@MikeB

Quote:

No tail was visible in the provided image.

Doesn't matter. Evidence can and does exist which is non-photographic. (Hint: you have to read)

Quote:

The great comet of 1843 did not pass the earth as close as comet ELEnin will. Elenin will pass the earth multiple times closer.

Interesting. It appears your next step is to find some obscure unaccepted translation of a dead culture and run around calling "the sky is falling"

Instead take a step back and approach it scientifically. What do we know of how objects effect the earth? Well they do so gravitationally. Gravitational force is influenced by two factors - mass and distance. And both of these factors have been analyzed so we know approximately what they are. And at least for the concern of effect on earth the approximate will give us some idea if we should be concerned.

Quote:

Scientists have great difficulty estimating the mass of comets and their compounds.

Taking your last point first. The composition is unimportant as far as it has 0 effect to earth. If Elenin was a rock or a box of cheese it wouldn't matter. Whatever the mass is what is important to earth's influence.

Which brings us to your first point, which I'm taking second. The estimate of mass. Scientists do have a difficult time estimating the exact mass of comets. Though this doesn't mean they don't have a fairly good estimate. Elenin's mass is smaller than Halley's comet. Thus, for ease you can over estimate the mass and use a known quantity, Halley.

I've posted, as if you haven't read it go do it, the calculation for force of gravity. The two factors it needs are mass and distance. You've given us a distance. And we can assume Halley for the mass and we'll be safe as Elenin is less massive. When the question comes to effect on earth you now have all you need to figure this out.

The other thing you'll probably want is a point of comparison. Use the moon! It's a known mass, a known distance, and has known effect on large bodies of water. Compare the two force calcuations is Elenin anywhere near to the same gravitational force as the moon? Do the math!

If you're concerned about Elenin's mass do this in another way. Calculate the gravitational force the moon. Now use Elenin's closest distance and solve for 'mass'. This will give you how massive Elenin must be to have the same gravitational influence as the moon. Compare the best estimates for Elenin's mass and understand how close they are, or more properly aren't, to a mass that might influence the earth. Do the math!

Mike -- these are answerable questions. Instead of relying on a bad translation of a dead society. Do a bit of math.

Quote:

I have said nothing about the mass of ELEnin as we don't really know at this point. So I don't understand your comment in relation to anything I said.

You've given us proximity to earth. I've given you the formulas and did a quick walk through of how to figure out how massive Elenin must be if it had as much influence as the moon. Now take that # and see how many factors that answer is from the estimated size of Elenin. Do a bit of math.

Quote:

And with regard to brown dwarfs: "It has puzzled us; we're not sure where to draw the boundary between planets and brown dwarfs".

And if you read my posts you'll see I've said this. The lower limit isn't well defined. That doesn't exempt that the definition is based upon mass (not size) of the object. At present the smallest body classified as a Brown Dwarf is 8 Mj (Jupiter equivalent masses).

You defined some inconsitencies in determining mass of a Brown Dwarf and the exact mass of Elenin. I want to be sure you're not conflating Elenin into the mass of a Brown Dwarf. We know that's not true.

Last edited by BrianK on 16-Apr-2011 at 02:28 PM.

@Kronos

Please keep this discussion clean.

Of course I should have stated re-discovered, as the Sumerians knew about the planet many thousands of years before.

@BrianK

I don't think NASA has even suggested any 'mass amount' for ELEnin. With this in mind you may want to reread this thread.

@MikeB

Quote:

I don't think NASA has even suggested any 'mass amount' for ELEnin. With this in mind you may want to reread this thread.

Again I gave you a way to figure out what the acceptable mass for Elenin might be. Calculate the gravitational force of the moon and insert the distance of Elenin to give you what Elenin's mass might be.

If you have trouble finding estimates for Elenin's mass GIYF! Here's a start: Moon is 7x10^22, Elenin is 2.2x10^14

You thought size was a factor. Well if you want to use it we can. The size of Elenin (note which is not the COMA, again COMA unimportant) is estimated to be about 4K km. There's no possible way such a small object in size could have enough mass to qualify for a Brown Dwarf. This Myth is Busted.

Edit: Fixed URL

Last edited by BrianK on 16-Apr-2011 at 04:43 PM.

