15 Feb 2011:

"Evidence is mounting that either a brown dwarf star or a gas giant planet is lurking at the outermost reaches of our solar system, far beyond Pluto. The theoretical object, dubbed Tyche, is estimated to be four times the size of Jupiter and 15,000 times farther from the sun than Earth, according to a story in the British paper The Independent."

"Tyche is a spin off theory of Nemesis, a planet that was theorized about in 1984."

"Tyche apparently has a massive orbit that could take up to 27-million years to complete a cycle, which also explains a little why it has been lurking in the shadows."

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/15/scientists-telescope-hunt-massive-hidden-object-in-space/?hpt=C2

"You'd also expect it to have moons," he said. "All the outer planets have them." Said Whitmire to reporters at the Independent.

"Such a planet would orbit in a different plane in orientation to our current planet orbits and probably formed in a wide-binary orbit."

"This is still well within the Oort cloud, whose boundary is estimated to be beyond 50,000 AU. It would have an orbital period of roughly 1.8 million years"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyche_%28hypothetical_planet%29

31 December 1983 announcement, 50 billion miles away. (~538 AU)

"The full survey, scheduled for release in March 2012, should provide greater insight. Once the WISE data are fully processed, released and analyzed, the Tyche hypothesis that Matese and Whitmire propose will be tested. "

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/news/wise20110218.html

IMO that's a (too) long wait!

@MikeB

Your post #901:

You've quoted that article so many times now. Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it any more valid. The newspaper in question was interviewing someone about a possible hypothesis, and as you've been told again and again and again, that hypothesis is now being scientifically tested.

Which brings us to your next post:

Quote:

IMO that's a (too) long wait!

I'd like to see you do a full analysis of a high-res IR scan of the entire sky faster.

You can't be convinced, though, can you? Whatever NASA says, t won't matter. If it doesn't match up with what Sitchin or this new loony you've brought up say, you'll simply dismiss it as part of the conspiracy.

That is a closed approach that will get you nowhere in any field of science.

@MikeB

Quote:

"The full survey, scheduled for release in March 2012, should provide greater insight.

You've already told us NASA is conducting a cover up. The result is it doesn't matter what NASA says you're going to count it as a win for your guess. If NASA says yes I expect you'll say 'I told you so'. And if NASA says - nothing found - you'll simply say 'I told you they'd cover it up'. IMO you are not open but have loaded the pot to always be in your favor. We've seen this behavior from you time and again any reason why we should expect anything else?

@T-J

Quote:

You've quoted that article so many times now.

The CNN article? Where?

Quote:

I'd like to see you do a full analysis of a high-res IR scan of the entire sky faster.

No need to scan the entire sky. Just scan in the direction of Sedna's orbit and the direction of Orion's belt. I could do this within a day. And high res is actually good, easy to distinguish between close and far away objects.

In any case this doesn't help:

NASA scientist:
Quote:

Several people have asked me about this blank rectangle in Orion in Google Sky, which is a presentation of images from the Sloan Digital Survey. This can't be a "hiding place" for Nibiru", since it is a part of the sky that could be seen from almost everywhere on the Earth last winter when much of this talk about Nibiru began.

Which is a complete and utterly false crap statement. At least they refer to it as Nibiru here instead of Planet X, Tyche or Nemesis.

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=3574



But maybe Nibiru isn't located in the direction of Orion's belt anymore...

@BrianK



This is basically what we want to know the current position of and view the data in high resolution detail!

It's not too much to ask and a pretty simple task.

Last edited by MikeB on 08-May-2011 at 09:54 AM.

@MikeB
Quote:

@T-J Quote: You've quoted that article so many times now. The CNN article? Where?

Let me try to put this in terms that you may possibly be able to understand.
The Untied Kingdom has a city called London. If I want to go there I can drive directly there in my car. I could also drive to the railway station and catch a train to Kings Cross*. I could also drive to a nearby airport and then fly to London city airport. The fact that I can travel to London in many different ways does not mean there are several cities in the UK called London.
All of the newspaper, and television links that you quote lead back to the same original source. One SINGLE source. If it gets reported in my local parish council newsletter it does not give the story one ounce of additional scientific credibility.

Please make up your mind as to whether you think NASA is searching for Tyche or not

Quote:

Even NASA admits to be looking for Tyche.

