REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The 12th Planet/Nibiru/ Zacharia Stitchen/ End Time/ The Gods of Eden & the Mayan Calender/Alternative Belifes

POSTED BY: PIRATEJENNY
UPDATED: Monday, June 5, 2006 00:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 23328
PAGE 2 of 3

Friday, April 14, 2006 7:34 PM

REAVERMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by piratejenny:
How do you know it doesn't exist, I'm just curious, you say it doesn't exist, it has never existed and it will never exist. The ancient summarians say it does exist. How do you know this.



As I already said, it would have been visible for at least one half of the Earth's revolution around the sun. No one has spotted it yet. Also, the orbit is just too eliptical. it would be like swinging a brick with a rubber band. The brick's inertia is pulling on the rubber band (the sun's gravity). If you stretch the rubber band far enough, the brick's inertia becomes too much, and the rubber band snaps. Danfan brought up the Oort Cloud's distance from the sun being much greater than Planet X's supposedly is. That is simply because of the masses of the Oort cloud objects. You can swing a pebble on a rubber band a hell of a lot farther than a brick. Lower mass means less inertia for gravity to overcome.

And as for the Ancient Sumerians, they said a lot of things existed that obviously dont. Their gods, for one. I think you just cant face the fact that thousands of years of belief could be wasted.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 14, 2006 7:57 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverman:
Quote:

Originally posted by piratejenny:
How do you know it doesn't exist, I'm just curious, you say it doesn't exist, it has never existed and it will never exist. The ancient summarians say it does exist. How do you know this.



As I already said, it would have been visible for at least one half of the Earth's revolution around the sun. No one has spotted it yet. Also, the orbit is just too eliptical. it would be like swinging a brick with a rubber band. The brick's inertia is pulling on the rubber band (the sun's gravity). If you stretch the rubber band far enough, the brick's inertia becomes too much, and the rubber band snaps. Danfan brought up the Oort Cloud's distance from the sun being much greater than Planet X's supposedly is. That is simply because of the masses of the Oort cloud objects. You can swing a pebble on a rubber band a hell of a lot farther than a brick. Lower mass means less inertia for gravity to overcome.

And as for the Ancient Sumerians, they said a lot of things existed that obviously dont. Their gods, for one. I think you just cant face the fact that thousands of years of belief could be wasted.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.



your calculations aren't correct, talk to a scientist or an astronmer, you maynot agree, but thats not the same as saying something is impossible!! as I can tell your not familar with Zecharia stitchen's work. I would also recommend that you read his 1rst book " t\The 12 Planet " his books are very academic, which might surprise you. before you are so bold as to say something is impossible, I would think you would want to have all of your facts straight and all the information available on the subject.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 12:09 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by PirateJenny:
Oh geeze, actually you can refute something all you want, but if you are refuting something you have no knowelege of, then that in my opinion does not make a logical argument.
...
Zecharia has about 8 or 9 books out on the subject I've read all of them except for his latest, all I can tell you is that the sumarians based on ancient text were aware of D.N.A, if your interested read the books and you'll find out how.


What particular ancient Sumerian texts prove this, exactly? Did Zecharia Stichen expose them to the reader or just say "trust me I'm an academic". Did he let you see the whole passage or just choice parts taken out of context?

You haven't quite grasped this concept of intelligent debate, have you? Dissent is part of it, saying "you don't know enough blah blah blah" isn't. State your (or Stichen's, whatever) case, come on enlighten us. If all you can do is say "go read the divine knowledge of Stichen, most high" then sorry not interested. Show me something, give me a reason to be interested in a book with wild claims.

You show me some of the evidence that proves the existence of Planet X, or that Sumerians had knowledge of DNA and I might be interested in reading more, I see no reason to do it because I should have faith in Stichen.

Show me something.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 10:04 AM

PIRATEJENNY


go back an read my post, you are the one out of your own words stated "How did the summarians know about D.N.A, actually I never stated that anywhere in my posting you did...but yes via the Anunnakki the summarians were aware of D.N.A , there are about 8-9 book out by Zecharia Stichen of which I've read all but one and not anytime recently, so my advice to you if you want to know about summarians and D.N.A read the books, you might want to jump ahead and read "The Cosmic code", but if you haven't read his 1rst book "The 12th Planet" your not going to have much background so read that one 1rst if your so inclined.


Quote:

You show me some of the evidence that proves the existence of Planet X, or that Sumerians had knowledge of DNA and I might be interested in reading more, I see no reason to do it because I should have faith in Stichen.


Who ever said you should have Faith in Stitchen I know I certainly never did

And when did this all become about you, Please tell me how and why, I'm not going to show you anything, because I don't have too, and more importantly I have no desire to. I'm not trying to prove anything to you or anyone, my posting this thread was never about that, you sound like you have a problem all I can say is don't make it mine, I was wanting to discuss this with those who were familar with his work, and hopefully at least were open to his work wether they agree with it or not. I happen to agree with Mr. Stitchen and think highly of his work, no amount of debating that with you or anyone is going to change that, if you don't thats on you, but I really resent you coming at me telling me to show you something, if you are intrested you can go to any book store an purchase one of his books or go to the library and check one out, its that simple, I'm not trying to make up someones mind or form an opinion for someone about his works not for you or anyone else, you'll have to do that all on your own. If your intrested knock yourself out, if your not, it matters to me not.

Quote:

You haven't quite grasped this concept of intelligent debate,



You are the one who said that desent is part of it, and I agree with that but since you are the one who seems keen on debating this, then you should arm yourself with the information not leave it to me. Debate till your hearts content I have no problem with that, but you can't have an intelligent debate with someone who lacks the information on which they are debating, so what I'm saying to you is if thats what you want to do come back when you have the information, because I'm not going to provide it for you!



If I wanted to, and I don't!! I could weed through one of his books and weed something out, but in what context, without the background it would really be a waste of your time and mine.
And not everything is about a debate, nor does it have to be, and since your at a disadvantage because you haven't read any of his books it would be hard to debate with you anyway, especially when you want me to do all the work, and provide you with all the material , thats just not my style.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:05 AM

DANFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverman:
Also, the orbit is just too eliptical. it would be like swinging a brick with a rubber band. The brick's inertia is pulling on the rubber band (the sun's gravity). If you stretch the rubber band far enough, the brick's inertia becomes too much, and the rubber band snaps. Danfan brought up the Oort Cloud's distance from the sun being much greater than Planet X's supposedly is. That is simply because of the masses of the Oort cloud objects. You can swing a pebble on a rubber band a hell of a lot farther than a brick. Lower mass means less inertia for gravity to overcome.



Reaverman...

I still take issue with this. I interpret what you are saying to mean that you believe that any object of sufficient mass will break an eccentric enough orbit just because of its mass, with no other external influence needed. This violates the mathematics of orbital mechanics. Further, I think that your use of the "brick/rubber band" analogy leads to a false conclusion. Gravity does not behave like a rubber band. Gravity is a distortion in space time caused by mass. A far more appropriate analogy would be to consider gravity like an incline in space time resulting from the mass causing a "low spot" in space-time. Rubber is a material with an elastic modulus and a concommitant point of elastic failure. It is this point of elastic failure that causes the brick to break free from a rubber band. "Elastic modulus/failure" does not behave the same way as an "incline." The latter analogy is the more appropriate one.

So, it is my understanding that the existence of the Oort Cloud is not conditional upon the objects in it having low mass/inertia. It exists because the MOMENTUM of each object in it is precisely balanced against the (admittedly weak) gravitational pull of the Sun at that distance.

In a simple two-body system, the math says that no matter what the mass of the objects involved or the eccentricity of the orbit, if the centrifugal force caused by the object's velocity/mass along the orbital path perfectly balances the centripetal force of the gravitational pull upon it, then the orbit is stable.

Of course, I realize that our universe isn't a simple two body system. Other massive objects (like neighboring stars) may approach closely enough such that their gravitational influence overpowers the gravitational influence of the Sun to break the object out of its orbit around the Sun. THAT is the reason that objects in the Oort Cloud break from stable orbits around the Sun and leave our stellar neighborhood. It has nothing to do with the mass/inertia of the orbiting object simply spontaneously overpowering the Sun's gravitational force to negate a previously stable orbit. It is the gravitational influence of our neighboring stars that limit the effectiveness of the Sun's gravitational influence to the 1 light year (approx) limit that you mentioned.

And even so, that 1 light year effectiveness of the Sun's gravitational influence is over a 100 times farther out than aphelion for Planet X. If a neighboring star passed closely enough to affect Planet X significantly, it would be wreaking havoc in the inner Solar System as well. At the scale of interstellar distances, 0.007 light years is as close as our hip pocket. Any interstellar interference happening that close is happening to us too.

I think that all that applies here is Newtonian kinematics. Quantum effects fully cancel out at this size scale. Relativistic effects are negligible at these speeds. So, the math and the physics of gravity convinces me that the problem with Planet X isn't that it won't come back from aphelion... but that it WILL come back from aphelion. And destroy our home on its (multiple) downswing(s). If I'm mistaken about the inapplicability of quantum and/or relativistic effects rendering stable Newtonian orbits unstable, then I'd like some information as to how that occurs (it's an honest request... not sarcasm, I promise you).

Thanks for the book reference. I may try to track it down if I can catch up on my other reading.

Cheers.

Edited to add the following: that's not to say that an object can't leave the neighborhood. If it's speed exceeds the escape velocity of the Sun, then it will leave. But escape velocity is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to mass. It is a function ONLY of the acceleration of the gravitational field. If an object of ANY MASS exceeds escape velocity for a gravitational field and there are no other influences (no propulsion, no friction, no other gravitational fields), then it will leave the gravitational field and never return. If an object of ANY MASS is traveling at less than escape velocity and there are no other influences (blah, blah, blah), then it will either take up orbit or fall back to the source of the gravitational field depending on its velocity.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 11:32 AM

FLETCH2


Except Danfan all you have done is describe an orbit using Keplers laws. You have not actually calculated if this is a sable orbit by including Newtons laws of gravitation. What you did was describe an elipse and then say "well the far end is not outside the oort cloud so that's ok...." That isn't enough.

Oort cloud objects are bits of matter effectively just hanging in space, out there the suns gravity is too weak to pull them in so they sit. If one is disturbed in such a way that it moves towards the sun and falls towards it that object usually ends up in the sun or out of the solar system. Objects like periodic comets are relatively rare.

