@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Thanks for the Babylonian thought. Again I'm open to this. One now has to bring evidence of the claimed 12th planet and claimed Tiamat. Of course Tiamat was supposedly a type of monster, so I question if the Babylonians knew this was a non-living object. We know humans throughout the ages invented fanciful stories to explain unknowns. Enough guesses from enough cultures and some personal preference selection and we're bound to find alignment with something. For example, Mary Shelly wrote Frankenstein. The body parts were taken from the grave and sown together. To bring the creature to life it had to have a zap of electricity. In cloning animals, (Dolly the sheep) we take a cell remove the nucleus and insert a 'new' nucleus. To set the clock back and start it reproduction we give it a zap of electricity. Now while the similarities are striking I think you'd be hard pressed to make the claim that Mary Shelly was secretly writing about cloning.

What you refer to a monster is just how stories change over time.
Oh and FYI, Sitchin says with the speed-up that occurred due to Neptune's orbital drift at ~10,000BC that the orbit was decreased to 3450 years that the it's not due until 2900AD. Unfortunately I missed reading that before. The 2011/2012 stuff has to do with comets as the HOPI prophecy alludes to. Both Honda and Elenin will be here at the end of the summer in close proximity. Their magnetosphere will be interacting with earth's.

Quote:

BTW, I think Sedna does not just orbit the Sun. What does it also orbit IMO? Nibiru!

Zetatalk (they however do not say Sedna actually orbits Nibiru/Tyche):

"On Apr 24, 2006 scientists were coming forward declaring that our Sun was indeed part of a binary twin set, based on the orbits of newly discovered planetoids Sedna and Xena. Note, like the outer planets of the solar system and 13 long period comets, these long eliptical orbits lean in the direction of Orion, where the Zetas state the dark binary twin sun lies. "

Last edited by MikeB on 04-May-2011 at 05:43 PM.

@MikeB

Explain this away with magnets. This probe was able to detect the space/time distortions caused by Earths mass
Unfortunately no mention of a nearby brown dwarf

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

The satellite's observations show the massive body of the Earth is very subtly warping space and time, and even pulling them around with it.

Quote:

The spin axes of the gyroscopes were initially aligned with a guide star. The gyroscopes were then monitored for changes in their angle of spin caused by general relativity effects

The above parts are IMO just plain bogus. It's due to the magnetic field wrapping around planets and stars (due to gravity). If there are aliens, they probably think we are stupid not to see the obvious...

If you assume the basics you're working with are correct, you will fall from mistake to mistake and try to reason your way around this believe.

While the above observation isn't really the bending of space-time. Other more simplistic explanations exist. This is not proof of anything space-time bending related. It's an observation of force, wrongly attributed to "theory of universal gravity".

Last edited by MikeB on 05-May-2011 at 09:05 AM.

@Nimrod

Sedna's orbit:



You can't explain this orbittal path nor by my theory, nor by the theory of universal gravity without a large mass / magnetic object nearby.

Do however note this orbit is an exploration of observed path. Its actual path may be very different over time depending on the positioning of the sun and this other large object with each other. I mean we haven't actually observed the full path of Sedna.

For example when the brown dwarf star / massy Jupiter-like planet is close Sedna may behave as orbitting both objects, but with these two objects further from each other Sedna may follow more a figure-8 style orbit and further away still may orbit just the Sun or just Tyche/Nibiru with a very stretched orbit (depending on its position relative to the distance of both objects).

In any case IMO Sedna must point towards the direction of a big massy object (with a big / powerful rotating magnetosphere).

Last edited by MikeB on 05-May-2011 at 10:45 AM.

News report translated by someone from Spanish to English (if you know Spanish please confirm):

Quote:

"The Russian astronomer, Leonid Elenin, Institute of Applied Mathematics "Keldish", discovered December 10, 2010, close to Jupiter (more extact between Mars and Jupiter), a new comet, C/2010 X1 (Elenin)" Based on reports published by China's space agency, Sergio Toscano, director for Astronomical Research in Missions, said that behind the comet Elenin could be approaching a UFO. "Behind the comet, discovered in December last year, Chinese scientists say that is something they called cluster, which means globular cluster, or perhaps alien spacecraft,"said Toscano. According to the report quotes the astronomer mission, the space body would be found in the comet's tail and was analyzed after the mysterious signals that came off of an unknown formation "strange and obscure. " And more. In the words of Toscano, the Chinese have said that the spacecraft is stationed in the same place for ninety days, "before that looked like it was coming from an extraterrestrial civilization, " said Argentine scientist. According to the Daily Chronicle, this phenomenon was corroborated by Rosie Redfiel, the new director of the Program of NASA's Astrobiology. "But when NASA began to make calculations and projections of orbit of the comet, they realized that something was wrong and the first thing they did was remove the website which provided information on this issue, " said Toscano.