Quote:

No need to scan the entire sky. Just scan in the direction of Sedna's orbit and the direction of Orion's belt. I could do this within a day. And high res is actually good, easy to distinguish between close and far away objects.

From the link you posted to NASAQuote:

[quote]Even NASA admits to be looking for Tyche. [quote]It is likely but not a foregone conclusion that WISE could confirm whether or not Tyche exists. Since WISE surveyed the whole sky once, then covered the entire sky again in two of its infrared bands six months later

You see? WISE is not a search to confirm/conceal the existence of Nibiru/Nemesis/Tyche it is a whole sky survey that may find any number of different things.

Quote:

Which is a complete and utterly false crap statement. At least they refer to it as Nibiru here instead of Planet X, Tyche or Nemesis.

If you intend to quote from an item, at least have the grace to maintain the context of the quote. The question was "Is the gap evidence that Google is hiding Nibiru". The reply was This is not a "hiding place" for Nibiru. It is in plain sight, in the northern hemisphere, and can be seen using other equipment by anybody that chooses to look.
I refer also to earlier claims that Nibiru was only visible from the extreme SOUTH, which was why "they built an observatory at the south pole"
If you intend to keep pushing this work of fiction, then you could at least maintain narrative integrity.

*(platform 9.3/4)

Last edited by Nimrod on 08-May-2011 at 10:31 AM.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

Please make up your mind as to whether you think NASA is searching for Tyche or not

Well "officially" they are...

IMO they already found it since at least 1983 and knew about its existance long before this.

@MikeB

Quote:

IMO they already found it since at least 1983 and knew about its existance long before this.

And your evidence is?

Last edited by Nimrod on 08-May-2011 at 10:33 AM.

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

@Nimrod

The amount of evidence and clues provided within this thread far outweighs and outnumbers the evidence provided for the theory of universal gravity (which is of course false)...

Mississippi River, flooding expected to reach beyond record levels (that would mean the biggest flooding in modern US history):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G-jyTx2TR1M

@MikeB
Quote:

The amount of evidence and clues provided within this thread far outweighs and outnumbers the evidence provided for the theory of universal gravity (which is of course false)...

Statements of opinion are statements of opinion.
Facts are something entirely different.

Most of your "Evidence" is in the form of "In my opinion" or "This person says" or "this picture might be", with not a shred of actual proof. You have consistently shied away from mathematics, and consistently misrepresent articles that you have quoted from.
You claim that gravity is somehow false yet you fail to explain how NASA could have sent the Voyager probe on the course that it did using the maths that it did, without losing it.

Your story sounds very like the "Hanratty was innocent" campaign in UK.
In 1962 James Hanratty was convicted of rape and murder, despite his evidence of "It wasn't me."
Hanratty's family maintained claims of his innocence, and once science had advanced sufficiently, pressed for a retrial claiming DNA evidence would acquit him.
In 2002 DNA extracted from evidence collected at the scene, and compared with DNA extracted from Hanrattys exhumed remains, placed Hanratty at the scene, and connected him to the gun used.
Hanrattys family then claimed the evidence was "contaminated" despite the fact that there was no unaccounted for DNA, and that DNA is not conclusive anyway.
And what is the proof that Hanratty was innocent. "James said he didn't do it"

Does this sound familiar?

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

@MikeB

Quote:

This is basically what we want to know the current position of and view the data in high resolution detail! It's not too much to ask and a pretty simple task.

(Here's a related example that's true. First a brief description of where I live. I own 20 acres of land and my nearest neighbor is 1/4 mile away. For a long time none of the mapping sites had my house. Google wouldn't even give someone driving directions because it didn't know of my road. Now certainly incomplete data or errors in the code are more common problems. I could use another source, a map, and I found out that my house did exist. Also I had my own data because, afterall, I drove there every day after work or shopping. The first thing I didn't jump to would be a coverup on Google to protect the alien spacecraft landing pad. )

Unfortunately it appears you have this backwards. You skipped over the regards and consideration of any other data that might exist and went right to the assumption and acceptance of a doomsday conspiracy. The belief that your belief was right caused you to neglect to conduct a thorough consideration. In the end your approach is neither open nor honest. It's now even worse because you have no way to determine if what you believe is a lie or not. As you rejected facts for opinion.