To tell if this planet could orbit you need to know it's mass, the mass of the sun and have a far better orbit plotted than the one you have. I looked at the equations but didnt want to plot the numbers, if you want to prove it one way or another you will have to do that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 1:07 PM

CITIZEN


Since you've been pretty unwarrantedly confrontational and insulting to me I might as well return the favour.
Quote:

Originally posted by PirateJenny:
How did the summarians know about D.N.A, actually I never stated that anywhere in my posting you did


Quote:

ALSO Originally posted by PirateJenny:
for example the snake in the bible is Lucifer or the tempter, but really in summarian text Enki's symbol was the snake, and also the symbol for D.N.A which was known in those times,


Off too a bad start there, I understand that when you’re just free associating, typing whatever nonsense comes into your head you may forget what you've actually written.
Quote:

but yes via the Anunnakki the summarians were aware of D.N.A , there are about 8-9 book out by Zecharia Stichen of which I've read all but one and not anytime recently, so my advice to you if you want to know about summarians and D.N.A read the books, you might want to jump ahead and read "The Cosmic code", but if you haven't read his 1rst book "The 12th Planet" your not going to have much background so read that one 1rst if your so inclined.

These are a lot of words to say: "I don't know".
Quote:

Who ever said you should have Faith in Stitchen I know I certainly never did

You sound like most of those with blind faith:
"Just read the scriptures and your eyes will be opened". Not that you realise this, the faithful never do.
Quote:

And when did this all become about you, Please tell me how and why

Oh, good try no dice but nice try there. You told me "go read the books" I say "give me a reason why I should" and that's making it all about me huh?
Quote:

I'm not going to show you anything, because I don't have too, and more importantly I have no desire to.

And you have nothing to show...
Quote:

I'm not trying to prove anything to you or anyone, my posting this thread was never about that, you sound like you have a problem all I can say is don't make it mine, I was wanting to discuss this with those who were familar with his work, and hopefully at least were open to his work wether they agree with it or not.

Quote:

anyway if anyone wants to discuss the coming of Nibiru / the Mayan calendar or anything related, I'm interested

I'm trying to discuss anything related, as you asked, your the one who's got the problem with that, I can only assume that's because I'm not licking your and Stichen's arse and proclaiming how wonderful and right you both are. All I did is ask a question, one you've refused to answer and then began to spit the dummy and throw your toys out of the pram.

So here's what that suggests to me:
You can't adequately answer the question, and sub-consciously you know that. Cognitive Dissonance sets in between your inability to answer questions and your desire to believe Stitchen is correct, your desire to believe in a creator, without a religion getting involved. This causes frustration and anger, which you choose to vent at those who don't reaffirm your beliefs.

Your desire to believe in a creator, but your obvious vehemence against religion suggests you were possibly brought up in a very religious, possibly devout environment, and this is some kind of rebellion.

Point is I was truly prepared for an intelligent discussion, and I was prepared to listen to what you had to say, you truly WERE NOT prepared for any discussion whatsoever (Hint: I'm sorry but only letting those who agree with you speak isn't a discussion), and your truly not prepared to listen to what anyone has to say, unless you agree with what that is, of course. Wow, are you in training to be a dictator or something, my my you must really hate that pesky freedom of speech thing. I happen to like freedom of speech, especially since it obviously upsets the tin-foil hat crazies like you.
Quote:

I happen to agree with Mr. Stitchen and think highly of his work, no amount of debating that with you or anyone is going to change that, if you don't thats on you, but I really resent you coming at me telling me to show you something, if you are intrested you can go to any book store an purchase one of his books or go to the library and check one out, its that simple, I'm not trying to make up someones mind or form an opinion for someone about his works not for you or anyone else, you'll have to do that all on your own.

Like I said, only those who are willing to say "PJ and that guy are right!" apply, anyone capable of independent thought need not.
Quote:

Debate till your hearts content I have no problem with that, but you can't have an intelligent debate with someone who lacks the information on which they are debating, so what I'm saying to you is if thats what you want to do come back when you have the information, because I'm not going to provide it for you!

Yes, and since you and Zachy boy don't have a clue what your talking about I have to agree:
Zacharia Stichen is making it all up. Everything he has in his books is psudo-religious bullshit, there you are honey.

Oh and if you're not prepared to debate a subject, which your obviously and by your own admission not, it's probably best not to post a thread about it in the RWED for Christ-sakes.

I mean what the fuck did you expect?

Hero to bake you cookies and AURaptor to fall at your feet professing how you and Zachy are right and how wrong of him to follow Bush?
Quote:

If I wanted to, and I don't!! I could weed through one of his books and weed something out, but in what context, without the background it would really be a waste of your time and mine.

You seem to think that the conclusion that you are unwilling to back up anything you say is a new one to me…
Quote:

And not everything is about a debate, nor does it have to be, and since your at a disadvantage because you haven't read any of his books it would be hard to debate with you anyway, especially when you want me to do all the work, and provide you with all the material , thats just not my style.

No, your style is too post any old crazy shit that floats by and get upset if any one dares to ask you a question about it.

At least PirateNews can make up his own crazy conspiracy theories; you have to use other peoples.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 2:17 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


PJ,

What would make you happy? What is the reply you're looking for?


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 3:14 PM

NUCLEARDAY


Just to play devil's advocate a bit, PJ. I think Citizen may have a point. If history is any example, the intentions with which you create a thread, and what it turns out to be are often very different things. (Look through half of the threads in the RWED here and I think you'll see what I mean :)

My point is: I've seen many times that if you start a thread about some of your beliefs here, there's going to be alot of people coming by that feel differently than you. If I start a thread saying I love grits with gravy; I'm going to get alot of responses from people who prefer oatmeal.

It's in the nature of these forums that if you post your own viewpoint (especially in regards to your beliefs, religious or not), it's going to spark debate. Whether or not you're up to that is up to you, but it's not going to stop people coming here and doing just that. You can take a page from Dianetics and say "read the book," or you can try to provide some more info and maybe get some people interested.

Okay, that ran long. Sorry. Don't take this as an attack, either. I respect your views as much as anyone else, and am not interested in debating whether Stitchen is right or wrong. Just remember that alot of people are going to do just that. (You gotta admit this isn't exactly a mainstream concept you're putting up here. :)

________________________________________________
You can take my hope when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 6:08 PM

RKLENSETH


Quote:

Originally posted by reaverman:
Quote:

Originally posted by rklenseth:
A lot of end of times beliefs center around this Planet X and what it is. But anyways, you're going to see a lot more of these kinds of things up until 2012 (which is when the Mayan calender ends) because currently a lot of groups believe that will be the date the world will end. Some even believe that it has already begun here in 2006. A Jewish rabbi (the one that supposedly predicted the Asian tsunami before it happend six months before it did) recently warned that 2006 will begin the end of times and that things will begin to go downhill from here real fast. Some would look at the all the weird weather patterns and the escalating tensions with Iran (the possibility of nuclear war) as signs that this is beginning. A spiritual leader in Native American culture recently warned that there would be major hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes hitting the US in 2006 and also claimed a tsumani would wipe out Los Angeles and that a comet would hit Earth by the end of 2006.

But you have to take all of this with a grain of salt. Could it be true? That is for you to decide. If it is what the hell does it matter because then we are all most likely screwed anyways.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.]

First of all, people have been saying "this year is the beginning of the end times!" every year for the last 2,000 years. It hasn't happenned yet.

Secondly, saying that tornados, earthquakes, hurricanes and tsunamis will batter the U.S. or the world in general is like saying "the sun will come up tomorrow". It is bound to happen, end times or not.

As for specific disasters, like a tsunami wiping out LA and a comet hitting the Earth this year, do you know how many people have been predicting that sort of thing for over a century? Every year has its own End of Days Crazy Wannabe Prophets. So far, extremely few of them have been even close to correct, and statistically, someone has to guess correctly sometime, so predicting something before it happens means nothing except that they made a really lucky guess. This Rabbi and this spiritual leader know nothing more about the future than you or me.

The sky is NOT falling, folks! Don't panic!

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.




You make a very good point here in that even if someone was correct and truly capable of such power to see the future there are far to many 'false prophets' for any majority of people (bar people involved in fanatical religions) so in the end we would all be doomed anyways. If you're religious, and I don't know if you are and don't much care one way or another (that's your business and beliefs), then in the Bible it warns very strongly against 'false prophets' which led to much persecution throughout history of people who claimed to see the future because of the fact that many people believed that it was the work of Satan or some sort of evil working to mislead people so that when the future is clear we will be clouded by so many different versions. So to say, and this really only works if your Catholic and agnostic (And you can count other Christian groups like Methodists but you cannot count Christians like Mormons who have a clear belief of what will happen), perhaps Satan has succeeded in clouding our minds so that we can't see what the future is or at least the signs. It could be as clear as day but because there are so many other endings (some which have come and gone) it has either made people believe that all of them are untrue and the rest of us have to make a chose as to which ending it is going to be and which we are going to prepare for. That's to say if there is an ending and there is any purpose in preparing for it. The Bible never says there will be an end (depending on your interpretation; Catholics don't believe in the Rapture and their is still discussions of what the texts of Daniel and Revelation actually mean). There will just be some terrible times. Remember that the Torah ended when the Messiah would come and many Jewish people believe that Jesus Christ was that Messiah and the world didn't end though there were very terrible times especially for early Christians. Those people became Christians and beleive that Christ will return one day to 'save' us again. So when or if dependent on your beliefs Christ returns to fight the Anti-Christ with truth doesn't mean that is the end of the world but could mean a new beginning. Although I can be completely wrong in my thinking. And the texts of Daniel and Revelation were written by prophets and added to the same grouping of texts that warned of 'false prophets' so essentially we could be in trouble right from the beginning. There is also the fact that because the Bible especially the First Testament or Torah have been translated from many different religions over the years and not all languages are the same and interpretations and translations of words have changed over the centuries we may be right now completely interpreting the Bible wrong anyways.

And onto your second point real quick. I actually pointed out though that we are currently in a period where more of these events are happening and are happening at a far more destructive nature than we have seen in a long time. That's not to say that we are simply in a cycle but it will be used as fuel to a fire for those that believe the end is coming.

But needless to say it is common belief among scientists that the world as we know it will end some day. Either by comet, super volcano, the poles reversing their polarity, the sun exploding, solar flare etc... but they don't dare try to predict that these events will be the end as these events have the capability but there is always a chance of survival. So to say the sky isn't falling isn't exactly true because somewhere in the future the end has been written we just don't know what it will be, when it will be, and probably will never predict until it is too late.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 6:45 PM

DANFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Except Danfan all you have done is describe an orbit using Keplers laws. You have not actually calculated if this is a sable orbit by including Newtons laws of gravitation. What you did was describe an elipse and then say "well the far end is not outside the oort cloud so that's ok...." That isn't enough.

