A REAL Bad Astronomer

[XoFFoX]

It seems our friend Phip is truly a BAD Astronomer. He apparently does not keep up with recent astronomical discoveries. Maybe he just doesn't like reading. I kind of got the impression of his quotes from Lieder that he just skims. Anyway, my point is that he seems to be unaware of a recent discovery by two separate teams of astronomers, one in the States and one in the UK. I have a copy of the press release as an html page. I will try to post it if I can in original form. They both state that they think they may have found what may be a tenth planet or a dead twin of the Sun, a Brown Dwarf ??? Isn't that what the guys from NASA said, that they had found something. Is it possible the NASA dudes jumped the gun with their press release ??? and then told to keep a lid on it, hence a re-release that allowed for another explanation. One fellow says he's a betting man and claims there's a 50/50 chance that there is something out there. One theory I've heard from the Doomsayers,as Phip calls them, is that there is a dead twin star and Nibiru is a rogue body that was captured by the two bodies, the Sun and the Brown Dwarf. Having two large bodies in close proximity (ie binary system) would allow for a greater possibility of a capture of a rogue body, Nibiru. I myself would be quite skeptical of such a story (Return of Nibiru) if there wasn't such a large body of geological evidence to support poleshifts. Poleshifts are REAL but I'm not nessecarily saying that Nibiru is responsible, however it is a reasonable possibility. There is also a wealth of documentation that most dismiss as myth or legend that indicate some sort of scenario such as this. There's Sitchin's translations from the Sumerian cuniform text. Another disturbing account of this event comes from several native North American lore and legends. Now what would these natives have to gain from supporting this story if they have even heard of it on todays info highway ??? These accounts come from elders not young natives and I don't believe that ANY of them use the internet so how would they know of Lieder or Hazelwood. Speaking of Hazelwood, I do agree with our BAD Astronomer that he(Hazelwood) is an idiot and doesn't know squat about science. He is a con and that's it, he's just using this as an opportunity to make some dough.
Getting back to the physics of this thing, if there is a dead twin to our Sun and a rogue in orbit bewteen the two,consider this; what if the orbit is like a figure 8 between the two main bodies. How would you predict what orbital behavior the rogue would exhibit ??? How can you do calculations without all the variables ??? Even if there is only one rogue with no dwarf twin, you still don't have all the variables to make an accurate calculation of position and speed. One thing that bugs me more than a bunch of doomsayer crackpots spouting about the end of the world from some far-fetched Rogue planet scenario...is scientists spewing what they are calling hard science when they themselves are not working with a full data set. You're (Phip) just as bad as they are, actually a bit worse just because most scientists are very close minded and I really detest that. It seems thinking outside of the box is foriegn and unpalatable for them. One thing that comes to mind about scientists being close minded is the topic of anti gravity. They don't even acknowledge that it exists. In a Universe overflowing with dualities, according to science gravity is and anti gravity is NOT. Hmmm ??? These guys are really on the ball. Most physicists say that gravity is a force...well I say it is an effect from the flow of energy, not a force. If this effect can exist in one direction why can't it exist in another ??? Anti Gravity . . . anyone ??? Even if you call it a force why can there not be an equally powerful force in opposition to gravity. I remember reading some articles about a lot of strange gravitic behaviors being discovered about asteroids. One in particular is of asteroid pairings and why they don't behave as astro-physicists think they should. Is this an example of scientists not knowing all there is to know about gravity and it's effects and that should include anti-gravity as well. These asteroids seem to be doing strange little dances among themselves and the scientists can't figure out why they just don't crash into each other. A powerful and opposite effect to gravity maybe ??? Good ol Phip seems to know a lot about gravity but I bet he can't explain this one. I don't claim to know much about gravity except that I can and have build a device that could possibly demonstrate this effect. I'm not a scientist but it seems I understand more about the Universe than most. I'm a musician for God's sake not a scientist, Jim !!! Bones !!! Well my typing finger has worn out for the time being and I'll be going now. I actually spoke to Phip on the Art Bell show one night and didn't really get to say or ask what I wanted to. It was my first time on the air and was a tad nervous so I decided to join this board and speak my peace. Besides there wasn't enough time for me spout all of this eh ??? I'll be waiting anxiously for Phip to respond to this.

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-23 08:29, XoFFoX wrote:
I'm not a scientist but it seems I understand more about the Universe than most.

Most what?

[XoFFoX]

Here is original article as promised.

By Kenneth Chang
ABCNEWS.com
Oct. 7 — Astronomers may have found hints of a massive, distant, still unseen object at the edge of the solar system — perhaps a 10th planet,perhaps a failed companion star — that appears to be shoving comets toward the inner solar system from an orbit 3 trillion miles away. Two teams of scientists — one in England, one at University of Louisiana at Lafayette — independently report this conclusion based on the highly elliptical
orbits of so-called “long-period comets” that originate from an icy cloud of debris far, far beyond Pluto.“We were driven to this by rejecting everything else we could think of,” says University of Louisiana physicist Daniel Whitmire.
Clump of Comets
A couple years ago, Whitmire, along fellow physicists John Matese and Patrick Whitman, noticed the farthest points of the comets’ orbits didn’t appear random but bunched together, tracing a path across the sky.
“We accidentally noticed they weren’t uniform,”Whitmire says. First, they tried to explain the clumping from the gravitational pull from a main disk of stars in the Milky
Way stars. “That ultimately didn’t work,” Whitmire says. “We’ve gone through several other models trying to explain this.” At around the same time, John Murray, a planetary scientist at The Open University in Great Britain, made a similar observation in similar comet data. “I started puzzling what this might could be,” he says. The most obvious but seemingly unlikely explanation would be a planet. “I thought we’d better
rule that out,” he says. But as he analyzed the orbits, the farthest points appeared to fall on a circular orbital path — “which is exactly what you would expect if there was a planet out there.” As the planet — estimated to have a mass between one and 10 Jupiters — orbits, its gravitational wake disturbs the icy debris of the outer solar system, causing some of it to plunge toward the sun as comets,sort of like an elephant ambling through a china shop. No one has yet directly observed a 10th planet, and there could still be another cause for the cluster of comets.
The University of Louisiana research will be
published in an upcoming issue of the journal Icarus. Murray’s paper will appear in Oct. 11 issue of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Very Distant What’s surprising is just how far out there this
supposed planet is. Both Murray and the University of Louisiana physicists put the planet in an orbit about 3 trillion miles — or half a light-year — from the sun. The nearest star is four light-years away.
To put this distance in perspective, consider a miniaturized version of the solar system in which Earth is one inch from the sun. On this scale, Pluto, the ninth planet would be a bit more than a yard from the sun. The new planet, by contrast, would be a half-mile
distant. At that great distance, the 10th planet would be too dim to see by current telescopes, although there is some hope that if it exists, the next generation of space-based infrared telescopes might be able to pick it up. Murray hypothesizes the planet may have been wandering through the galaxy before being captured by the solar system’s gravity. Whitmire suggests it is a “brown dwarf,” or a failed star, a companion to the
sun that was too small to light up. Although suggestive, the findings are not conclusive. While Murray and the Louisiana physicists
agree how distant the new object is, they trace out very different orbits. Murray considers the orbits of 13 comets with the most accurately known orbits; the Louisiana team considers 82. Too Early to Look for a Name “It’s possibly suggestive,” comments Brian Marsden, associate director for planetary sciences at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. “I don’t want to bet on it. We’re certainly not going to name it.” Whitmire agrees it’s too early to say definitely there’s something out there. “Until it’s found, you can never be overly confident,” he says. “We know in science you can be fooled by statistics.” But he adds, “If I was betting, it’s better than 50-50 odds that it’s there.”

So there you have it. I know it says that nothing is conclusive but it sure says something when it comes from the science community that had already shot the whole idea down years ago. If there is a controversy about this thing why isn't anyone looking with the right equipment to prove or disprove this thing unless there is a very coordinated effort to keep this hush hush. Apparently in my home town, several amatuers have tried to gain access to local observatories to investigate and have been told that the observatory is closed to the public indefinitely with no reason given.
Curious eh ???

[XoFFoX]

Most people, especially scientists !!!

[David Hall]

Mr. XoFFoX, welcome to the board. You're welcome to post your views here. But please, there's no need to be antagonistic. Just state your case politely. We'll attempt to answer it politely in turn.

As far as I know, Mr. Plait has never claimed that a tenth planet or brown dwarf categorically doesn't exist. He's only stated that it doesn't exist as claimed by the Nibiru promoters. There's a difference there.

Another thing is that good scientists are very reluctant to jump to conclusions. They don't like to state that something is true until they are reasonably sure that it exists as claimed. This is not closed-mindedness, it's just caution.

This is why most of science doesn't embrace the idea of anti-gravity. There has been no reliable evidence (or even a viable theory) presented yet that it exists, therefore it's not accepted. When and if such evidence is presented, and when it can be confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt, science will accept it's existance.

Recently, however, the idea of dark energy has become accepted for debate in cosmological circles. New measurements of the expansion of the universe have shown that it is accelerating. Therefore, there seems to be some force counteracting gravity at very large scales. It's still under debate though, and not accepted, but there's enough evidence to give it a closer look.

These are my views. It's up to the BA to answer in more detail if he wishes.

[David Hall]

Another thing, the BA doesn't like to have full texts copied and pasted due to copyright restrictions. If you have a web page link, please just paste the URL address itself, and maybe a few highlights from the article if you want. Those interested can read it from there.

As for the article itself, I think it illustrates my point. The researchers have presented their findings, but even they are very cautious about drawing any final conclusions from them. Remember also, that this is just a single finding. Others will have to confirm the research before it can be accepted. Then it will be open to more consideration. Once again, simple caution not to jump to conclusions.

And as for your final paragraph, the article itself says that current telescopes wouldn't be able to see this object, even if it's exact location were known. And observatories are under no obligation to allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry into their facilities to do "research". Nor is there any obligation to even say why they are refusing it. Does your company allow just anyone to come in and use your photocopiers and fax machines? They have their own projects to work on. Why should they give up time and equipment to people they don't know for purposes they don't know?

[Firefox]

Well, I suppose we'll get to see what happens to Whitmire's theory when it's published in Icarus. From a quick google search, he seems to have quite a following in the Planet X community.


-Adam

[Donnie B.]

Dr. Plait's nickname is Phil, not Phip.

See, we can be antagoniostic too! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[The Bad Astronomer]

Actually, I do read. As a matter of fact, I read the actual science journal articles about the comet studies, and didn't get all my information from a news article.

I have said this many times on radio and on the web, though not on my Planet X pages yet. The studies done that examined comet orbits were not very convincing to me. One, for example, only looked at the orbits of 12 comtets, and threw out some data that looked like it was pertinent. I talked to an orbits expert and he agreed that the paper was interesting, but unconvincing.

Don't mistake a published paper for fact. And certainly don't get your science from a news article.

As someone else pointed out, by claiming that astronomers have found evidence for a tenth planet, the Planet X crowd is shooting themselves in the foot. That evidence (if you believe the hypothesis is correct) points to a totally different object than what Ms. Lieder and Mr. Hazlewood claim to exist. Saying this is the smoking gun is basically announcing that they have no grasp of basic science at all.

And, in fact, when I was on Coast-to-Coast the first time, I talked at length about the real possibility of an actual tenth planet in our solar system very far out, over 100 billion kilometers out. It's unlikely, but possible. I was even involved in some studies to look for it. But this is a different thing entirely than a planet that is on its way in to pass by us in a scant 9 months.

So, on the contrary to what you said, I do in fact read current news, but I try get my news from the source. There's less chance of making mistakes that way.

[nebularain]

On 2002-08-23 09:05, David Hall wrote:
Mr. XoFFoX, welcome to the board.

Do we know this is "Mr."? We've made this mistake before.... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif

[Chip]

On 2002-08-23 10:05, Donnie B. wrote:
Dr. Plait's nickname is Phil, not Phip.
See, we can be antagoniostic too! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Unless he's referring to ParaHydrogen Induced Polarization, or PHIP (http://www.thch.uni-bonn.de/pc/bargon/PHIP/theory/theory.html) for short. (A special effect in NMR spectroscopy.) (But I don't think he is.)

Sorry for being such a geek. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-08-24 05:06 ]</font>

[Donnie B.]

It's also possible that some people use "Phip" as a nickname for "Phillip". Or that he intended to type "Phil" but his fingers keeps turning it into "Phip".

[XoFFoX]

Well, about the Phip thingy...I suppose I could use the excuse that P is just above L on the keybrd but that's a little weak as I am a champion typist.(Won 1st place 3 years running at the Possum Lodge type off) I could say that someone maliciously switched my L & P keys on my keybrd but that's equal to m times c cubed and not very relative. So I am resigned to admit that I was mostly being silly sprinkled with a little sarcasm and dipped in chocolate sauce to temper the apparent harsh antagonism. Me and my bandmates have an ongoing tradition of making nicknames for each other and our other friends so this may just be a spill over.
I'm the kind of guy who would challenge anyone to a curling match on thin ice using old Volkswagon Beetles instead of the traditional Tibetan Yaks for curling stones. I know it's kinda krazy but that's just me. Don't forget I'm a musician not a scientist so I'm prone to bouts and spouts and irrational outbursts of outlandish ideas that usually rile the sane and rational analytical mind. Maybe I'm a twin ???

As for being antagonistic, you all thought that was harsh ??? I am a Geminii and I have a very sharp mind and likewise tongue and I don't like tippy toeing through delicate egos that tend to bruise easily. I get enough of that dealing with musicians who can't take criticism well. You tell them honestly what you think and they get all defensive and childish. So, I have had to learn to temper my tongue and I thought that my posting was direct, to the point and not antagonistic. I guess I'll have to teach my typing finger to be more gentle. Sometimes I get quite angry about the lack of progress in science due to close minded ones and it comes through my comments sometimes as being sarcastic or anatgonistic as you have stated. I am very pragmatic and I don't deal with beating around the bush or deception well. I am very adept at seeing through deception and believe me, it's all around us in these times. You only have to look at the stockmarket scandals these days and now imagine that this is only a very small tip of the iceberg. The good ol boys down at NASA are very good at this game as well. I hope this answers some of your questions and clears up any misunderstandings.
Well, enough about me... I do have some replies to some of your comments but I have to head out the door to watch my buds play music down at the bar tonight and I have to go now.

PS> Sorry bout the pasting of the article. I only had a copy of the page. The article links only last for a few days and are then archived into cyber-heaven or hell, depending on yer point of view. I'm sure the author and/or news service won't mind as they probably aren't interested in real science anyway. Cheers
777

[XoFFoX]

Hey Chip... I liked your version of what phip was. Maybe they are related somehow ??? And Donnie B needs to learn how to spell antagonistic.

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-24 00:16, XoFFoX wrote:
As for being antagonistic, you all thought that was harsh ??? I am a Geminii and I have a very sharp mind and likewise tongue and I don't like tippy toeing through delicate egos that tend to bruise easily. I get enough of that dealing with musicians who can't take criticism well.

You're a lousy writer and thinker. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[Artema]

On 2002-08-24 00:16, XoFFoX wrote:
As for being antagonistic, you all thought that was harsh ??? I am a Geminii and...

I can't express the humor in someone speaking of astrology on an astronomy website.

- Artema

[Chip]

On 2002-08-24 00:16, XoFFoX wrote:
"...I am very pragmatic and I don't deal with beating around the bush or deception well..."
I would say that the derogatory nature and sophomoric sarcasm of your posts gets well in the way of any vestige of pragmatism you might believe you have. If you don't like being polite, you'd still go a lot further here by simply stating an astronomy related idea (such as your Planet X ideas or questions) without personal or vindictive attacks. It takes up less space too.

[Conrad]

Dear XoFFoX

Watch out.
I know what curling is.
I know what it's done with.
Beetles figure nowhere in it.
My parents are from Port Glasgow & Greenock.

I would annihilate your article but I have
to go and check on the tablet I'm making ...

[Silas]

On 2002-08-24 00:16, XoFFoX wrote:I'm the kind of guy who would challenge anyone to a curling match on thin ice using old Volkswagon Beetles instead of the traditional Tibetan Yaks for curling stones.


Happy grin! I like you already!

As for being antagonistic, you all thought that was harsh ???


Yeah, your original post was pretty brutal, really. You have to realize that this bbs isn't like most others. Most other discussion groups (usenet, etc.) are like playgrounds for sugared-up 5th graders. This, on the other hand, is more like the reading room at the British Museum.

Or...so we would like to believe! (Sometimes, it gets to be a bit like a playground for sugared-up eighth graders...)

Silas

[beskeptical]

I doubt I will have any impact on your thought processes but maybe, just maybe, with a bit of kindness and sincerity, (since your second long post was much nicer than your first), I might have a tiny impact with some specific comments.

I to, am very direct. I to, sound too harsh to many people. I think I can be direct without a tone of anger most of the time. So that is not the issue. But communication is. What you have posted and what you later describe as how you thought you sounded don't jibe. So here are some specifics about messages in your statements that from your subsequent posts, you don't seem to have recognized.



On 2002-08-23 08:29, XoFFoX wrote:
It seems our friend Phip is truly a BAD Astronomer. He apparently does not keep up with recent astronomical discoveries. Maybe he just doesn't like reading.

Insulting someone is a tactic people use when they can't debate an issue with evidence. A lot of us on this BB recognize that and insults don't impress us.


Another disturbing account of this event comes from several native North American lore and legends. Now what would these natives have to gain from supporting this story if they have even heard of it on todays info highway ??? These accounts come from elders not young natives and I don't believe that ANY of them use the internet so how would they know of Lieder or Hazelwood.

Wow, could you be a little out of touch here? Are you suggesting Native Americans don't use the internet? Especially their 'elders'? Or do you know these guys personally? Native Americans aren't exactly like the Aimish you know. And, there is a wide variety of people among Native Americans. They couldn't ALL not use the net.


One thing that bugs me more than a bunch of doomsayer crackpots spouting about the end of the world from some far-fetched Rogue planet scenario...is scientists spewing what they are calling hard science when they themselves are not working with a full data set.

And you are? How can you make this judgement about people you've only heard talk a time or two or only read a few things they've written?

At the risk of being sarcastic I shall be direct. Where has your 'data set' come from? It sounds like you've read a bit. Does that really compare to someone who has spent more than 8 years, (about the minimum time to get a phD.), reading and studying as much as one can on the subjects you think you know more about? Not to mention all the other knowledge gained from experience and additional education. Whether you respect university education or not, the individual doesn't sit around sucking up the party line during that 8+ years.


You're (Phip) just as bad as they are, actually a bit worse just because most scientists are very close minded and I really detest that. It seems thinking outside of the box is foriegn and unpalatable for them.

You may have seen one too many movies on this one. If 'most scientists' are closed minded and never think outside the box, how have we gotten this far advanced in technology? How could close minded scientists transplant hearts, livers and lungs into people? How could they save premature infants who weigh less than one pound? Have you ever been inside of a neonatal intensive care unit?

How did close minded scientists develop the internet? How did they send all those communication satellites into space and gotten them into just the right orbits so your cell phone and pager work? Obviously I could fill pages here. I think you get my point.


One thing that comes to mind about scientists being close minded is the topic of anti gravity. They don't even acknowledge that it exists. In a Universe overflowing with dualities, according to science gravity is and anti gravity is NOT. Hmmm ??? These guys are really on the ball. Most physicists say that gravity is a force...well I say it is an effect from the flow of energy, not a force.

Did this revelation come to you and so it is so? Have you thought of ways to test your hypothesis? Is there a reason we should listen to this idea?

Science welcomes new thinkers with open arms but you can't just decide you understand the Universe better than the rest of the world and then get upset that no one listens, agrees, or whatever it is that upsets you as you stated. You have to seek and present something in the way of evidence to support what you believe.

That doesn't mean you have to do the research yourself, but it does mean you can't just read about a discovery or potential discovery here or there and claim you've made your case. Because you haven't.


