - do I win a free packet of Starbursts? OK - she didn't go for the left-over twirling moon theory. Details, details... (Gosh, she's predictable.)

[Xbalanque]

I'm skeptical about Sitchin, but just as skeptical about those who dismiss him out of hand. 8)

I've seen so many different interpretations of ancient stuff, all of which claim to be the definitive.

So many interpretations just follow fashion in my humble opinion! I really don't thinks it's possible to gain academic qualifications, in fact, without bowing to prevailing trends of thought ... which may of course turn out to be wide of the mark.

Oh yes, the usual argument. Sitichin might be right because academics are rigid thinkers who only perpetuate research that has already been done.

I wish someone would list all of the "prevailing trends of thought" so that I don't step on any toes with my own research.

:roll:

[soupdragon2]

I think your being a bit harsh Xbalanque. Your summary is over simplifying my viewpoint.

Mainstream thought is always more likely to be correct, but should never be taken as irrefutable, blah, blah.

[Xbalanque]

I think your being a bit harsh Xbalanque. Your summary is over simplifying my viewpoint.

Mainstream thought is always more likely to be correct, but should never be taken as irrefutable, blah, blah.

I really don't thinks it's possible to gain academic qualifications, in fact, without bowing to prevailing trends of thought

I apologize if I oversimplified this sentiment.

[Archer17]

..Mainstream thought is always more likely to be correct, but should never be taken as irrefutable, blah, blah.I agree with this .. as long as more than just having an "open mind" is employed. For a mainstream concept to be refuted, it must be proven wrong.

[soupdragon2]

..Mainstream thought is always more likely to be correct, but should never be taken as irrefutable, blah, blah.I agree with this .. as long as more than just having an "open mind" is employed. For a mainstream concept to be refuted, it must be proven wrong.

Well, proven is a strong word. Here we get into concepts like falsifiability and so on, and I've been over all this 100 times or more!

But consider the following piece of accepted wisdom: "Gravity is a property os mass." I've heard this touted so many times by the 'mainstream'.

It is, however, somewhat problematic. How can such a statement be 'proved' wrong when it is generally accepted albeit without ever having been verified to any acceptable degree. It is easy to switch the burden of proof and demand that something be 'disproven' ... without it having been 'proven'.

We don't know what gravity is! (Gravitons are hypothetical particles, blah, blah.) Sure, gravity has a relationship with mass (The inverse-square law), but that's a different thing from it being a property of mass. The situation is further complicated by the fact that we cannot explain mass, although a breakthrough regarding Higgs Boson particle theories maybe on the horizon.

The standard model could yet turn out to be a house of cards!

[R.A.F.]

But consider the following piece of accepted wisdom: "Gravity is a property os mass." I've heard this touted so many times by the 'mainstream'.

It is, however, somewhat problematic. How can such a statement be 'proved' wrong when it is generally accepted albeit without ever having been verified to any acceptable degree.

Acceptable to who? If you have a problem with "gravity being a property of mass" then you'll have to show how it is wrong.

It is easy to switch the burden of proof and demand that something be 'disproven' ... without it having been 'proven'.

Nice try, soupdragon2, but that's not the way it works. You are trying to "shift" the burden. Observation has demonstrated that gravity is a property of mass. Can you show how these observations are wrong?

The standard model could yet turn out to be a house of cards!

Science is always fine tuning itself. That's the nature of it. New discoveries cause refinements in our understanding of the nature of things. To state that it's "a house of cards" shows a misunderstanding of how science/scientists arrive at their conclusions.

[Ut]

Well, proven is a strong word. Here we get into concepts like falsifiability and so on, and I've been over all this 100 times or more!

But consider the following piece of accepted wisdom: "Gravity is a property os mass." I've heard this touted so many times by the 'mainstream'.

It is, however, somewhat problematic. How can such a statement be 'proved' wrong when it is generally accepted albeit without ever having been verified to any acceptable degree. It is easy to switch the burden of proof and demand that something be 'disproven' ... without it having been 'proven'.

Semantics. You can't ever prove anything right. There's no such thing as scientific fact. Only agreement with observation. Your asking for proof is sort of like asking for ice cream that taste like God's foot. It's impossible, and you know it's impossible.

