 | |  |  | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
scientificmind
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 461
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:34 am Post subject: Why Is This Soooooooo Amusing?!!! |
 |
|
| |
In a diagram, on pages 2487-2488, (in particular pg. 2488), of the 1987 New Science & Invention Encyclopedia, volume 18, it shows our sun's binary star twin or "Dead Star" at 50 billion miles from our sun, and a "tenth" planet at 4.7 billion miles from our sun. See http://www.fugitt.com/planetx.pdf . (See pg. 17 of pdf). (boost resolution of pdf diagram to 125% for clear resolution).
The author of another website, (and we won't mention names), thinks this is "amuzing". See http://www.planetx-.150m.com/encyclopedia.html . It is as if this author thinks that this encyclodia publication is somehow a "fictional" scientific journal, or that it is making something up.
I am sure that in order for this publication to have been published, the following atypical steps were taken: 1) research in the subject matter. (This probably curtailed the gathering of up to date information from NASA and JPL Laboratories). 2) Asssembling such information into a rough draft copy for editorial review. 3) Assembling this article on "Space Probes" into it's final draft. 4) Review and approval of such article in the encyclopedia's pages by the editor-in-chief.
What happened here in this publication/scientific encyclopedia is that the researchers at the New Science & Invention Encyclopedia offices in Connecticut were accidently given "classified" information or information not meant to to given to the general public. But like all classified or 'censured" information, (as John will attest to at this website under his FOIA searches), this information sometimes gets out because the people in charge of disclosing such information are not informed of it's sensitivity. (Or through just plain oversight or ignorance). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Author |
Message |
Tankdown
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Jan 13, 2008
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
I don't know what your talking about, I thought it was funny usually its the other around.
If we found the star then it wouldn't really be theory would it? It would be a "fact". Being "sure" of something is bad logic, that kind of assumption can you get in a whole lot of trouble for no good reason with no good results. I could go on and on why everything about your conclusion is wrong but I believe this guy can do it better job[/url] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
scientificmind
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 461
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Okay, the hyper links above are not working, so for the first above posted hyper link try http://www.fugitt.com/planetx/planetx.pdf . (See page 17 of pdf). For the second hyper link posted above you will have to put in your internet search engine the words "New Science & Invention Encyclopedia 1987 planet x". When your search engine has returned results, click the "Encyclopedia Pic" link, or the second search results on page 1 of your search results. I have no reason why this hyper link isn't working directly.
BTW, I have never endorsed that sun and lunar gravitational forces account SOLELY for the "precession of the equinox". Mathematically/theoretically it doesn't work. If we take into consideration that the solar system has been verified to be curving through space at 50 arc seconds per year, then the only logical conclusion that can be considered once this infornmetion is included in our mathematical calculations is that the "precession of the equinox" is affected by a "large mass companion star". See, i.e., http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/bri/research/evidence/lunarcycle.shtml ...SM. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Tankdown
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Jan 13, 2008
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| scientificmind wrote: |
| I have never endorsed that sun and lunar gravitational forces account SOLELY for the "precession of the equinox". Mathematically/theoretically it doesn't work. |
Yes it does...Newton has done this. And later Einstein has done this to show the space/time disturbing of Mercury.
I'll look through the data but it sounds like there taking small data and turning it into wild fantasy. But I like your opinion on my "evidence" while I look at "yours". There are large differences between them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
scientificmind
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 461
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Tankdown,
I can't believe you endorsed Phil Plait...I mean lots of people LAUGH at his armchair "scientific" spouts of close minded opinionated/self absorbed babble. (He's just as unreliable a source as Nancy Leder and Hazelwood...only to the far right). Because he claims (to the chagrin of the scientific community) to be it's self-appointed representative, does not mean he is qualified to be. Don't classify me in with the Zeta Talk people or doomsayers.I am talking about REAL science to support theories that BETTER explain scientific anomalies. And I see you've missed my point completely anyway...what are these diagrams doing posted in a scientific encyclopedia as fact? Do research on what someone is saying before you spout...thanks...SM. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Tankdown
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Jan 13, 2008
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| scientificmind wrote: |
Tankdown,
I can't believe you endorsed Phil Plait...I mean lots of people LAUGH at his armchair "scientific" spouts of close minded opinionated/self absorbed babble. (He's just as unreliable a source as Nancy Leder and Hazelwood...only to the far right). Because he claims (to the chagrin of the scientific community) to be it's self-appointed representative, does not mean he is qualified to be. Don't classify me in with the Zeta Talk people or doomsayers.I am talking about REAL science to support theories that BETTER explain scientific anomalies. And I see you've missed my point completely anyway...what are these diagrams doing posted in a scientific encyclopedia as fact? Do research on what someone is saying before you spout...thanks...SM. |
No you have missed mine....
I am aware of his ego but logic is logic whatever you may take it. You seem you miss my point and ignore that complety and only talk words from peopel you "trust". Of course I didn't place you in with the Zeta talk or anything liek but that if you looked at this, where I was appling it to.
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/science.html#orbits
REAL science accepts all angels and is not prejudice SM, of course by the sounds of things you like to beleive in theories becaues they "sound" true to you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
scientificmind
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 461
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Tankdown...it's easy to talk the talk...but walk the walk, well, that's different. Show me how smart you are, and support your staements with hyper links to back them up. I don't take Phil Plait's word for anything but someone trying to make a little money by stating facts that can be found anywhere on the internet. Using cutting edge science or new data research enclosed in scientific journals would surely show me what you know you are talking about...not just words without statements of fact. Read up on Binary Star systems...you will be surprised at the vast distances these star are apartfrom each other, yet still gravitationally bound...SM. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Tankdown
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Jan 13, 2008
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
SM, in the first 2 paragraphs of your first reply I knew your name was a sad twist of irony. People always expected to know what I think, and your no different, althought the range of uncertainily always flows in my mind I feel you will be the sad image you try to give.