First question, so did someone use alternative data sources and look at that spot? Second question, did they obtain their own data? Using the power of Google search I found exactly what I was looking for. (Guess they did a crappy job of cover up right?) It was someone who did an analysis of the data and did their own sampling. LINK What they again? Looked at other sources of data & found the data themselves. Now of course we should consider but not trust any source. The third question as what you can do is do exactly what they did yourself and considerting these in such a way you can give regards to the items they presented as facts.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What we find here on the Google missing rectangle is a severe lack of any extraordinary evidence.

Don't worry Zetas taste like chicken. All will be fine.

Last edited by BrianK on 08-May-2011 at 02:23 PM.

@MikeB

Read the ask an astrobiologist page again:

Quote:

This can't be a "hiding place" for Nibiru, since it is a part of the sky that could be seen from almost everywhere on the Earth last winter when much of this talk about Nibiru began. That would completely contradict the claims that Nibiru was hiding behind the Sun or that it could be seen only from the southern hemisphere. But I too was curious about this blank rectangle, so I asked a good friend who is a senior scientist at Google. He replied that he "found out that the missing data is due to a processing error in the image stitching program we use to display the Sloan survey images. The team assures me that in the next run through, this will be fixed!"

So, no Nibiru. Secondary sources fill in that rectangle, so if it is a conspiracy its a pretty poor job of one. In short, there's no evidence for your hypothesis.

And if you think Nibiru is coming, you now know where the big black coverup rectangle is. Go and get yourself a decent telescope and look for it yourself. Orion is clearly visible from the Northern hemisphere, so go to it.

Its well-within the reach of the amateur astronomer to buy a telescope capable of viewing the moons of Saturn, so a brown dwarf between Earth and the Sun should offer no problems.

Last edited by T-J on 08-May-2011 at 02:24 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 08-May-2011 at 02:22 PM.

To summarize:

Lou & Mike show evidence that gravity isn't a real force and provide plenty of evidence backed by science, particularly Einstein's theory of special relativity and provide other corroborating links (http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction).
...
but
...
AW Rocket Scientists say it's real because their 10th grade teacher said so hence everything that we say is bogus and we will discredit you. Ignore the evidence, show an experiment to measure gravity is space that turns out to actually be a measurement of EM fields generated by superconductors, ignore the fact the Lou said that the earth's core may be a supercoductor and it's spin is responsible for the earth's EM field. Then say because the earth 'has gravity' so do those spinning spheres. Which makes the real evidence for gravity at 0. In fact every effect that 'gravity' has has been shown to be a property of an 3D EM field on an object but continue to ignore that. Refuse to provide simple software that could be coded by anyone understanding the elementary physics they are basing their bogus claims on that because it would show them that any eliptical orbit is unsustainable via their religious beliefs in gravity.

but I digress...

The religion of gravity has many followers who come up with explanations for things.
They say that 80% of our galaxy consists of 'dark matter'. "It's there, we just can't see it." Just like god, he's there, we just can't see him. Once you buy into gravity, you have to invent dark matter to prove your bogus formulas for calculating the 'mass' of other systems based on 'gravity'.

I'm actually rich. My bank account has alot of ZEROs at the end. They are there, I just can't see them. They must have used dark matter in 80% of my bank account.

I see 'dark matter' atleast once a day sometimes when I visit the bathroom. So now I know it's real, I just wonder by no one else sees it piling up...

@Lou

Quote:

ignore the fact the Lou said that the earth's core may be a supercoductor

The key word here is MAY
Quote:

#728 Now imagine this. Is it possible that the earth's core is emitting a huge magnetic field

Yes. It is not only possible, it can be demonstrated to be true using a simple pocket compass. However, there are other planets, and moons, and asteroids, and comets that do not have the benefit if a geodynamo.
Quote:

#770 Why does a block of aluminum and a block of iron weigh the same in space? Because there are no overpowering magnetic fields pulling on them in one fixed direction. On earth aluminium is not as magnetic as iron hence iron weighs more. Nothing is completely neutral.

Weight is a function of mass and acceleration. in free fall nothing has any weight. On earth neither lead nor mercury are as magnetic as iron. Obviously lighter then.