Original article (Argentina Terra news portal):
http://noticias.terra.com.ar/cientificos-chinos-dicen-que-detras-de-cometa-viene-un-ovni,42ed4ad9867bf210VgnVCM4000009bf154d0RCRD.html

@Nimrod

Quote:

gyroscopes were held inside a special vacuum container that was designed to insulate them against all other confounding forces

Interesting, that sounds like the experiment I proposed to BrianK.
Nothing proves that it was actually gravity that caused the measurements. Infact their predictions were off. Perhaps if they had done their estimates based on EM fields then their results would be better corroborated. It's not hard to believe that EM fields bend space-time like 'gravity' is proposed to.

@MikeB

Quote:

You can't explain this orbittal path nor by my theory, nor by the theory of universal gravity without a large mass / magnetic object nearby.

Why not? Here's one such explaination. Sedna is pulled by many close smaller objects. Sedna is thought to come closer to the Oort cloud than our 8 planets. The Oort cloud is thought to be comprised of billions of comets. If this is the case perhaps they are close enough together that their effect on Sedna is similar to 'a' large object. This even fits the mathematically true but unable to be formulated 'it's all magnets' universe by LouMike.

Quote:

News report translated by someone from Spanish to English

If you're looking for a validing translation why not use http://bablefish.yahoo.com? I think this report is bogus because the Russian astronomer;s real spelling is Leonid ELEnin, as you've taught us so well.

@MikeB

Quote:

If you assume the basics you're working with are correct, you will fall from mistake to mistake and try to reason your way around this believe.

If you assume Sitchin to be correct, you will fall from mistake to mistake and try to "reason" your way around this beLIEf.
Once upon a time everybody thought that Newton was the last word in scientific advancement and accuracy. Then somebody called Albert spotted a discrepancy, and worked out a more accurate set of equations. These equations were submitted for peer review, and tested extensively before being accepted. At no point do the terms "in my opinion". or "I think", or "it may be" apply in mathematical equations.
If you want to supplant Newton and Einstein, you will need to drop guesswork, stop overlooking huge gaps in your own logic, and produce equations that will enable mere engineers such as myself to (as Brian would say) Do The Math.

@Lou
Quote:

Nothing proves that it was actually gravity that caused the measurements. Infact their predictions were off.

What evidence do you have that their predictions were off, or do you intend to simply obfuscate the issue.
The gyroscopes were non magnetic, contained inside a faraday cage at almost absolute zero. The experiment was specifically designed to exclude all extraneous influences
Quote:

If Einstein had been wrong in his ideas then the gyros should have spun unhindered by external forces (pressure, heat, magnetic field, gravity, and electrical charges)

The predicted drift was calculated to be a few thousand milliarcseconds, the final result was 6,606.1 milliarcseconds

@ Mike&Lou

Since you both seem to enjoy quoting from books, I will offer you the following

King James Bible. Matthew 7 verses3to 5
Quote:

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Last edited by Nimrod on 05-May-2011 at 02:57 PM.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Interesting, that sounds like the experiment I proposed to BrianK.

Though with some notable differences. One difference was you were taking your objects and rolling them by each other and measuring attraction. These were spinning objects and the change detected was in the direction of spin. Also, in your experiment we asked about friction and you gave some waffly answer. These were shot into space to minimize gravitational effects on earth. A vacuum doesn't eliminate gravity, as I stated many times, and wondered how you'd deal with the resulting friction. To deal with that problem they needed to, suprise, get away from gravity as much as possible, aka earth.