Logic is Logic SM, regardless of where it comes from. Already that prejudice of yours clouds some of your judgement. The only reason why I am reading "YOURS" sources is because I am not like you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
scientificmind
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 461
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Tankdown,
I wish I could read your sources, but you have not posted any outside of a poor excuse of a website. You know, you haven't really articulated what you are saying about this thread, anyway...and I am not going to speculatate on what you might mean...what is it you exactly believe in that pertains to this thread I have posted? Let's start there...SM. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Tankdown
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Jan 13, 2008
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| scientificmind wrote: |
Tankdown,
I wish I could read your sources, but you have not posted any outside of a poor excuse of a website. You know, you haven't really articulated what you are saying about this thread, anyway...and I am not going to speculatate on what you might mean...what is it you exactly believe in that pertains to this thread I have posted? Let's start there...SM. |
Nope, I can't take you serious if you don't even look at my first source.
Good bye. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
scientificmind
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 461
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Tankdown,
Didn't really want to go there...but I am educated in this subject...I have researched it thoroughly. Contrary to what you have stated, Hipparchus (ca. 150 B.C.) (not Isaac Newton) discovered the precession of the equinox. Isaac Newton's only contribution was to explain it's "cause" as being the nonsperical shape of the earth. James Bradley, in 1748, was able to show mathematically, through observations, the amount of oscillation of the equinox, which he called astronomical "nutation". However, Bradley's nutation calculations fall short when both the sun and lunar gravitational fluxes are taken into consideration. To put it simply...the earth still oscillates more than it should after such gravitational effects are accounted for...SM. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Tankdown
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Jan 13, 2008
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| scientificmind wrote: |
Tankdown,
Didn't really want to go there...but I am educated in this subject...I have researched it thoroughly. Contrary to what you have stated, Hipparchus (ca. 150 B.C.) (not Isaac Newton) discovered the precession of the equinox. Isaac Newton's only contribution was to explain it's "cause" as being the nonsperical shape of the earth. James Bradley, in 1748, was able to show mathematically, through observations, the amount of oscillation of the equinox, which he called astronomical "nutation". However, Bradley's nutation calculations fall short when both the sun and lunar gravitational fluxes are taken into consideration. |
Its great to learn, however I still stand firm. Plus I sort of reflected the movement of gravity not the equinox. Thank you for the history corrections, 
Edit:
| scientificmind wrote: |
| To put it simply...the earth still oscillates more than it should after such gravitational effects are accounted for...SM. |
No they haven't, there are a lot of rocks floating around up and there were still trying to find them all. Your trying to get me to believe that a drawf star around the size of Juipter is not only "dimmer" for something that is on fire. Knowing Jupiter is the forth brighest thing in the sky and really far away. But whos gravity can't even "really" be seen. May I just add that were still trying to find some 'Earth destroying" rocks right now?
People knew there was a 8th planet "Nepture" becaue the effects were odvious, and with something like this they should be. The data you gave me was thrown out of picture of the ordinaril text.
There just so many poor loop holes its not even funny.
Edit: Its like you expect our planet to be moving prefectly if "this" wasn't here.
Your more valunerable then you think you are. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
scientificmind
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 461
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Tankdown,
Okay...we shake hands and move forward. One last word...I am not saying Bradley's calculations were incorrect...I am just saying that the measurements he observed of the precession can not be accounted for SOLELY by lunar/solar interference.
Now...back to this threads intention-what are people's opinions on why this diagram is posted in a scientific encyclopedia as fact? Do you think this encyclopedia gained this information from research given to them by NASA or JPL? Anyone have any additional info/thoughts?...SM. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Tankdown
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Jan 13, 2008
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| scientificmind wrote: |
Tankdown,
Okay...we shake hands and move forward. One last word...I am not saying Bradley's calculations were incorrect...I am just saying that the measurements he observed of the precession can not be accounted for SOLELY by lunar/solar interference. |
I know, which is why I added the brightness thing, Is astronomers are able to find a dim star from another galaxy there is no excess why we can't find this one. Your jumping to conclusions again like your claim of classified information.
| scientificmind wrote: |
| Now...back to this threads intention-what are people's opinions on why this diagram is posted in a scientific encyclopedia as fact? Do you think this encyclopedia gained this information from research given to them by NASA or JPL? Anyone have any additional info/thoughts?...SM. |
1.No, this sounds like one of those bad books that promote Intelligent Design and god rather then evolution.
2.No I don't see why you would consider that immediately
3. People are never going to let this die. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Rhythm
B.V. Lurker
Joined: Jul 19, 2007
Posts: 304
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
don't you find it odd that the only reference to this "encyclopedia" to be found on the net are from articles about planet x all of which use this apparently otherwise non-existant "encyclopedia" as one of their major sources?
Just because something deems itself an "encyclopedia" does not at all mean that anything contained inside it is accurate or has any basis in fact whatseoever. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
| Page 1 of 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | |
| |
blocks-left.jpg
blocks-left.jpg
blocks-left.jpg
|  |
Online Stats: 