Quote:

#770Why doesn't the moon spin? It has no geodynamo so it's orientation is fixed relative to the earth's magnetic field. The earth's core acts as a superconductor.

Simple experiment. generate a magnetic field and then spin a block of wood in it. now try the same with a magnet. The lack of a geodynamo would make it easier for an object to move freely in a magnetic field.

I am not trying to deny the existence of EM plasma fields, what I am trying to point out is that they are several orders of magnitude too weak to have the effect that you are ascribing to them. That was the point I tried to make to you when I carried out the calculation of energy equivalence of a cubic metre of ice, not that an overgrown ice cube has more energy than the sun. The electromagnetic field of the sun is an almost insignificantly small proportion of the overall mass/energy contained in the sun.
I will try again using a metaphor. You have a car. (transverse rear engine I believe) With the engine running place your open hand an inch (2.54mm) away from the exhaust. What you are feeling is thrust. This is the equivalent level of power that EM forces have on mass in free space. It will not accelerate you car to 50kmh, no matter how loud you shout.

Another experiment. Inflate a party balloon and rub it on your jumper. Drop some 5mm square pieces of paper on to the floor, then hold the balloon above them and watch the balloon lift the paper scraps up. Now try it with your local yellow pages.

Quote:

#876 You're being intentionally ignorant.

Quote:

#884 So to ignore direction when talking about force is simply because either you are teaching someone to crawl on the path to walking and eventually running or you are ignorant.

Actually I dispute your claim that either I, T-J, or BrianK are being ignorant. You have asked people to consider your theories, and have offered suppositions with no mathematical evidence. When you have a new theory it is up to you to prove the incumbent position wrong, not vice versa. Newton did it to his predecessors, Einstein did it to Newton with his special and general relativity, and now Hawking is doing it to Einstein with his quantum.
Dont just sit there calling me names, give me the mathematical formula that will enable an "electric motor" solar system to work without generating aligned and opposing fields in all moving parts.

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

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote: The religion of gravity has many followers who come up with explanations for things. They say that 80% of our galaxy consists of 'dark matter'. "It's there, we just can't see it." Just like god, he's there, we just can't see him. Once you buy into gravity, you have to invent dark matter to prove your bogus formulas for calculating the 'mass' of other systems based on 'gravity'. I'm actually rich. My bank account has alot of ZEROs at the end. They are there, I just can't see them. They must have used dark matter in 80% of my bank account. I see 'dark matter' at least once a day sometimes when I visit the bathroom. So now I know it's real, I just wonder by no one else sees it piling up...

Every so often the Hubble telescope is aimed at a spot of the sky that is as dark as possible. they then take a long exposure picture of this piece of "empty"sky to see what they can find.
Here are images from the 1996 deep space field and the 2004 ultra deep space field
When I was younger I was taught (in a church school) that the black sky proved that the universe was small, young, and finite, because if it was larger or infinite then whichever way you looked in the night sky there would eventually be a star, and the night sky would be bright. These pictures blow that theory out of the water and add the mass of not only new stars, but new galaxies. Knowledge grows while belief remains constant.

Incidentally Lou, regarding your belief in the existence of UFO's.
While these pictures have no relevance to the debate on alien visitors, these additional galaxies add a huge number of additional stars to our field of knowledge. These additional stars will have additional planets. This statistically reduces the probability that there is no life elsewhere in the universe, to very nearly zero.

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

@Nimrod

Quote:

When I was younger I was taught (in a church school) that the black sky proved that the universe was small, young, and finite, because if it was larger or infinite then whichever way you looked in the night sky there would eventually be a star, and the night sky would be bright. These pictures blow that theory out of the water and add the mass of not only new stars, but new galaxies. Knowledge grows while belief remains constant.

At some point in the future the matter of the universe will be so far away, if earth exists, we'd not be able to see stars or detect other galaxies. Wow!

Quote:

these additional galaxies add a huge number of additional stars to our field of knowledge

Within our galaxy there is over 100 thousand million stars. Add into that millions upon millions of galaxies. Plus the age of the universe. Throw in that organic material has been detected within the debris of crashed extra-earth objects and it's fairly unlikely earth has the only life.