@MikeB

*shrug* you were the one trying to pushing the argument that a gas-giant could be mistaken as a comet while not telling that it happened at a time when even the best telescope had less quality than what can be ordered for 100Euro from any online-store.

Sumerians and Mayans were primitive cultures who had just evolved 1 step from literally useing sticks&stones whatever knowlegde they might have had about astronomy was limited to what could be seen by the naked eye. Uranus can be seen by the naked eye (under perfect circumstances) but the only thing these cultures could have learned about it is that it travels very slowly (84 years per orbit). They wouldn't have known that is tlted by more than 90° that it is made (mostly) of gas or that it had any moons.

The best these astronomers might have achieved is realizing that Earth and the other planets are orbiting the sun.

None of these has offcourse any relevance to the claims that an object big enough to have a gravimetric effect on earth would have the possiblity of coming close enough to earth without getting noticed by modern technology (or even that sub 100 Euro telescope I mentioned above).

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@BrianK

Quote:

acceptable mass for Elenin

Acceptable to whom? You?

@MikeB

Quote:

Acceptable to whom? You?

Assuming you're serious here. Follow along. It's contended that Elenin has caused earthquakes. Also, you seem to be concerned that as Elenin approaches it will also effect the earth. There are two bodies that have noticeable effect on the earth. The sun and the moon. The way bodies effect other bodies is through their gravitational force. In order to determine if Elenin had enough gravitational force to cause an earthquake we can figure out how much mass must exist. In my sentence the 'acceptable mass' was that mass Elenin would have to be, at least, to have a similar effect on the earth as the moon.

So instead of picking on language focus on the message, it's been in several posts. We have enough info here to answer the charge that Elenin caused an earthquake and enough here to answer your conjecture that Elenin will effect our planet. Let's assume the translation is 'prefect' and some ancient dead civilization predicted an impact. Great! You have the data and formulas to see if it's realistic that Elenin is such an object.

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' - Carl Sagan

@Kronos

Quote:

*shrug* you were the one trying to pushing the argument that a gas-giant could be mistaken as a comet while not telling that it happened at a time when even the best telescope had less quality than what can be ordered for 100Euro from any online-store.

Such disrespect... His telescopes were for over 50 years the best of the best. He discovered 4 of Uranus' moons, those are virtually impossible to see on a small to medium sized amateur telescope!

@Kronos

Quote:

Kronos wrote: @MikeB Sumerians and Mayans were primitive cultures who had just evolved 1 step from literally useing sticks&stones

See, this right here is the common perception...
...
...
...
...and amazingly they knew more about astronomy than any other culture did in 1000AD, built pyramids using precise cut stones weight tons that still stand millenia later (unlike today's constructions) and drew immensely large pattens in curiously level terrain that could only be seen from the sky to be appreciated.

I wish I could do that with sticks and stones...

So it seems to me that those assumptions are completely wrong. The 7 wonders of the world are wonders because with the above perception/assumption they simply shouldn't have been possible.

Last edited by Lou on 16-Apr-2011 at 06:58 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

and amazingly they knew more about astronomy than any other culture did in 1000AD

Their knowledge at the time regarding astronomy is beyond amazing.

After the times of Zoroaster, his concept of god and many of the stories got re-implemented / rewritten for the abrahamic religions, which seem to have pushed asside the ancient knowledge.

One interesting device from BC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

@MikeB

Quote:

Such disrespect... His telescopes were for over 50 years the best of the best.

And now you can get a better telescope for under 100 Euros from any online hobbyist store. Technology marches on.


@Lou
Quote:

and amazingly they knew more about astronomy than any other culture did in 1000AD,

They did not know more about astronomy than any culture in 1000AD. They believed that there were five planets, those being the Sun, the Moon, Mars, Venus and Jupiter. They did not regard the Earth as being a planet and they did not regard the Sun as being a star.

This is demonstrated by the nice and accurate translations of the Sumerian tablets, available for viewing at your favourite museum.

Quote:

built pyramids using precise cut stones weight tons that still stand millenia later (unlike today's constructions)

Wait a minute, 'unlike today's constructions'? But today's constructions haven't been around for millenia yet. And I've already told you how limestone blocks of any size can be cut with nothing more than water and sisal string.