However, there is such a thing as scientific definition. And F=GMm/r^2 is a definition of mass using gravity. In this case, it's called gravitational mass. It's been shown through observation to be equal to inertial mass, defined via F=ma.

We don't know what gravity is! (Gravitons are hypothetical particles, blah, blah.) Sure, gravity has a relationship with mass (The inverse-square law), but that's a different thing from it being a property of mass. The situation is further complicated by the fact that we cannot explain mass, although a breakthrough regarding Higgs Boson particle theories maybe on the horizon.

It's not an uncommon belief that science isn't designed to what something is, but rather how it works. So in asking "What is gravity?", you'd have to expect no more than "Gravity is the effect caused by..." There's a theory as to what causes gravity, and yes, there haven't been any observations to verify the theory yet, but that doesn't mean the things we know about gravity are wrong.

The standard model could yet turn out to be a house of cards!

Now, you know that's not true. A paradigm shift doesn't destroy all knowledge, it simply explains it a little differently. The standard model isn't infallable, but it'll probably never be replaced. Even classical physics is still hanging around.

A paradigm shift is usually caused by a small change in the way we look at something, which leads to much larger results. Moving the sun to the centre of the universe let us examine gravity in the first place. The big leap in special relativity is that the speed of light is the same in all unaccelerated reference frames. That's not a big jump. General relativity pretty much just says that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable from an internal observer's point of view. This, again, isn't a big jump. But the effects have been profound. And the old ways of thinking have come along for the ride.

Physics won't fall in the face of any new discoveries. It will only change. Slightly. And then it will expand.

[Archer17]

Good posts R.A.F. & Ut. I have a question for soupdragon2: Do you have an "open mind" about the existence of leprechauns, or do you dismiss it "out of hand?" (This question isn't meant to mock you, it's to figure out if your open-mindedness has limits)

[JohnOwens]

We don't know what gravity is! (Gravitons are hypothetical particles, blah, blah.) Sure, gravity has a relationship with mass (The inverse-square law),...
That would be a relationship with distance. The relationship with mass would be direct & linear, not inverse-square. [-X

[soupdragon2]

Acceptable to who? If you have a problem with "gravity being a property of mass" then you'll have to show how it is wrong.

Explain mass to me?

Science is always fine tuning itself. That's the nature of it.

Indeed, Dark Matter was 'fine-tuned' in to account for the expansion of the universe. Very mysterious stuff, though, this Dark Matter.

The standard model could yet turn out to be a house of cards!
Now, you know that's not true. A paradigm shift doesn't destroy all knowledge, it simply explains it a little differently. The standard model isn't infallable, but it'll probably never be replaced. Even classical physics is still hanging around.

Agreed, if a house of cards collapses, you're still left with the cards, and thus the potential for a new house (paradigm). I do accept that the term House of Cards is too strong, however.

We don't know what gravity hs! (Gravitons are hypothetical particles, blah, blah.) Sure, gravity has a relationship with mass (The inverse-square law),...
That would be a relationship with distance. The relationship with mass would be direct & linear, not inverse-square. [-X

Granted, but are we not left with the same conundrum? We know what this 'gravity' stuff does, but not what it is?

Good posts R.A.F. & Ut. I have a question for soupdragon2: Do you have an "open mind" about the existence of leprechauns, or do you dismiss it "out of hand?" (This question isn't meant to mock you, it's to figure out if your open-mindedness has limits)

:lol: I like it. This is a very valid point. I don't believe in them, but equally I don't disbelieve in them. I adopt a stance of non-belief. :wink: (I believe that this is an acceptable definition of skepticism within rigorous philosophical guidelines.)

If someone told me they believed in Leprachauns, however, I would ask for some form of reasonable 'proof'. But they could always turn round and ask me to 'disprove' it! This leads us into the concept of falsification, does it not? And also relates to the burden of proof issues?

But I think we are taking this thread off on too many tangents! There are separate posts for all of these complex issues somewhere on this fine BB.

[Ut]

The standard model could yet turn out to be a house of cards!
Now, you know that's not true. A paradigm shift doesn't destroy all knowledge, it simply explains it a little differently. The standard model isn't infallable, but it'll probably never be replaced. Even classical physics is still hanging around.