Good ol Phip seems to know a lot about gravity but I bet he can't explain this one. I don't claim to know much about gravity except that I can and have build a device that could possibly demonstrate this effect.

The proof's in the pudding dude. Where is this device and when can we see the demonstration? Excuse me if I cannot believe this on faith.


I'm not a scientist but it seems I understand more about the Universe than most.

If that's true you haven't convinced me. You don't have to of course. But to think you've learned so much from so little. And all those rocket scientists have learned so little from so much. Hmmmm?

I'll defer addressing any of your astronomy facts to the other intelligent souls on this BB. They handle those issues quite well.

If you're nice we'll mostly address your issues with logic and evidence. People I've chatted with on this BB seem perfectly willing to entertain new ideas and listen to alternative theories and hypotheses. But they aren't going to buy unusual perspectives on the Universe without clear evidence and rational logic to back it up. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

[XoFFoX]

On 2002-08-24 04:27, Artema wrote:

On 2002-08-24 00:16, XoFFoX wrote:
As for being antagonistic, you all thought that was harsh ??? I am a Geminii and...

I can't express the humor in someone speaking of astrology on an astronomy website.

- Artema

Now who's making fun of who ??? Who is being sarcastic ??? I pay as much respect to Astrology as I do to Astromomy. I like both and respect both. I was merely trying to relate my nature according to my birth sign, which for the most part I fit pretty closely to the ascribed traits. I actually like making people laugh if you hadn't noticed. It's my nature, I'm an entertainer,and a communicator.
555

[XoFFoX]

On 2002-08-24 00:16, XoFFoX wrote:
As for being antagonistic, you all thought that was harsh ??? I am a Geminii and I have a very sharp mind and likewise tongue and I don't like tippy toeing through delicate egos that tend to bruise easily. I get enough of that dealing with musicians who can't take criticism well.

You're a lousy writer and thinker. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Well, yet another example of this being a nice friendly place. No one gets slammed in here. I did feel a little prick from this one though, Grapes but that's OK. I can take it. I do feel a certain pride about my communication skills. Composition, Grammer, Spelling etc. I have seen some pretty scary stuff from University Grads who still don't know how to spell. Anyway, after reading some of the latest posts, it seems I'm in a deep bitta doo doo. I've stirred up a Hornets nest.

[XoFFoX]

On 2002-08-24 05:23, Chip wrote:

On 2002-08-24 00:16, XoFFoX wrote:
"...I am very pragmatic and I don't deal with beating around the bush or deception well..."
I would say that the derogatory nature and sophomoric sarcasm of your posts gets well in the way of any vestige of pragmatism you might believe you have. If you don't like being polite, you'd still go a lot further here by simply stating an astronomy related idea (such as your Planet X ideas or questions) without personal or vindictive attacks. It takes up less space too.

I'm not attacking anyone. (at least I hope not) If you feel it's an attack then that is what you will deal with. I have no control over that from where I sit. If I were to attack you personally CHIP I would have firstly directed it squarely on you and no one else and I would have been much harsher than my initial comments that I believe I specifically directed towards The Bad Astronomer and not yourself. I do NOT have trouble with being polite as I believe I have NOT been overtly rude. I haven't used any four letter words yet, if that counts for anything ??? I'm sorry for the LONG posts it seems that there is a lot for me to say in response to your posts. There are a lot and I do or would like to respond to most of them. That's why this is a discussion board, right ??? I like a good debate... and I realize that sometimes they can get a little rough but that's the nature of it sometimes. Wait till me and beskeptical lock horns !!!

_________________
Anti Gravity and Zero Point Rule.
11:11
777
33
1

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-26 04:45 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-26 04:56 ]</font>

[jschm]

What is this topic about???

What are binary asteroids doing that is unexpected and that can not be explained with gravity?

Calculations in orbital mechanics are pretty sophisticated these days. They even account for non-gravitational effects on small bodies of the solar system. So I wonder what surprises binary asteroids should have... Did I miss a publication there? Does someone have a reference?

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-26 03:14, XoFFoX wrote:

On 2002-08-24 04:27, Artema wrote:

On 2002-08-24 00:16, XoFFoX wrote:
As for being antagonistic, you all thought that was harsh ??? I am a Geminii and...

I can't express the humor in someone speaking of astrology on an astronomy website.

- Artema

I pay as much respect to Astrology as I do to Astromomy. I like both and respect both. I was merely trying to relate my nature according to my birth sign, which for the most part I fit pretty closely to the ascribed traits. ...

Of course you fit your sign, almost everyone fits almost every sign.

The Skeptic's Dictionary explains the fallacies of astrology as well as anyone:
http://skepdic.com/astrolgy.html

[The Bad Astronomer]

On 2002-08-26 03:30, XoFFoX wrote:

You're a lousy writer and thinker. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Well, yet another example of this being a nice friendly place.

To be honest, I thought about deleting that post and sending out a warning, but I couldn't decide if it was satirical or not, and I prefer to err on the side of leaving things in. So, Grapes, which was it?

[Sum0]

I was a little worried by that post slipping though. We can't have two sets of rules for regulars and newbies...

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-26 12:26, The Bad Astronomer To be honest, I thought about deleting that post and sending out a warning, but I couldn't decide if it was satirical or not, and I prefer to err on the side of leaving things in. So, Grapes, which was it?


I'd vote for taking it out. OTOH, you're right about the satire--XoFFoX's comments were pretty rude, plus XoFFoX made the reference to delicate egos that bruise easily when people objected to the rudeness. I wondered how they'd react to similar insults. XoFFoX did OK, so I vote to let 'em stay. XoFFoX I mean, not my post.

[XoFFoX]

THanks for the support BA. Your not such a bad guy after all. For the future, I will make an extra effort to be less agressive in my comments and hopefully I can still get my points across without losing too much impact or edge. Rock on !!!
333

[XoFFoX]

On 2002-08-26 06:41, jschm wrote:
What is this topic about???

What are binary asteroids doing that is unexpected and that can not be explained with gravity?

Calculations in orbital mechanics are pretty sophisticated these days. They even account for non-gravitational effects on small bodies of the solar system. So I wonder what surprises binary asteroids should have... Did I miss a publication there? Does someone have a reference?

It was something I read not too long ago. I will try to find it and give you a link for it.

[XoFFoX]

As for the article itself, I think it illustrates my point. The researchers have presented their findings, but even they are very cautious about drawing any final conclusions from them. Remember also, that this is just a single finding. Others will have to confirm the research before it can be accepted. Then it will be open to more consideration. Once again, simple caution not to jump to conclusions.

And as for your final paragraph, the article itself says that current telescopes wouldn't be able to see this object, even if it's exact location were known. And observatories are under no obligation to allow every Tom, Dick, and Harry into their facilities to do "research". Nor is there any obligation to even say why they are refusing it. Does your company allow just anyone to come in and use your photocopiers and fax machines? They have their own projects to work on. Why should they give up time and equipment to people they don't know for purposes they don't know?


Refering to the article it states that 2 separate groups have released these findings so far so I don't think you can call it a single finding. I'm sure there will be more to come if researchers gain enough interest in it. I hope it doesn't get filed away in the "It can't be" basket.

As for the remarks about every Tom, Dick and Harry having access... I think most smaller observatories do have a small amount of time set aside for public use. I will investigate this further to see if there is anything more to this. I remember in the last city I lived, there definitely was public access time for the telescope, although it was very tough to get a booking if I remember correctly. Apparently now is not the best time to find PX now as it is in the Orion constellation (per Zetas coordinates) which is too close to the Sun right now if I'm not mistaken. I did give Nancy a hard time about her statements that it would be detectable on small observatory scopes in mid 2002... which is right about now (July Aug). When she was on the Art Bell show she stated that it would not be visible because of the position of Orion during the SUmmer months. (Behind the Sun) I said something to effect like "how convenient that it is out of sight at the time when you said there would be viewing" or something like that. She obviously didn't like that as she Emailed back with a sharp retort. I'm sorta kinda right on the centerline on this thing, maybe leaning a little towards the side of it being real. There's just too many little bits that make you stop and think about it at least for me and what I've dug up on this.

I noticed that no one has responded to my scenario that there is a brown dwarf twin to our Sun and that PX is a captured rogue that orbits figure 8 style between them.
Anyone ???
11:11

[Firefox]

I noticed that no one has responded to my scenario that there is a brown dwarf twin to our Sun and that PX is a captured rogue that orbits figure 8 style between them.
Anyone ???

Probably because such an orbit would be too unstable. Planet X would have been slung out of the system in a short time.


-Adam

[Plane-arium]

Wow! What a great bulletin board. This forum is super interesting and has kept me up far past my bedtime.
I wound up here because I work at a planetarium and someone in the audience today (oops make that yesterday--I've got to get to bed) said she'd recently seen news about a tenth planet in our Solar system. I said no--lot's of speculating, no finding as yet. But then I really haven't been paying much attention to the rumor mill this summer so I thought I'd look into it.

I don't have anything to add to the Niberu discussion at this point but the "in a Universe abounding with dualities" remark in the first post caught my eye because I've heard a lot of people talk about dualities and after thinking about it (ok I've only thought about it for five minutes)I'm wondering what exactly all these abundent dualities are that the Universe is abounding with in all of its abundence. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I assume that a duality is two things that always exist together.

Ok. The obvious: life and death.

Also: light and dark (although that one seems a little tenuous).

What else? I can't think of anything else. What are all the dualities that I'm missing which should spur us (once we've defined this phenomenon and called it gravity) to search for anti-gravity?

Again, this is a great bulletin board! I'm completly out of my depth on most of the math and physics around here but it's still very interesting to read.

[David Hall]

On 2002-08-27 21:18, XoFFoX wrote:

I noticed that no one has responded to my scenario that there is a brown dwarf twin to our Sun and that PX is a captured rogue that orbits figure 8 style between them.
Anyone ???


Well, the big problem with this is that now, instead of hypothesizing one unknown world, you now have two unproven objects supposedly existing without our knowledge. Since we as yet don't have any proof that any brown dwarf exists, we can't even begin to consider the idea of a planet obiting in conjunction with it. It's just another unnecessary variable complicating the matter. Prove the first before hypothesizing the second.

Other problems come from the type of orbit you are hypothesizing. Three body interactions would almost never result in a simple stable figure-eight alignment. No, any planet trying to orbit two bodies at once would be most likely be swung about in a highly irregular and very unstable path. The only stable orbits would be close to one or another of the stars, or in a very wide circular orbit around the whole system's center of mass, one so far out as to be almost in the next star system, which could be easily perturbed by other passing stars.

The BA's review of The Phantom Menace (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/starwars2.html) has a good rundown on the possible orbits around a dual-sun system that is fairly applicable here.

Another problem is that this world is supposed to be habitable. Any kind of eccentric orbit would take the planet too far out to be sufficiently warmed by the Sun, and the long orbit around the entire system would be even worse. This is true of any Nibiru theory that has the planet hiding at extreme distances. There might be sufficent heating for a planet in a close orbit around a brown dwarf however, if one were to be shown to exist.

[David Hall]

Hi Plane-arium. Welcome to our board. I hope you will find lots of interesting topics to discuss here. But beware, it's very addictive. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

That's a good question you raised. I also can't come up with any other true dualities off the top of my head. Maybe someone else here can give some good examples.

The human mind naturally thinks in terms of dualities. Many of them are only applicable in the realm of everyday experience though. Up-down, day-night, in-out. These are only dualities when looked at in earthly terms. Others are actually mistaken or narrow perceptions of other phenomena. Hot-cold, and heavy-light for example, are not true dualities, they are only arbitrary divisions.

In any case, the argument for duality is not a very strong one because either-or duality is not the only form of organization in the universe. Many effects function on a continuum basis, for example. Light runs from long-wave infrared to very-short-wave gamma rays. There is no duality involved at all. Heat is another. It's not cold-or-hot, it's a range from cold to hot.

Another example is things that only exist in a single state. The "strong force" in physics, that holds the nuclei of atoms together, is one. There doesn't seem to be any kind of "anti-strong-force" (and I sure hope there isn't), it exists all alone. Since the original post was about the force of gravity, and gravity is thought to be another force just like the strong and weak forces, it seems to me that it probably doesn't have a dual nature either.

There's just no basis for saying that an opposite must exist, because many other phenomena also exist without duality.

_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size="-1">(corrected a mistake)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-08-28 08:25 ]</font>

[nebularain]

Hi, Plane-arium!
I know a couple other dualities: positive and negative, attraction and repulsion.

Then there's always:
"To everything there is a season...a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot that which was planted, ... a time to weep and a time to laugh, ... a time to keep silent and a time to speak, ...." (Ecclesiates ch. 3)

*********************************************
XoFFoX, you might enjoy checking out this this thread we played with not too long ago:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1803&forum=2&16
Have fun! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

[David Hall]

On 2002-08-28 09:10, nebularain wrote:

Then there's always:
"To everything there is a season...a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot that which was planted, ... a time to weep and a time to laugh, ... a time to keep silent and a time to speak, ...." (Ecclesiates ch. 3)


Ecclesiastes? I thought it was The Byrds.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



<font size="-1">(It's a joke. I know the truth.)</font>

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-28 09:44, David Hall wrote:
Ecclesiastes? I thought it was The Byrds.


Pete Seeger (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JimCapaldi/Turn3.htm)

<font size="-1">(It's a joke. I know the truth.)</font>

[The Bad Astronomer]

The most obvious duality to me is the particle/wave nature of matter. Interested people can do a web search on this; I'm not up for an essay on quantum duality at this exact moment. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

[Plane-arium]

Boy, now I've had duality on the brain all day and I've pretty much convinced myself that there really aren't any dualities except life and death. There probably can't be life without death, although this might not be true. There definately can't be death without life.

Light and dark I'm not sure about. If the universe keeps expanding forever, will there be a point trillions of years from now when all the stars have gone out and electromagnetism has petered into nothingness and there is this "something" which we call the universe and it's totally dark?

As to the wave/particle duality of matter is that an actual duality or is it just that that's the only way we can describe matter? Matter isn't a wave and it isn't a particle it's something else which we approximate by invoking a wave/particle duality.

Anyway--I know I'm pushing the point too far and I won't blather on about it. This is not the Bad Duality Bulletin Board after all. What I was trying to say in the earlier post was that most things are not obvious (except The Byrds are obviously not very good /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif ), and if we walk around thinking that science dudes are obviously close-minded or (as our beloved governor of Minnesota, Jesse the Body, once said) religion is a crutch for the weak-minded than we probably haven't taken a moment to think things through.

[XoFFoX]

One last word on dualities since I initially brought it up. This is going to get into Metaphysics here and I'm sure will turn some of your stomachs. When viewing the Universe from this dimension (3rd Dimension/Density) there will be what appears to be duality. It's an illusion of sorts. Light/Dark, Positive/Negative, Male/Female, Life/Death etc. When you view the Universe from higher densities or dimensions the dualities no longer exist due to the effect of moving back to the Oneness that was before the One divided itself into two distinct energies, one counter-clockwise in rotation the other clockwise. Paradoxes fall into the same classification as dualities when it comes to the perception of them. Moving from 3rd to 4th density resolves all paradoxes that present themselves in 3rd density. The Universe is an eight dimensional construct representing the octave. Matter is just a vibration of aetheric energies at different frequencies. The frequency of these energies can be perceived as light, sound and geometry all of which are directly harmonic in relationship to the other. ie. a certain frequency of light has a harmonic equivalent sound frequency and a harmonic geometry. This kinda brings me to the comment on wave/particle traits of matter. The reason that matter can exhibit wave traits is because it is vibrating aetheric energy and this aether is like a fluid and travels in spiral waves. In addition to this, matter exists in all 8 dimensions simultaneously or close to it. Each unit, be it atom or subatomic unit, vibrate through each density at incredible speeds, what appears to be simultaneous to us. There was a curious finding by some physicists these days that some particles, as they are mistakenly called, blink in and out of existence at very rapid intervals. They haven't figured out where they are going yet but they will eventually discover that they are vibrating through the 8 densities at incredible speeds. In order to swallow any of this one has to completely let go of the notion that matter is made up of hard physical particles. You must adopt the original thinking of great scientists just before and after the turn of the century. (turn over to 20th) Tesla, Maxwell, Keely, Kosyrev just to name a few. These scientists were developing their theories based on a fluidic aether energy that permeates the entire Universe. The duality thing comes into the picture because there is energy flow away from the center of the Universe (Great Central Sun) and when it reaches the outermost boundary (and there is one) then the energy is bounced back to the center. If you can accept that gravity is an effect of this aether flow in one direction then the opposite effect must follow as there are 2 directions of energy flow ... out and in. Most of you here are astronomers and you may be aware that stars have a breath or breathing in and out motion. This is an effect of the inflowing and outflowing aether. Every spherical torus in the Universe will exhibit this characteristic. The Earth breaths in the exact same fashion.
Well, I've gone and done it again... bla bla blabbin my blabber mouth off. Back to the point of this reply ... dualities are only perceived at certain levels of awareness and aetheric vibration. Moving to higher densities will start to blend them together making them appear as one thing and not two.
Sorry bout the blab folks.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-28 22:21 ]</font>

[Plane-arium]

I lied, I'm going to do a little more blathering.

I love that stuff XXoFFXX. Or was it XXoFFoXX? Whichever. I find this sort of thing fascinating. I'm all for metaphysics or mysticism or whatever you want to call it. I'm also all for empericism (except I'm not sure how to spell it). In fact, I hope the two can get married someday and run off and have a baby. Then we'll have a species full of hard nosed empiricists going off on vision quests to discover the true nature of the celestial spheres through experiment and fasting. I read a short story the other day wherein these aliens paid a visit to Earth and their spaceships were fueled by the "power of prayer". Very funny, good stuff.

But I also think that we're not anywhere even remotely close to a place where a metaphysics revival would contribute anything new. I'm very probably wrong. But it seems to me that we live in dangerous times. Very scary things on very large scales have happened and are happening to the human race. Some describe it as a lack of moral compass. Some blame science for this lack. Others blame mysticism (renamed ignorance, superstition, etc.) Others blame Santa Claus. I don't know what's to blame, probably very complicated cultural and economic pressures etc. etc. Or maybe these scary times are simply business as usual for civilization, only now we have bigger guns.
I think it's great if people find a path through this mess, no matter how they do it--if the path is Yin and Yang or the Good Shepard or Mother Earth or whatever.

At any rate, the reason I responded to your duality talk in the first place is that I believe the only way for science to retain a moral compass is to stick to its guns (no pun intended). It has to keep to the empirical road and not waver or it is lost and will have nothing more to contribute. So when someone says anti-gravity, science has to shout "Where's your evidence!"

Maybe someday if we see the journey through there will be a union of essentialism and existensialism and the old arguement between Plato and Aristotle will finally be put to rest and we'll be on to something new.

OK I'm done. None of my posts have been about Planet X so I'll call it quits on duality or move to the Against the Mainstream area.

[Plane-arium]

On 2002-08-28 08:22, David Hall wrote:
Hi Plane-arium. Welcome to our board. I hope you will find lots of interesting topics to discuss here. But beware, it's very addictive. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif
________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size="-1">(corrected a mistake)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-08-28 08:25 ]</font>



Hi. Thanks for your greetings. And you're right THIS IS AN ADDICTIVE BOARD. I'm already hooked. Luckily I'm going out of town this weekend or it might be trouble.

[Plane-arium]

On 2002-08-28 09:10, nebularain wrote:
Hi, Plane-arium!
I know a couple other dualities: positive and negative, attraction and repulsion.

Then there's always:
"To everything there is a season...a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot that which was planted, ... a time to weep and a time to laugh, ... a time to keep silent and a time to speak, ...." (Ecclesiates ch. 3)

*********************************************
XoFFoX, you might enjoy checking out this this thread we played with not too long ago:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1803&forum=2&16
Have fun! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif




Hi nebularian! Thanks for the greetings.