Regardless, even just here in England we have plenty of very old buildings that were built by humans with no alien help at all. Roman examples that are almost two millenia old exist, and of course don't forget all the Saxon churches that are now into their fifteenth century. And the Norman cathedrals and castles that are pushing the thousand year mark.

Its the same across Europe. If a bunch of mediaeval peasants with little understanding of mathematics (written sources in languages we still speak today indicate that maths was something the Islamic civilisations did at this time, while Europe remained largely ignorant) can build the great cathedrals and castles we can still see today, why can't a bunch of Egyptians with similarly limited knowledge and technology build a pyramid?

You've got no answer there. You either believe that aliens built the European cathedrals too, which is demonstrably not true, or you believe that European civilisation is unique on the Earth as the only one which has developed its own technology. Which is just bloody silly.

Quote:

and drew immensely large pattens in curiously level terrain that could only be seen from the sky to be appreciated.

I was wondering when we'd get to the Nazca Lines. Erich von Daniken thinks that they are landing strips for alien spaceships, doesn't he? Unfortunately, von Daniken's theory is inconsistent with Nibiru - the Nazca Lines were made in around 400BC. Nowhere near the time of Nibiru. So, we've got a second bunch of aliens interfering, do we? A second bunch that conveniently leave no trace of their presence? Rubbish.

Anyway, about the Nazca Lines. The ground is not 'curiously level', its a perfectly natural plateau. And as for 'need to be seen from above', well. Reputable anthropologists link the Nazca lines to religious practices involving the worship of deities associated with the availability of water, who of course determine whether or not your crops grow. Where does water come from? From above. Where's the rain god? Above. How do you enlist the aid of the rain god? Well, you could draw a picture only the rain god could see, says the Anthropologist.

Regardless of why they were drawn, though, Joe Nickell of the University of Kentucky has demonstrated how the Nazca Lines can be created using nothing more than the 'sticks and stones' level technology available to South Americans in 400BC.

Quote:

So it seems to me that those assumptions are completely wrong. The 7 wonders of the world are wonders because with the above perception/assumption they simply shouldn't have been possible.

Nonsense - they are wonders because they are particularly impressive examples of what you can do with very little.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtXnc23gf3w&feature=related

Last edited by T-J on 16-Apr-2011 at 11:27 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

And now you can get a better telescope for under 100 Euros from any online hobbyist store. Technology marches on.

I don't believe you.

@Lou

Quote:

, built pyramids using precise cut stones weight tons that still stand millenia later (unlike today's constructions)

Take a ton of building sand, and shovel it into a pile. Measure the slope angle of the pile. Compare this slope with that of a pyramid.
The reason the pyramids of Egypt haven't fallen down is that they were built "pre-collapsed".

Saying that somebody knew more than the Europeans in 1000AD, is not very impressive. At this time religious fundamentalism held sway over science. Much of the knowledge of the Greek and Roman civilisations had been lost, or was called heresy. The Islamic nations were beginning to establish the crucial difference between astronomy and astrology, a difference that seems to elude some people a thousand years later.

At the moment science takes precedence over faith, however there is a growing body of opinion that what one special person writes down is holy scripture, and not to be questioned regardless of the laws of mathematics.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

not to be questioned regardless of the laws of mathematics.

One thing is for sure, human kind still doesn't understand its own solar system. Because of the laws in physics and mathematics there are solid reasons to believe there is a yet unidentified large mass body part of our solar system.

Even NASA admits this can be the case in their WISE promotional material, so maybe it's better to stay humble.

Last edited by MikeB on 16-Apr-2011 at 08:24 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

@T-J Quote: And now you can get a better telescope for under 100 Euros from any online hobbyist store. Technology marches on.

Quote:

I don't believe you.

When I was at school, maths was done using log tables and a slide rule. When my kids were at school the same tasks were carried out using a pocket calculator. A modern mobile phone has a calculator app that can beat the dedicated calculator that my kids used, while taking photos and making a phone call.
If you don't believe T-J's statement that technology marches on, let me assure you that you can take my word for this.

Also look a a low cost modern camera with zoom lens i.e Fuji S1900. compare the statistics with an upmarket zoom lens from 25 years ago.

Quote:

Even NASA admits this can be the case in their WISE promotional material, so maybe it's better to stay humble.