Oort cloud objects are bits of matter effectively just hanging in space, out there the suns gravity is too weak to pull them in so they sit...



Again, let me preface my comments by stating that I am working from a 30 year old string of college physics courses and some recent internet research. I am NOT an expert in this topic. So I could be wrong. And if I am, then I hope to learn something here.

That caveat in place, once again into the breach...

The thing that keeps bothering me here was succinctly summed up by your statement that when you get that far out, matter "just hangs there" because the Sun's gravity is too weak to operate on it effectively. That is inconsistent with everything I can find on the subject. The mathematics don't support it. You state that I described an orbit using Kepler's laws without taking Newton's gravitational laws into account. In the Wikipedia entry on Kepler's laws, I found this:

Quote:

Kepler provided a kinematic mathematical model of the empirical observations, which Newton then interpreted using calculus and his new physics.


Hence, Kepler described what could be observed actually happening. Newton came up with a theory for why it happened as observed. I can find nothing in Newton's laws that indicate that Kepler's laws cease to function at some distance. Merely that they function more slowly and hence are more easily disturbed by other gravitational objects.

At this website:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/longperiod.html

There is a quote describing a long period comet thus:

Quote:

A comet with a period of more than 200 years and as much as several million years. Long-period comets, together with Halley-type comets, are now believed to come from the Oort Cloud, an enormous reservoir of frozen cometary nuclei orbiting the Sun at a distance of tens of thousands of astronomical units.


The italics on "orbiting the Sun" are mine. Gravity doesn't stop working because it is weak. It is merely weaker. If the velocities are correspondingly slower, you should still see it do all the things you see it do in the inner solar system. In fact, the statement you made that these Oort cloud objects "hang" until "disturbed" is internally inconsistent. Disturbed by what? The gravitational field of another star no closer than the Sun is the answer. If the Sun's gravitational influence is too weak to affect the motion of Oort Cloud objects, then so is the gravitational influence of the other stars in our neighborhood. They are less close to our Oort Cloud than we are.

And again, here:

http://www.nineplanets.org/kboc.html

There is this quote:

Quote:

In 1950 Jan Oort noticed that

1. no comet has been observed with an orbit that indicates that it came from interstellar space,

2. there is a strong tendency for aphelia of long period comet orbits to lie at a distance of about 50,000 AU, and

3. there is no preferential direction from which comets come.



Again, the italics are mine. This statement is consistent with th website I referenced in an earlier post that stated that the most long period comets originated at 44000 A.U.s from the Sun. "Long period" means that the comet has a period, hence an orbit with an aphelion out near the 40K to 50K A.U. mark. This is an orbit that has an aphelia about 100 times farther out than the postulated Planet X.

If it can happen at the larger distance, it can happen at the smaller distance. As an example, in the Wikipedia entry for Comet Hyakutake (which visited our neighborhood in 1996:

Quote:

Hyakutake is a long period comet. Before its most recent passage through the solar system, its orbital period was about 15,000 years, but the gravitational influence of the giant planets has now increased this to 72,000 years.


Hytakutake's initial orbital period was 4 times the claimed period for Planet X. It is now greater. This long period indicates that it's aphelion is commensurately longer than the claimed aphelion for Planet X. And yet, Hyakatuke is still considered to be in a Solar orbit.

Now for a couple more caveats:

1) I don't believe in this Planet X for a number of other reasons. I simply don't believe that it's orbit is impossible. In fact, everything I've found makes it sound quite possible. I can find NOTHING that indicates that such an orbit is unlikely/impossible either because of its mass or its distance from the Sun at aphelion.

2) I will again agree with you that the Sun's influence becomes exceedingly weak as you move out into the hinterlands. And because there are other gravitational fields in the stellar vicinity, the Sun's influence can be (and sometimes is) overriden. That doesn't mean that stuff just "hangs" out there because the gravity is weak. It just means that stuff is gently affected by the weak gravitational fields... in ways that are completely consistent with Kepler's laws (and the Newtonian physics that grew from Kepler's laws).

The existence of long period comets is compelling evidence that these mathematical laws apply even out there. If there are other forces at work that negate these laws, then I would like to learn of them.

Again that's an honest request. Not fightin' words.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 7:03 PM

REAVERMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by danfan:
Reaverman...

I still take issue with this. I interpret what you are saying to mean that you believe that any object of sufficient mass will break an eccentric enough orbit just because of its mass, with no other external influence needed. This violates the mathematics of orbital mechanics. Further, I think that your use of the "brick/rubber band" analogy leads to a false conclusion. Gravity does not behave like a rubber band. Gravity is a distortion in space time caused by mass. A far more appropriate analogy would be to consider gravity like an incline in space time resulting from the mass causing a "low spot" in space-time. Rubber is a material with an elastic modulus and a concommitant point of elastic failure. It is this point of elastic failure that causes the brick to break free from a rubber band. "Elastic modulus/failure" does not behave the same way as an "incline." The latter analogy is the more appropriate one.



Actually, Einstein created the gravity well analogy because it was easier for people to comprehend something two dimensional. Gravitation is a three (according to some theories even a four) dimensional effect. gravity itself is a warping of space-time. When people think of gravity, they think of something pulling them down. In reality, gravity is the very fabric of space-time pushing you toward the center of the distortion.

Also, I know gravity doesn't behave exactly like a rubber band. It was the best analogy I could come up with at the time. What I was trying to convey was that if this planet ever existed, that the gravity would be so weak at the aphelion, that the planet's inertia would exceed escape velocity.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 7:03 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Nibiru = Wormwood

Quote:

Chernobyl and the Bible

Because of a controversial translation of "chernobyl" as wormwood, some people believe that the Chernobyl accident was mentioned in the Bible:

Quote:

And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; and the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.
-Revelation 8:10-11



The story appears to have spread to the West with a New York Times article by Serge Schmemann (Chernobyl Fallout: Apocalyptic Tale, July 25, 1986) in which an unnamed "prominent Russian writer" was quoted as claiming the Ukrainian word for wormwood was chernobyl.

The name of the city comes from the Ukrainian word for mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), which is chornobyl. As a result, chornobyl has been translated by some to simply mean wormwood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident



100,000 people died from the nuke bomb blast at Chernobyl/Wormwood. Might as well have been a planet falling from the sky.

Or maybe wormwood just refers to Absenth, which gets you so high you really do see planets falling from the sky?

Wash: That sounds like something out of science fiction.
Zoe: My other husband was in The Matrix, Dear.

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 7:06 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Since you've been pretty unwarrantedly confrontational and insulting to me I might as well return the favour.
Quote:

Originally posted by PirateJenny:
How did the summarians know about D.N.A, actually I never stated that anywhere in my posting you did


Quote:

ALSO Originally posted by PirateJenny:
for example the snake in the bible is Lucifer or the tempter, but really in summarian text Enki's symbol was the snake, and also the symbol for D.N.A which was known in those times,


Off too a bad start there, I understand that when you’re just free associating, typing whatever nonsense comes into your head you may forget what you've actually written.
Quote:

but yes via the Anunnakki the summarians were aware of D.N.A , there are about 8-9 book out by Zecharia Stichen of which I've read all but one and not anytime recently, so my advice to you if you want to know about summarians and D.N.A read the books, you might want to jump ahead and read "The Cosmic code", but if you haven't read his 1rst book "The 12th Planet" your not going to have much background so read that one 1rst if your so inclined.

These are a lot of words to say: "I don't know".
Quote:

Who ever said you should have Faith in Stitchen I know I certainly never did

You sound like most of those with blind faith:
"Just read the scriptures and your eyes will be opened". Not that you realise this, the faithful never do.
Quote:

And when did this all become about you, Please tell me how and why

Oh, good try no dice but nice try there. You told me "go read the books" I say "give me a reason why I should" and that's making it all about me huh?
Quote:

I'm not going to show you anything, because I don't have too, and more importantly I have no desire to.

And you have nothing to show...
Quote:

I'm not trying to prove anything to you or anyone, my posting this thread was never about that, you sound like you have a problem all I can say is don't make it mine, I was wanting to discuss this with those who were familar with his work, and hopefully at least were open to his work wether they agree with it or not.

Quote:

anyway if anyone wants to discuss the coming of Nibiru / the Mayan calendar or anything related, I'm interested

I'm trying to discuss anything related, as you asked, your the one who's got the problem with that, I can only assume that's because I'm not licking your and Stichen's arse and proclaiming how wonderful and right you both are. All I did is ask a question, one you've refused to answer and then began to spit the dummy and throw your toys out of the pram.

So here's what that suggests to me:
You can't adequately answer the question, and sub-consciously you know that. Cognitive Dissonance sets in between your inability to answer questions and your desire to believe Stitchen is correct, your desire to believe in a creator, without a religion getting involved. This causes frustration and anger, which you choose to vent at those who don't reaffirm your beliefs.

Your desire to believe in a creator, but your obvious vehemence against religion suggests you were possibly brought up in a very religious, possibly devout environment, and this is some kind of rebellion.

Point is I was truly prepared for an intelligent discussion, and I was prepared to listen to what you had to say, you truly WERE NOT prepared for any discussion whatsoever (Hint: I'm sorry but only letting those who agree with you speak isn't a discussion), and your truly not prepared to listen to what anyone has to say, unless you agree with what that is, of course. Wow, are you in training to be a dictator or something, my my you must really hate that pesky freedom of speech thing. I happen to like freedom of speech, especially since it obviously upsets the tin-foil hat crazies like you.
Quote:

I happen to agree with Mr. Stitchen and think highly of his work, no amount of debating that with you or anyone is going to change that, if you don't thats on you, but I really resent you coming at me telling me to show you something, if you are intrested you can go to any book store an purchase one of his books or go to the library and check one out, its that simple, I'm not trying to make up someones mind or form an opinion for someone about his works not for you or anyone else, you'll have to do that all on your own.

Like I said, only those who are willing to say "PJ and that guy are right!" apply, anyone capable of independent thought need not.
Quote:

Debate till your hearts content I have no problem with that, but you can't have an intelligent debate with someone who lacks the information on which they are debating, so what I'm saying to you is if thats what you want to do come back when you have the information, because I'm not going to provide it for you!