Quote:

Nothing proves that it was actually gravity that caused the measurements. Infact their predictions were off. Perhaps if they had done their estimates based on EM fields then their results would be better corroborated

Good catch and true. One important event in the process of rational consideration is that of peer-review. NASA has made their claims. The next important step is to release the data and start doing peer reviews. Let alone more experiments. Once that data is released you better have some sort of formula so you can confirm the LouMike swag. Otherwise this experiment is worthless to you as you have no means of validation.

@Nimrod & BrianK

So, let me get this staight. Typically 'gravity' is set as a constant in most equations but actually changes with distance. Mass is an assumed constant but supposedly goes up as you approach the speed of light. (Amazing that you can do math with constants that aren't constant... )

Quote:

Einstein's geometric approaches: When the equivalent of Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism is formulated within the framework of Einstein's theory of general relativity, the electromagnetic field energy (being equivalent to mass as one would expect from Einstein's famous equation E=mc2) contributes to the stress tensor and thus to the curvature of space-time, which is the general-relativistic representation of the gravitational field; or putting it another way, certain configurations of curved space-time incorporate effects of an electromagnetic field. This suggests that a purely geometric theory ought to treat these two fields as different aspects of the same basic phenomenon.

Turns out that something's mass is simply a measure of it's electro-magnetic force relative to a field. Well, gee, to me that sounds like what I've been saying all along that in space a block of aluminum and steel weigh the same because there are extremely less electro-magnetic forces pulling it then in any given direction.

So I charge that it is the earth's magnetic field that makes steel heavier than aluminum and titanium. This "gravitational constant" is simply applying a radius formula. Near the surface of the earth it's 9.8m/s/s. Farther away it's less. But rather than computing the spacial effect of a magnetic field, we keep "mass" the same instead and simply use the "inverser-square" law on G instead of M...

So in the end, attempting to measure 'gravity' is indeed measuring an effect on MASS which is force related to a magnetic field that does change as the magnetic field weakens.

I hope that makes sense...

What needs to be studied is the effect of rotation of a magnetic field source. For example, my car's engine is actually behind me mounted transversely. If I am coasting in nuetral and I suddenly rev the engine, the whole car seems to slow down as the engine speeds up yet the car is in nuetral. It's a strange effect.

@BrianK

Quote:

Why not? Here's one such explaination. Sedna is pulled by many close smaller objects. Sedna is thought to come closer to the Oort cloud than our 8 planets. The Oort cloud is thought to be comprised of billions of comets. If this is the case perhaps they are close enough together that their effect on Sedna is similar to 'a' large object. This even fits the mathematically true but unable to be formulated 'it's all magnets' universe by LouMike.

Think logically, the mass of the Sun is much greater than Sedna. Based on universal gravity if the billions of comets so far away at the location where Sedna is pointing to would have such great mass why wouldn't the sun be dragged into it?

Especially considering you don't even believe in repulsion this doesn't make any sense. More like the orbits are just like within binary stars.

Last edited by MikeB on 05-May-2011 at 03:42 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Think logically, the mass of the Sun is much greater than Sedna. Based on universal gravity if the billions of comets so far away at the location where Sedna is pointing to would have such great mass why wouldn't the sun be dragged into it?

You were the one that old us it was 'a' mass. Simply many small masses in close proximity may have a simlar effect. If 'a' mass is the case the question is the same.

Here's my 'many' masses explaination. The Oort Cloud is a Cloud. It's a fairly regular density. As such any forces acting on it, or vice versa, are going to be equal. (To make a simple example : From the north there's a force of gravity of X between the sun and the oort. From the South there's also the force of gravity of X between the sun and the oort. Since we have the same magnitude of force pulling from two opposite directions the force itself negates.) A similar effect is here at the oort cloud but the same magnitude from infinite directions all at the same time.


Quote:

Especially considering you don't even believe in repulsion this doesn't make any sense. More like the orbits are just like within binary stars.

Well this is your theory afterall so you gotta let me use repulsion so you're satisfied. And of course I get to make shtuff up and call it EM w/ an impossible formula, too.

Last edited by BrianK on 05-May-2011 at 05:08 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 05-May-2011 at 05:06 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou [quote] Once that data is released you better have some sort of formula so you can confirm the LouMike swag. Otherwise this experiment is worthless to you as you have no means of validation.