Agreed, if a house of cards collapses, you're still left with the cards, and thus the potential for a new house (paradigm). I do accept that the term House of Cards is too strong, however.

Ahh, but that's not it at all. A paradigm shift would be the equivalent of knocking the roof off, and adding several stories, not of knocking the house down entirely.

The standard model does a good job of explaining things. Any new explanation would also have to agree with the standard model. Look at string theory. It doesn't tear down the standard model and rebuild it. It adds to it.

When Einstein built his relativity, he didn't tear down Newton's house. He added to it, making what once stood part of a larger structure.

The biggest idea in the philosophy of science today is that we can't prove anything. But we can disprove everything that isn't true through experimentation. Sure, we could have a wrong theory on something, but until we make an observation which shows it to be wrong, it stands in limbo. If that theory is right, it simply stands in limbo forever.

[soupdragon2]

Ut. Did you miss this bit in my last post? :wink:

I do accept that the term House of Cards is too strong, however.

[Ut]

Aye. I did miss that. Didn't stop you from your use of the analogy, though.

[A.DIM]

OK. But what I'm disputing is that the Sumerians called it anything, in fact that they were aware of it at all. Sitchin, if I read you right, is saying that they were aware of it because of visiting spacefarers.

Sitchin merely points out that first and foremost, it was the Sumerians who claimed the Anunnaki taught them these things.

A Crash Course in Mesopotamian Astronomy (http://library.thinkquest.org/C0118421/mesopot.html) is helpful.

And, of course, the Epic of Creation or Enuma Elish (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm) is needed. Try reading this with the aforementioned "gods / planets" and Nibiru in place of Marduk.

Tiamat is described as watery. Tehom is the hebrew word used in the Bible in the condensed Genesis version. There are other biblical references too: Isaiah 51:10 recalls the "primeval days" when the might of the Lord "carved the Haughty One, made spin the watery monster, drained off the waters of might Tehom." A Psalmist praises the Lord of Beginnings who "by thy might the waters thou didst disperse, the leader of the watery monsters thou didst break up."

Job 26:7-13
The Hammered Canopy He stretched out
in the place of Tehom,
The Earth suspended in the void;
He penned waters in its denseness,
without any cloud bursting...

His powers the waters did arrest,
His energy the Haughty One did cleave.
His wind the Hammered Bracelet measured out,
His hand the twisting dragon did extinguish.

From the Enuma Elish:

The other half of her
he set up as a screen for the skies;
Locking them together
as watchmen he stationed them...
He bent Tiamat's tail
to form the Great Band as a bracelet.

Back to Genesis:

And Elohim (anunnaki) said:
Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters
and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And elohim made the firmament,
dividing the waters which are under the firmament
from the waters which are above the firmament.
And elohim called the firmament "Heaven."

Now knowing that the Hebrew Shama'im is used for Heaven, the editors of Genesis used another term for "the Heaven" created as a result of the destruction of Tiamat / Tehom. What separated the "upper waters" from the "lower waters" was the Raki'a, usually translated as "firmament" but more literally meaning "hammered-out bracelet."
Additionally, Shama'im, also "Heaven," consists of two words: sham and ma'im, literally meaning "where the waters were."

And, as you already know, I don't buy that any Sumerian records are actually describing those objects, or that Nibiru exists at all (at least not as he has it).

Well, I'm not selling anything. :)

But Nibiru is found in various texts, "mythological" and astronomical. It is associated with MUL.APIN, or the "plough star," in astronomical texts. Its name means "crossing." Could it be a "planet of crossing" "ploughing" through the early solar system? Colliding in a "Celestial Battle" with Tiamat to create the Earth and Moon, as well as the Asteroid Belt?
I'd like to know.

And lastly, we know that the Sumerians considered the planets as "gods" whether or not we can say for certain they were aware of the asteroid belt or the outer planets.

(Do you think Sedna is Nibiru?)

Absolutely not.




ps. Sorry so long in getting back. I've been on the road for a week!

[R.A.F.]