Yes, and since you and Zachy boy don't have a clue what your talking about I have to agree:
Zacharia Stichen is making it all up. Everything he has in his books is psudo-religious bullshit, there you are honey.

Oh and if you're not prepared to debate a subject, which your obviously and by your own admission not, it's probably best not to post a thread about it in the RWED for Christ-sakes.

I mean what the fuck did you expect?

Hero to bake you cookies and AURaptor to fall at your feet professing how you and Zachy are right and how wrong of him to follow Bush?
Quote:

If I wanted to, and I don't!! I could weed through one of his books and weed something out, but in what context, without the background it would really be a waste of your time and mine.

You seem to think that the conclusion that you are unwilling to back up anything you say is a new one to me…
Quote:

And not everything is about a debate, nor does it have to be, and since your at a disadvantage because you haven't read any of his books it would be hard to debate with you anyway, especially when you want me to do all the work, and provide you with all the material , thats just not my style.

No, your style is too post any old crazy shit that floats by and get upset if any one dares to ask you a question about it.

At least PirateNews can make up his own crazy conspiracy theories; you have to use other peoples.






and I thought this would be more of a fun thread were people could take a break from all of the mad, politcal drama for awhile an indulge in some strange unfamilar but interesting territory.

If anyone has been confrontational its you Citizen, your coming at me like I have something to prove to you, I don'!!! or I exspect for you to think as I do, Never have I said or stated that, I already told you that I agree with Stitchen's work, and no amount of debating that is going to change I don't know what you want. you're asking me to show you , why should I have too I'm not the one who has issues with his work you are. Nor have I ever asked you or anyone to take my word for it, So what is your frack'n problem I never asked anything from you,


Quote:

a discussion), and your truly not prepared to listen to what anyone has to say, unless you agree with what that is, of course. Wow, are you in training to be a dictator or something, my my you must really hate that pesky freedom of speech thing. I happen to like freedom of speech, especially since it obviously upsets the tin-foil hat crazies like you.


I love freedom of speech and intend on excersising it every chance I get, its you who have the problem, you say you were truly prepared to have an intelligent discussion (sorry if I'm having a hard time believeing you) after all I'm not the one calling people crazy or coming at them foul..no that would be you!! perhaps I just ticked you off because I really and truly didn't and still don't think your capable of having an intelligent debate on something you have no knowelege of, and I thought it would be a waste of my time and energy, ...so sue me



Quote:

Your desire to believe in a creator, but your obvious vehemence against religion suggests you were possibly brought up in a very religious, possibly devout environment, and this is some kind of rebellion.


you know I'm posting on an internet site I have no reason to lie, yes I don't like religion I abhorr it, but why is it when I tell you that I wasn't brought up in a religious household , you don't want to take my word for it, this is too funny




Quote:

I can only assume that's because I'm not licking your and Stichen's arse and proclaiming how wonderful and right you both are. All I did is ask a question, one you've refused to answer and then began to spit the dummy and throw your toys out of the pram.


yes you asked a question and I answered you, but you weren't satisfied with my answer and so you got nasty, How would you even know if Zecharia Stitchen is right or not, you haven't read any of his books which is why I had and have no desire to debate his works with you!! and I told you that





Quote:

and since you and Zachy boy don't have a clue what your talking about I have to agree:
Zacharia Stichen is making it all up. Everything he has in his books is psudo-religious bullshit, there you are honey.



Again this is exactly why I didn't want to debate anything with you, I already knew you thought it was crap!! how would you know if Zecharia Stitchen didn't have a clue or I for that matter, when you haven't even read his books,you call it crap and you've formed an opinion on something you know nothing about, that to me is crap nothing you could say would carry any weight with me given your mind set and attitude, the real question is why should I or would I listen to anything you have to say, you certainly aren't given me any reasons to.



Quote:

I mean what the fuck did you expect?


based on your attitude I didn't exspect anything, still don't





And as for having blind faith your wrong, I told you I agree with Stitchen's work, doesn't mean its totally correct or that he's right about everything, I just happen to think he's on the right track, if new information comes up that refutes it, or proves it wrong,then I won't ignore it.

your right Citizen ,I can't adequately answer the question I don't think anything I could say on this subject would be adequate enough for you anyway, nor do I desire to, its been awhile since I read the books so No I can't quote a passage or anything like that, the only thing I can tell you is what I told you before, that via the anunnakki, the summarians were aware of D.N.A, thats the best I can do if its not good enough, Oh well!!


Quote:

No, your style is too post any old crazy shit that floats by and get upset if any one dares to ask you a question about it.


lol!!yes I can post anything I want to, and I will continue to do so and if you don't like it to bad,I don't care is someone dares to ask me a question, so long as they ask and not demand!!

and P.S

no need to bring P.N or anyother posters into this, you seem a little bit of yourself anyway

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 7:22 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
PJ,

What would make you happy? What is the reply you're looking for?


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.



I'm not looking for anything , but I also don't have to prove anything to anyone, people are intitled to their own thoughts , if someone comes at me telling me to make them believe something or make them interested in something, thats not my job, nor is that my purpose and I'm not going to do it.

for example Citizen's post to me, he obviously has issues with what I posted , and thats fine, but I'm not going to pull up information in order to try to prove something to him, perhaps if he had approached me diffrently I might have done that, but he wasn't really interested, he wanted me to make him have an intrest, thats just not how I work, I guess I would like to discuss this with people who already have intrest!!

I have no problems telling people( anybody really) that I think alone the same lines as Zecharia Stitchen, but most people when you tell them that they look at you like you've just lost a marble, and then they want you to prove something to them. I have my reasons for thinking the way I do, and they make sense to me, if they don't to somebody else, then they don't but its not my job to prove anything to them or make them have an intrest or to try to explain why I think the way I do, If I feel the urge and want to do that then I will, but if I don't I won't. and if they don't like it to bad!!, this is who I am, this is me

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 7:30 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

Originally posted by nuclearday:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit, PJ. I think Citizen may have a point. If history is any example, the intentions with which you create a thread, and what it turns out to be are often very different things. (Look through half of the threads in the RWED here and I think you'll see what I mean :)

My point is: I've seen many times that if you start a thread about some of your beliefs here, there's going to be alot of people coming by that feel differently than you. If I start a thread saying I love grits with gravy; I'm going to get alot of responses from people who prefer oatmeal.

It's in the nature of these forums that if you post your own viewpoint (especially in regards to your beliefs, religious or not), it's going to spark debate. Whether or not you're up to that is up to you, but it's not going to stop people coming here and doing just that. You can take a page from Dianetics and say "read the book," or you can try to provide some more info and maybe get some people interested.

Okay, that ran long. Sorry. Don't take this as an attack, either. I respect your views as much as anyone else, and am not interested in debating whether Stitchen is right or wrong. Just remember that alot of people are going to do just that. (You gotta admit this isn't exactly a mainstream concept you're putting up here. :)

________________________________________________
You can take my hope when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.



Thanks, and I never took it as an attack, I know its not a main stream idea and your right, people are going to do just that because its not mainstream.I agree with that, threads take all kinds of turns, and I don't have a problem with that, but citizen refused to except my answer it wasn't good enough for him, he wanted me to prove something to him, Something he had no real interest in, something of which I had no desire to do, and told him so and he still just couldn't except that. I never really wanted to debate Stitchen's work I just wanted to disguss it, I guess thats because I don't care if other people have issues with it or not actually I could careless. But your right!!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 15, 2006 7:37 PM

FLETCH2


Kepler used observations of Mars and then generated formulas to describe what he saw. Newton took gravitation and then worked out WHY Mars moved the way Kepler described. It is the difference between observing nature and understanding it. That's why Newton was a genius.


Imagine if you like that Kepler saw a steam engine and drew a picture of it but that Newton figured out how to build one. What you did was use Keplers drawings to evaluate the engine that Jenny described and then said "yeah that looks ok." Until you work out how to build Jenny's engine you have no idea if it works all you can say is that you can describe it with Kepler's laws.

In short without Newton it's meaningless.

Jenny you really need to see the Japanese Anime series "Geneshaft."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 16, 2006 3:54 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by PirateJenny:
and I thought this would be more of a fun thread were people could take a break from all of the mad, politcal drama for awhile an indulge in some strange unfamilar but interesting territory.


Yes and if you weren't here, it could of been.
Quote:

If anyone has been confrontational its you Citizen

What you mean in my last post? Yes I told you I would be well done. Every post you've made to me was confrontational, and not confrontational in the normal debating sense, confrontational in the "shut up how dare you question me" sense. I just gave your attitude that you give off in every post to everyone back.
Quote:

Nor have I ever asked you or anyone to take my word for it, So what is your frack'n problem I never asked anything from you,

If all you wanted was a book club rendition from like minded people who all think Stitchen is right you should have said so, you didn't, you said "lets have a discussion on these and related issues" then had a tantrum when I, and others, tried to talk to you about related issues.

You're making the wild claims, so it's your 'Frack'n' problem.

In future the title you're looking for is:
"Zacharia Stitchen book discussion and Love-fest".
Quote:

I love freedom of speech and intend on excersising it every chance I get, its you who have the problem

Obviously not.

You're telling people they aren't allowed to post on your thread if they have differing opinions to yours, do I need to explain what freedom of speech is to you with pop up pictures.

Like many people who deeply understand THEIR rights you couldn’t give a flying fuck about anyone else’s. Your idea of freedom of speech is you’re free to say what you like and everyone else is free to keep their opinions to themselves. Sorry that’s not freedom of speech.
Quote:

you know I'm posting on an internet site I have no reason to lie, yes I don't like religion I abhorr it,

Then could you explain to me why pretty much every post of yours contains one lie after another? Like you know where you said you never said anything about DNA when it's right there in your first post. Your credibility is at rock bottom cup cake.
Quote:

but why is it when I tell you that I wasn't brought up in a religious household , you don't want to take my word for it, this is too funny

Do you have conversations with us all here in your head? Because you've never said what you're up bringing was, so I'm not ignoring your word for anything, the entire underlined portion of that quote is bullshit.

Wait you are actually having whole conversations on FFF.net in your head aren't you. Man that's too creepy, do you lose those threads you started in your head and start looking for them here?
Quote:

yes you asked a question and I answered you, but you weren't satisfied with my answer and so you got nasty,

Actually I posted the question on the 9th of April and you didn't bother to answer it until the 15th of April (yesterday) and that wasn't really an answer. You're damn right saying "the saucer people did it" ain't good enough, it's not an answer and it is a cop out.