To that, I say:

Quote:

Most pure elemental superconductors, except niobium, technetium, vanadium and carbon nanotubes, are Type I, while almost all impure and compound superconductors are Type II. London moment: Conversely, a spinning superconductor generates a magnetic field, precisely aligned with the spin axis. The effect, the London moment, was put to good use in Gravity Probe B. This experiment measured the magnetic fields of four superconducting gyroscopes to determine their spin axes. This was critical to the experiment since it is one of the few ways to accurately determine the spin axis of an otherwise featureless sphere.

So you see when we read about gravity, it's a layman's term for EM forces on a mass. See my earlier post that you didn't reply to.

Pages ago, I proposed that the earth's core is a super-conductor. The moon acts as a magnet and is suspended in 'orbit' around the earth thanks to magnetic levitation as I stated before.

As I stated before, it's an electric universe.

Doesn't it amaze you that every time 'gravity' is studied that it boils down to a measure of EM force?

Last edited by Lou on 05-May-2011 at 06:20 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

the electromagnetic field energy (being equivalent to mass as one would expect from Einstein's famous equation E=mc2)

So let's just have a look at the maths
If we break the equation E = mc2 into its components and write out the terms fully we get:
E = energy (measured in joules)
m = mass (measured in kilograms)
c = the speed of light (3x 10^8 m/s)

E = 1kgx(3x10^8)^2 =1x(9x10^16)
Each kilo of ice is the equivalent of 90,000,000,000,000,000 joules
One m^3 of ice weighs 1000 kg therefore has an energy equivalent of 90,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules.

Vacuum permiability of free space = 4π×10−7 H/m
Energy density in Joules/m^3 =9x10^19 (Calculated above)
Magnetic field strength in Tesla=sqr(2xvacuum permiability x Energy density).
= sqr(2 x (4 x pi x 10^-7)x9x10^19)
=1.06x10^7 Tesla
Therefore you would need a magnetic field 1000 times that of the sun to match the equivalent mass of one cubic metre of ice.

Of course I am not a scientist, merely an engineer. To be specific an electrical engineer.
Rotating magnetic fields are what drive the rotor of a three phase squirrel cage motor. This rotating magnetic field is generated by the stator, which then induces a current in the rotor windings. This current then generates a magnetic field around the rotor that is in exact opposition to the field that generated it. Please note the term exact opposition not 23 degrees from or 90 degrees from or almost non existent. The amount of energy required to move or accelerate a magnetic field is far less than the amount of energy required to align it. This fact alone prevents your "magnetic solar system" from matching the observable system that we inhabit.

Last edited by Nimrod on 05-May-2011 at 06:43 PM.
Last edited by Nimrod on 05-May-2011 at 06:42 PM.

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

@BrianK

Quote:

The Oort Cloud is a Cloud

A hypothetical cloud though.

Quote:

Since we have the same magnitude of force pulling from two opposite directions the force itself negates.

The same would be true for all objects orbitting the sun then.

IMO far more logical is that Sedna's orbit is due to a binary system (most likely a brown dwarf star / high mass jupiter-style planet). Actually that's one of the reasons why scientists (including NASA) are currently officially searching for Tyche/Nemesis. And the the past officially Planet X. I call it by its most ancient name Nibiru though.

Last edited by MikeB on 05-May-2011 at 07:39 PM.

Quote:

Big Asteroid's Approach in November Excites Astronomers http://www.space.com/11556-earth-asteroid-flyby-2005yu55.html

It will pass between the moon and earth's orbit. NASA states if this one would have hit earth it would be the equivalent of 65.000 atom bombs.

Here some links pointing to most of the object which according to NASA are approaching us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4U3vX1LYb4

Sadly I haven't been able to view NASA's orbit paths for quite some time. For some reason NASA seems to block me (I could view them in the past).

Last edited by MikeB on 05-May-2011 at 08:05 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: Here some links pointing to most of the object which according to NASA are approaching us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4U3vX1LYb4

The link as posted goes to a video accusing USGS of fudging their records of the number of earthquakes to cover up a surge in earthquakes, supposedly caused by Nibiru.
Checking the actual statistics on the USGS site shows that the higher figures have not been fudged, and the figures for 2011 have not been removed.
The entire video is based on an outright LIE
Watch the video then, see for yourself.

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