And I agree this doesn't mean that intelligent superior visitors are here. And if we are I think we should be scared ####less. Why? Because the record we know about, earth, when a superior technological force meets another society the outcome is typically bad. If they're approach is human-like we're fairly screwed.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote: @Lou Quote: ignore the fact the Lou said that the earth's core may be a supercoductor The key word here is MAY Quote: #728 Now imagine this. Is it possible that the earth's core is emitting a huge magnetic field Yes. It is not only possible, it can be demonstrated to be true using a simple pocket compass. However, there are other planets, and moons, and asteroids, and comets that do not have the benefit if a geodynamo.

The moon is like a giant magnet suspended by the earth. I showed linked that it is magnetized and has a dusty atmosphere with voltages as high as 1000 volts at certain times. It is magnetically fixed/oriented to always point towards the earth as other similar celestial bodies/moons are. It is moons WITH a geodynamo that are free to rotate like the earth.

Quote:

Quote: #770 Why does a block of aluminum and a block of iron weigh the same in space? Because there are no overpowering magnetic fields pulling on them in one fixed direction. On earth aluminium is not as magnetic as iron hence iron weighs more. Nothing is completely neutral. Weight is a function of mass and acceleration. in free fall nothing has any weight. On earth neither lead nor mercury are as magnetic as iron. Obviously lighter then.

What you have missed is what I have been saying all along. Weight and mass are not the same thing. This is where most people get confused. Weight is relative, mass is not. Under fixed or apparently fixed conditions, they may have the same magnitude, but they are not infact the same thing. Force is a function of mass and acceleration. A block of iron and a block of aluminum have ZERO force at rest. This is where the simple formula fails because then they would also have zero mass. This is the problem with the elementary physics most people are "working with" here.

From my perspective, a block of iron and a block of aluminum could have the same amount of particles, however, how they are aligned to form atoms will make one more magnetic than the other hence one will weigh more surrounded by earth's EM vs. in the absence of any magnetic fields.

Quote:

Quote: #770Why doesn't the moon spin? It has no geodynamo so it's orientation is fixed relative to the earth's magnetic field. The earth's core acts as a superconductor. Simple experiment. generate a magnetic field and then spin a block of wood in it. now try the same with a magnet. The lack of a geodynamo would make it easier for an object to move freely in a magnetic field.

As I tried to explain earlier, a lack of a geo dynamo doesn't mean something isn't a magnet. Something like a piece of wood in space that is not very magnetic would be more free to tumble. A geodynamo nets rotation. A manetized both would be fixed like a compass and that's what the moon is.

Quote:

This is the equivalent level of power that EM forces have on mass in free space. It will not accelerate you car to 50kmh, no matter how loud you shout.

What you aren't grasping is that both Gauss and Tesla measure force over an area at one single point and not for every point volume of a piece of matter. How that .5 gauss affects every atom of that object is what determines it's net weight on earth.
Aluminum is not as magnetic as iron so given the same amount of matter, they have different weights.

Quote:

Another experiment. Inflate a party balloon and rub it on your jumper. Drop some 5mm square pieces of paper on to the floor, then hold the balloon above them and watch the balloon lift the paper scraps up. Now try it with your local yellow pages.

This is proof, not a contradiction. The larger volume(or area since the paper didn't also get thicker) is pulled to earth at 8.5"x11" area * magnetic field strength vs. your .5"x.5" individual pieces. If you move the balloon to a corner of the larger paper, it will still lift it a bit.

Quote:

Quote: #876 You're being intentionally ignorant. Quote: #884 So to ignore direction when talking about force is simply because either you are teaching someone to crawl on the path to walking and eventually running or you are ignorant. Actually I dispute your claim that either I, T-J, or BrianK are being ignorant. You have asked people to consider your theories, and have offered suppositions with no mathematical evidence. When you have a new theory it is up to you to prove the incumbent position wrong, not vice versa. Newton did it to his predecessors, Einstein did it to Newton with his special and general relativity, and now Hawking is doing it to Einstein with his quantum.

But I have linked where the proof is. It's just ignored. Look up "electric universe theory".

Quote:

Dont just sit there calling me names, give me the mathematical formula that will enable an "electric motor" solar system to work without generating aligned and opposing fields in all moving parts.

The principles of a solenoid are well known.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/electromagnet5.htm
I really don't know why you are wasting my time with this. It only adds to the electric universe theory.