I called you crazy because that's how you’re acting, like some sort of ranting nut on the street corner. If you try to pin them down and ask them a question on their wild claims they say "They're doing it! They're stealing my thoughts!"

Every posted reply to me was you trying to insult and anger me, it was only when I had had enough of your attitude "I can say what ever crazy baseless nuttyness I like and I can be deeply insulting to anyone who asks me questions about it" that I started to give it back. Like most people who start to try to take ‘the moral high ground’ you have the least right to it.

It went a little something like this:
Me: *Asks reasonable question that's perfectly in keeping with this thread.*
You: *Insult*
Me: All I want is an answer to my question.
You: I don't care, *insult* Stitchen says so!
Me: What does he say?
You: *Insult* I can say what I like, backing things up is something for people beneath me to do, *Insult*
Me: Whatever you crazy nut, get a clue. Don't ask for an intelligent debate if you don't want one.
You: *Insult* I can do what I like to whom I like *Insult* I never started with the insults, you did I still haven't insulted you *insult, insult, insult*

You really have no basis in reality do you.

What actually happened is you got nasty to me and everyone else here not orally cleaning your behind and then eventually I got nasty back. Yeah I can live with being nasty to people like you who are habitually insulting. In fact that's pretty much all you ever bring to threads here, insults.

You say I'm the one with the problem, but the only time I've ever seen you not resort to insults to ANYONE on these boards is when they're agreeing with you. I mean I know I can be argumentative, but I ain't got nothing on you kid. I also try to back up what I say; you never have, not once.

You're the one with the problem, not me. You're just incapable of seeing it.
Quote:

Again this is exactly why I didn't want to debate anything with you, I already knew you thought it was crap!! how would you know if Zecharia Stitchen didn't have a clue or I for that matter, when you haven't even read his books,you call it crap and you've formed an opinion on something you know nothing about, that to me is crap nothing you could say would carry any weight with me given your mind set and attitude, the real question is why should I or would I listen to anything you have to say, you certainly aren't given me any reasons to.

Actually I said that for effect, but let’s run with it for a second. The only thing ZS has to back up his claims is Sumerian accounts, accounts his probably misinterpreting and not understanding. Now if an intelligent Alien race had visited this planet there'd be evidence, physical evidence outside the mad ravings of a couple of tin-foils. You know a lost Tricorder here, a discarded Raygun there, perhaps a couple of crashed family saucers. There's not, BTW. So his position is shaky at best.

Also you say you don't like religion, but my do you sound like a fundamentalist, "I don't need to prove anything, read the scriptures by the prophet Stitchen and your eyes will be opened! Halleluiah and Amen!"

Also I'm fairly certain that I know more about orbital mechanics than you and Stitchen put together, so you and your mate are the ones talking about stuff you don't understand in reference to Planet X.
Quote:

based on your attitude I didn't exspect anything, still don't

Based on your proven attitude I think it’s plainly obvious to everyone that we'll never get anything out of you other than mad ranting punctuated by the odd insult and an unwarranted self-righteous superior attitude.
Quote:

And as for having blind faith your wrong, I told you I agree with Stitchen's work, doesn't mean its totally correct or that he's right about everything, I just happen to think he's on the right track, if new information comes up that refutes it, or proves it wrong,then I won't ignore it.

That might be believable if you weren't already ignoring the reams of contradictory evidence and the possibility to learn from other points of view.
Quote:

your right Citizen ,I can't adequately answer the question I don't think anything I could say on this subject would be adequate enough for you anyway, nor do I desire to, its been awhile since I read the books so No I can't quote a passage or anything like that, the only thing I can tell you is what I told you before, that via the anunnakki, the summarians were aware of D.N.A, thats the best I can do if its not good enough, Oh well!!

Well all I can tell you is that the Sumerians really knew about DNA from the Saucer People under the direct control from the Reverse Vampires, who are working with the inter-temporal Black Ops as part of a plan to lead you, PirateJenny to your ultimate destiny. You are too jumpstart the second big bang with jump leads from your jalopy, which is the ultimate irony: PirateJenny, the ultimate atheist in fact turns out to be God.

I don't need to back anything I say up, that's you're job, you have to go off and read my 15 books in the "Why PirateJenny is our lord" series.

If that's not good enough, oh well!!
Quote:

lol!!yes I can post anything I want to, and I will continue to do so and if you don't like it to bad,I don't care is someone dares to ask me a question, so long as they ask and not demand!!

What you mean is as long as the question supports your world view and doesn't challenge you in anyway because you’re to feeble minded too handle that.
Quote:

no need to bring P.N or anyother posters into this, you seem a little bit of yourself anyway

This sentence doesn't make sense, so I'll assume you’re saying that "I'm a bit full of myself."

Let’s start at the beginning. PN insults me for no reason and includes my name in his posts all the time, so if I want to do it back I will. I also note your not admonishing him for doing it too me verbatim.

Secondly the only person here who is so full of themselves they feel they can say anything they like and don't need to back it up, in fact thinks its actually INSULTING for anyone to ask her majestic majesty to back something up is erm, YOU.

Pull your head outta your arse and smell the rose’s sweet pea.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 16, 2006 9:50 AM

DANFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Kepler used observations of Mars and then generated formulas to describe what he saw. Newton took gravitation and then worked out WHY Mars moved the way Kepler described. It is the difference between observing nature and understanding it. That's why Newton was a genius.


Imagine if you like that Kepler saw a steam engine and drew a picture of it but that Newton figured out how to build one. What you did was use Keplers drawings to evaluate the engine that Jenny described and then said "yeah that looks ok." Until you work out how to build Jenny's engine you have no idea if it works all you can say is that you can describe it with Kepler's laws.

In short without Newton it's meaningless.



OK. I agree with everything you just said. However, I don't think it in anyway refutes what I've stated before. I'll take one more swing, then I'm off to drill on Tagalog verb conjugation some more.

Newton's genius says this:

Force of gravitational attraction = M(m1*m2)/(r^2)

I will forgo the definition of the elements of the equation for brevity (please hold your applause, I apologize for the size of my other posts).

NOTHING in this equation constitutes a conditional exclusion based upon distance. This equation is valid to the ends of the universe (or as far as the speed of light reaches since the formation of the objects it describes, depending on which scientist you believe). If m1 (mass of the Sun) is sufficiently greater than m2 (mass of a planet or comet), then the gravitational effect of m2 on m1 can be ignored and Newton's equations simplify into Kepler's. Even if you ignore the simplification, the ONLY affect it has on Kepler's equations is that it places center of the Sun off from one of the foci in the ellipse. This results in a trivial change in the calculation of the aphelion of the planet as long as its mass is much less than the Sun's.

The only thing that overrides Newton's equation is... ANOTHER copy of Netwon's equation with ANOTHER mass substituted for our Sun such that the other mass exerts greater force upon the second object than the Sun. Period. That second mass can be another star, or immense interstellar molecular clouds, or a nearby planet, or whatever. But without another mass in the picture, Newton's equation is sufficient to establish a stable orbit, from our Sun's neighborhood out to the end of it's gravititional field (approx 4.7 billion light years) and back ( as long as the object is travelling at less than escape velocity).

OF COURSE THAT CAN'T HAPPEN... because this is a crowded universe with countless other local gravititational fields that render the Sun's gravitational influence effectively negligible at about a light year (as previously mentioned in another post).

However, that "one light year limit for the Sun's gravitational influence" is over 100 TIMES greater than the projected aphelion of an eccentric orbit with a period of 3600 years. So if that orbit is unstable, then some other force must be acting upon the object to make it so. It CANNOT be the planetary mass of the object itself that makes it break orbit (the brick breaking it's rubber band). That planet's mass is actually pulling on the Sun... thus helping to maintain the orbit. Of course, that planet's mass is also pulling on any other star in the vicinity... so once again, it all depends on which gravitational influence is stronger.

To clarify that last sentence, it is only the relative strengths of the gravitational forces in our stellar neighborhood that determines if the orbit is stable. And at .007 light years, The Sun is the undisputed big dog on the block. At that distance, if the planet has less than escape velocity and no other force acts upon it, then it comes back. Without fail.

If some other force is acting at that distance to render stable orbits impossible, post a link to its description. Or present the equation for it. Otherwise, we'll agree to disagree and part ways... each thinking the other is deluded.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 16, 2006 10:26 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Never mind!

I should have read further before I posted since my answer was here: "I never really wanted to debate Stitchen's work I just wanted to disguss it"

Hi PJ,


I guess I didn't frame my question well. What I wanted to know was this: do you want to discuss Stichen's writings or the ideas? My guess is that you want to discuss the writings with others who are familiar with them. OTOH I suspect you're not interested in discussing the ideas (the existence of planet X for example), which can be debated without the writings (eg through astronomy, physics etc instead).

Am I correct in this?

Sincerely,
Rue




Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 16, 2006 11:14 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:



I will forgo the definition of the elements of the equation for brevity (please hold your applause, I apologize for the size of my other posts).

NOTHING in this equation constitutes a conditional exclusion based upon distance. This equation is valid to the ends of the universe (or as far as the speed of light reaches since the formation of the objects it describes, depending on which scientist you believe). If m1 (mass of the Sun) is sufficiently greater than m2 (mass of a planet or comet), then the gravitational effect of m2 on m1 can be ignored and Newton's equations simplify into Kepler's. Even if you ignore the simplification, the ONLY affect it has on Kepler's equations is that it places center of the Sun off from one of the foci in the ellipse. This results in a trivial change in the calculation of the aphelion of the planet as long as its mass is much less than the Sun's.




My goodness. So for brevity you left out the definition of the elements. Let me help you out here.


Try this
G(m1m2)=F
--------
r^2

(Newton's law of Universal gravitation) where F is gravitational force, m1 and m2 are two masses, G is the universal gravitation constant and r THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE MASSES.)

You will notice that like most forces it is an inverse square law, the force decreases as a square of the distance. Your kepler calculation showed a verylong eliptical orbit so r will get big and f will get very small.

You also said that escape velocity remains constant. It does from the same point in the gravity well however the further away from the center of gravity you get the smaller it becomes.

That's because the general equation for escape velocity is

v = square root ((2GM/r) where r in this case would be distance from the sun.

I suspect that you would have to take Kepler's equations and the escape velocity ones combine them and integrate for the entire orbit of X. If at any point the orbital speed exceeds solar escape velocity at that point the object will be gone. It's none trivial, which is why I'm not really up to trying it.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 16, 2006 12:14 PM

DANFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:


You will notice that like most forces it is an inverse square law, the force decreases as a square of the distance. Your kepler calculation showed a verylong eliptical orbit so r will get big and f will get very small.