But Nibiru is found in various texts, "mythological" and astronomical.
Oh really!
It is associated with MUL.APIN, or the "plough star," in astronomical texts. Its name means "crossing."
I googled (and then read) about a half dozen different sites concerning MUL.APIN, and couldn't find a one that made any mention of "Sitchin's Niburu". Which leads me to my next question...just who was "doing" the associating??
Could it be a "planet of crossing" "ploughing" through the early solar system? Colliding in a "Celestial Battle" with Tiamat to create the Earth and Moon, as well as the Asteroid Belt?
After examining the evidence, the answer to that question is NO!
I'd like to know.
Now, I'm not calling you a liar, but I believe that statement to be disingenuous to say the least. A.DIM, you've already arrived at your conclusions and I don't think that anything anyone says here will change your mind.

Which brings me bact to the "show me the model" argument. Why, if a model was presented to you, would you believe it?? After all, that model would be formulated using mainstream scientific reasoning, and until now, you seem to not want to believe that same reasoning in regards to "Sitchin's Niburu". Why would the "model" be any different???

[A.DIM]

Oh really!
I googled (and then read) about a half dozen different sites concerning MUL.APIN, and couldn't find a one that made any mention of "Sitchin's Niburu". Which leads me to my next question...just who was "doing" the associating??
After examining the evidence, the answer to that question is NO!

Lexiline (http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi171.htm).

Pomona (http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/archeo/outside/primary.html).

Mul.Apin (http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/astronomer/explore/mulapinb1.html).

"Crossing" (http://ragz-international.com/sumerianwords2.htm).

I wanted to include Sitchin refuter Mike Heiser's paper detailing the Mul.Apin "plough star" astronomical references as well, but we can no longer view his material for free. Go figure.
Whatever the case, I'm sure if you read carefully, you'll realize that Mul.Apin is in fact a "plough star" associated with "crossing" (Nibiru)

Now, I'm not calling you a liar, but I believe that statement to be disingenuous to say the least. A.DIM, you've already arrived at your conclusions and I don't think that anything anyone says here will change your mind.
Which brings me bact to the "show me the model" argument. Why, if a model was presented to you, would you believe it?? After all, that model would be formulated using mainstream scientific reasoning, and until now, you seem to not want to believe that same reasoning in regards to "Sitchin's Niburu". Why would the "model" be any different???

Quite wrong.

We continue to discover things that make it appear possible, I daresay probable.

In '99 it was Dr.s Murray and Matese.

2001 it was this (http://www.sitchin.com/lurkingplanet.htm).

Now we have Sedna, and people like Brian Marsden (http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=683&category=Science) saying things like:

"I can't think of any way of getting into this orbit, other than having some unknown planet or planets in the range from a few astronomical units from the sun. That's a speculation. We have no evidence for that."

As it appears, RAF, I'm not so against the mainstream as you'd like me to be.
Maybe that's why we can't get a model. :wink:

[nero]

I have read many of Sitchin's books and they are indeed interesting to say the least if you can get through the thickness of the endless names. Nancy, did steal his ideas about a good many things. But here is my point, Sitchin purportedly pulled his whole theory together by interpreted thousands of fragments of dug up cuniform seals from Iraq, most of which came from the a massive dig in the 1920s and 30s. It is a relatively speaking it is a rather small finite source of information about a civilization that would have existed 7000 years ago. No one knows how much information has been lost or destroyed over the centuries. God only knows what books and links to the ancients may have existed at Alexandria before the devasting fire. Suffice it to say, Sitchin is probably wrong about a lot things to do with the Sumerians. However, his basic premise is intriguing. What if human beings were created by an alien race eons ago and what influence could that have had on mankind's mythology about God and religion. Few can dismiss or offer a satisfactory opinion about the Pyramids, and some of the ancient civilizations, like the Incas, Mayans etc. Given the whole UFO phenomenon who the hell knows what the real truth is. I certainly have not found that the bible adequately answers the questions that persist about the origin of man.