[XoFFoX]

In response to last post from Plane arium
Todays current model of physics will never be able to emperically explain anti-gravity because it is based on hard particle theory and not fluid aetherics. 100 years ago, plus or minus 30 to 40 years or so, scientists were on the right road until someone blindsided them with very harsh criticism and one experiment that somehow arbitrarily and single handedly decided the fate of aether based physics. It was to be buried yet again for another 100 years and all of this was done in the name of greed and status. Hence, we use fossil fuels instead of zero point energy and this was very carefully guided in this direction. I have all the proof I need to convince me that anti gravity is well within our technological grasp. I have a working model of an electro gravitic device based on the Biefeld-Brown effect. Mainstream science has tried to pooh pooh it with very weak arguements. I can understand how it works based on aetheric physics and I can see it work right in front of my eyes. It is repeatable and scalable up or down and it works in a vacuum so the ion wind theory doesn't hold much wind.(pun intended) I'm also aware of a method to design electronic circuits so that they will run almost indefinitely on one dipole source (battery) without depleting the battery. As long as the chemical reaction continues in the battery they can last for a very very long time and with rechargable types they can last even longer. Longer than 2 or 3 human lifetimes. This will be my next adventure in science to build a working circuit that does what I just said. And the real sad part is...is that this knowledge has been around for many years yet we are made to pay through the nose for our electricity. Remember that this was carefully planned to work this way for and by a very small group of elites. It's so plain to see it's actually sad.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-29 00:35 ]</font>

[Plane-arium]

XoFFoX

Are you serious? Or are you blowing smoke up my untrained chimney? I know lots about observational astronomy (well, the Northern hemisphere that is), but I'm just starting with math and physics.

Either way, a discussion of this should probably move off the Planet X area so I won't write anymore here unless it's about Planet X. But are you going to post about this topic elswhere? Or have you already? I haven't had time to wade through this immensity.

[XoFFoX]

No I'm not kidding (about the AG thingy) and gravity I believe is an acceptable topic for this area as it is a huge factor in the reality or non-reality of a rogue planet capture and or planet X orbital behaviors. I suppose we could move it to the Against the Mainstream area... it would fit in quite nicely there too. I visited those sites that have the solar system gravity modeling softwarez and using the default settings that are already plugged in and ran the thing and saw something that was extremely curious behavior of Venus as it was dragged off by the passing star. It had a very wonky orbit that showed signs of acceleration and deceleration as it weaved in a serpentine fashion behind the star.
I think I remember BA saying that this sort of changing of speed of an object cannot happen as Nancy has stated that PX's approach is an exponetial acceleration as it gets closer to the Sun and then some deceleration as it approaches the outer gas giants and the repulsive (anti grav) forces kick in. What I saw Venus do was more bizarre than what this PX scenario is predicting. What do you say BA. Why can't we have variations of speed in an orbiting body, especially an orbit that we probably have never seen before. Comets have similar orbits as what PX is supposed to have but they do not have the mass to affect big changes like a large body approx. 23 times more dense than Earth as per Zetas. It's too bad you can't direct the approach of the star in this program to make it more like PX as per Zetas. BY the way does anyone know if that program is relatively accurate or not or is it just an amusement thing???


_________________
Anti Gravity and Zero Point Rule.
11:11
777
33
1

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-29 02:59 ]</font>

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-29 02:56, XoFFoX wrote:
I think I remember BA saying that this sort of changing of speed of an object cannot happen as Nancy has stated that PX's approach is an exponetial acceleration as it gets closer to the Sun and then some deceleration as it approaches the outer gas giants and the repulsive (anti grav) forces kick in.

XoFFoX, you believe the zeta talk?

What I saw Venus do was more bizarre than what this PX scenario is predicting. What do you say BA. Why can't we have variations of speed in an orbiting body, especially an orbit that we probably have never seen before. Comets have similar orbits as what PX is supposed to have but they do not have the mass to affect big changes like a large body approx. 23 times more dense than Earth as per Zetas. It's too bad you can't direct the approach of the star in this program to make it more like PX as per Zetas. BY the way does anyone know if that program is relatively accurate or not or is it just an amusement thing???

Which program are you talking about?

[XoFFoX]

XoFFoX quoted

One thing that bugs me more than a bunch of doomsayer crackpots spouting about the end of
the world from some far-fetched Rogue planet scenario...is scientists spewing what they are calling hard science when they themselves are not working with a full data set.


beskepigal quotes

And you are? How can you make this judgement about people you've only heard talk a time or two or only read a few things they've written? At the risk of being sarcastic I shall be direct. Where has your 'data set' come from? It sounds like you've read a bit. Does that really compare to someone who has spent more than 8 years, (about the minimum time to get a phD.), reading and studying as much as one can on the subjects you think you
know more about? Not to mention all the other knowledge gained from experience and additional education. Whether you respect university education or not, the individual doesn't sit around sucking up the party line during that 8+ years.


Well, lets look at what I claimed and what I didn't claim. I did NOT claim at anytime that I had a full data set or that I have all the answers, however this scenario has all but been thrown in the trash bucket according to what you guys think you know using your data set. One reason why I got so riled at BA was my reaction to reading his take on PX. I read it all and found that he wasn't exactly being all that friendly to this group. At least that's what I felt. I felt he was shutting the whole thing out without getting more facts. I have made it quite clear a number of times that I am no expert, I'm a musician, remember ??? but I am ready willing and able to get right into it and find out the truth. Remember I also said that I have a good sense of what is truth and what is bunk. If I told you how or why I have this sense, you would bedunk me because there is no scientific proof for intuition or vision or whatever you want to call it.
As for the education thingy, I have nothing but respect for getting an education (that's what I'm doing here right now) or the priviledge of having an education but you can go to school for a thousand years and still not learn the truth if the school your going to is misleading you. You have to make sure that what the school is teaching IS the truth. What our institutions have taught in the past and currently is at best incomplete or outright out to lunch on many levels. And there is no sign that this will change with any semblance of noticable motion in a positive direction anytime soon.
I would like to quote you again here.


You may have seen one too many movies on this one. If 'most scientists' are closed minded and never think outside the box, how have we gotten this far advanced in technology? How could close minded scientists transplant hearts, livers and lungs into people? How could they save premature infants who weigh less than one pound? Have you ever been inside of a neonatal intensive care unit?
How did close minded scientists develop the internet? How did they send all those communication satellites into space and gotten them into just the right orbits so your cell phone and pager work? Obviously I could fill pages here. I think you get my point.


The point I was trying to make here is that we would be light years ahead in technology than we are today if some boneheaded people (scientists included) about 100 years ago didn't suppress some good science that would have accelerated our understanding of the Universe by leaps and bounds. Sadly, In my OPINION we are seriously behind where we should be right now. I get a good gut feeling of truth when I consider that this setback for us was orchestrated very very carefully so that only certain people would benefit from this financially and only a very few are in the loop. There is are too many things that indicate this type of deception. Remember, I'm saying this as a sensitive, if you will, to vibrations of truth. I can smell a lie like a shark can smell blood in water. Also don't forget that I am only leaning a little towards the reality side of PX returning. I have also had some very revealing dreams about this thing as well. They seem to deal mostly with being involved in very cataclysmic Earth changes. (earthquakes, high winds, sensation of rapid motion of the Earth surface in distinct direction, solar event etc.) This usually doesn't come into play when I speak on PX topics as I would be seriously ridiculed for including such material in a discussion of this nature. THey may be part of what is pulling me in the direction of the "yes it's there crowd". Yes, I do want some hard evidence before I start heading for safer ground ie. away from the coast which is where I am. The proof will ultimately be in the pudding. If it comes, it comes but it won't surprise me and I'll be posting "I told ya so's" all over the place up until the water swallows me up. According to the Zetas, we will have 3 month's when the thing gets to the edge of the solar system to be able to see it and then start the stampede into the hills. Oh yeah, don't forget the lynching of the government for not warning us sooner.

By the way the Internet was put together by people who were in the loop. (Military) You know that you are luckiest scientist in the world when you get in on the loop and work with the real set of facts concerning certain areas of science and technology. I agree in a sense with you that we as humans are quite good at inventing and creating and there is a lot of science that we have done and done well. I am most concerned about those areas of forbidden science that can fix our current global crisis and it is a crisis. ie. Zero point energy and anti gravitic propulsion for transportation. This technology exists and will come out soon, I hope. It may be that guys like me who are hobbiest type researchers will revive the forgotten and/or purposely hidden technology. I was skeptical about the electrogravitic flying contraption so I did what I hope any good scientist would do. I built one and made it fly. Then I wasn't so skeptigal. So far on this BBS I have kinda been made fun of in a polite manner for claiming that I can demonstrate some effect that seems to defy conventional ideas about gravity. I've heard the ion wind wind and it doesn't fly with me because you can build these things so you don't get very much ion wind if any and they still perform fine. This design has been duplicated thousands fold around the planet primarily because of the Internet. One design I have found can lift 20 grams plus it's own weight with about 65 watts of power using about 45 to 55 kV. It is my understanding that the lifting force grows exponetially as you increase the voltage up to a point where the electrons are moving very very close to the speed of light(for this dimension), and as they can never achieve the speed of light (for this dimension)in this dimension there is an infinte exponential gain as you move closer and closer to the speed of light for this dimension. Then at a point one would experience some threshold where once you have aquired enough energy and are tuned to the next highest vibration you can breach that energy barrier that separates each density and sub-densities. Sub-densities are infinite between each density and sub-sub-densities are infinite between sub-densities and so on and so forth ad infinitum. There are energy/vibrational thresholds for the transitions between sub-densities as well. Dang !!! I've done it again !!! bla bla blabberina Well you get my point anyway ...Right ??? Bla Bla Bla ...

[XoFFoX]

Art Bell Alert !!!

It is now 2am PST and the show is over.
What a great show. I liked !!!
Ooops PDT

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-29 05:11 ]</font>

[XoFFoX]

What the heck timezone are we in for post times ??? EDT ???
You guys are all sleeping right now and I'm just startin to get a beer buzz on !!!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-29 05:08 ]</font>

[XoFFoX]

Hey !!! .......................when do I get to be a BAD something else ???
10:10

When are u guys waking up ???

Have I told you guys that I can make a car run on tap water yet ???

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-29 05:15 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-29 05:19 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-29 05:20 ]</font>

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-29 05:13, XoFFoX wrote:
Have I told you guys that I can make a car run on tap water yet ???

I saw one out on the lake for a short time yesterday

[XoFFoX]

Whoa
whoa
whoa
someones up !!! someones up !!! someones up !!!
333

[GrapesOfWrath]

heh, going to bed now

[XoFFoX]

I got one more issue with one of your quotes.
Skeptigal quote

If you're nice we'll mostly address your issues with logic and evidence. People I've chatted with on this BB seem perfectly willing to entertain new ideas and listen to alternative theories and hypotheses. But they aren't going to buy unusual perspectives on the Universe without clear evidence and rational logic to back it up.


I'm perfectly OK with almost everything you said here but the one I will point out that is not quite there... our ideas of clear evidence and rational logic may not apply to something that goes beyond this perception. What seems rational here may not be what rational is in another dimension and that's what we may be dealing with here.

BA may know about a finding that indicates that the plasma buffer at the front end of our heliosphere is growing in thickness very rapidly. Now, correct me if I'm wrong but the heliosphere is an area that encompasses the whole solar system and extends out beyond the edge of the solar system out beyond the oort cloud even ??? I'm not sure about that but what I'm getting at is a growing mass of plasma is accumulating at the leading edge of the solar system as we travel through the galaxy. Is this true ??? Do you know anything about this BA ??? I will leave it at that for now as I have more to say and ask about this area of space at this time.(leading edge of the heliosphere ??? What's going on there ???)
111

[XoFFoX]

Goodnight O Grape of Wrath !!!
3's be with you !!!

[Artema]

On 2002-08-29 02:56, XoFFoX wrote:
...extremely curious behavior of Venus as it was dragged off by the passing star. It had a very wonky orbit that showed signs of acceleration and deceleration as it weaved in a serpentine fashion behind the star.
I think I remember BA saying that this sort of changing of speed of an object cannot happen as Nancy has stated that PX's approach is an exponetial acceleration as it gets closer to the Sun and then some deceleration as it approaches the outer gas giants and the repulsive (anti grav) forces kick in. What I saw Venus do was more bizarre than what this PX scenario is predicting. What do you say BA. Why can't we have variations of speed in an orbiting body, especially an orbit that we probably have never seen before. Comets have similar orbits as what PX is supposed to have but they do not have the mass to affect big changes like a large body approx. 23 times more dense than Earth as per Zetas. It's too bad you can't direct the approach of the star in this program to make it more like PX as per Zetas. BY the way does anyone know if that program is relatively accurate or not or is it just an amusement thing???


For one thing, 23 times more dense than the earth is not very dense! This wouldn't put it anywhere near Jupiter, and Jupiter is only a gas giant, not close to the density of a brown dwarf.

On your comment about Venus, that is a temporary orbit. This example you cited is one that wouldn't last more than a few cycles. That isn't what scientists usually consider an orbit as it isn't lasting.

[GrapesOfWrath]

Zzzzzzzzz...snrgGG...huh?


On 2002-08-29 07:19, Artema wrote:
For one thing, 23 times more dense than the earth is not very dense! This wouldn't put it anywhere near Jupiter, and Jupiter is only a gas giant, not close to the density of a brown dwarf.

He did say "dense" but I think you are talking about "mass," right?

The Earth is a lot more dense than Jupiter. Earth's average density is about twice that of your ordinary rock, and Jupiter is just a bit more dense than water--Saturn would even float (if you could fi...nevermind).

Ssnnnn...zzz

[David Hall]

Well, I was writing up a post on mass versus density, but Grapes beat me to it. So I'll settle for posting this page of planetary measurements from The Nine Planets (http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/).

http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/data1.html

[Laser Jock]

Well this is my first post. I've been following this thread for a little while, so I will make several comments on what has been posted so far. First a comment on dualities. We know that anti-matter exists. Perhaps this is part of the dualities that XoFFoX is suggesting. It is not too hard to create anti-particles in the lab, and some is even created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. However, when I refer to anti-matter, I mean elementary particles. Anti-atoms (that is atoms created with anti-protons and positrons) are very difficult to create and observe because they are not very stable. However, if you could create enough of them someone could argue that they might create an anti-gravity. However, I will let a particle physicist answer that one (I'm only an optical physicist).

Second, I don't know what to say to XoFFoX. You try try make yourself out to be a sensible guy but then you wander off on some sort of diatribe on zero-point energy and anti-gravity. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif An electrical circuit with battery that lasts for a 2-3 lifetimes? What kind of circuit? Will it light up a single useless LED or will it power all of Manhattan? The energy that a battery can supply is finite. If you create a circuit that just barely sips at that energy it will last a long time. A home-made anti-gravity machine? Where did you find the design for this? Can you actually give a Web address? How does high voltage actually produce anti-gravity? You give some sort of techno-nonsense about densities and sub-densities and accelerating electrons, but it isn't followable. I'm a scientist myself and can talk techno-bable with the best of them. I can also quickly spot when someone is just spouting technical jargon without having any idea what it means. Or how about this car that runs on water (and I don't think you're talking about Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif )? I've heard about such things before, and let's just say it's all wet. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Well that will do for a first post. I don't mean to be rude, but the teacher in me is on a crusade to stomp out ignorance wherever it lurks.

[David Hall]

On 2002-08-29 02:56, XoFFoX wrote:

I visited those sites that have the solar system gravity modeling softwarez and using the default settings that are already plugged in and ran the thing and saw something that was extremely curious behavior of Venus as it was dragged off by the passing star. It had a very wonky orbit that showed signs of acceleration and deceleration as it weaved in a serpentine fashion behind the star.

I think I remember BA saying that this sort of changing of speed of an object cannot happen as Nancy has stated that PX's approach is an exponetial acceleration as it gets closer to the Sun and then some deceleration as it approaches the outer gas giants and the repulsive (anti grav) forces kick in. What I saw Venus do was more bizarre than what this PX scenario is predicting. What do you say BA. Why can't we have variations of speed in an orbiting body, especially an orbit that we probably have never seen before. Comets have similar orbits as what PX is supposed to have but they do not have the mass to affect big changes like a large body approx. 23 times more dense than Earth as per Zetas. It's too bad you can't direct the approach of the star in this program to make it more like PX as per Zetas. BY the way does anyone know if that program is relatively accurate or not or is it just an amusement thing???


Well, the rogue star thing is just a simple simulation made for fun. It's probably pretty accurate as far as it goes, but I'm sure it doesn't include every single influence that might occur in such a situation. I've already mentioned that it's limited to a 2D environment and real life works in 3D.

That said however, the basic laws of gravity and planetary motion are thorougly understood, tested, and observationally accurate. The motions of Venus in this simulation are based entirely on these well-known equations. There's nothing inherently weird about them. The strangeness of the trajectories is due to the ever-changing gravitational influences between the Sun and the rogue star. In other words, two stars (very massive objects) coming close together will pull everything between them back and forth, but those distortions can be predicted with the proper equations. There's no anti-gravity involved here at all, only two interacting and ever-changing gravitational fields.

Another thing explaining the "wonky orbit" of Venus after it was captured by the rogue star is the movement of the star on the screen. If you held the rogue star still in the screen (IOW, as if you centered the camera on it), you'd actually see a normal eliptical orbit, but because it's moving relative to your point of view, it looks like the planet has to speed up to get in front of the star, and then fall back behind it as it reaches in front of it. Again, this is basic orbital physics, an quite within current understanding. Your point of view just makes it look strange.

And nobody ever said that objects don't change speeds. It is true that an object moving in a straight line can't change speed without some form of accelerating force, but such forces do exist in nature in the form of gravity. And objects in elliptical orbits are constantly changing speed. Indeed, it's a fundimental property of orbital mechanics. When an object reaches the closest point in it's orbit it will be going at it's fastest, and when it's at it's farthest it will be going slowest. All of these things have been known since Kepler and Newton.

The problem with the PX theory you mention is not that there shouldn't be an acceleration, but that the acceleration as described has no rational explanation. It would require some form of anti-gravity or other unknown force, and frankly, there's no creditable evidence that such kind of forces exist. The same is true of PX itself; there's no creditable evidence that it exists, no matter what metaphysical messages have been recieved.

[David Hall]

On 2002-08-29 09:34, Laser Jock wrote:

Well this is my first post. I've been following this thread for a little while, so I will make several comments on what has been posted so far. First a comment on dualities. We know that anti-matter exists. Perhaps this is part of the dualities that XoFFoX is suggesting. It is not too hard to create anti-particles in the lab, and some is even created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. However, when I refer to anti-matter, I mean elementary particles. Anti-atoms (that is atoms created with anti-protons and positrons) are very difficult to create and observe because they are not very stable. However, if you could create enough of them someone could argue that they might create an anti-gravity. However, I will let a particle physicist answer that one (I'm only an optical physicist).

Welcome aboard Laserjock. Good first post. As I understand it, antimatter should really be considered more as a mirror-image of regular matter. IOW, it acts in exactly the same way as the matter we know. Anti-hydrogen combines with anti-oxygen to create anti-water. The effect of antimatter on gravity is exactly the same as regular matter.


An electrical circuit with battery that lasts for a 2-3 lifetimes? What kind of circuit?...
A home-made anti-gravity machine? Where did you find the design for this? Can you actually give a Web address? How does high voltage actually produce anti-gravity?...
Or how about this car that runs on water (and I don't think you're talking about Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif )? I've heard about such things before, and let's just say it's all wet. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif


Yes, I'd like to know more myself. The hallmark of a weak argument is the inability to back it up. Can we get some supporting info here?

And I fully agree about the last one. Water-powered engines are only a step down from full-fledged perpetual motion machines, and just mentioning them raises all sorts of red flags in the bunkum department. Every single instance of such devices throughout history has been shown to be either mistaken in some way or outright fraud. At this time there's no reason to believe that it isn't the same this time.