... but non-zero for any distance. My point is that only another force in the vicinity will alter the calculable affects of the Sun's force. Of course, we have zillions of other gravitational forces in our stellar neighborhood. But none of them are as strong as the Sun's at a mere .0074 LY from the Sun.

Quote:

You also said that escape velocity remains constant.


I'll have to challenge you to show me where I said that. I merely mentioned that if the orbiting body doesn't exceed's the Sun's escape velocity, and no other force is acting upon it, it won't escape. Perhaps my use of "velocity" made it seem I thought there was only one. If so, I apologize for that ambiguity. But I'll take solace in the fact that that ambiguity also exists in countless physics texts as well. When they say "escape velocity', they are referring to an infinite family of velocities along the trajectory.

At any rate, I'm well aware that the escape velocity varies by distance from the gravitational source. But the fact remains that if the object is not travelling at escape velocity at any point in its trajectory and no other force acts upon it, then it will not escape. Hence it is either in orbit, or on a collision trajectory with the gravitational source.

Quote:

I suspect that you would have to take Kepler's equations and the escape velocity ones combine them and integrate for the entire orbit of X. If at any point the orbital speed exceeds solar escape velocity at that point the object will be gone. It's none trivial, which is why I'm not really up to trying it.


As long as we are talking about a two-body system with no external energy/force being added, I disagree. Velocity is nothing more than kinetic energy. Distance from the Sun is potential energy. With no other inputs (no rockets firing or other bodies contributing gravitational force) he total energy of the object (whether its a planet or a spacecraft) is a constant: the sum of its kinetic and potential energies. If the total energy of the object exceeds a certain value, it will escape the Sun. If it is less than that value, it won't.

Hence, for any given distance from the Sun (potential energy) there is a corresponding kenetic energy (escape velocity) that will allow the object to never return to the Sun. If it has that escape velocity, then we won't ever see it again. If it doesn't, it comes back. You only need to snapshot its velocity at that distance to know the answer.

Calculus (with heavy doses of approximation) becomes barely sufficient when you have more than 2 bodies in the system. I have no intention of going there either.

[Edited to clarify my statement on total energy of the object in question.]

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 16, 2006 1:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Physicists solved the 3+ body problem a year or two ago. I don't know the details, but I think it went something like - take the two largest bodies, find the centroid of their gravity contribution, using that as a single body, do the same calculation between it and the third largest body, etc ...


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 16, 2006 2:34 PM

DANFAN


Cool! I'd like to know more about the solution.

I feel a google coming on...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 16, 2006 4:08 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


YEAH !!!


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 17, 2006 12:31 PM

REAVERMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by danfan:
Thanks for the book reference. I may try to track it down if I can catch up on my other reading.



I dug the book out of my garage last night. The author's name is Brian Greene.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 7:09 PM

PIRATEJENNY


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Never mind!

I should have read further before I posted since my answer was here: "I never really wanted to debate Stitchen's work I just wanted to disguss it"

Hi PJ,


I guess I didn't frame my question well. What I wanted to know was this: do you want to discuss Stichen's writings or the ideas? My guess is that you want to discuss the writings with others who are familiar with them. OTOH I suspect you're not interested in discussing the ideas (the existence of planet X for example), which can be debated without the writings (eg through astronomy, physics etc instead).

Am I correct in this?

Sincerely,
Rue




Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.




your right I wanted and still wwould like to discuss Stitchen's writting with those who are familar with his work, as for his ideas for example the existence of planet X, there has been an interesting discussion about that going on, I only interjected at it's impossiblity. But I think its an interesting discussion and would have liked to added more to it but since I'm not very scientifically minded I thought I would leave it to those who have more of an inclination to that type of thought.

P.J

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 7:49 PM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Physicists solved the 3+ body problem a year or two ago. I don't know the details, but I think it went something like - take the two largest bodies, find the centroid of their gravity contribution, using that as a single body, do the same calculation between it and the third largest body, etc ...



Maybe I'm being ignorant, but I'm not sure if that's correct. Consider the sun-earth-moon system: if you take the centre of mass between the two largest objects, the sun and the earth, it would be very close to the sun and you could take away the sun and the earth and consider an imaginary object with the combined mass of the sun and the earth being located at this centre of mass.

The centre of mass of the imaginary object and the moon is then the point around which the moon would revolve. Disregarding the stability of the moon's orbit around this point in space, I don't see a way to explain the moon's cycloid-shaped orbit as it moves around the centre of mass of the new system (the cycloid-shaped orbit of course coming from it revolving around the earth and the earth at the same time revolving around the sun).



Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 20, 2006 12:24 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Just a caveat: "if you take the centre of mass between the two largest objects, the sun and the earth" The earth is not the second largest (massive) object in the solar system.

That aside, you need to take into account distance between objects (mutual gravitational interaction). I don't have the exact formula but that is accounted for.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 20, 2006 12:28 PM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Just a caveat: "if you take the centre of mass between the two largest objects, the sun and the earth" The earth is not the second largest (massive) object in the solar system.



No, I was talking about the 3-body problem consisting of the Sun, the Earth and the Moon. The gravitaional influence of the other bodies in the solar system can be assumed to be almost negligible in this context. And if not, then let's just assume, hypothetically, that there are no other bodies in the solar system. I still don't see how the proposed solution method would work.

Quote:

That aside, you need to take into account distance between objects (mutual gravitational interaction). I don't have the exact formula but that is accounted for.


Maybe I misunderstood the proposed solution, but I don't think there was any mention of the mutual distances actually being in the solution. As far as I remember, it was something like "take the centre of gravity of the two largest ones and go on from there". In fact:

Quote:

Physicists solved the 3+ body problem a year or two ago. I don't know the details, but I think it went something like - take the two largest bodies, find the centroid of their gravity contribution, using that as a single body, do the same calculation between it and the third largest body, etc ...


So yeah, I still don't think the method as you've described it works.



Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 20, 2006 12:32 PM

KHYRON


This double-post has now been claimed by the clams. All hail the clams!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 20, 2006 4:46 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I also didn't have a reference, which I usually try to include. I'm simply too busy to be the website librarian. But this problem was solved, in (more or less) that way. Now that you know about it, you can google under your own steam if you really have an interest in pursuing the topic.

But if you're just dogging this to make me look 'wrong' b/c I didn't provide all the details, then you're an ass.




Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:09 PM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Now that you know about it, you can google under your own steam if you really have an interest in pursuing the topic.



I was kind of hoping you'd post your reference, since I don't feel like sorting through all the crap one sometimes gets when looking for scientific proofs, but if you're too busy to do it I guess I have to look for it myself.

Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
But if you're just dogging this to make me look 'wrong' b/c I didn't provide all the details, then you're an ass.



I really wasn't trying to make you look wrong, I was trying to have a discussion and point out that the argument you gave can't be the main argument in the actual proof and that you must have been missing a key point. I'm sure that what you gave is the proper ansatz to the actual proof, but the missing details are what makes it work. I was wondering what those missing details might be... but as I said, I'll look for them myself.



Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:49 PM

KHYRON


Actually, no. I've been looking for a bit and couldn't find any mention of a solution for the general n-body, or even 3-body, problem unless one considers cases with severe restrictions. While I have no doubt that you did see some proof of this sort, there's no guarantee that it's given in an easily findable place on the internet or that it's even a valid proof.

So I don't see why I have to do your work for you, especially if it might turn out to be a wild goose chase. You made the claim, so you should back it up. And don't be offended if people are sceptical if you don't.



Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 24, 2006 4:20 PM

ROCKET333


OK I skimmed through this whole board sorry I am always pressed for time. All this stuff I wrote is mostley along the subject of alternative beliefs.

This has along the lines of things I have read, Ashtar Command...indigos, starseeds...Somehow I have heard the mayan calender in those beliefs as well. And I belive Nibiru as well. End times of course, in many things.

I did see that thing about planet X though which was mentioned somewhere elese but in a diffrent way. Astar command I think. It was only briefly mentioned. Since we're talking about these sorts of beliefs, I have some beliefs of my own that I was kind of born with and when I graduated from high school they blew up in my face.

It was then that I saw signs and things that I can't explain and I was paranoid and just the weirdest crap came to me I can't even go on and on about it. like...I would listen to music and I would hear things like they were pertaining to things that only I knew. As far as around here anyway. Where I am from I don't have many people who think deeply or alot. Possibly resulting in a loss from my intellegence and real crazy trips. HA!For real though.

Still I was afraid of everything for a while but something told me when you see a red light go through it and I would see the same number everywhere...Trigger words things like...lights flickering when you pass them on the highway. It gets real wierd when you start to remeber your childhood and how all this and that correlates toghther. flying...I kid you not. When I was younger I wouldv'e been excited about all this but in reality it really is frigtening as hell and lonely as hell when you get used to it. Hey anyway finally it started to level out I guess...I guess I am what you would call and indigo a starseed...Still I meet the critera to the T but when they white light it out I sit in my dirty alley with a dingy flashlight. Sorry. I don't want to patronize myself with all this crap...

Still I know I am supposed to do something and I have been told this alot. This sounds explanition does sound alot plausible compared to most of the stuff that's out there. I found after a while that diffrent religions and new age beiliefs tie into each other quite a bit.

Hey by the way planet X is an alternative planet on a diffrent dimensional plane where souls can go to learn lessons or do there work if they choose to get out of Earth. But I heard the place is worse than here. Hey I really read this. I will not say it is true or even the same planet X. Personally. I think anything is possible. How can you look at how crazy things are and not imagine anything is possible? Not trying to offend anyone who does not share this view. Religion is really whacked out becasue alot of it tries to control people. And it's just insane how we are all waging war on each other in the name of it. Well that and money. And really it isn't we it's them...How many people in the world, muslums, africans chinese, christians buddists Celtics, whatever, just want to live normal lives...

Some people's beliefs of good and evil are insane. Hey don't listen to that music or the devil will get you...Anyway hell was a physical place where they burned dead bodies way back when...supposbally. There is a God though I'm sure of it...that and everything you could ever and never think of. And jesus was a prophet and now he has become a symbol... I don't know. Go to Barnes and noble and get the next book of the bible and they will tell you all about Hey sus'. He had it right about alot. The oppisite of love is not hate it's indiffrence...