As a scientific body NASA is checking claims. If there is something there NASA will publish this and science will be advanced. If there is nothing there, NASA will publish and then the conspiracy theorists will scream "cover up!" and quote their "Holy Scripture" as proof that science is wrong. Science will still advance.

Last edited by Nimrod on 16-Apr-2011 at 08:55 PM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 16-Apr-2011 at 08:54 PM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

As a scientific body NASA is checking claims. If there is something there NASA will publish this and science will be advanced. If there is nothing there, NASA will publish

Neither has happened at this point. So why not be more open minded?

NASA *especially highlighted* the possibility since very recently regarding WISE.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @Lou Quote: and amazingly they knew more about astronomy than any other culture did in 1000AD Their knowledge at the time regarding astronomy is beyond amazing. After the times of Zoroaster, his concept of god and many of the stories got re-implemented / rewritten for the abrahamic religions, which seem to have pushed asside the ancient knowledge. One interesting device from BC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

What are you talking about MikeB, ooparts don't exist. 100,000 rocket scientists have said so.

@Lou

An interesting footnote in the wikipedia article:

"Nature published another study on 24 November 2010.[54] The study interprets the mechanism to be based in computation methods used in Babylonian astronomy, not ancient Greek astronomy, implying that the Babylonian astronomy inspired the Greek counterpart – including the mechanical constructs."

Babylonian astronomy is based on Summerian astronomy which they took in very high regard.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Quote: and amazingly they knew more about astronomy than any other culture did in 1000AD, They did not know more about astronomy than any culture in 1000AD. They believed that there were five planets, those being the Sun, the Moon, Mars, Venus and Jupiter. They did not regard the Earth as being a planet and they did not regard the Sun as being a star.

1000AD what just something I threw out there. The fact that the Mayan calendar so accurate and we use a kludge to this day speaks volumes.

Quote:

This is demonstrated by the nice and accurate translations of the Sumerian tablets, available for viewing at your favourite museum.

As in someone else's interpretations? I'll pass.

Quote:

Quote: built pyramids using precise cut stones weight tons that still stand millenia later (unlike today's constructions) Wait a minute, 'unlike today's constructions'? But today's constructions haven't been around for millenia yet. And I've already told you how limestone blocks of any size can be cut with nothing more than water and sisal string.

Sure. If you have 1000 years of spare time.

Quote:

Regardless, even just here in England we have plenty of very old buildings that were built by humans with no alien help at all. Roman examples that are almost two millenia old exist, and of course don't forget all the Saxon churches that are now into their fifteenth century. And the Norman cathedrals and castles that are pushing the thousand year mark. Its the same across Europe. If a bunch of mediaeval peasants with little understanding of mathematics (written sources in languages we still speak today indicate that maths was something the Islamic civilisations did at this time, while Europe remained largely ignorant) can build the great cathedrals and castles we can still see today, why can't a bunch of Egyptians with similarly limited knowledge and technology build a pyramid?

All "modern" structures periodically undergo maintenance. Smoke another one.
Even the Roman ones, considering they are 8000 years newer have suffered more corrosion.

Quote:

You've got no answer there. You either believe that aliens built the European cathedrals too, which is demonstrably not true, or you believe that European civilisation is unique on the Earth as the only one which has developed its own technology. Which is just bloody silly.

I've come to accept that my answers don't matter to you. When will you accept your answers don't matter to me?

Quote:

Quote: and drew immensely large pattens in curiously level terrain that could only be seen from the sky to be appreciated. I was wondering when we'd get to the Nazca Lines. Erich von Daniken thinks that they are landing strips for alien spaceships, doesn't he? Unfortunately, von Daniken's theory is inconsistent with Nibiru - the Nazca Lines were made in around 400BC. Nowhere near the time of Nibiru. So, we've got a second bunch of aliens interfering, do we? A second bunch that conveniently leave no trace of their presence? Rubbish.

What's rubbish is I never mentioned Erich von Daniken. He is a proven fraud and usually the basis of your rants. You only bring to the table what you can disprove easily. You go off and put words in my mouth with the above aggregation.

Quote:

Anyway, about the Nazca Lines. The ground is not 'curiously level', its a perfectly natural plateau. And as for 'need to be seen from above', well. Reputable anthropologists link the Nazca lines to religious practices involving the worship of deities associated with the availability of water, who of course determine whether or not your crops grow. Where does water come from? From above. Where's the rain god? Above. How do you enlist the aid of the rain god? Well, you could draw a picture only the rain god could see, says the Anthropologist.