[jschm]

Quote: '... (leading edge of the heliosphere ??? What's going on there ???) ...'

Although this has nothing to do with Planet X, one can find an introduction to heliospheric physics (that may give insight even to musicians) here http://sci.esa.int/content/doc/10/2576_.htm or elsewhere on the net (try a google search if you like). We are expecting Voyager 2 to find the termination shock soon, but it's not sure this will be visible at all...

By the way - did you find any reference, XoFFoX? And do you have an example where one of the fundamental forces has an anti-force (I'm not talking about Newton...)

[nebularain]

XoFFoX - Since you are a musician, you may want to brouse this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=1606&forum=1&start=125) . By the time you get to the last page, everyone is debating back and forth about music stuff (I linked you to the page where it all got started - look for dwhite's post). Maybe you can add some words of wisdom there?

Yes, the Board is on EDT. There are people on this Board who are from other time zones, though (such as Washington state, Australia, Japan).

Laser Jock - A Princess Bride quote; I love it! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif And welcome to the Board!

_________________
"All that is gold does not glitter / Not all those who wander are lost..."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-08-29 13:45 ]</font>

[Laser Jock]

I'm still enjoying the webpage that David Hall found some time ago for looking at rogue stars(http://janus.astro.umd.edu/orbits/rstar.html). Let's see how many ways we can destroy our solar system!!! One thing is true, if the PX folks are correct (which they're not), we would really have a problem. What they say would happen to Earth is rather optimistic /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif.

[David Hall]

Actually, I believe the server is based in Colorado, so it's set to mountain time.

But yeah, there are people from all over the world here. Sometimes it's active, and sometimes it's quiet. Unfortunately, I've found that it get's quietest on the weekends, just when I have the most free time and want to read a lot of threads. When I have to get to sleep early or such, that's when it's active and I end up staying up way beyond what's good for me.

[Laser Jock]

On 2002-08-29 15:07, David Hall wrote:
Actually, I believe the server is based in Colorado, so it's set to mountain time.

But yeah, there are people from all over the world here. Sometimes it's active, and sometimes it's quiet. Unfortunately, I've found that it get's quietest on the weekends, just when I have the most free time and want to read a lot of threads. When I have to get to sleep early or such, that's when it's active and I end up staying up way beyond what's good for me.



Actually it looks to me to be EDT.

[David Hall]

Hmm, seems you're right. It's hard for me to tell since I'm on the other side of the world and have to actually think in order to calculate the time differences. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I recall the BA saying it was mountain time when the subject first came up last October (with the initiation of the new board software). Maybe there's been a change recently. ???

[Valiant Dancer]

On 2002-08-29 15:40, Laser Jock wrote:

On 2002-08-29 15:07, David Hall wrote:
Actually, I believe the server is based in Colorado, so it's set to mountain time.

But yeah, there are people from all over the world here. Sometimes it's active, and sometimes it's quiet. Unfortunately, I've found that it get's quietest on the weekends, just when I have the most free time and want to read a lot of threads. When I have to get to sleep early or such, that's when it's active and I end up staying up way beyond what's good for me.



Actually it looks to me to be EDT.



OK. Let's test this. Currently it is approx. 14:42 PM CDT in Chicago.

Oh, and Xoffox, I'm a Virgo with a bad moon rising. Astrology really has no bearing on astronomy. Also, a tenth planet which comes close enough to the sun like the Nibru folks claim in a periodic fashion is impossible. The pole shifts occur naturally over tens of thousands of years. Nibru seems to be a new, more threatening and less likely occurrence than the Nemesis theory which held at least passing interest.

"You keep saying that word, I don't think it means what you think it means." -- Inago Montoya

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-29 15:53, David Hall wrote:
I recall the BA saying it was mountain time when the subject first came up last October (with the initiation of the new board software). Maybe there's been a change recently.

Here's the thread where he said that (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=34&forum=6&start=0). I think that their clock is also just screwed up, and it keeps getting farther ahead. Just a thought.

[XoFFoX]

On 2002-08-29 08:09, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Zzzzzzzzz...snrgGG...huh?


On 2002-08-29 07:19, Artema wrote:
For one thing, 23 times more dense than the earth is not very dense! This wouldn't put it anywhere near Jupiter, and Jupiter is only a gas giant, not close to the density of a brown dwarf.

He did say "dense" but I think you are talking about "mass," right?

The Earth is a lot more dense than Jupiter. Earth's average density is about twice that of your ordinary rock, and Jupiter is just a bit more dense than water--Saturn would even float (if you could fi...nevermind).

Ssnnnn...zzz

Sorry to be boring you with all this kindergarten stuff there grapes and disturbing your much needed nap time.

I did mean mass and I get confused about the two, density and mass. Let me know if this analogy is correct. If you have 10 ball bearings and bunch them all together it has a given mass and a certain density right ??? Density being related to the amount of space between the bearings. If I took all those bearings and melted them into one ball it would take up less space,hence being more dense but still retaining the same mass right ???
So then PX would have to be 23 times more massive in order to have any impact on smaller bodies from a close flyby, is this correct ??? My understanding is that something with more mass exerts more gravitational effects than something less massive.

You know something funny just dawned on me. As far as I can tell, all of you here have already decided that PX cannot be so why are you even discussing this amongst yourselves ??? It seems I'm the only one poking around with the notion that it may be true. If I were you guys I'd kick all the pro PXers out and rename the discussion group to "We've already made up our minds on this !!!" I suppose the same could go for all the other wacky notions that come this way. Just remember that most people thought the Wright brothers were wackos.
You guys wanted some more data, facts, explainations on some of the stuff I speak of... the electro gravitic device I built is no secret and many hobbyist types have been messin around with it. Here is one website that yall can get to and see some of this stuff in action. There is also a great number of good links on other topics related to this and zero point energy as well. The papers from Tom Bearden are very technical and very interesting. I have read quite a few but not all. He is the one who has put forth the idea that we can design our electronic circuits to be over-unity devices. We have been designing them all wrong, he says. If you are interested at all in this, Beardons stuff is a must read.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/

As for the water car, it is very very simple to do. This system works like this. Water has approx. 40% more potential energy than gasoline and that's a conservative estimate given by the DOE. Some say it's as high as 80% more. Anyway, you can separate the two components of water (H and O) by using 2 stainless steel electrodes placed in close proximity to each other and vibrating them with sqaure wave pulses at a certain frequency. Hence, you get hydrogen and oxygen to use in your already working combustion engine. The gases are collected and stored under pressure and properly regulated. THe result is super clean combustion with water and spare oxygen as a byproduct. I believe NASA owns a patent for this process.(The separation process) This why it is paramount for them to find water on Mars if they are to send a mission there. They will have water for life and for fuel. Getting the system tuned up properly is a bit of a trick, or so they say. Carbed engines are easier than FI. But once the system is fine tuned and running good you can get anywhere from 80 to 300 mpg of water.
You get more HP and if you wanted to you could recycle your exhaust water and drive the thing until mechanical breaks down. One last note about the system is that you need to rust proof some of your engine components. The exhaust system and valves need to be replaced with stainless and the cylinders and pistons need to be coated with a protective ceramic, then your set. One other alternative to this would be to leave the gasoline portion of the engine in tact and then one could burn a small amount of gas or better yet, alcohol to dry out the engine. The great thing is that you can set the system up so that you may retain the ability to burn standard fuel. I have read that this knowledge has been around for a while and of course the powers that be said uh uh, no way, out of the question that we (the poor unsuspecting and paying through the nose for everything, public) will use water as a fuel for our engines. And that's the end of that story and here we are with a very big problem on our hands. Now they are desparately spraying fine metallic aerosol crap in the upper atomosphere to try and cool the planet down or so one theory says that's what they are up to ... who knows eh ??? All I know is what I see in my area on a very regular basis. Very bizarre very high altitude air traffic that spit out these contrails (that's a joke calling them that) that never seem to disappear. They slowly disperse and turn a normal blue sky into a milky slick in a matter of hours, depending on how much they are spraying.
Personally I am very very incensed about this. Whoever is responsible for this has not gotten any public consent for this and there seems to be no way to stop them. THe first thing I know what most of you will do is say that I'm crazy, they're just contrails ...well it's just not so. Here are a few sites you can read up on this. http://educate-yourself.org/ct/
http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm
Sorry I don't know how to make links in this text mode. If anyone has any patience left with me they might show me how this is done.
222

_________________
Anti Gravity and Zero Point Rule.
11:11
777
33
1

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-29 21:49 ]</font>

[XoFFoX]

Nevermind about the links thingy.
Sorry I'm just a lowly BAD newbie


Has anyone seen my mind ... I seem to have totally lost it

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-29 22:07 ]</font>

[FP]

My understanding is that something with more mass exerts more gravitational effects than something less massive.

Absolutely.


As for the water car, it is very very simple to do. This system works like this. Water has approx. 40% more potential energy than gasoline and that's a conservative estimate given by the DOE. Some say it's as high as 80% more. Anyway, you can separate the two components of water (H and O) by using 2 stainless steel electrodes placed in close proximity to each other and vibrating them with sqaure wave pulses at a certain frequency. Hence, you get hydrogen and oxygen to use in your already working combustion engine.

This is a wonderful idea! Just one small question, though. Where does the energy to separate the oxygen and hydrogen come from? Can't burn the gases to get the energy, because you need energy to produce them. Burning gasoline to provide the energy defeats the whole purpose. Perhaps some of our more learned friends could provide the math, but I think it is sufficent to say that it takes more energy to separate water into oxygen and hydrogen that is produced by recombining them.

Now, does anyone want to tackle the contrails?

[XoFFoX]

The power from the car battery is used to do the separation process. If I remember right it takes about 4 to 6 amps at the 13 to 14 volts you get from a battery. Once the motor is running the alternator takes up the job nicely. Apparently it is the ocsillation that does the trick. Did I not mention that there is a patent(s) for this process. I am in the process of hunting down the right type of stainless tubes or rods to use for electrodes. According to the diagram I have it looks like you need tubes that can fit one inside the other with a very small air gap between them, typically 1mm or so. When I find what I need I will set up an experiment to test the separation process. Unfortunately I had the perfect beater car that I could have used to make a complete working model but I gave it away to the scrap yard before I had the plans for the water thing. Oh well, it's back to the drawing brd for the MAD scientist. (insert sound of Homer Simpson screaming here)

PS. I cannot stress enough that these contrails as they are being explained away as are absolutely NOT. There is a very good scientific analysis (of real contrail physics) on one of the site links I posted.

http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm
the article is called "The RH deception"
It gets pretty technical. Remember, I'm more of a lay person when it comes to the hard math and I can understand this.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-29 23:28 ]</font>

[DogB]

On 2002-08-29 23:14, XoFFoX wrote:
.......I cannot stress enough that these contrails as they are being explained away as are absolutely NOT. There is a very good scientific analysis (of real contrail physics) on one of the site links I posted.

http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm
the article is called "The RH deception"
It gets pretty technical. Remember, I'm more of a lay person when it comes to the hard math and I can understand this.



"Real contrail physics"......LOL

http://www.borderlands.com/contrails/contrail.htm

Dog

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DogB on 2002-08-30 00:12 ]</font>

[xriso]

On 2002-08-29 21:47, XoFFoX wrote:

As for the water car, it is very very simple to do. This system works like this. Water has approx. 40% more potential energy than gasoline and that's a conservative estimate given by the DOE. Some say it's as high as 80% more. Anyway, you can separate the two components of water (H and O) by using 2 stainless steel electrodes placed in close proximity to each other and vibrating them with sqaure wave pulses at a certain frequency. Hence, you get hydrogen and oxygen to use in your already working combustion engine. The gases are collected and stored under pressure and properly regulated. THe result is super clean combustion with water and spare oxygen as a byproduct. I believe NASA owns a patent for this process.(The separation process) This why it is paramount for them to find water on Mars if they are to send a mission there. They will have water for life and for fuel. Getting the system tuned up properly is a bit of a trick, or so they say. Carbed engines are easier than FI. But once the system is fine tuned and running good you can get anywhere from 80 to 300 mpg of water.



Hmm... why not just burn the seperated hydrogen and oxygen together once seperating them, instead of taking oxygen from the air?

By the way, you can't actually pour the water into the car with this idea. What happens is that a device takes energy from somewhere else in order to split water. Usually this would be done by just plain old electrolysis, but maybe the square waves help it (I have no idea how). And then the hydrogen goes into the car, not the water. Steam goes out the exhaust pipe, because it is useless to the car.

You cannot recycle the water into the car and keep driving, because you need energy to split the water into fuel again. Where are you going to get the energy? If you take the energy from the engine, then the car can't actually go anywhere (it needs energy to drive around). You actually get less useful energy out of burning hydrogen than it will take to split the exhaust water again, so entropy won't even let you cycle it forever without input energy.

Oh, and when you burn the hydrogen, the oxygen has to come from somewhere. There is no net spare oxygen byproduct. 2 H2O -> 2H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O. No mass is created.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: xriso on 2002-08-30 00:23 ]</font>

[XoFFoX]

On 2002-08-30 00:09, DogB wrote:

On 2002-08-29 23:14, XoFFoX wrote:
.......I cannot stress enough that these contrails as they are being explained away as are absolutely NOT. There is a very good scientific analysis (of real contrail physics) on one of the site links I posted.

http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm
the article is called "The RH deception"
It gets pretty technical. Remember, I'm more of a lay person when it comes to the hard math and I can understand this.



"Real contrail physics"......LOL

http://www.borderlands.com/contrails/contrail.htm

Dog

Whatever dude.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DogB on 2002-08-30 00:12 ]</font>

[nebularain]

On 2002-08-29 17:04, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

On 2002-08-29 15:53, David Hall wrote:
I recall the BA saying it was mountain time when the subject first came up last October (with the initiation of the new board software). Maybe there's been a change recently.

Here's the thread where he said that (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic=34&forum=6&start=0). I think that their clock is also just screwed up, and it keeps getting farther ahead. Just a thought.

Well, all I know is that at midnight my time (EDT), the date changes to the next day.

BTW, XoFFoX, to change your "Bad" status, you have to make 100 posts.

Also, I've been puzzling over your username, and I think I get it. Your username is a duality, right? XoF/FoX. XoF is the reverse of FoX? Or is it FoX is the reverse of XoF. Or has this duality talk gotten my brain so mixed up I don't know what I'm talking about? (I'm a biology major, not a physics major /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif .)

[XoFFoX]

Hmm... why not just burn the seperated hydrogen and oxygen together once seperating them, instead of taking oxygen from the air?


I never stated that the oxygen came from outside the reaction chamber. This all happens in a container and is under pressure. All gases are produced in the same space(reaction tank) and then burned in the same space.(combustion chamber)


By the way, you can't actually pour the water into the car with this idea. What happens is that a device takes energy from somewhere else in order to split water. Usually this would be done by just plain old electrolysis, but maybe the square waves help it (I have no idea how). And then the hydrogen goes into the car, not the water. Steam goes out the exhaust pipe, because it is useless to the car.

You cannot recycle the water into the car and keep driving, because you need energy to split the water into fuel again. Where are you going to get the energy? If you take the energy from the engine, then the car can't actually go anywhere (it needs energy to drive around). You actually get less useful energy out of burning hydrogen than it will take to split the exhaust water again, so entropy won't even let you cycle it forever without input energy.


The car battery and alternator provide the electricity needed for the separation process if you keep filling the water tank with water the car will run until there is a mechanical breakdown. You cannot recyle all the exhaust water and I didn't say that it was a totally closed loop where there is no losses. There is no reason why you could not reuse water coming from the tailpipe. Yes, eventually you would run out of water but not for quite some time I would imagine if you can keep losses to a minimum.


Oh, and when you burn the hydrogen, the oxygen has to come from somewhere. There is no net spare oxygen byproduct. 2 H2O -> 2H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O. No mass is created.


Apparently there is a loss of some of the gases in the combustion, that's just what was said in the set of plans that I got. If this reaction has no losses then I would agree that there should be no excess left overs.


I hope I've cleared most of this up. Any more questions ???

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-30 00:50 ]</font>

[XoFFoX]

BTW, XoFFoX, to change your "Bad" status, you have to make 100 posts.

Also, I've been puzzling over your username, and I think I get it. Your username is a duality, right? XoF/FoX. XoF is the reverse of FoX? Or is it FoX is the reverse of XoF. Or has this duality talk gotten my brain so mixed up I don't know what I'm talking about? (I'm a biology major, not a physics major /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif .)



Gotcha on the BAD status ... okee dokee.
As for the handle XoFFoX, it is a slight variation of the famous Zoffo of Led Zepellin and I like symmetry so I coined XoFFoX. If I could flip the 1st F I would for the most symmetry. It also looks cool, I think anyway.

I use it sometimes as a monicer for authoring songs and music compositions and I wondered about using it for a band name if and when I get one together.
444


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-30 00:55 ]</font>

[Senor Molinero]

(Elmer Fudd voice) We're hunting Perpetual Motion, he he he he he.

[XoFFoX]

On 2002-08-30 00:53, Senor Molinero wrote:
(Elmer Fudd voice) We're hunting Perpetual Motion, he he he he he.



Perpetual Motion is a misnomer.
I guess I should restate this as it is incomplete.
Perpetual Motion is a misnomer used by the mainstream when over unity systems are mentioned. It's an arguement that gets thrown out at free energy advocates when they (science community) can't explain what's going on with certain devices or theories. I think T.E. Beardon states this case most brilliantly.

I haved a question.
Can anyone tell me why the military classified some of Tesla's work and conficated most of his notes and records ???
I have another question.
Can anyone explain to me why monoatomic iridium disappears when heated past a certain temperature ??? Somewhere between 200 and 300C I think ???
999


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-30 01:40 ]</font>

[Senor Molinero]

And also an impossible dream.

[XoFFoX]

On 2002-08-30 01:35, Senor Molinero wrote:
And also an impossible dream.



Maybe in this dimension with it's inherent model of physics which I think a lot of us are confused and misinformed about.

Is anyone aware of microclusters out there ???

[XoFFoX]

Did anyone listen to Art Bell show last night ??? Hydrogen fueled engines. (Sound familiar ??? Hydrogen and Oxygen from water )Easy transition too the best fuel hands down. Unfortunately the big corps are gonna gleep that too.
yee haa !!!
11:11

[jschm]

I think most of this stuff here belongs to a bad physics board...

It's boring and time consuming.

[Kaptain K]

On 2002-08-30 05:11, jschm wrote:
I think most of this stuff here belongs to a bad physics board...

It's boring and time consuming.


Agreed! For some reason, this is one of the toughest points to get across to believers in perpetual motion or "overunity" (perpetual motion + useful output).

The equations:

2H2+O2=>2H2O+E
and
2H2O-E=>2H2+O2

are exactly symetrical. The amount of energy you get from reacting hydrogen and oxygen to get water is exactly the amount of energy needed to break-up water into hydrogen and oxygen (assuming 100.000...% efficiency in the system). No amount of hand waving, hocus-pocus or smoke and mirrors is going to change it!

Entropy - It's not just a good idea, it's the law!

_________________
Be alert! The world needs more lerts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-08-30 06:06 ]</font>

[Laser Jock]

On 2002-08-30 06:04, Kaptain K wrote:

Agreed! For some reason, this is one of the toughest points to get across to believers in perpetual motion or "overunity" (perpetual motion + useful output).

The equations:

2H2+O2=>2H2O+E
and
2H2O-E=>2H2+O2

are exactly symetrical. The amount of energy you get from reacting hydrogen and oxygen to get water is exactly the amount of energy needed to break-up water into hydrogen and oxygen (assuming 100.000...% efficiency in the system). No amount of hand waving, hocus-pocus or smoke and mirrors is going to change it!

Entropy - It's not just a good idea, it's the law!