If anyone would ever get freaked out by things whether it be the state of the world, thier relationship, the devil or geting killed, It's easier to go through life and you realize that people do not die and cease to exist, or go to hell. Personally in my life now I find Earth to be quite limited and boring...for now at least. And lonely.
check check

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 24, 2006 4:20 PM

ROCKET333



sorry I don't know why this posted twice but I erased it.



check check

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:37 AM

CITIZEN


Yes the world was a much better place under christian control...

...If you like torture, witch hunts, burnings, crusades, inquisitions...



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:13 PM

CITIZEN


I love the idiocy of this. Darwin an Occult-elite? True Christians didn't do it!! Got your number 118, but I'm up for a laugh.

It doesn't matter if true Christians did it or not, as a matter of course Theocracies all end up the same way. You hate secularism, why? Because you seem to want to force your beliefs on to others, you want to tell other people who they should live their lives, FORCE them to live in a way YOU approve of. Funny how you go on and on about the Bible and miss so completely the kind of major live and let live message.

But you're right, righteous, people who think differently; people who live differently to the way you've decided they should think and act are evil devil spawn. You are the true man of faith, not like these lowly pretenders, who are by this very fact less than lower than you.

In fact if these people are lower than you and evil they are scum, aren't they, not real people at all. We can do whatever we want to them.

You see 'true' men of faith are often the progenitors of such actions, and yes you're right they aren't true Christians, though I'd hazard a guess that true men of faith are who you see as true Christians.

As for GW Bush, sounds like the words/acts of many a fundamentalist.

EDIT:
Quote:

it is plainly said in the Bible that this is to be the course of History until the return of the messiah. the earth IS under the control of negetive, evil forces, and it will lead to a peak, which will be the mark of the beast, and the reign of the anti-christ. and then it will be obvious that Jesus wasnt our enemy, because the most fascist, oppressive, degradive and monstrous entity to ever exist will be opposed to God and Jesus! how can you reconcile the belief that the bible was created to suppress people, when it is the greatest single enemy against those forces? there is no logic in that
This must be the circular logic you were talking about earlier, using the Bible to prove the Bible.

And please don't use the word logic in refrence to Christianity. There is nothing logical about Christianity or any other religion, they're based on Faith, not logic, that's the bloody point.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 19, 2006 4:44 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SonofMan:
OK look first off... Bush is not a fundementalist Christian..he is a fundementalist Occultist. if you did some private research, instead of listening to the partisan rhetoric, you might know the difference.

I never said he was a Christian fundamentalist. All fundamentalists sound the same; they just used different names for what gives them the right to decide the fate of others.

If you'd actually read and comprehended my post you might of picked up on that.

Anyway when you have some credible evidence to back up your claims, instead of you know your partisan nut-job conspiracy theorist rhetoric get back to me. Though what you call evidence and what the rest of the Human race calls evidence I'm beginning to think are two very different things.
Quote:

secondly, i take offense to people attacking the word of God because such attacks are based out of close-minded intolerance and ignorance.
You attack atheists and scientist and secularism based on your own ignorance but no one can attack you? How about you practice what you preach, or did you skip that part of Christianity because it was inconvenient for you? I didn't attack Christians or the word of god, I said you have no right to tell others what to believe or think, I said theocracies, like a Christian run state, are seldom a good thing and secularism is infinitely better. Find that insulting? Well tough because I'm right and you're wrong on that point, and I've got the entire history of the human race to back me up.
Quote:

im not solely using the Bible to prove the Bible. people who are simply unwilling to believe accuse Christians of acting on blind faith, when there is in fact a great deal of evidence that supports our belief.
Yes you are, and no there isn't. I note you don't offer any of this evidence except to quote verse.
Quote:

the Bible has yet to be contradicted by ANY scientific evidence!
Yes it has and so? If I said "I'm god" you can't disprove that with scientific evidence, so I guess you better start worshipping me.

Anyway, you can't disprove a negative you twit, you can't disprove the existance of god irregardless of whether god exists or not.
Quote:

in fact, there is more evidence that supports the Bible, then actually supports vital componants of the theory of Evolution.
Prove it. Oh right you can't never mind.
Quote:

you sound to me to be an athiest..since you sound intent on disproving a higher being.
You have no idea of my beliefs, and I don't wish to discuss them with you. I'm not trying to disprove a higher being, I said Christianity is a faith, which it is. Science is based on facts and evidence, religion is based on faith. God exists because the Bible says so; all other evidence of god is at best circumstantial and is now nearly always also explained by natural processes which don't require an omnipotent being. There's nothing wrong believing something only on faith, it's a source of strength for many, but there's no empirical evidence to support your belief, which is why it requires FAITH.

You want to call Atheists a joke, well your a joke for thinking Christianity is a science, you can't believe in god on faith then your not a real Christian, I suggest you get over yourself and deal with it.

Funny how you attack science and everything it says but on the very few occasions where it converges with your beliefs and FAITH it's all gravy.
Quote:

but it can be expected..if you were told compelling evidence, would you even listen??
Christianity is a faith, only closed minded people think otherwise. Closed minded because they start off with the premise of the Bible as literal fact and everything must be proof of that, back to belief and faith again, back to closed thinking, unwillingness to accept that maybe the initial faith based premise is not entirely correct.

There's plenty of Religious Scientists, many of them Christian, they reconcile their beliefs by being open minded, you should try it sometime.
Quote:

now, i will apologize if you perceived me as coming off as holier than thou, but i dont recall insulting you, calling you a sinner, "devil spawn" or anything of the sort. nor did i try to force my belief on you.
Atheists are a joke, advocating a global Christian theocracy, implying non-Christians are morally bankrupt, implying the only way to be a good person is by being Christian...

No I can't see where I possibly got the idea that you were forcing your beliefs on to others.
Quote:

how can people claim christians are forcing their beliefs on us when:
I wasn't I said you were forcing your beliefs on to others, if your arrogant enough to believe you speak for all Christians that's your business.
Quote:

it is not taught in schools
Neither should it be, that's what church is for. It’s unfeasible to teach all religions in school, and wrong to teach just one. School isn't church.
Quote:

it is not referenced in the media
Please, it's referenced all the time. More than all other religions put together in most western countries, get over it.
Quote:

it has been taken off government buildings
Good, secular government is a good thing. Maybe you'd like a return to the middle ages where people who weren't Christian or weren't the right type of Christian were murdered.

In a secular society Christianity shouldn't be more a part of government than any other religion. If you happy with the cross holding equal wall space to the star of David, the Buddha, the crescent moon and so on fine. But you don't want that, you want unequal representation of Christianity in government, you want to force Christianity down people’s throats.
Quote:

and that it has been thoroughly attacked by modern new age culture
And new age culture has been thoroughly attacked by Christians, so this wins you nothing.
Quote:

who is forcing which belief on who
Lack of belief is not a belief in it self. Absence is not forcing anything down your throat, that's the point. The fact that you think the absence of Christianity is forcing something on you is quite telling.
Quote:

i did not inted to attack your belief, nor do i force my belief on others, but people gladly quote Ghandi, or the Dali Lama, and IMO these are merely Men. the bible claims to be the word of the living God. it is proven, sound logic, and it speaks for itself. Jesus explicitly says:
So we shouldn't quote them because they're only men where Jesus is the son of god? Kind of sounds like you want to give Christianity more air time than anything else, that would be…
Quote:

there are no contradictions, and never does Jesus condone murder, or any kind of hostile aggression, conversion, or anything of the sort.
There's plenty of both contradictions and violence in the Bible. It's a work of man; even most Christians recognise that, what with it saying just that in the Bible and all. Furthermore the Bible has been carefully edited and elaborated by centuries of Roman Catholic control, that's a fact I'm afraid. Maybe you need to read the Bible again.
Quote:

i cant re-iterate the entire bible for you..i just ask that you read it, because your arguments against the bible can be refuted by simply reading it
I HAVE read it, I'm not arguing against the Bible, I'm arguing against Theocracies and your piss poor interpretation of the Bible and its teachings, due try to keep up.
Quote:

its just that it sounds to me as if your attacking my beliefs with far more tenacity then I..what is it that you seek to prove?
You're are the one attacking peoples beliefs. I'm attacking your supposition that the only valid beliefs are yours, don't you dare tell me that's the same thing.
Quote:

if that were true, how did a once predominately christian country become the one of the greatest empires the world has known??
Firstly the Romans gained their empire (longest lived I believe) through military conquest.

Britain (largest empire in human history) gained its empire through military conquest.

The US became the only standing super power by being the ‘last man standing’ after the Second World War and an unmatched military build up that the USSR could not match.

Firstly if you want to say these nations gained their superiority because they were Christian then you’re going way further than I did. I said theocracies of any flavour are on the whole violent repressive regimes, you'd be saying Christian theocracies are down right blood thirsty and expansionist (though I'm well aware that the Roman Empire was 'pagan').

Secondly none of those nations were Christian when they gained their empires.
Quote:

why would the bill of rights and the constitution reflect biblical ideals, and consequently why is it under attack and being shredded by secular elitists??

Now I know your talking about the US, which is even more puzzling, since the US is the only nation I can think of that has ALWAYS been secular, from founding through to today.

The US constitution is a secular document; it says "we the people" and has no reference to god whatsoever. The secularism of the USA is right there in the constitution, it's the first amendment for crying out loud:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the freedom of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Or:
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims], ..." (Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary," 1796-1797.)
Clearly shows the founding fathers never intended the United States of America to be a Christian nation.

Not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, kind of throws your assertion that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are Christian out the window, doesn't it.

Sounds like arrogance and ignorance to me, you believing the only people who can believe in peace and forgiveness being Christian.
Quote:

what moral fabric would exist among society, if it was learned that we are nothing more than evolved primates?
How come the divorce rate is lower among Atheists than Christians if the only way to have morals is to be a Christian?
Quote:

i suspect that is a perversion, introduced through secularism, to condition people to act competitively against eachother, rather than as servants for eachothers benefit
Guess you don't read history or the news then huh.
Quote:

i dont see how you can claim that secular societies are the sources of benevolence when they are opposed fundementally to the bible, which promotes unbridled peace and acceptance above all else!
Secularism allows people to believe and worship whichever god they wish. That's all, it is only opposed to Christianity if a guiding tenant of Christianity is too force, violently if necessary, people to be Christian.

You really don't like secularism, I get that, you want to force others to follow your beliefs, I get that too. Maybe one day you'll wake up and join the vast majority of Christians who know that secularism is a good thing, for them as well as people of different beliefs.
Quote:

but besides that look at the track record: some of the most oppressive systems on record, soviet and chinese communism and nazi fascism..were those based on christian idealogies?
Actually Christians were one of the major participants in Nazism, they were such a big demographic Hitler needed their support. Adversely if the Nazis had been more secular they wouldn't of gone after the Jews, would they, another triumph for secularism, woohoo!