Do you see what you are doing here? You are coming up with a theory that is completely unfounded and unproven. You can choose to believe it. Go right ahead actually.

Quote:

Regardless of why they were drawn, though, Joe Nickell of the University of Kentucky has demonstrated how the Nazca Lines can be created using nothing more than the 'sticks and stones' level technology available to South Americans in 400BC.

Really? How do you explain the ridiculouly time-consuming process of removing the red pebbles from the ground deep enough to still be visible 2500 year later?

I guess there were alot of people around with ALOT of spare time on their hands...

Quote:

Quote: So it seems to me that those assumptions are completely wrong. The 7 wonders of the world are wonders because with the above perception/assumption they simply shouldn't have been possible. Nonsense - they are wonders because they are particularly impressive examples of what you can do with very little.

That's your theory. You go with that.

Quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0

Call me when he's layed a stone across two stones of that size.

Last edited by Lou on 16-Apr-2011 at 10:15 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

NASA *especially highlighted* the possibility since very recently regarding WISE.

Are we even getting through to you? NASA have talked about the possibility of the existence of Tyche. If you still don't appreciate why Tyche *could* exist while Nibiru *cannot*, I don't think you've been paying attention at all.

Quote:

"Nature published another study on 24 November 2010.[54] The study interprets the mechanism to be based in computation methods used in Babylonian astronomy, not ancient Greek astronomy, implying that the Babylonian astronomy inspired the Greek counterpart – including the mechanical constructs." Babylonian astronomy is based on Summerian astronomy which they took in very high regard.

The Greek mathematics inherited a lot from the Babylonians. In the same way that the European mathematics inherited a lot from the Islamic cultures of the middle ages, who got a lot of ideas from the Greeks and Indians, who in turn built on what came before. Science generally builds on what comes before it, with the occasional revolutionary idea that even so does not stand isolated but instead draws on the work of others.

If I have seen further it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants, or words to that effect.

@Lou

Quote:

What are you talking about MikeB, ooparts don't exist. 100,000 rocket scientists have said so.

Ah, you're starting to understand.

But its not rocket scientists that say so. The rocket scientists just tell us that there's no way that the Sumerians built rocketships. Ooparts are disproved quite handily by applying geochronology. As I have said before there is no such thing as an Oopart, just a few examples of people who've got their geochronology wrong, either by accident or through deliberate fraud.


I see you've found the Antikythera Mechanism. Pretty clever piece of kit, isn't it? Its amazing what humans can achieve when they apply themselves and engage their brains, rather than sitting around believing whatever stories they happen to get told.

The mechanism dates to around 100BC and consists of clockwork parts that wouldn't be matched in Europe again until the 14th Century. The Antikythera mechanism has a front dial that carried at least three hands, one showing the date, and two others showing the positions of the Sun and the Moon. References in text indicate that it probably once had hands showing the locations of Mars and Venus, and speculation suggests they could have built Jupiter into the thing as well, completing the full set of the five planets the ancient astronomers were aware of (Sun, Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter). The mechanism adheres to the geocentric model, though, as of course the ancient astronomers didn't recognise the Earth as a planet and thought it to be the centre of the universe. So the Antikythera device is not completely accurate.

It is probable that the mechanism was not unique, as there are descriptions in Greek literature of others and the Roman author Cicero refers to them being taken from Greece as trophies of the Roman conquest. This technology was probably later, at least in part, transmitted to the Byzantine and Islamic worlds, where similar although less complex mechanical devices were built during the Middle Ages. Fragments of a geared calendar attached to a sundial, from the 5th or 6th century Byzantine Empire, have been found, while in the Islamic world they were at least aware of these things as they are described in Banū Mūsā's 'Kitab al-Hiyal', or Book of Ingenious Devices. This text described over a hundred mechanical devices, some of which may date back to ancient Greek texts preserved in monasteries.

Around 1000AD, Islamic scholars were still able to describe geared calendars similar to the Byzantine device, and by the 13th century, European astrolabes were being constructed to a similar principle. By the 14th century the Antikythera mechanism had been surpassed.