You got that right Kaptain K. For review, the 1st Law of Thermodynmics states that you cannot create an engine which produces more energy than you put into it. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that you can't even break even (i.e. all engines will have less than 100% efficiency). These are Laws not theory. They have been experimentally varified so many times and in so many ways that it is foolish to question them. Those who say otherwise are either ignorant a best or fraudulant at worst.

_________________
"I am not left handed either."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laser Jock on 2002-08-30 08:43 ]</font>

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-30 05:11, jschm wrote:
I think most of this stuff here belongs to a bad physics board...

We do have another forum for it, the Against the Mainstream forum (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?forum=1&8273).

As far as this thread goes, I guess the same question can be asked that we've been asking for years: "So, just where is Planet X in all this?"

[Laser Jock]

On 2002-08-30 08:49, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

We do have another forum for it, the Against the Mainstream forum (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewforum.php?forum=1&8273).

As far as this thread goes, I guess the same question can be asked that we've been asking for years: "So, just where is Planet X in all this?"


Good point GOW; I will blame XoFFoX for the tangent. To start things off, will someone give one good reason to think PX exists?

[hemlock]

I love all this banter! It's brilliant! And it's not that hard to follow for a non-scientist like me. The only time I hear about theories and the like is from television, news items and like jumbo (was it?) typing words like 'Sumerian' into yahoo!Please keep this up - I'm learning loads and enjoying it!

XoFFox - I can't help noticing your similarity to a certain Mr Buckaroo Banzai... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

[Conrad]

<snip>

XoFFox - I can't help noticing your similarity to a certain Mr Buckaroo Banzai... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif
[/quote]

Hmm. A rock-and-roll secret-agent brain surgeon? Or a person who sees Red Lectroids *everywhere*? THen again, maybe Art Bell's "Water" engine is an Oscillation Overthruster ...

[hemlock]

Thanks Conrad - at least I'm not the only sad ba*d around!

[Valiant Dancer]

On 2002-08-29 23:14, XoFFoX wrote:
The power from the car battery is used to do the separation process. If I remember right it takes about 4 to 6 amps at the 13 to 14 volts you get from a battery. Once the motor is running the alternator takes up the job nicely. Apparently it is the ocsillation that does the trick. Did I not mention that there is a patent(s) for this process. I am in the process of hunting down the right type of stainless tubes or rods to use for electrodes. According to the diagram I have it looks like you need tubes that can fit one inside the other with a very small air gap between them, typically 1mm or so. When I find what I need I will set up an experiment to test the separation process. Unfortunately I had the perfect beater car that I could have used to make a complete working model but I gave it away to the scrap yard before I had the plans for the water thing. Oh well, it's back to the drawing brd for the MAD scientist. (insert sound of Homer Simpson screaming here)

PS. I cannot stress enough that these contrails as they are being explained away as are absolutely NOT. There is a very good scientific analysis (of real contrail physics) on one of the site links I posted.

http://www.carnicom.com/contrails.htm
the article is called "The RH deception"
It gets pretty technical. Remember, I'm more of a lay person when it comes to the hard math and I can understand this.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-08-29 23:28 ]</font>


Since that modle violates the laws of thermodynamics, might I suggest something a little more reasonable that has a chance of working. (BTW, your "corporate auto manufacturers will squelch this" analogy is refuted by this site. The auto manufacturers are really looking forward to this stuff.)

http://www.ballard.com/tD.asp?pgid=26&dbid=0

Some folks here might be a little tired of me bringing this company up, but I expect big things from them in the future based on good science, reasonable buisness plans, and partnerships with DaimlerChrysler and Ford Motor Company.

[GrapesOfWrath]

On 2002-08-30 09:06, Laser Jock wrote:
I will blame XoFFoX for the tangent.

Well, he did start the thread, but ... somebody wake him up, please?

[DTdNav]

Hello all!

This is my first time on a message board and I am very excited about the prospect of holding rational and enlightening discussions with courteous and intelligent participants. Other sites seem to be nothing but forums for rude and insensitive bores, that's why this is my first time doing this.

Anyway, I hope to be able to contribute a little to the topics as well as learn a great deal from the fellow readers.

As for Planet X, I am definitely one who does NOT believe that it exists. It sounds way too much like an old Sci-Fi movie I saw as a kid. The idea is not new and nothing I've heard about it so far adds to the already tired story.

To XoFFoX: Using unproven, multi-demensional, new-age arguments certainly do not help. The reason scientists reject unproven, unduplicable, and untestable data is because long ago it was realized that the human mind is capable of manufacturing incredibly complex psuedo-realities (subjectivity) that must be removed before the objective (unatainable in its pure form) truth can be approached. Notice that I said unatainable objective truth. The closest that humans have come to this is through pure mathematics. Next best is physics which is mostly mathematics. The further away we get from pure math, the more subjectivity is likely to creep in. And creep it does.

Highest up the ladder away from math we approach religion. Pure subjective thought, while not useless for us poor humans to keep sane while living life, is not useful when trying to observe the objective rules of how the universe works. If you can simply wave your hand, or think of change to change the outcome of any experiment, then what is the point of doing the experiment? Observable phenomena must be observable to anyone who can accurately reproduce the conditions for it to be accepted. If you think that what you dreamt last night has any relevance to me and the world I live in, you must produce some extaordinary evidence to back up the claim. I cannot and will not tell you that you are wrong about your notions of cosmology and physics, but I will tell you that they smack of religion.

Blaming the establishment for supression of revolutionary ideas is an old tactic of those who prey on the credulous. If you have produced a working anti-gravity machine and can make a car run efficiently on water, then you need to apply for the million dollar prize being offered by the James Randi Education Foundation. If you are a starving musician I'm sure it could come in handy. I think it's mainly reserved for anyone who can prove that they have phsychic or paranormal abilities, but maybe they have room for Earthshaking inventions too.

_________________
"And above all, don't put your tongue on it!"

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DTdNav on 2002-08-31 02:01 ]</font>

[overrated]

Just for the fun of it, I'd toss out this idea: logic is the basis of mathematics, so I'd put it further up on your evidentiary food chain. (if you want, I can show you this--as long as you're willing to wade through a 170-line proof. Ugh.)

Anyhow, it seems like this discussion has wandered afield. Did someone suggest a perpetual motion machine using hydrolysis? And what, exactly, does that have to do with the oh-so-dangerous but utterly unobservable Planet X, aka Nibiru?

[XoFFoX]

Since that modle violates the laws of thermodynamics, might I suggest something a little more reasonable that has a chance of working. (BTW, your "corporate auto manufacturers will squelch this" analogy is refuted by this site. The auto manufacturers are really looking forward to this stuff.)

http://www.ballard.com/tD.asp?pgid=26&dbid=0

Some folks here might be a little tired of me bringing this company up, but I expect big things from them in the future based on good science, reasonable buisness plans, and partnerships with DaimlerChrysler and Ford Motor Company.


When will the science people get it through there thick heads that the Laws of Thermodynamics are NOT and I repeat NOT violated in an open system. CLosed systems YES ... Open NO. I never said that this system is over unity either !!! And as for Ballard, I used to work right next door to them here in Burnaby B.C. and they've been monkeying aroung for years with their fuel cells and we still are years away from them being used in a meaningful way.
It doesn't matter what your thing is these days science or non science spiritual or not spiritual, this planet is in a desparate situation and we are all on this planet. That means that this idea of hydrogen burning engines must must must be looked at very seriously if we are to survive here in th e long run. SO stick your negative it can't be done attitudes in the back seat and lets move forward and get this done together as a united planet before it's too late. Our window for turning things around is very narrow so buck up and lets get this thing moving. Call, email, write your elected reps and tell them how we are feeling about this and that we will not stand for it anymore. The Oil companies are still gonna monopolize the fuel business as they will undoubtedly take up hydrogen manufacturing and suck our pockets dry for another 100 years but at least our biosphere will love us for it.
Comon folks lets get with the program !!!
11:11
555
33
1

[XoFFoX]

By the way, I'm sure most of you will be pleased to hear I'm goin on a Saskquatch hunt this weekend and so will not have to put up with my insanity for a few days. ( free energy pah leese, anti gravity ... nonsense !!!)
I will be on a Bigfoot hunt for the weekend so if I return I will have some stories hopefully of a mythical man beast that no one seems to be able to prove exists but they are there.
I sense there will be a lot of ostriching going on when I return with tales of UFO's and extra testicles.
he he
10:10
11:11
12:12
1

[overrated]

Running automobiles on fuel cells (hydrogen, that is) is not a new idea. Here in Chicago, as a matter of fact, the CTA is using a few buses to test the system. At the news conference announcing it, Mayor Daley drank a glass of water condensed out of the tailpipe.

Having said that, it's a pretty big leap to use electrolysis (did I say hydrolysis above? I think I did) to separate the H and O in water, then feed the gases into a car engine. First of all, hydrogen is going to burn at a different temperature than gasoline. Second of all, you'd have to severely modify the fuel delivery and mixture system.

And finally, even if you're not claiming it's a perpetual motion machine (which is impossible, by the way, no mater how you look at it--as Silas said, "it's the law"), the whole apparatus is going to lose a lot of efficiency because you're taking energy out of the system to break down (and, I presume, pump, filter, mix, etc.) the water and its resultant gases. Better off to just carry around hydrogen with you--after all, it's the most plentiful element in the universe.

Fuel cell systems are more efficient than internal combustion engines, but it's mostly because they have a lot fewer moving parts, thus less energy is lost through friction.

[edited to say:] Lest you think your idea and a fuel cell are identical, they are not. The fuel cell combines hydrogen with oxygen to produce electricity and water. The electricity then powers an electric motor.
_________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: overrated on 2002-08-30 22:20 ]</font>

[xriso]

On 2002-08-30 21:16, XoFFoX wrote:
By the way, I'm sure most of you will be pleased to hear I'm goin on a Saskquatch hunt this weekend and so will not have to put up with my insanity for a few days. ( free energy pah leese, anti gravity ... nonsense !!!)
I will be on a Bigfoot hunt for the weekend so if I return I will have some stories hopefully of a mythical man beast that no one seems to be able to prove exists but they are there.
I sense there will be a lot of ostriching going on when I return with tales of UFO's and extra testicles.
he he
10:10
11:11
12:12
1


Hmm... Why not go for the Ogopogo? It can't be that far from you since you're here in BC. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[Kaptain K]

XoFFoX,

Whether you called the device "over unity" or not is moot*. What you have described is "over unity" in that it uses engine power from burning hydrogen and oxygen to break down water (from the exhaust) into hydrogen and oxygen plus drive the vehicle.

*According to a search of the thread, you used the term "over unity" five times including the post denying the use of the term.

_________________
Be alert! The world needs more lerts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-08-30 23:52 ]</font>

[Kizarvexis]

XoFFoX, check out the page below and take the walk as it will be very informative about the 'scientific basis' for Astrology.

http://www.noao.edu/education/peppercorn/pcmain.html

++++++++

To drag this back on topic, for any Planet X'ers, of the Zeta-talk type believing in a close pass-by of Earth by Planet-X, don't take the above planet walk by itself. The immense distances involved along with the small size of the planets can be decieving. Read Dr. Phil's discussion page on Planet-X and how bright it would be if it was out in the solar system now.

++++++++

BTW, I entered 'Daniel Whitmire' on yahoo and found the following article that is still active.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/planet991007.html

++++++++

Blaming the establishment for supression of revolutionary ideas is an old tactic of those who prey on the credulous. If you have produced a working anti-gravity machine and can make a car run efficiently on water, then you need to apply for the million dollar prize being offered by the James Randi Education Foundation. If you are a starving musician I'm sure it could come in handy. I think it's mainly reserved for anyone who can prove that they have phsychic or paranormal abilities, but maybe they have room for Earthshaking inventions too.

I visit randi.org periodically and the Randi Foundation has mentioned the Million Dollar Prize in discussions of perpeptual motion machines. I think if someone could prove one works on it's own power for a sutible length of time (good luck), they could win the prize. I won't hold my breath. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Kizarvexis

[Laser Jock]

Now where are our manners. Welcome to the board DTdNav, and good post. I would not nessesarily agree that religion is on the opposite end of the spectrum of mathematics. Religion tells us a lot about how we work, how we opperate. Therefore, since we are a part of the universe (small part to be sure), you could say that religion does tell us a good deal about how the universe works. But I understand what you mean. I see it that math and physics --examples of the hard sciences -- are the foundation that we use to base all other knowledge. What is chemistry but applied physics? What is biology but applied chemistry? Anthropology? Pyschology? Etc. Everything is built on these two (math and physics). You could say that physics is applied math, but I see them more as equals. Without physics, you have no physical reality, and without mathematics you have no way of describing that reality.

To XoFFoX, you said
When will the science people get it through there thick heads that the Laws of Thermodynamics are NOT and I repeat NOT violated in an open system. CLosed systems YES ... Open NO.


In the real world there is no such thing as a truly "closed" system. Yet the laws of Thermodynamics still hold. Why? Perhaps because they are universal. I think you might be agreeing with me, but I can't really tell. I can say that saying "science people" have thick heads is a good way to get booted off this BB.

[DTdNav]

Thanks for the welcome LaserJock.

I put religion on the opposite end of the scale because of the apparent subjectiveness of its accepted realities. I've been all over the world and I can tell you that virtually no two views of self and god and how it all fits together in this universe are exactly the same. I'm sure you can argue the same about views of self and science, but I think you would agree that a mathematical proof is either correct, or it's not. Interpretation does not interfere with its pure message. Imagine trying to make a computer run based on the universally accepted truths (are there any?) in religions./phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif Am I anti-religeous? I don't try to be. I guess I can come off that way sometimes but I certainly don't begrudge the individual's right to worship, nor do I deny the benefits afforded to many people the world over. I think it has no place in the hard sciences, except maybe as a moral compass to those who would exploit others in its name. Other than the above long-winded qualification, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

On a different note I think you ascribed a quote to me that was actually from XoFFoX. I would paste it here but I am woefully undertrained in the ways of this medium and can't figure out how to go get it without losing what I've already wrote. Can someone help me here? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

Okay, what about Plannet X? Is there any more information from the claimers on it other than "It's coming, and no you can't see it yet?" How close would a brown dwarf have to get before its gravity well would noticeably (to amatuer astronomers) effect another object in the solar system? (Based on average mass). Why do I feel that after the planet X scare fades away, something else equally horrible, unstoppable, and wacky will take its place? Can't we all just get along? Where can I find a cheap AND good barber? Okay, that last one is probably unanswerable.

[Conrad]

Well, DtDNav, my barber works at Peppi's in Royton, Oldham, Lancashire, England. (Probably a bit far for you to commute).

Welcome to the BABB. As long as you stay polite and relevant you'll be able to post here ad infinitum.

As for what the gullible believe about Planet X, Roswell, Apollo fakery and other woo-woo (splendid Americanism, that!) - I refer you to another American who stated that "there's sucker born every minute". Some of those who peddle the claptrap are sincere but deluded, and others are insincere but better-off. Examine the "Lunar Conspiracy" pages to see more examples.

[David Hall]

Welcome aboard from me too, DTdNav. Those were excellent first posts.

If you want help with formatting, the best thing to do first it to read the FAQ. It has a section on BBCode that can help you with most of it. You can also use regular HTML if you know how. The "Bad Bad Astronomy" section also has several threads on techniques you can use. Go back and read them if you have a chance.

If you want to include a quote, it's simple. Just surround whatever you want with the [quote]...[/quote] tags. The board software will automatically format it into those nice quote sections. To reply directly to another's post, just click the quote button at the bottom of it. That brings up a reply window with his post already formatted. If it's a long post, be sure to cut out anything unnecessary to your reply.

If you're in the middle of a reply and want to review the original post, click on "Topic Review at the bottom of the page. That brings up the original thread in a new window. From there you can cut-and-paste whatever you want. Put quote tags around it, and you're in business.

Now, on to Planet X. I think one problem getting clear information on it is that nobody agrees on exactly what it is. Some say it's a brown dwarf. Others say it's a giant planet. Some say it's due by next year. Others say that it's not anywhere close. They say it's supposed to be easily observable, yet nobody can give us a clear location or description. It seems like a pretty weak theory when nobody can even agree on the basic "facts".

On another note, I wonder just what happens to people psychologically who really believe in something (be it Nibiru or the second coming, etc.) that is supposed to arrive at a certain time, but when the time comes it doesn't happen. I know sometimes they just modify their beliefs, putting it off to another day perhaps. But what does it take to finally convince them they're wasting their time, and what happens to them when they finally realize they've been had? Just a thought.

_________________
<font size="-1">PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer is not directly observing this product, it may cease to exist or will exist only in a vague and undetermined state.</font>

<font size="-1">(Got the tags backwards. D'oh!)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-09-01 06:19 ]</font>

[Surly Joe]

On another note, I wonder just what happens to people psychologically who really believe in something (be it Nibiru or the second coming, etc.) that is supposed to arrive at a certain time, but when the time comes it doesn't happen. I know sometimes they just modify their beliefs, putting it off to another day perhaps. But what does it take to finally convince them they're wasting their time, and what happens to them when they finally realize they've been had? Just a thought.

Such is the problem with beliefs. It's much better to just have a good idea.

"I think God exists."

"I think God does not exist."

These can be debated, and if either statement is ever proven true, it is not such an assault on one's psyche to swap to the other, whereas:

"I believe God exists."

"I believe God does not exist."

Try setting up *that* debate. Even if a belief is proven to be wrong, human beings are, by nature, far too egocentric to accept facts over beliefs all at once. It has to be a slow process over time, and many failures of that belief.

At least, that is my belief. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

[Surly Joe]

Boy, now I've had duality on the brain all day and I've pretty much convinced myself that there really aren't any dualities except life and death. There probably can't be life without death, although this might not be true. There definately can't be death without life.

You want a brain buster? What if life and death are one in the same? Think about it.

[ljbrs]

I think that all of you have been very patient and more than kind concerning the posts of XoFFoX. I, myself, cannot post further for fear that I might be ousted from Bad Astronomy as a result.

I think that Professor Phil Plait has shown great restraint.

ljbrs /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

[GENIUS'02]

damn i hate replying so late to posts, but what can i say i like the sight of my own writting /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif:D

first XeFFoX: dun sit on the fence man say what you think about yourself.

(incase you're wondering that's from his second or third post)

second i also consider my self to "know" a lot, how ever i also "know" i do not match many of the people in terms of intelligence or knowledge, but then i am 16 (well 17)and maybe thats the reason. i could state i have an IQ of 170 who would believe me? people who want to. its not true last test was 149 and thats one below genius, but i don't trust it, wanna know why?
if i start thinking i'm a genius, i'll start thinking i know more than i do, i hardly study for tests and external exams as it is if i study anyless i may as well not turn up to school, as the only study i do is in class, yet i'm still in the top two% of the class.

ofcourse i could be in the dumbest-arsed class ever, but i don't expect any one to believe me.

this post is my own rant and rave post, everyone needs one once in a while!!

i've been visiting bad astronomy bulletin board since 1999 i think, well before this new format was adopted. i've posted some of my own theories many seemed perfectly aceptable, but i was pointed in the correct direction by the very kind members on this board.i have learnt much from this site, and hopefully will for many years to come.

now i shall study each post and write my own reply to this entire post, and even with, what i believe, to be a very clever brain i'll get things wrong.
einstein did, pauli did everyone has. I'm no exception.

science is an amazing thing, however sadly many people do not find such beauty as i find in chemistry and physics, many of my friends do not understand how i can simply sit and read books about science, or discover magazine. if i find something i don't understand i look to find simpler explanations and then i go back and re read with my new knowledge and from a different perspective.

what i'm trying to say is, many people will stop posting on this board when they make a mistake, for fear of making more and looking less clever than they really are, but as the saying goes "we learn from our mistakes"

well theres my go, sorry BA, not much to do with astronomy. i humbly accept my lecture and won't do it again. sorry.

[GENIUS'02]

[quote]
On 2002-08-30 21:26, overrated wrote:


to separate the H and O in water,
[quote]

to separate the O from the H requires a lot of energy, and is a bad way of making Hydrogen a more simple, cost effective way is to use methane.

i'm not sure of the principle of the engine you're describing and i would be grateful for an explanation.

thanks in advance,
chris

[nebularain]

On 2002-09-02 06:50, Surly Joe wrote:
"I believe God exists."

"I believe God does not exist."

Try setting up *that* debate.

Actually, we have....
Check out the "Against the Mainstream" section and look up titles dealing with Craetion, Intelligent Design, and/or Evolution.
(And I'm still feeling black and blue from the encounters.)

[overrated]

On 2002-09-02 10:26, GENIUS'02 wrote:
[quote]
On 2002-08-30 21:26, overrated wrote:


to separate the H and O in water,
[quote]

to separate the O from the H requires a lot of energy, and is a bad way of making Hydrogen a more simple, cost effective way is to use methane.

i'm not sure of the principle of the engine you're describing and i would be grateful for an explanation.

thanks in advance,
chris


I was trying to make sure I understood what xoffox was suggesting; that was the engine I was describing. I certainly wouldn't suggest that it would work they way he said it would.

[beskeptical]

On 2002-08-29 04:54, XoFFoX wrote:
Remember I also said that I have a good sense of what is truth and what is bunk. If I told you how or why I have this sense, you would bedunk me because there is no scientific proof for intuition or vision or whatever you want to call it.


What may seem like intuition, if correct, is just an ability to discern certain clues that may not be obvious to all observers. It's not some magical ability that one has. When one's intuition is repeatedly wrong, and that same person continues to believe in their intuitive skills, that person is fantasizing.

The success rate of your intuition, in so far as what you've written, is unconvincing. I'm not saying you need to convince me, I'm just saying you haven't.


One thing that bugs me more than a bunch of doomsayer crackpots spouting about the end of the world from some far-fetched Rogue planet scenario...is scientists spewing what they are calling hard science when they themselves are not working with a full data set.


Scientists come in all sizes, colors, and flavors. For the scientists that have debunked PX, I have read the supporting evidence and it's pretty irrefutable. For the "doomsayer crackpots spouting about the end of the world from some far-fetched Rogue planet scenario", I haven't seen any credible evidence.

Just what makes you think the astronomers of the world are going to miss some fantastic evidence that only a few off the wall thinkers are aware of? There would be at least some main stream astronomers who would consider a rogue planet if there were some evidence.

Think about how far astronomy science has come. Think about the detection devices like the Hubble telescope. There are many more absolutely incredible ways the Universe is being observed and examined every day. Planets are being detected orbiting other stars.

Without a thorough knowledge of all these scientific instruments and knowledge of the science of astronomy, are you saying you have decided, on intuition, that these scientists might be missing a rogue planet? All because someone wrote a book and has a few followers?

I'd want to know more about astronomy before I'd conclude the scientists are, "spewing what they are calling hard science when they themselves are not working with a full data set".


...this scenario has all but been thrown in the trash bucket according to what you guys think you know using your data set.


Again, you are assuming the idea of PX was never evaluated. How did you determine just which 'data set' people used to come to the conclusion there is no PX? Are you suggesting one add arbitrary data to the set? Shouldn't data to be considered have some validity?

Sitchen has apparently convinced persons unfamiliar with astronomy. The reason real astronomers aren't convinced isn't because they were all educated from the same mold. It's because they were educated to evaluate the evidence for themselves.


I felt he was shutting the whole thing out without getting more facts.


But you don't know that. You're assuming the BA never took the time to look at 'the facts' you speak of. I think if you took the time to read what he's written on the subject, you'd find he probably looked at everything you have and more.


...you can go to school for a thousand years and still not learn the truth if the school your going to is misleading you.


I just don't equate education with acquisition of facts as you seem to do. I equate it with acquisition of the tools to find one's own facts. It's much easier to mislead the uneducated, wouldn't you think?


The point I was trying to make here is that we would be light years ahead in technology than we are today if some boneheaded people (scientists included) about 100 years ago didn't suppress some good science that would have accelerated our understanding of the Universe by leaps and bounds. Sadly, In my OPINION we are seriously behind where we should be right now.

A lot of good science has been suppressed. Fortunately, it's hard to stop.

I get a good gut feeling of truth when I consider that this setback for us was orchestrated very very carefully so that only certain people would benefit from this financially and only a very few are in the loop. There is are too many things that indicate this type of deception. Remember, I'm saying this as a sensitive, if you will, to vibrations of truth. I can smell a lie like a shark can smell blood in water.


Too much TV again, sorry. Surf the net. Almost everything known to humankind is there for the taking, free of charge. I don't even pay for my internet connection. And if I didn't have a computer, it's free to go on the net at our local library.

Individual incidents have certainly happened. Firestone rubber bought out the trolly cars in LA for instance, then dismantled the system in favor of vehicles with tires. Corporations don't have humanity at heart.

Religious and other dogmatic persons and groups have interfered with the progress of science. Lots of incidents in that category.

But, "orchestrated very very carefully so that only certain people would benefit from this financially and only a very few are in the loop", that's hard to buy.


I have also had some very revealing dreams about this thing as well. They seem to deal mostly with being involved in very cataclysmic Earth changes. (earthquakes, high winds, sensation of rapid motion of the Earth surface in distinct direction, solar event etc.)


Dream research hasn't shown much credence in dreams as premonitions. There are some interesting examples like the girl who dreamed her school was all black the day before she died when a coal slag pile collapsed and covered the school in one of the Scandanavian countries in the 70's. But with the billions of dreams that occur every night, coincidences must be considered.

If I hear the TV or other noise when I'm dreaming, the sounds get incorporated into my dream.


I am most concerned about those areas of forbidden science that can fix our current global crisis ... ie. Zero point energy and anti gravitic propulsion for transportation. This technology exists .... the forgotten and/or purposely hidden technology. I was skeptical about the electrogravitic flying contraption so I did what I hope any good scientist would do. I built one and made it fly. Then I wasn't so skeptigal. So far on this BBS I have kinda been made fun of in a polite manner for claiming that I can demonstrate some effect that seems to defy conventional ideas about gravity.


What "forbidden science"? For these statements to be true, the impossible would have to be done.

What'd these conspirators do, kill all the researchers involved in the final stages of multiple research projects? Or did they have to go back and track down all the scientists who did work leading up to these discoveries? And how could these conspirators have found and understood this fantastic science in the beginning, before anyone else had heard about it?

Science just doesn't work that way. It's collective knowledge that leads to advances. Some person or group could certainly patent a single idea or technology. The gas companies might have bought a prototype high milage vehicle and prevented it's development. But these incidents are not going to add up to the big conspiracy you imagine.

No one is insulting you by saying show us your flying machine. Not if you really have one. But logic and current evidence says we shouldn't believe it unless we see it.


On 2002-08-29 05:49, XoFFoX wrote:
... our ideas of clear evidence and rational logic may not apply to something that goes beyond this perception. What seems rational here may not be what rational is in another dimension and that's what we may be dealing with here.


Well, maybe not in another dimension, but how is that relevant if we are in this one? I'd have to have a lot more spare time if I wanted to spend any of it worrying about a planet from another dimension.

If you want a good disaster to get excited about you might want to consider super volcanoes and mega tsunamis. There are geological records of those fantastic cataclysms. There are known mechanisms for how they occur, and a high liklihood of them occurring again.

Or, how about a great subduction quake the northwest coast of the US and Canada. We've had one every 300-500 years for the last 50,000 years. The last one was in the winter if 1700.

_________________
Evolution is just a theory. Better fasten your seatbelt, so is gravity.
Beskeptigal.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-09-03 23:21 ]</font>

[HankSolo]

What is the basis for PlanetX coming in 2003? Who started that idea and why? It certainly wasn't Sitchin. It just seems that 2003 was an arbitrary date thrown out there by Leider, Hazlewood & Co. Far enough away (at the time) to be profitable, yet close enough to induce the necessary panic for those profits. I certainly do know Sitchin's Nibiru, and nowhere does his timeline coincide with 2003. If PlanetX is based on Sitchin's Nibiru, then it is not coming for another 1200-1400 years. If PlanetX isn't based on Sitchin's Nibiru, then who came up with the idea?

As many of you know, I'm a big proponent of Nibiru, mostly because of how it so neatly explains so many "mysteries" and ties up so many loose ends, while staying scientifically possible and giving religion some credit. I was sitting in my backyard having a cigar the other day, while the sun shined through a basketball hoop above me. It cast a shadow of me on the ground with a halo. I started thinking about our associations of angels with halo's. I'm probably not the first to come up with this, but could an angel with a halo be the artistic evolution of an extra-terrestrial with a spaceship hovering above? It certainly fits the Sitchin model, and stays true to religion, while explaining many "odd" works of art throughout human history.

XoffoX, what's it like in British Columbia, Canada? Talk about a mixed up place!

I'm glad to see some Princess Bride and Calvin & Hobbes fans out there! There is still hope for this world!

On a local note, everyone is gawking out the window right now looking at this "cloud" that has enveloped the Verrezano Bridge. I'm in downtown Manhattan so you can imagine everyone is on edge. It is an odd cloud though. It appears as if it's floating on the water. It almost looks like a huge iceberg floating in the water, from this distance.

Later, science dudes! Eventually science will explain everything, it just needs a little radical push once in a while. I just hope that new discoveries are shared in the name of science, and not withheld for strategic and/or economic reasons.

[Doctor J]

I find the whole notion of Planet X and its timed return quite interesting. I think the answer is in Nancy Leider's head.

She is a very mysterious lady, and its hard to tell if she is just crazy, or whether she is running a scam. I read the Troubled Time annual report, and they dont make a lot of money, so I tend to lean to the crazy point of view.

This date is probably something specific to her....she is a women with a lot of problems...a violent hatred of the Catholic Church....extreme left wing politics (Gore would have won the election if he had only admitted that the zetans helped heal his leg- so help me, she actually said this in one of the IRC sessions).....distrust of government, and especially the Bush administration....a suspicious view of Israel, the Pope and England (classic paranoid delusions from the 19th century)..etc. etc.

She has a son, here family has members with advanced degree...she worked in the computer industry....I'm sure that a shrink would have a field day with her....my guess is the 15th has some personal meaning in her life..

[CheeBye-LanJiao]

....can believe all the lanjiao way you guy know man...so chow chee buy manz

[j2e4me]

of course man, they gan nao bu everyday (study very hard). its no wonder man...

[CheeBye-LanJiao]

i think they are too eng man. i will never be as bo lieow as them...ahhh oh well different people have different talents guess mines not being a big chow chee bye

[Kaptain K]

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

[HankSolo]

Nibirese.

[Valiant Dancer]

On 2002-08-30 21:07, XoFFoX wrote:



Since that modle violates the laws of thermodynamics, might I suggest something a little more reasonable that has a chance of working. (BTW, your "corporate auto manufacturers will squelch this" analogy is refuted by this site. The auto manufacturers are really looking forward to this stuff.)

http://www.ballard.com/tD.asp?pgid=26&dbid=0

Some folks here might be a little tired of me bringing this company up, but I expect big things from them in the future based on good science, reasonable buisness plans, and partnerships with DaimlerChrysler and Ford Motor Company.


When will the science people get it through there thick heads that the Laws of Thermodynamics are NOT and I repeat NOT violated in an open system. CLosed systems YES ... Open NO. I never said that this system is over unity either !!! And as for Ballard, I used to work right next door to them here in Burnaby B.C. and they've been monkeying aroung for years with their fuel cells and we still are years away from them being used in a meaningful way.
It doesn't matter what your thing is these days science or non science spiritual or not spiritual, this planet is in a desparate situation and we are all on this planet. That means that this idea of hydrogen burning engines must must must be looked at very seriously if we are to survive here in th e long run. SO stick your negative it can't be done attitudes in the back seat and lets move forward and get this done together as a united planet before it's too late. Our window for turning things around is very narrow so buck up and lets get this thing moving. Call, email, write your elected reps and tell them how we are feeling about this and that we will not stand for it anymore. The Oil companies are still gonna monopolize the fuel business as they will undoubtedly take up hydrogen manufacturing and suck our pockets dry for another 100 years but at least our biosphere will love us for it.
Comon folks lets get with the program !!!
11:11
555
33
1


Perhaps you missed the part about the trial runs of first and second generation products.

Three buses in Chicago working for two years. 50% operation rate. (Not bad for first generation fuel cells.) They have also gone forward with several other pilots. Including a car project in California.

The folks a Ballard are realistic enough that they intend to get the manufacturing process down to where they can produce the engine for roughly the same amount of money as conventional combustion engines. They are also working on a hydrogen bromide salt fuel which is combined with water to produce hydrogen and oxygen needed for operation. (Something your model lacks is adequate power to perform electrolosys efficient enough to put enough power back into the battery and run the engine. At some point, your vehicle needs to be recharged. People won't like that.)

The Oil companies still have a market in petroleum products. It just removes gasoline from the mix. Not the products used in lubrication of moving parts, petroleum jelly, or it's military counterpart jellied petroleum. The hydrogen market could be done by any number of labs. There are several major suppliers of hydrogen gas. Any chemical company could produce the hydrogen bromide salt in quantity. Do you honestly think that Dow chemical and Eastman chemical companies don't have the cash to fend off the oil companies? Don't forget DuPont and Pharm-Eco either.

In addition, Gillig Corporation, which produce heavy duty transit buses, has ordered three fuel engines for buses to enter service in 2004 for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

[Silas]

On 2002-08-31 19:16, DTdNav wrote:
Where can I find a cheap AND good barber? Okay, that last one is probably unanswerable.


Look for a strip mall near a Navy Base.

Me, I go with cheap. The difference between a good haircut and a bad one is...about two weeks.

Silas

[HankSolo]

I'm very interested in alternative fuel and propulsion, though I don't know enough about it. However, it has no place in a PlanetX thread. Since it seems like some people have interesting things to say about the subject, why not start a new thread? In fact, I'll start it. Why bury an important topic like this in the wrong thread?

[HankSolo]

FYI, I started the thread I mentioned above at:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2190&forum=1&0

[XoFFoX]

On 2002-08-30 23:50, Kaptain K wrote:
XoFFoX,

Whether you called the device "over unity" or not is moot*. What you have described is "over unity" in that it uses engine power from burning hydrogen and oxygen to break down water (from the exhaust) into hydrogen and oxygen plus drive the vehicle.

*According to a search of the thread, you used the term "over unity" five times including the post denying the use of the term.


_________________
Be alert! The world needs more lerts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-08-30 23:52 ]</font>


Please indicate with a quote where I claimed this system is over unity.
All I merely suggested was that exhaust water can be reused in the system.
It's very easy to see how verbal communication can get twisted and misinterpreted but when the written or typed word gets twisted that's very amazing to me.
Again, I say please indicate precisely when and where I said this is an over unity system. I know over unity is a four letter word in the mainstream of science but unfortunately they will eventually find out that over unity devices are REAL. Westinghouse has a patent for an over unity device that was a part of the minuteman missle guidance system.

PS. I'm ba-ack !!!
111

[XoFFoX]

Blaming the establishment for supression of revolutionary ideas is an old tactic of those who prey on the credulous. If you have produced a working anti-gravity machine and can make a car run efficiently on water, then you need to apply for the million dollar prize being offered by the James Randi Education Foundation. If you are a starving musician I'm sure it could come in handy. I think it's mainly reserved for anyone who can prove that they have phsychic or paranormal abilities, but maybe they have room for Earthshaking inventions too.

I visit randi.org periodically and the Randi Foundation has mentioned the Million Dollar Prize in discussions of perpeptual motion machines. I think if someone could prove one works on it's own power for a sutible length of time (good luck), they could win the prize. I won't hold my breath. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Kizarvexis



My motivations are NOT driven by greed and need for the material things. My opinion of Randi is that he is an idiot and I don't want his money. I doubt that he would part with it anyway. If you had made a very important find or invention would you have time to waste with bozo's like him ... to me it would be a waste of time because he probably wouldn't buy it if he saw it anyway because it's his job to debunk ... he's a debunker.

Also don't forget people have mysteriously disappeared or even died that were involved in such technologies. It is not my desire to become one of those stats so I will be very careful who I tell if I get something that really works.
777

[The Bad Astronomer]

On 2002-09-13 21:24, XoFFoX wrote:
it's his job to debunk ... he's a debunker.


The operatiuve part of the word "debunk" is "bunk". In other words, a debunker doesn't go around trying to prove everything is wrong; they go around trying to separate what's real from what's bunk.

I am a debunker. My job is to figure out what's real and what isn't. That's what this website and specifically this forum are about.

[XoFFoX]

On 2002-09-02 06:50, Surly Joe wrote:
On another note, I wonder just what happens to people psychologically who really believe in something (be it Nibiru or the second coming, etc.) that is supposed to arrive at a certain time, but when the time comes it doesn't happen. I know sometimes they just modify their beliefs, putting it off to another day perhaps. But what does it take to finally convince them they're wasting their time, and what happens to them when they finally realize they've been had? Just a thought.

Such is the problem with beliefs. It's much better to just have a good idea.

"I think God exists."

"I think God does not exist."

These can be debated, and if either statement is ever proven true, it is not such an assault on one's psyche to swap to the other, whereas:

"I believe God exists."

"I believe God does not exist."

Try setting up *that* debate. Even if a belief is proven to be wrong, human beings are, by nature, far too egocentric to accept facts over beliefs all at once. It has to be a slow process over time, and many failures of that belief.

At least, that is my belief. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


I like your angle dude (if I've gotten it right) I especially like your tag or whatever it's called.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Awesome ... who said that ???

[Paul Best]

Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense? probably anybody anytime they want someone to believe something but have absolutely no proof at all.

Its a convienient saying to say the least.

The problem with saying "I think god exsists" is that it really is the same thing as saying "I believe god exsists", the same as saying the opposite. You cannot think one way or the other about something without believing one way or the other. Believing something isn't a problem. The problem is blindly believing something in the face of evidence to the contrary.

[XoFFoX]

On 2002-09-02 10:26, GENIUS'02 wrote:
[quote]
On 2002-08-30 21:26, overrated wrote:


to separate the H and O in water,
[quote]

to separate the O from the H requires a lot of energy, and is a bad way of making Hydrogen a more simple, cost effective way is to use methane.
i'm not sure of the principle of the engine you're describing and i would be grateful for an explanation.

thanks in advance,
chris

There may be a way to do it without the enormous energy costs and I am investigating at the moment. I am having trouble finding the components needed but I'll keep everyone posted.
If there is no way around the amount of energy needed then there is a second approach that will supply all the energy required plus even more from the active vaacum using a device that will induce electricity from scalar EM waves that exist throughout the Universe in amounts so abundant that you might as well say it's infinite.
This device can supply the required electricity and voila ... you need but modify your engine a tad and build a fuel delivery system and you have a car that only needs to be filled with water in it's fuel tank.
This approach, I believe, would be easiest for the transition to all electric vehicles as it allows us time to convert to all electric, otherwise all our present vehicles are scrap metal.
I am in agreement with the fact that liquid hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells is the way to go for the all electric car but not with using yet another fossil fuel to generate the hydrogen. Your just shooting yourself in the foot with this line of thinking.
12:12

[XoFFoX]

Perhaps you missed the part about the trial runs of first and second generation products.

Three buses in Chicago working for two years. 50% operation rate. (Not bad for first generation fuel cells.) They have also gone forward with several other pilots. Including a car project in California.

The folks a Ballard are realistic enough that they intend to get the manufacturing process down to where they can produce the engine for roughly the same amount of money as conventional combustion engines. They are also working on a hydrogen bromide salt fuel which is combined with water to produce hydrogen and oxygen needed for operation. (Something your model lacks is adequate power to perform electrolosys efficient enough to put enough power back into the battery and run the engine. At some point, your vehicle needs to be recharged. People won't like that.)

The Oil companies still have a market in petroleum products. It just removes gasoline from the mix. Not the products used in lubrication of moving parts, petroleum jelly, or it's military counterpart jellied petroleum. The hydrogen market could be done by any number of labs. There are several major suppliers of hydrogen gas. Any chemical company could produce the hydrogen bromide salt in quantity. Do you honestly think that Dow chemical and Eastman chemical companies don't have the cash to fend off the oil companies? Don't forget DuPont and Pharm-Eco either.

In addition, Gillig Corporation, which produce heavy duty transit buses, has ordered three fuel engines for buses to enter service in 2004 for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

Well, I'm hoping that this is accurate and that we are moving steadily in the right direction.
It is my understanding that the Ballard system is just an electric motor powered by electricity generated in a hydrogen fuel cell. After a while the hydrogen must be replenished. If I'm wrong please enlighten. I would like nothing more than to see the Oil companies go the way of the dinosaur. (pun intended) They've had their stab at the cash cow and I think they've had there fill but I agree that we still need petroleum products for lubrication and plastics etc,unfortunately. There are however alternatives to this as well.(synthetics)

As for the other chemical mfg'ers you mention I don't really like that idea either as they have been equally responsible for biosphere degradation as the Oil firms. Unless they really clean up their act they will still pollute and then they will be the new fuel cartel sucking our pockets dry.
About that hydrogen bromide reaction ... I used to be pretty good at chem but tell me again what the by-products are again ... H an O and what of the bromide and is this toxic. I know they use a bromide in swimming pools in place of chlorine.
Well, lost my thought train for the time being
bye bye.

[XoFFoX]

On 2002-09-13 21:38, The Bad Astronomer wrote:

On 2002-09-13 21:24, XoFFoX wrote:
it's his job to debunk ... he's a debunker.


The operatiuve part of the word "debunk" is "bunk". In other words, a debunker doesn't go around trying to prove everything is wrong; they go around trying to separate what's real from what's bunk.

I am a debunker. My job is to figure out what's real and what isn't. That's what this website and specifically this forum are about.

Weeeell, I'll have to agree with you on this one if you break it down that way. However, you have to admit that there are some debunkers that make an existence of it, they are over zealous maybe or being paid very good coin to do so. There was and still is a very dangerous game being played concerning economics or better yet greed and politics but it's more about money. Having some guy on the payroll for a pitance of what a large oil company makes in a year to specifically make sure that no new or old technologies threaten their profits. And please don't tell me that this has not been done before. Maybe not to a tee in it's execution but none the less, it's been done. I can look out my window tonight and see the large money behind this scam in the form of highly irregular high altitude air traffic spewing aerosol something or other into the air. All I need is my high school Chem and Physics to know that these are not CON-TRAILS. THis is all being done without the publics consent or knowledge, save a few who have some common sense. AND of course, there are debunkers for this too. I don't have any solid evidence or proof of what they are doing but they are still there regardless of what I beleive or can prove.


I do have some news on the PX front. A fellow by the name of Lloyd Pye was on Art Bell a few nights ago discussing the Starchild skull. (I know uz are all astronomers here and not anthropologists) so I doubt if you are familiar with this story. Lloyd is a proponent of Zach Sitchin's theories (don't forget folks I lean towards the pro PX side and that's not to say I buy all of it hook line and sinker but I don't dismiss it totally either) ... so Art threw the question of PX 2003 at him and this is what he said. He believes that PX is real but not due back here 2003, he very much doubts this will happen. He did admit that he thinks it's out there though and he knows an astronomer of standard repute (like uze guyz) that thinks he may have found it. He is currently tracking this item of interest and is not ready to come out with it so to speak. Of course Lloyd could not give his name on worldwide radio without his permission and suggested to watch for some posts on his own website for any updates or official releases.
I'm sure if Mr. Anonymous Astronomer verifies what he has found he will have his own website and press releases. I will try to find out more about this person from Lloyd. I would suggest that some of you make an attempt as well, you may know of this anonymous astronomer in your circles.

Another note about Z. Sitchin ... as far as I am aware, Sitchin has never publicly stated a when time for Nibiru's return and I'm not even sure if he gives a date in his books. I have not read his books but did read some very in depth reviews that were quite illuminating. Richard C. Hoagland and crew at enterprisemission.com have gone on record as quoting Zach that PX's return will not come till 2160. Keeping in mind again that Sitchin has not publicly disclosed.(as far as I know) Sitchin has refuted the 2003 claim by Leder, Hazelwood et al. on his own website. SO I have no idea how Hoaglands crew came up with 2160. From what some have gathered from Sitchins writings is that the last time it was here was during the time of Exodus, when the Jews were lead out of Egypt by Moses. I believe Sitchin puts this approx. 1600 BC. plus minus a few decades or so. If this is true then adding the 3600 years or so that the planet takes to orbit puts the return right around 2003. 2003AD-3600=1597BC. Now the thing we must determine is when was Exodus...was it around 1600BC. A lot of things that were described in Exodus are similar or indentical to what some say happens when this giant passes by. Who knows, maybe this planet is smaller than they say but passes by so closely that it looks huge and causes isolated cataclysmic disruptions.
This might explain why the whole planet would not be affected.
Another interesting note is this, I have a friend who has a doctorate in paleoecology. I have told him of Nibiru and what it does and when they say it may return. We got talking about his work and how, from his coring sample records and others records of either moderate or extreme climatic changes in the geological record, occur every 3600 years or so. Think on that one for a while. Like I said, the trick is nailing down when the last passage was to within plus or minus 25 years or so and then we will know the WHEN time.

PS> I had sat down to respond to this msg and I think a blabbed for at least an hour or more and had so much to say. Unfortunately for me and probably fortunately for you, I forgot to fill my username/password boxes and lost all of it when I submitted.
oh well say le'vee ... it's time for my beer fridge to open.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-09-14 04:50 ]</font>

[XoFFoX]

On 2002-09-13 22:24, Paul Best wrote:
Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense?

probably anybody anytime they want someone to believe something but have absolutely no proof at all.
Its a convienient saying to say the least.

I'm not sure what you are saying here ???

The problem with saying "I think god exsists" is that it really is the same thing as saying "I believe god exsists", the same as saying the opposite. You cannot think one way or the other about something without believing one way or the other. Believing something isn't a problem. The problem is blindly believing something in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Now I can really identify with that last quote.
"The problem is blindly believing something in the face of evidence to the contrary."

However, there is no evidence either way and it's that leap of faith that most are not afraid of but terrified of. And it doesn't have to be your faith in God or Science or whatever, it may be just the faith in yourself to be able to know the truth and feel safe and comfortable with it, because truth will make you feel so ... it's like being at peace and there are no worries because you know and you don't need a math formula to tell you so. That is spirit. The new quantum physics are now proving that the Universe or our reality is non-local. Meaning that what is known by one can be known by all and vise-versa. This is the mechanism if you will, that can dissolve dualities and paradoxes which are only illusions in this space/time contiunum (dimension). In the new theory, time and distance have no effect on two particles that are linked so to speak. What one particle knows or does on one side of the Universe is simultaneously known or replicated by the other particle on the other side of the Universe.(Countless billions or trillions of light years apart and yet no time lag) These are the types of things that are shattering old paradigms that may have been wrought out of malice or greed or just plain ignorance and selfishness.(That last one should encompass all else including greed and malice.)
If one could just imagine for a moment that there is no money, there is no status and there are no inequalities ... then we would have an environment where there is no ridicule, there is no oppression or suppression, science could roll ahead unfettered by controlling, squabbling factions, spirituallity is married to science ... for if there was no spirit there would be no life and no science ... the same can be said of science, without it we probably would have died out as a species from exposure long time ago.

Damn !!! I'm babbling again !!!

PS. This isn't me talking ... I'm channeling this stuff from my neighborhood. It must be that other newbie from Surrey ... eh ???
333


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-09-14 04:56 ]</font>

[XoFFoX]

Warning: this is a very long post in response to Skeptigal's reply to my post's. Anyone not interested should scroll past. It gets a little sticky near the middle.


On 2002-08-29 04:54, XoFFoX wrote:
Remember I also said that I have a good sense of what is truth and what is bunk. If I told you how or why I have this sense, you would bedunk me because there is no scientific proof for intuition or vision or whatever you want to call it.


Skeptigal:
What may seem like intuition, if correct, is just an ability to discern certain clues that may not be obvious to all observers. It's not some magical ability that one has.


How do you know it's not magical ??? Can U provide any evidence for this ???
tou'che parry parry lunge lunge !!!


When one's intuition is repeatedly wrong, and that same person continues to believe in their intuitive skills, that person is fantasizing.


No... that person has no intuition, which I might add is impossible because everyone has it whether they use it, want it, or need it regardless. AND there are people in scientific circles who are doing serious research on the subject of paranormal phenomenon and are making some startling discoveries and making progress. You just haven't been following it or aware of it. Some of this research actually ties in with the newly discovered non-local quantum Universe we live in.


The success rate of your intuition, in so far as what you've written, is unconvincing. I'm not saying you need to convince me, I'm just saying you haven't.

That's OK dude, and you are right. I don't need to convince you ... I am quite happy knowing that I have a good intuition and it has saved my life on a few occasions and it tells me things about people that I can prove from there subsequent actions that I was right about them. Example: I was asked by a friend to loan him some money. He wanted 10 grand. I said forget it but considered half that amount 5g's. When the time came to make the transaction my gut feeling said don't do it, your gonna lose that money. But being me and always eager to help, I gave him the money. Guess what ... I'm out 5g's. He made a hap hazard attempt to pay it back and I got about 2200 bucks back plus some broken down music equipment. Bottom line was and is I knew that I would lose that money and I still gave it to him anyway. I have other stories too but that's enough for now.


Skeptigal:
Scientists come in all sizes, colors, and flavors. For the scientists that have debunked PX, I have read the supporting evidence and it's pretty irrefutable. For the "doomsayer crackpots spouting about the end of the world from some far-fetched Rogue planet scenario", I haven't seen any credible evidence.
Just what makes you think the astronomers of the world are going to miss some fantastic evidence that only a few off the wall thinkers are aware of? There would be at least some main stream astronomers who would consider a rogue planet if there were some evidence.

Well first off, no one has ever suggested the idea of a rogue planet until now and the debate is on as you are aware. Since we have not seen anything like this ever why should astronomers expect that they would know how such an object would present itself ??? There is another thing to consider here. If it were true and say NASA knew about it and of course informed the government ... do you really think that they would inform the public ??? AND do you think that they would allow smaller independent parties to disclose if they knew ??? What would the consequences be ??? Massive panic ??? In my opinion, I think the general public would respond maturely and try to figure out what to do. I admit some may panic but it would be our jobs to keep them calm and devise a course of action. There would of course be absolutely NO garantees for survival for anyone. It would be no different if an asteroid were to come and hit us and we already know that there are a lot more dangerous asteroids out there than there are rogue planets !!! And I still don't believe that the government would tell us even if it was only an asteroid. I'm sure you'll agree with me that we are much more in danger from asteroids as we are from PX. The good thing about PX is that it is not going to hit us. AND if PX has come by in the past we can automatically assume that it will NOT destroy all life on the planet as we are still here to testify to that fact. BUT one must take precautions and/or make preparations to deal with it, otherwise we will all perish.
You are right about one thing though, I don't think either side in this debate has enough facts in their data set just to get past PX's existence. However, the two teams that think they have found a large object out past the Oort cloud is one point for the astronomers and it also may be a point for the pro PXers as well.
Something IS out there. And this new fellow astronomer that has been tracking something has got my interest big time, especially since the rumor of this man came from an anthropoligist.


Think about how far astronomy science has come. Think about the detection devices like the Hubble telescope. There are many more absolutely incredible ways the Universe is being observed and examined every day. Planets are being detected orbiting other stars.
Without a thorough knowledge of all these scientific instruments and knowledge of the science of astronomy, are you saying you have decided, on intuition, that these scientists might be missing a rogue planet? All because someone wrote a book and has a few followers?


Don't place too much faith (if you believe in faith, that is) on todays technology or what is perceived knowledge. Five thousand years ago the Chinese knew much of what you guys are just rediscovering today without Hubble Schmubble scopes and fancy space probing equipment. The Sumerians, in what I perceive to be historical records, new about Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto AND Nibiru 4000 to 6000 years ago without any high tech scientific means to detect them. (At least not like ours.) Yet we found them ourselves only a mere hundred or so years ago. Hmmm??? and this does not raise any questions in your mind ??? ... Pity.

I'd want to know more about astronomy before I'd conclude the scientists are, "spewing what they are calling hard science when they themselves are not working with a full data set".

I have seen many theories of what was once thought true come crumbling down only to be replaced with something that they never would have guessed so, with much perturbation.
(Is that a real word ???)

Again, you are assuming the idea of PX was never evaluated. How did you determine just which 'data set' people used to come to the conclusion there is no PX? Are you suggesting one add arbitrary data to the set? Shouldn't data to be considered have some validity?

You know what ... I don't think that it has been given enough serious attention at all.
Can you honestly say that you have spent time looking for it on your own telescope time ???
I have read recently about not enough being done to set up a detection system for NEO's. This is the same thing. No one is taking any of it seriously enough. Because if it comes down to a crunch we will lose against a few kilometers of space rock let alone a giant close to the size of Jupiter or at least the mass of Jupiter maybe. Who knows what the hell it is or how big it is. Bottom line is that it may be there whether we like it or not.


Sitchen has apparently convinced persons unfamiliar with astronomy. The reason real astronomers aren't convinced isn't because they were all educated from the same mold.
It's because they were educated to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

If you are familiar with his work, it's main focus is with our origins as a species and really doesn't focus on Nibiru that much. It is the planet of our creators and comes around every 3600 years.

You were all educated under the same system, why wouldn't you all be similar ???
Sitchin's evidence comes from ancient astronomical record. How will you feel when some guy 4000 years from now throws out your lifes work and calls it ancient myth ??? The recording medium of history has changed over the years but it still remains history, not myth or legend or even spoken word (witness) and summarily and/or arbitrarily dismissed as such.


XoFFoX quote:
I felt he was shutting the whole thing out without getting more facts.
Skeptigal:
But you don't know that. You're assuming the BA never took the time to look at 'the facts' you speak of. I think if you took the time to read what he's written on the subject, you'd find he probably looked at everything you have and more.

I did read what he wrote and I found it to be a little belittling to the pro PX side. Maybe someone of an uneducated background might not realize that they are being ridiculed or just plain made fun of but NOT me. Hence, my initial aggressive first posting which I am not going to apologize for again. Again, I must stress that I won't tolerate the mainstreams arrogance and oft times egocentric stance with regard to the so called stupid uneducated public. Just out of curiosity, what level of education do you think I have attained ???

Granted that it (PX) probably won't be here any time too soon because in my mind I think we should be seeing it by now as well. But I can't rule out some unforseeable factors that would allow it to be undetected. That's why they call it GOD's wrath ... you ain't gonna see it comin. What if it's coming at us from the otherside of the Sun ... ala that asteroid that astronomers didn't see until it already went by us and only missed us by ... what was it ??? 75,000 km. Another big Hmmm???


XoffoX:
...you can go to school for a thousand years and still not learn the truth if the school your going to is misleading you.
Skeptigal:
I just don't equate education with acquisition of facts as you seem to do. I equate it with acquisition of the tools to find one's own facts. It's much easier to mislead the uneducated, wouldn't you think?

I would say that education allows/empowers one to acquire the facts for themselves. But I have to emphasize that not all acquired facts are exactly that ... facts. There are some out there that do not wish the facts to be known and so put forth non-facts to distract and draw attention away. If you start working from the wrong set of facts you will be lost for a while or maybe forever.


XoFFoX:
The point I was trying to make here is that we would be light years ahead in technology than we are today if some boneheaded people (scientists included) about 100 years ago didn't suppress some good science that would have accelerated our understanding of the Universe by leaps and bounds. Sadly, In my OPINION we are seriously behind where we should be right now.


Skeptigal:
A lot of good science has been suppressed. Fortunately, it's hard to stop.

I surely do hope you mean that "Fortunately good science is hard to stop" and not "Fortunately, the supression of good science is hard to stop"


XoFFoX:
I get a good gut feeling of truth when I consider that this setback for us was orchestrated very very carefully so that only certain people would benefit from this financially and only a very few are in the loop. There is are too many things that indicate this type of deception. Remember, I'm saying this as a sensitive, if you will, to vibrations of truth. I can smell a lie like a shark can smell blood in water.


Skeptigal:
Too much TV again, sorry. Surf the net. Almost everything known to humankind is there for the taking, free of charge. I don't even pay for my internet connection. And if I didn't have a computer, it's free to go on the net at our local library.


I do watch some TV. I don't have cable if that counts for anything so I only get 5 channels ... I'm deprived !!!

Well, you must be a magician if you can get your internet connection for free, I am paying 40 bucks a month for mine. Please tell us the trick. And I seriously doubt that you have time to waste waiting in the line up at the library to surf. I also don't think that if I walked into the bank and took a few hundred thousand out to finance my research that I would get away with it. Gimme a break !!! Everything is free for the taking ???
Like I said you must be a magician or invisible.

Skeptigal:
Individual incidents have certainly happened. Firestone rubber bought out the trolly cars in LA for instance, then dismantled the system in favor of vehicles with tires. Corporations don't have humanity at heart.

You certainly got that right !!! Money, money, money ... ala Beatles ala ABBA.
Gee ... I wonder why corporations don't have humanity at heart... BECAUSE THEY DON"T HAVE F___ING HEARTS !!! Can I say that on the Internet ???
My apologies:
This will be the first and only time I use that four letter word on this BB. If you are an adult on this website you have heard it before and will hear it again I'm sure. If you are a minor, you may have heard it already and if not you will hear it sooner or later unfortunately.
To the host of this BB, if you deem it necessary to ban me for this usage I can understand. But grant me this, I am a very emotional person. I can get quite excited about things that are important to me and this planet, especially at this point in time. I also enjoy debating with you guys. It keeps me on my toes and I think I can assimilate you into the great central sun.

By the way, who were those Asian Rastafarians that got banned anyways ??? ... they didn't even swear and they got turfed ??? This is a tough crowd. I figure that it's buried in so much Babel (as in the tower) that no one will even notice it.


Skeptigal:
Religious and other dogmatic persons and groups have interfered with the progress of science. Lots of incidents in that category.

OK, no arguements here.

Skeptigal:
But, "orchestrated very very carefully so that only certain people would benefit from this financially and only a very few are in the loop", that's hard to buy.

Well, that's the magic phrase isn't it ??? "hard to buy" When I look at what's going on around me today I can't see how it happened any other way ??? Skeptical or not. Greed turns people into Demons for lack of a better term. It posseses then obsesses and finally consumes them. It's so blatantly obvious in most cases... look at what W. Bush is pushing for today ... fight terrorism, Iraq in particular, so that daddy's contracts with defence contractors pays big bucks to the Bush family. They even said in the news earlier this week that the US forces are depleted of supplies and ammo and need to resupply before going to war with Iraq. If that isn't a conflict of interest I don't know what is. Look at the big scandals in the stockmarket ... naa I guess that's just good ol American business practices.

I do sorta get the feeling that ol George actually does have a conscience and this will not please some around him. There may be an attempt I feel, someone will try to kill him but I also feel that this will not succeed, because he does care somewhat deep inside and that might protect him. Remember we are all connected for good or bad. Either that or he's one hell of an actor. This was just a last minute gut feeling on this line of thinking... nevermind.


Skeptigal:
Dream research hasn't shown much credence in dreams as premonitions. There are some interesting examples like the girl who dreamed her school was all black the day before she died when a coal slag pile collapsed and covered the school in one of the Scandanavian countries in the 70's. But with the billions of dreams that occur every night, coincidences must be considered.
If I hear the TV or other noise when I'm dreaming, the sounds get incorporated into my dream.
That's not unusual about the sound thingy, it happens to me too. These dreams are much more than that.

Just the fact that you can accept one example of dream premonition is an admission that if one can be then others can be. I never said all dreams are premonitory. (not sure if that's a real word either ???) There is no such thing as coincidence ... everything happens for a very specific reason whether you want to buy that or not.


XoFFoX:
I am most concerned about those areas of forbidden science that can fix our current global crisis ... ie. Zero point energy and anti gravitic propulsion for transportation. This technology exists .... the forgotten and/or purposely hidden technology. I was skeptical about the electrogravitic flying contraption so I did what I hope any good scientist would do. I built one and made it fly. Then I wasn't so skeptigal. So far on this BBS I have kinda been made fun of in a polite manner for claiming that I can demonstrate some effect that seems to defy conventional ideas about gravity.



Skeptigal:
What "forbidden science"? For these statements to be true, the impossible would have to be done.
Always with the impossible thing with you guys ... I told you that in this place NOTHING is impossible. Didn't you guys grow up with Disney ??? You are American aren't you ???


Skeptigal:
What'd these conspirators do, kill all the researchers involved in the final stages of multiple research projects?

I don't want to be picky but there is no such contraction as "What'd" This is besides the point but aren't you guys supposed to be educated ??? If so, why can't half of you spell properly ??? At least proof read through it as your going along to at least make it look good.

Skeptigal:
Or did they have to go back and track down all the scientists who did work leading up to these discoveries? And how could these conspirators have found and understood this fantastic science in the beginning, before anyone else had heard about it?

What probably happened in most cases of this is that first of all; most of these inventors are independants and hobbyist types. So it would have been easy to either intimidate or ridicule them out of business and if that didn't work then more serious threats to the family perhaps and finally death if you wouldn't comply.
Secondly, they worked off of other established scientists work that may or may not have been working on the same things. ie. Biefeld-Brown effect started as an experiment with vacuum tubes and not electro-gravitic princples. It was just a noticed (thank God) side effect of the research by an ambitious and innovative young man by the name of T.T. Brown. Who then worked on this on his own until meeting Biefeld and together patented this invention and even demonstrated it to the military who payed absolutely no attention to it at all. Can't figure that one out ??? Apparently a demonstration where witnesses saw a 3 foot diameter dome shaped device fly around tethered to a pole at a good speed when high voltage was applied. 17 meters per second. (I think, a fairly good clip anyways) Luckily this fellow was left alone but his work is very legit as I have found out for myself. There is even another project that was done by the deceased Floyd Sweet with the Vacuum Triode Amplifier which was supposed to generate electricity and also levitate similar to the Searl device or SEG. Searl effect generator. Most of these guys are all dead now. Some from old age others NOT. Most guys they were able to threaten with harm to their families and that was enough so there probably weren't that many homicides due to non compliance.

Skeptigal:
Science just doesn't work that way. It's collective knowledge that leads to advances. Some person or group could certainly patent a single idea or technology. The gas companies might have bought a prototype high milage vehicle and prevented it's development. But these incidents are not going to add up to the big conspiracy you imagine.

Who's side are you on anyway ???
The mere fact that you brought up the gas and oil companies buying out patents is proof enough for me that there are more shenanigans going on than just this. Christ man open your eyes !!! I re-iterate again that hydrogen burning engines have been around since the WWII and we are burning gasoline ??? Whats up with that partner !!!

Skeptigal:
No one is insulting you by saying show us your flying machine. Not if you really have one. But logic and current evidence says we shouldn't believe it unless we see it.
Well if I thought like this I wouldn't believe you if you told me that air pressure is what makes airplanes fly. I told you guys I was skeptical too but I built one, made it levitate and that's enough for me. Seeing is believing for me too ... personally I would like to see an ET with my eyes but I don't think that it's going to come and meet me in my backyard but I still accept the reality of ET's even though I have not and maybe never will actually see one. I've never seen a neutrino but I know they exist only because some scientist said they did. I have not seen any proof. This would indicate that I don't hold the entire science community in contempt.


On 2002-08-29 05:49, XoFFoX wrote:
... our ideas of clear evidence and rational logic may not apply to something that goes beyond this perception. What seems rational here may not be what rational is in another dimension and that's what we may be dealing with here.


Skeptigal:
Well, maybe not in another dimension, but how is that relevant if we are in this one? I'd have to have a lot more spare time if I wanted to spend any of it worrying about a planet from another dimension.

Whoa ... you got me wrong here pardner !!! I never meant that Nibiru is in another dimension. THings in other dimensions do affect us but not on that kind of scale. But then who knows eh ??? I'm only a mugician... No ???

Skeptigal:
If you want a good disaster to get excited about you might want to consider super volcanoes and mega tsunamis. There are geological records of those fantastic cataclysms. There are known mechanisms for how they occur, and a high liklihood of them occurring again.
Or, how about a great subduction quake the northwest coast of the US and Canada. We've had one every 300-500 years for the last 50,000 years. The last one was in the winter if 1700.

Personally, I think it's going to take some kind of global catastrophe to eliminate the current system of material wealth aquisition that keeps most of this planets inhabitants in poverty. The rich will not survive such an event because they simply do not have the survival skills whereas a street person can live on next to nothing and survive inclement weather or at least find suitable shelter and they simply survive. I know for a fact that I am not survivalist savy ... I can however live on very little food as I am now doing due to my unemployment situation now. But I am by no means ready to face life in a harsh environment. Nothing in the near future as far as I can see will stop this incessant greed and warring over stuff that doesn't belong to any ONE of us !!! ie. land, natural resources ... THE PLANET !!!

Wow ... That was a response and a half. I thought I'd never get through it all. I hope I have made some good counter points that will be taken just as seriously as Mr. Skeptigals points. I'm sorry for the length of the reply but I felt compelled to respond to this fellows remarks on my postings. I do like to play devils advocate on occasion in an attempt to draw out more information from the other side. Hence sometimes I can appear to be less than amicable. Another hope I have is that my rhetoric has influenced some of you to expand your horizons beyond the accepted and beyond what is percieved as impossible and implausible for in this Universe/Existence ........... anything is possible.

PS> Tou'che heir Skeptigal ... parry thrust ... lunge lunge parry ... Tou'che mon ami.

PS2> Oh yea ... I almost forgot about the Sasquatch hunt. Well ... we lost ol Dynamite Pete. He was a good man. (with dynamite that is) He was lost on the first leg of the journey into Scratch-it Valley. We saw what we thought was a UFO and Ol Pete ... well he paniced and ran off inta the darkness ... we heard a blood curdlin scream and thought it was Bigfoot but it was just ol Dynamite Pete lightin a stick O dynomite when he thought it was a candle. Well you can guess the rest. It turned out that the UFO's wuz just a mosquiter with a wingspan of about 6 feet. (Ah seen bigger) Actually ther wuz a hole squad of em ... heh!!! We never did see a Sasquatch-asaurass nor did we hear one (cept for Ol Pete) and we never smelled one either (cept for Ol Pete). So ended our trek into the Scratch-it valley we barely made it out alive with a sad endin anyway ... We all died of West Nile from mosquito bites, cep for me.I spose someone had to tell the tale. We did see some chemtrail sprayin which blew ma mind !!! What the hell were they doin way the hell out there anyway ???
666



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-09-14 08:10 ]</font>

[ktesibios]

A question, XoFFoX, since we're firmly off the astronomy beat already:

How do you differentiate between a "contrail" and a "chemtrail"? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

[Paul Best]

I'm not even sure where to start.

First off


On 2002-09-14 01:37, XoFFoX wrote:

On 2002-09-13 22:24, Paul Best wrote:
Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense?

probably anybody anytime they want someone to believe something but have absolutely no proof at all.
Its a convienient saying to say the least.

I'm not sure what you are saying here ???


Its simple, what I am saying is that it is the favorite defense of charlatins. "Just because I can't provide any evidence of my claims doesn't mean my claims are not true"
Sounds pretty fishy to me, usually that line is followed up by "Its all explained in my books and video tapes! Only $29.95"

As for blindly believing things in the face of evidence to the contrary, sure there may not be proof one way or the other to gods exsistence, god is a metaphysical theory which rests in the realm of theology and philosophy quite outside what science is interested in, but there is plenty of evidence which flies in the face of the preachings of various religions and sects. Usually the more radically fundamentalist a group is, the more thier beliefs can be easily discredited. My favorite group for such things are the Mormons, but then, thats because I'm not too far away from Nauvoo.

(I think what you're looking for at the end there is "Imagine theres no Heaven, Its easy if you try...)


If you are familiar with his work, it's main focus is with our origins as a species and really doesn't focus on Nibiru that much. It is the planet of our creators and comes around every 3600 years.


Ok, I could almost believe that there is a long duration object of significant size that might be glimpsed with the naked eye, one that is populated by aliens who created humans though, thats downright unbelievable,
as humans have exsisted for much longer than 3600 years.


Well, you must be a magician if you can get your internet connection for free, I am paying 40 bucks a month for mine. Please tell us the trick. And I seriously doubt that you have time to waste waiting in the line up at the library to surf. I also don't think that if I walked into the bank and took a few hundred thousand out to finance my research that I would get away with it. Gimme a break !!! Everything is free for the taking ???
Like I said you must be a magician or invisible.


read his post again, skeptical is saying that information is free on the internet, not that access to the internet is free. Unless of course you are willing to use a public terminal, which are readily available.
No need for magical powers or invisibility. I use a free operating system, free software, and I get a lot of news from free sources.
Then again TANSTAAFL, everything comes with a price.


Always with the impossible thing with you guys ... I told you that in this place NOTHING is impossible. Didn't you guys grow up with Disney ??? You are American aren't you ???


Oh there are plenty of things that are impossible. And the only thing that disney taught me is that theres great money to be made preying on children and nostalgia while making sure that no one can ever use mickey mouse or anything else from disney without paying them money.


hydrogen burning engines have been around since the WWII and we are burning gasoline ??? Whats up with that partner !!!


Simple, hydrogen costs more to produce in both energy and money than it will provide, at least right now. Do you really think that if Ford GM and the other car companies came up with a way to make more money that they'd throw it away?

So a subduction quake destroying the western coasline of the US, Yellowstone erupting and destroying most of north america, or mega-tsunami washing away a good part of the coast of the atlantic isn't good enough to destroy the world? Much bigger than that you don't have to worry about society surviving, you have to worry about humanity surviving.

[tusenfem]

On 2002-08-23 09:28, Firefox wrote:
Well, I suppose we'll get to see what happens to Whitmire's theory when it's published in Icarus. From a quick google search, he seems to have quite a following in the Planet X community.


-Adam

Actually a quick look on ADS showed that the paper has been published in Icarus in the october 1999 issue. Unfortunately I cannot get to the paper at the moment, but here is the abstract that is acessable for anyome:
http://esoads.eso.org/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1999Icar..141..354M&db_key=AST&high=3d4107928a17456
okay, just my input for the moment, I don't like it when things get "quoted" without source like "I read somewhere" or "I heard from someone".
Have fun
Martin

[XoFFoX]

On 2002-09-14 23:45, ktesibios wrote:
A question, XoFFoX, since we're firmly off the astronomy beat already:

How do you differentiate between a "contrail" and a "chemtrail"? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

Yo dude !!!
When I see a normal contrail it usually follows the aircraft quite closely behind it. If you held your hand at arms length it should be no wider than 4 fingers at most and disappears rapidly after that. If you know about the chemistry and/or physics of contrails you would know this; You need a fairly moderate to high relative humidity to form contrails period. Without water vapor in the air there is nothing to crystalize into ice. That being said, normal passenger jets fly at an altitude no higher than 42,000 ft. or so. That's commercial air traffic ceiling, anything above this will be military traffic. The planes that are spraying chemicals out the back are flying closer to 50,000 or maybe even higher. (And they are completely unmarked aircraft, no military marking or civilian, not even the call lettering that is on all aircraft) At this altitude the RH (relative humidity) is very low (even at 40,000 it's pretty low). As I said earlier you need a reasonable RH to create contrails. What I see is a wingspan wide trail of crap that never seems to disappear. It slowly disperses into a whitish milky sludge that turns a beatiful blue sky into yuk. Now I see they are getting better at it and more sneaky about it. The trails they are doing now don't take as long to disperse and they look like normal cirrus clouds after a while. THey also aren't making long continious trails they are breaking them up as the next few lines will show. A couple days ago I saw one start to lay down a trail of CRAP and it was sunset so one could really see it well. When sunlight passes thru it it tends to refract and cause a prism effect.(more so than just water in clouds) Anyway, after it got halfway across the sky it completely disappeared. Vanished ... voosh. No chemtrail AND no normal contrail either and you should not expect one at that altitude either. BECAUSE there is not enough water vapor to make them. If you are interested in a math formula used to calculate the maximum duration of a contrail at specific RH then I can direct you to the webpage. An example given stated that at 20% RH at 45,000 ft. plus (which is extremely rare if not totally impossible for that altitude) a normal contrail would last not more than 2 minutes and that's a very very huge over estimation.
777

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-09-16 09:41 ]</font>

[XoFFoX]

On 2002-09-15 12:23, Paul Best wrote:
I'm not even sure where to start.
First off

Well at least I got you thinkin hard there Petey.



On 2002-09-14 01:37, XoFFoX wrote:
[quote]
On 2002-09-13 22:24, Paul Best wrote:
Absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense?

probably anybody anytime they want someone to believe something but have absolutely no proof at all.
Its a convienient saying to say the least.

XoFFoX:
I'm not sure what you are saying here ???
Paul B:
Its simple, what I am saying is that it is the favorite defense of charlatins. "Just because I can't provide any evidence of my claims doesn't mean my claims are not true"
Sounds pretty fishy to me, usually that line is followed up by "Its all explained in my books and video tapes! Only $29.95"
I am not selling anything !!! Nor do I plan to.

Paul B:
As for blindly believing things in the face of evidence to the contrary, sure there may not be proof one way or the other to gods exsistence, god is a metaphysical theory which rests in the realm of theology and philosophy quite outside what science is interested in, but there is plenty of evidence which flies in the face of the preachings of various religions and sects. Usually the more radically fundamentalist a group is, the more thier beliefs can be easily discredited. My favorite group for such things are the Mormons, but then, thats because I'm not too far away from Nauvoo.
Well I agree with you for the most part here. The more brilliant and innovative physicists are very quickly closing the gap between science and GOD. Notice I said GOD and NOT religion. Religion was invented by men to control the masses. THis is why the more radical they are the more dangerous they are and they can exert a very tight grip on their victims so as to get in the way of real progress in science. They don't want average Joe Blow to know the truth.

Paul B:
(I think what you're looking for at the end there is "Imagine theres no Heaven, Its easy if you try...)

I always liked that man. Very smart fellow.

XoFFoX:
If you are familiar with his work, it's main focus is with our origins as a species and really doesn't focus on Nibiru that much. It is the planet of our creators and comes around every 3600 years.


Ok, I could almost believe that there is a long duration object of significant size that might be glimpsed with the naked eye, one that is populated by aliens who created humans though, thats downright unbelievable,
as humans have exsisted for much longer than 3600 years.
You obviously haven't read what I wrote or what Sitchin wrote. I will try to brief you briefly.
You misinterpreted what was written by me. Ya , it comes around every 3600 years but did I say that we've only been here that long. If you even read a short review of his work you would know that we as humans have been here all along for millions of years. They ( the Annunaki) came here approx. 450,000 years ago to mine gold and other ores I suppose. They did this for quite some time before they got quite tired of working in the mines. That's when two of the very brightest of them decided to genetically modify the proto-humans that were already here. And voila ... homo-sapiens was born. That's why there is a missing link between us and Erectus and/or Neanderthal. So ... we toiled and toiled for them for many thousands of years until we were given or found forbidden knowledge and the ability to reproduce. Which apparently as I understand we were not able to do before. That's kinda the story of Eden. One of the Gods, Enlil, had human slaves tending his garden retreat/home in the Tigris valley.(his favorite place I might add) Apparently he became quite annoyed with us and our incessant hunger for sex and we were very disruptive and noisy about it so he kicked everyone out. If it weren't for his brother, Enki, who was one of our creators(genetic engineers) we would all be gone. There would be no homo-sapiens for Enlil decided that he was fed up with us and would let us perish in the ensuing global floods. Lucky for us Enki did not agree but was forbidden and sworn not to tell the humans of the coming danger. He did however find a loophole to get around his sworn oath. He took aside who we call Noah, from the 1st testament and told him to stand out of sight on the other side of a fence or hedge. There he spoke to the hedge and not directly to a human, Noah just over heard him say to build a big ship and how to do it so it would withstand the coming cataclysms. After the waters had receded and man found dry land again, the Gods apparently realized this and Enlil was furious. He wanted to know who told the humans. He realized after, when the humans were still here and helped to rebuild their cities and spaceports that he may have jumped the gun to get rid of us.(Nice guy eh ???)
I'll leave it at that for now. Anyhow, we've been here as homo-sapiens for a very very long time. A note of interest, it is common knowledge that we have reptillian DNA in our genetic make-up and it is said that the Annunaki are of reptillian decent. We could be like we are because they are so or we may have gotten our lizard genes from way way way way back. But modern science says that we recently aquired these genes.(within the last few hundred thousand years, approx. 200,000 I think)



XoFFoX:
Always with the impossible thing with you guys ... I told you that in this place NOTHING is impossible. Didn't you guys grow up with Disney ??? You are American aren't you ???


Paul B:
Oh there are plenty of things that are impossible. And the only thing that disney taught me is that theres great money to be made preying on children and nostalgia while making sure that no one can ever use mickey mouse or anything else from disney without paying them money.
Well that's Capitolism for ya ... love it or lump it. It's your choice. Sci-Fi and Fantasy are what gave me the imagination to realize that this reality is not at all what it seems.

XoFFoX:
hydrogen burning engines have been around since the WWII and we are burning gasoline ??? Whats up with that partner !!!


Paul B:
Simple, hydrogen costs more to produce in both energy and money than it will provide, at least right now. Do you really think that if Ford GM and the other car companies came up with a way to make more money that they'd throw it away?
ANd oil and gas costs less. Come on !!! Think about it. How many billions does it cost each year to explore, extract, process, and ship and whatever else all that planet killing petroleum. After all that a steam engine is more by far more efficient for christ sake. People don't realize how much energy and money it really costs to get all that crap out of the ground and in your tank. Water (hydrogen and oxygen content) has 40% more potential energy than gasoline and that's a quote from the DOE and it's a very conservative estimate. Some say that it's as high as 80% more energy than gas. The powers that be don't want this information to be known. There is a way to breakdown water without huge energy requirements. We just have to rediscover it. And as I said earlier, if there's no way around the energy requirements then we will use devices that extract free energy from the active vacuum. These will supply more energy than you could ever know what to do with and given that they can do this we only need to build more electric cars and electrogravitic propulsion drives for our transport needs. The solutions and technologies are at hand, we only have but to do it.

Paul B:
So a subduction quake destroying the western coasline of the US, Yellowstone erupting and destroying most of north america, or mega-tsunami washing away a good part of the coast of the atlantic isn't good enough to destroy the world? Much bigger than that you don't have to worry about society surviving, you have to worry about humanity surviving.

Your only half right here. Your only talking about North America here, what of the rest of the world. Are they just a shadow, unimportant. Crap, most of the world gets by on next to nothing and they are still with us. They seem to be getting along not too bad with or without western influences. Now they are breathing down western societies neck with violence and threats of such. This culture may not survive but humanity will endure as we always have when these types of things occur. Nothin new here. It's just the next time lets get it right for once.
777

_________________
Anti Gravity and Zero Point Rule.
11:11
777
33
1


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: XoFFoX on 2002-09-16 09:45 ]</font>

[The Bad Astronomer]

This topic has wandered away from astronomy far enough. It's locked.