I am somewhat surprised by the fact that so many people continue to follow Nancy. I predicted almost a year ago on this board that Nancy's followers would fade away especially since the earth hasn't stopped spinning like she predicted. I figured after Winter came and went people would stop talking about her. I haven't been to this board in a long time and I don't know why so many of you still find the need to discuss or dismiss her stupid rantings. My theory now is she exists because Bad Astronomy still exists in opposition to her. I think she feeds off of the posts to this board. I can't believe people still care what she thinks about anything. Her and her Zeta buddies have been wrong about everything they have ever stated. Her grammer and writing style should tell you alot about her education level. I am not sure so many feel the need to "set the record" straight. I am unaware that anyone is quiting their job to go take shelter because of her Planet X. Are people still following the "slowing rotation" and lens flares crap that used to get posted?

In Peace,

Nero

[Worm hunter]

Ok, I've got a question about sedna's orbit. Considering it takes so long to complete one orbit, how sure are we that it will remain stable or in its present form. Oh yeah, and how far back can we track it using those archive photos. I remember hearing something about them helping determine its orbit. Thanks sorry anything is unclear.

[JohnOwens]

And, as you already know, I don't buy that any Sumerian records are actually describing those objects, or that Nibiru exists at all (at least not as he has it).
Well, I'm not selling anything. :)
I wanted to include Sitchin refuter Mike Heiser's paper detailing the Mul.Apin "plough star" astronomical references as well, but we can no longer view his material for free. Go figure.
Do I sense a bit of a contradiction here? Did sts60 ever say you were the one doing the selling? :-k [-X

[A.DIM]

And, as you already know, I don't buy that any Sumerian records are actually describing those objects, or that Nibiru exists at all (at least not as he has it).
Well, I'm not selling anything. :)
I wanted to include Sitchin refuter Mike Heiser's paper detailing the Mul.Apin "plough star" astronomical references as well, but we can no longer view his material for free. Go figure.
Do I sense a bit of a contradiction here? Did sts60 ever say you were the one doing the selling? :-k [-X


No, but I'm intrigued as to why this seems important to you. :-?
A simple turn of phrase was used when addressing my post. I merely retorted in a similar voice.
And a contradiction? How so?

[R.A.F.]

...I'm sure if you read carefully, you'll realize that Mul.Apin is in fact a "plough star" associated with "crossing" (Nibiru)

Yeah, I've been meaning to have a talk with my doctor about my problem comprehending what I'm reading. :lol: Or maybe the "association" would be easier for me to see if I started off with the preconceived notion that Niburu existed. :)

Which brings me back to the "show me the model" argument. Why, if a model was presented to you, would you believe it?? After all, that model would be formulated using mainstream scientific reasoning, and until now, you seem to not want to believe that same reasoning in regards to "Sitchin's Niburu". Why would the "model" be any different???

Quite wrong.

We continue to discover things that make it appear possible, I daresay probable.

Your reply doesn't address the question...It's just your opinion that new discoveries "somehow" confirm your reasonings. Evidence does not support your opinion.

2001 it was this (http://www.sitchin.com/lurkingplanet.htm).

Now we have Sedna, and people like Brian Marsden (http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=683&category=Science) saying things like:

"I can't think of any way of getting into this orbit, other than having some unknown planet or planets in the range from a few astronomical units from the sun. That's a speculation. We have no evidence for that."

I don't understand how posting links to "Sitchin sites" helps your argument. They certainly are not examples of objective reasoning...but they do make me laugh. :lol:

As it appears, RAF, I'm not so against the mainstream as you'd like me to be.

What gives you the impression that "I'd like" you to "be" anything?? Actually, I'd "like" you to be objective in your reasoning...but I not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

Maybe that's why we can't get a model. :wink:

Lets "try" this one more time...
I'm sure that you agree that Sitchin's Niburu must possess mass, therefore gravity. If Niburu "were" to pass through the Solar system...it would "interact" with the planets by it's very nature. There is no evidence of this interaction. That's the "model". To continue to ignore this shows that your mind is "made up" and that further discussion is pointless. (Yet, I will continue to demand that you provide evidence...go figure. :))

A.DIM...I have no problem with you believing anything you want to believe.

I do have a problem with you continuing to state that "Sitchin's Niburu" is actually real, that it exists, yet being unable to provide any scientific reasoning to prove it.

You claim Niburu is "real"...you have to prove it. We've talked about this for more than a year, and I'm still waiting to see any evidence for the existence of Niburu.