Let’s not forget that the Roman Catholic Church helped Nazi war criminals escape, or that the current Pope was a member of the Hitler youth...

Secularism is freedom of religion, Communist China suppresses religion, so not secular, see.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 19, 2006 3:01 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Khyron,

(three+ body solution)

Now that this thread has come back up, I realized I never did respond.

I too googled. But I couldn't come up with the right set of words to find exactly what I was looking for. So I apologize. I originally saw it in a magazine (Science News?) but no longer have it. And it doen't seem to be accessible with google.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 19, 2006 3:27 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So much to respond to, so little time ...
Quote:

Originally posted by SonofMan:
please understand, the reason the sumerians stories pre-date the bibles IS NOT because the bible stole, watered down and misinterpreted the ancient beliefs.

That's quite a claim. The Hindus, Autralian Aborigines, American Indians etc have myths different from each other and the Sumerians and the Bible. Are you claiming that two overlapping civilizations didn't share myths?
Quote:

ever wonder why, despite the acclaimed "break-throughs" in science ... the most basic, fundemental issues of our race, greed, bigotry, murder, diception, war...have been with us since the beginning???
Where to start? Science doen't address morals or ethics. The most fundamental issues of our race also include nurturing, trust and hope - if not, the race would have died out long ago. And too there's the occassional society without war or religion.
Quote:

what is more likely?? that the God of creation caused the flood to wipe out humanity, due to corruption, degeneration, and all the other immoral actions taken place during that time(thanks to the knowledge from the annunaki). or that the flood was cause.. as Sitchin claims...on the part of the annunnaki due to excessive human noisiness??
Or that none of this happened? I vote for number three.
Quote:

if we are merely evolved species, why do we have a conscience at all??
Well, it seems primates lie on purpose, chimp mothers seem to grieve their dead babies, dogs sure look guilty after stealing hot dogs. I don't know - why do any of these mere animals have human traits that we feel we recognize?
Quote:

...islam, catholicism, judiasm..those are religions, but christianity is not.
I challenge you to dispute this with a Bhuddist, Hindu, Moslem, Jew ...
Quote:

but someone can easily cliam to be christian in word, but be an evil person in deed. when you accept the word of Jesus, you change from the inside out...Bush can claim hes a christian, but his actions dont verify his position.
Hallelujah - we agree!
Quote:

if there were no religion, what standards would man have to conform his behavior too??
Oh, I don't know. Laws, ethics, some other religious strictures ...
Quote:

i know you athiests would rather not have restrictions in your lives..
Strange. I feel that in my life I have spent a lot of time and effort nurturing family, community and world. Does that make me unethical?

And the rest I'm afraid is a soapbox rant unworthy of reply.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 19, 2006 3:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Originally posted by SonofMan:
i take offense to people attacking the word of God

But I have the word of god!
Quote:

besides the literal treasure trove of political events unfolding ... there is more evidence that supports the Bible, then actually supports vital componants of the theory of Evolution.
Such as??
Quote:

the Bible ... has been proven accurate historically
Reference please ...
Quote:

i simply gave you an explanation that i have yet to see convincingly refuted
So much of what you said has been proven wrong, I'd like to you to specifically indicate WHICH explination you're referring to.
Quote:

would you be happy to know that you live, and ya die..and thats it??
It is more than enough for me.
Quote:

what moral fabric would exist among society, if it was learned that we are nothing more than evolved primates?
The moral fabric that would allow people to live in abundance, harmony and peace ON EARTH.
Quote:

i suspect that is a perversion, introduced through secularism, to condition people to act competitively against eachother, rather than as servants for eachothers benefit..as the Bible suggests.
Secularism doesn't teach perversion - capitalism does. As to being your brother's keeper, it sounds suspicously Marxist to me.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 19, 2006 4:13 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SonofMan:
alright, to avoid this cycle of name calling, how about a fresh start.

That's a good idea.
Quote:

you tell me...if you were Christian, how is it possible to defend your belief? apparently we cannot quote any relevant scientific evidence, we cannot quote historical accuracies, or prophecies that were foretold by the bible
You don't NEED to defend your belief, I'm not attacking your belief in Christianity. You don't NEED to prove your belief, really there isn't scientific proof of God, for Christianity or any other religion, but there doesn't NEED to be.

Historical accuracies are par for the course, the Bible is partially a historic record, we know there was a man named Jesus Christ, he was the son of a carpenter and he challenged the Jewish/Roman establishment and he was executed for blaspheme. The son of god part, that's the part that can't be proved, that's the part that requires faith.

I'm unaware of the prophecies you talk about, but from my experience with such things, such as Nostradamus, prophecies are like Astrology, if you want to make it fit it does.
Quote:

for one..to accept Darwins theory of evolution, you must have evidence that supports both mIcro-evolution, and mAcro-evolution. there is plenty of evidence that supports mIcro-evolution...a Cat or Dog, over a span of generations can possibly evolve into another form of Cat or Dog-like species etc. the Bible supports this claim, since general species of animals have progressed, but remained members of the same species. when life was created, it was created from scratch, like humans..to remain within their own genetic bounderies...which is why you cant inter-breed a horse and a cow.
Then why not make a further leap? Jesus spoke in metaphors all the time, God gave us free will, It seems disingenuous to me to then say that God would give us the answers in a document. Why can't the Bible be a metaphor? Why couldn't God of created the universe and its laws knowing exactly where it would lead?

I can write a computer program and hit go and it will do exactly what I expected, why can God not do the same, just on a much grander scale?
Quote:

abiogenesis, the evolution of life from non-living matter, however, has yet to be proven! scientists have not been able to demonstrate how this metamorphasis takes place..besides a theory of billions of years of random atomic collisions. yet they have no physical, reproducable, or empirical scientific data that concludes, or even supports this assumption.
That's kind of the point. With science that means it's a theory, and with the fact that too a degree aspects of it have been proven (proteins have been created from inanimate matter, and our building blocks are, indeed, inanimate) means that we accept it as the best theory we have. This is the strength of Science. One hundred years ago the universe was Newtonian, clock work, predictable. Now it is Einsteinian, because Einstein’s theories fit better. Ask any credible physicist if they think that's it, if they think that someday someone else won't come up with another theory that fits even better and they'll say no.

So it is with evolution, it's the best we've got, it's supported by more evidence than any other theory or belief we have, but someday I have faith that it will be surpassed. But like with all good working theories before it, it will be a component of what comes next.
Quote:

not only that, the "cladogram", the sole evidence for mAcro-evolution, or the metamorphasis of a plant, into an ape, into a human, directly contradicts Darwins OWN THEORY of natural selection!
I don't see this at all. I've never even heard the supposition that plants evolved into animals. It's my understanding that the split happened much earlier. One set of single celled organisms created their own food using energy from sunlight, another set fed on those. It's my understanding that this was the grounding where the animal and plant kingdoms come from.
Quote:

so dont tell me that science is cold and hard and factual..when there is the same degree of "FAITH" involved in accepting an un-proven, unsubstantiated theory, as in believing what can atleast be recognized as a historically* proven document such as the Bible
This is where the Human element comes in. The scientific process is cold hard logic, the people who carry it out, not so much. The point is Science changes to fit new knowledge, it might be a struggle getting all these scientists to move on, but it happens, with religion it does not. Religion says this is the way it is, and if new data fits that supposition it is praised, if it does not it is heretical.
Quote:

now, evolution tells us that the layers of the earth were deposited over millions and billions of years; older animal species would exist in lower, older layers...and so on. it turns out scientists use a "fossil index" to date these layers based on evolutions theories of a particular species existence!
There are assumptions, but these assumptions are tested. We use many different dating schemes before we give a date with any degree of certainty.
Quote:

but besides that, what about older species found alongside species claimed to be from different eras?
The Coelacanth was believed extinct for millions of years until one was caught by a Fisherman.
Quote:

if an animal dies in a field, like a squirrel or a pigeon..do its fossils immediately become covered in sediment and fossilized and preserved? this process takes eons..yet how do you reconcile that the majority of fossils are found in the same geological layers??
But to address what you said specifically, geological layers span thousands or even millions of years. there's millions of animals living on the earth at any given moment, extrapolate that over millions of years and it's not surprising that you'll find many fossils on the same layer, despite the fact their rare and despite the fact that it takes sometime for remains to fossilise.

As for the dating systems:
Fact is most of the time various dating systems correlate very closely. That's why they're used, that's why we use various methods in corroboration.
Quote:

what is my point with all of this? that the bible has yet to be disproven, based on known scientific evidence, which relates to the story in the Bible.
It also has to be proven to a much greater degree than it has been or CAN be before it can be accepted as a science.

Religion is not a science, it has a different place to fill in our lives, why shoe horn it in to other areas where it doesn't fit? Would you use English literature to prove mathematics?

As I see it God gave us free will, God gave us a mind and a desire to work things out. Organised religions, and that’s all, I'm not singling any out, attempt to stifle this to a degree. Organised religions have a power structure, and by the Human element those who hold that power will want to keep it.

Christianity like many others shows this. Christ is credited with the statement:
"If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you.
When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

This is from the Gospel of Thomas the Doubter; it is not in the Bible. The problem with it is that it denies the need for a church or a priest class. Jesus is saying that the road to salvation is within us, not through the priests. This is, I would say, why it is not included in the Bible, a Roman text, compiled and edited by those with a vested interest in supporting the current power structure.

This to my mind fits his life best, he fought the priests and establishment of the day, he was the ultimate anti-establishist. Does it not make sense that he would preach against 'organised' religion?

At the end of the day I believe that we will be damned for what we do, not what we believe or think. I believe that all religions have received the message, but none of them have got it all right.

I think the road to ‘salvation’ can only be an individual effort because we are all different.

I see polytheism, monotheism and science as steps along the road. We are attaining a new level, and that level has the potential for great good and great evil.

We split the atom and we can use it for peaceful means, but we can also use it to destroy. The test is to see what we will do with it.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 19, 2006 4:20 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Citizen - as always, an interesting, informative, insightful post.

Sincerely,
Rue


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 19, 2006 4:50 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


SonOfMan,

You don't seem to think that people can be moral without the bible.

From that need for morality you believe the bible.

From that belief you interpret it as historical fact.

If you could entertain the idea that people can be good, honest, caring people without the bible, you could probably perceive what others write.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 23:51 - 10 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL