Saturn rocking back and forth?? What if CW Leonis were really Nibiru? Link inside.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by jamie23

 

Magnetism trumps gravity easily ,

easy way to test , place a ball bearing on the floor , aproach the ball bearing with a magnet and hey presto ..

The "huge" force that is gravity is easily overcome by something as simple as a small magnet .

Better yet, try this experiment: hold a steel ball bearing two meters above the floor. Place a magnet two meters away from where the bearing will land. Drop the bearing. What happens?

I would imagine that the ball bearing falls to the floor , un-affected by the magnet?

I was really trying to point out that the theory in the o.p about gravity being magnetism can't be true imo.

not that i am an expert and if i am wrong i would like to be corrected (nothing worse than believing that you know something when in reality you have it totally wrong)

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by jamie23

 

The "huge" force that is gravity is easily overcome by something as simple as a small magnet .

The problem here is that the magnetic field of the magnet you hold in your hand is tremendously more powerful than the magnetic field of the Earth.

Your demonstration simply shows that gravity can be overcome by magnetism. It does not show anything else. For instance, it does not show that magnetism is important in shaping the solar system or universe.

I wasn't trying to suggest that magnetism is important in shaping the solar system or universe , only that gravity can be overcome by magnetism.

If the entire mass of our planet pulling down on the ball bearing can be overcome by a small magnet then i do not believe that gravity is magnetism as suggested in the link in the op

reply to post by jamie23


I did not understand your point. Thanks for the clarification.

Yes gravity is weak, but it is always additive. The more mass the greater the gravitation force.

Due to the balance of charges in most things the E field is weak. Most items are not magnetic either. The field used to levitate the frog was incredibly strong - 16T. Compare that to the Earth or Sun's fields.

Impressions.

No cover sheet. Removed. Possibly an intelligence agency document or presented as a slide show. Author has a math background, but not physics.

"In house" document. Feel that the author is largely correct in assumptions.

Final conclusion not given. Will the earth survive? It will, but maybe not us.

Author has good data and access to materials not easily found. Nibiru stuff well done and shows a possible link to NASA data not available to public.

Correctness/reliability estimated at greater than 70 percent.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
I haven't read any statements saying that this storm on Saturn which circles this large planet is common or recurring and so far it doesn't seem transient.

The Saturnian year is quite long (30 earth years), but it is a recurring event tied with seasonal changes on Saturn.
www.universetoday.com...
It came early this Saturnian year, but that's really the only "odd" thing about it and is probably driven by the same solar variations that are contributing to climate change. No, you don't need "Nibiru" to explain it.

If the huge ring around Saturn has always been there, within our solar system, and never been seen before then I think that makes a good argument for not being able to see things in our own neighborhood unless we're right on top of them. Same with the moons.

You're talking about small objects or objects with very little material and density. You can't make broad brush statements based on that, particularly if you're trying to allude to the claims of a brown dwarf in the solar neighborhood. Yes, small objects (or very tenuous features) can elude detection until our instruments are near them, that's precisely why small near earth asteroids aren't discovered until they're just days or even hours from a close approach to earth. The same would not be true regarding large objects like a brown dwarf or planet. I know you didn't use those words, but it seems to be what you're alluding to.

As far as Saturns tilt goes, there seems so far in my research to be a 30 or so percent difference in the speed at which it is tilting now compared to 2008 for instance. I'm not finished looking through previous years but April-May-June of this year are troubling.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Saturn's tilt is constant. Its rings appear to open and close over time because of Saturn's changing position in space. Astrometric measurements show that it's where it's predicted to be though.

reply to post by yourmamaknows


Your impressions are quite wrong. You need to review the material and see for example that the data is a collection of screen shots taken from other places.

The Nibiru material is implausible. So you have the impression that the correctness/reliability is greater than 70%. So you think this information is slightly better than the flip of a coin?

Consider the fact that the orbit is inside of the orbit of the Earth. Can you explain why it is listed as an elongated orbit? Can you explain why we can't see the object? Can you explain why the orbits of the planets are not showing the effect of a mass larger than Jupiter?

reply to post by ngchunter


Your link supports my point. A few quotes about this storm on Saturn:

"It's so intense that it's even visible in larger amateur telescopes."

"Well, to our great amazement, this new storm - now 500 times larger than any previously seen by Casini at Saturn and 8 times the surface area of Earth - has erupted at 35 degrees/north/latitude."

"We have been observing storms on Saturn for almost seven years, so tracking a storm so different from the others has put us on the edge of our seats."

I agree with your statement that "...it...is probably driven by the same solar variations that are contributing to climate change." So there's nothing to argue there.

I'm not sure where you're going or where you think I'm going with Nibiru. I've read Sitchin's book back in the 90's if that's what you mean along with the many other books I generally read every year. I don't think that's relevant to a discussion of this giant ring which makes the point that there could be a thousand things in our solar system that we can't see until we're right on top of them or until the're right on top of us! A few quotes from an article in npr 'New Saturn Ring Discovered and it's huge'

"...difficult to see with visible light telescopes..."

"...orbit tilted 27 degrees from the main ring plane."

"...starts about...(3.7 million miles) away from the planet..."

"...and extends outward another...(7.4 million miles)..."

"This is one supersize ring..."

So whether this was there before we got right on top of it or not must wait for a dating process. That it's huge and never before noticed is clear. That it's within the solar system is clear. That it takes up a lot of square acres of solar system is clear.

Binary star systems are common. Trinary star systems may also be common - we don't know yet because those are just being discovered even as we post. A quote from wise geek 'What is a Binary Star System?'

"It is thought that binary star systems are quite common in the universe and may in fact be in the majority."

I think the OP article shows that whatever object approaching closer to our solar system than it has for awhile is not invisible but in plain sight. I haven't really even gotten to dissecting that part of the OP yet because I got intrigued by the chaotic and erratic tilting of Saturn's rings. You were able to put the photos to rest for me but by then I had numbers showing degree of tilt and frequency of degree of tilt which show what I believe to be anomolous tilt this year. I don't look at tilts for a living so can't devote 24/7 to it but it is basically this: a comparison of the number of degrees of tilt per month this year compared to previous years 2008 and before. Thanks for your interest.

In the OP, it is shown that between may 2007 and may 2011 an object, not Elenin, is moving closer to our solar system. Can any one corroborate that ?

I don't believe so, the only 2 IR cameras were both taken offline at the beginning of this year. They were put into hibernation mode. This is where the pic of CW leonis is coming from, one of these cameras, but we don't have a later one to compare it to.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Your link supports my point. A few quotes about this storm on Saturn:

You said it didn't happen before, the link specifically mentions the fact that it's a seasonal phenomenon.

"It's so intense that it's even visible in larger amateur telescopes."

"Well, to our great amazement, this new storm - now 500 times larger than any previously seen by Casini at Saturn and 8 times the surface area of Earth - has erupted at 35 degrees/north/latitude."

Key words being by Cassini. Cassini hasn't yet experienced a full Saturnian year before. I've seen other storms recorded by amateur telescopes in the past. But most importantly, the phenomenon itself is not new.

"We have been observing storms on Saturn for almost seven years,

That's barely more than a quarter of a Saturnian year.

I'm not sure where you're going or where you think I'm going with Nibiru. I've read Sitchin's book back in the 90's if that's what you mean along with the many other books I generally read every year. I don't think that's relevant to a discussion of this giant ring which makes the point that there could be a thousand things in our solar system that we can't see until we're right on top of them or until the're right on top of us!

Those "things" would need to be similarly small or very tenuous. In other words, not a concern, other than the aforementioned small asteroids that whiz by us all the time.

So whether this was there before we got right on top of it or not must wait for a dating process.

What? It was seen because of Spitzer, it has nothing to do with us "being right on top of it." It's not new, it's just newly found thanks to new satellites. To say it's literally new is like saying the dwarf planet Eris is literally new because we never saw it before.

That it's huge and never before noticed is clear.

Yes, it is huge, which is why it was never noticed before; the ring is extremely tenuous, there's just not much matter there so there's virtually nothing present to reflect light. If it were smaller and denser we would have noticed it. Even entire nebulae are still discovered today, even by amateurs, because they're also very tenuous.

Binary star systems are common.

A star is not a tenuous feature, nor is it small. Brown dwarf binaries orbiting main sequence stars at large distances are rare. Yes, I know where you're going with this.

I think the OP article shows that whatever object approaching closer to our solar system than it has for awhile is not invisible but in plain sight.

You have yet to establish any such "object" is approaching the solar system.

You were able to put the photos to rest for me but by then I had numbers showing degree of tilt and frequency of degree of tilt which show what I believe to be anomolous tilt this year.

Saturn's tilt is not off, I established that already.

reply to post by habfan1968


Of course you can't. If there were anything out there then it would be visible. The evidence is very clear that there are no planet sized new objects near the solar system.

reply to post by KSprepared


You don't need an IR camera to see a large object in the solar system. That is a known false claim.

reply to post by yourmamaknows

Impressions.

No cover sheet. Removed. Possibly an intelligence agency document or presented as a slide show. Author has a math background, but not physics.

No cover sheet, possibly because the author does not know how to use his "Paint" software yet. Author has a third grader's grasp of multiplication and division and is completely ignorant of concepts such as "significant digits." He is unfamiliar with the concept of density and believes that things are held to Earth by the "weight of the air," even though he rejects the existence of gravity. Since gravitational attraction is used to calculate a celestial body's mass, his mass figures are especially mysterious.

"In house" document. Feel that the author is largely correct in assumptions.

In his mother's house, perhaps.

Final conclusion not given. Will the earth survive? It will, but maybe not us.

The final conclusion may be woven into the meandering stream of irrelevant, disconnected material.

Author has good data and access to materials not easily found. Nibiru stuff well done and shows a possible link to NASA data not available to public.

Author has fabricated data and plagiarized dozens of readily accessible webpages, including known hoaxers like "Starviewer."

Correctness/reliability estimated at greater than 70 percent.

Reliability demonstrably 0%.

Originally posted by KSprepared
I don't believe so, the only 2 IR cameras were both taken offline at the beginning of this year. They were put into hibernation mode. This is where the pic of CW leonis is coming from, one of these cameras, but we don't have a later one to compare it to.

IRAS has been offline since 1983. It's a dead, tumbling satellite. There may not be an identical optical system using the same single column ccd to compare it to, but there are other images of CW Leonis in the infrared part of the spectrum.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by yourmamaknows

 

Your impressions are quite wrong. You need to review the material and see for example that the data is a collection of screen shots taken from other places.

The Nibiru material is implausible. So you have the impression that the correctness/reliability is greater than 70%. So you think this information is slightly better than the flip of a coin?

Consider the fact that the orbit is inside of the orbit of the Earth. Can you explain why it is listed as an elongated orbit? Can you explain why we can't see the object? Can you explain why the orbits of the planets are not showing the effect of a mass larger than Jupiter?

I have to call it like I see it. "You're out!" "Safe." "Foul ball." Etc. What I wrote is my honest impression. What are my qualifications for having an impression? Not educational. The guy on radio at night knows me, and a guy from Israel paid me a compliment once. I do have letters after my name, but am not a scientist.

reply to post by DJW001


How did I get involved in all this intellectually? Not by reasoning or calculating. A series of dreams from the top of Feb of this year. Repetitive, disturbing. People splitting apart and people mutated like in John Carpenter's "The Thing" and the Dr. in "From Beyond" after he was was reconstructed by God knows what.

The dreams were so personal and disturbing that I prayed for some relief. One day I woke up and turned on the TV and saw the events in Japan. Got a very creepy feeling. After that began to read on the internet. Found Terral's posting on the US Message board.

I'm am coming at this from a different perspective, you see. If someone wrote something and they were lying there is a good chance I would figure it out. A very good educational story to follow.

reply to post by ngchunter


Saturn has seasons. Saturn has seasonal storms. There is evidence that seasonal storms on Saturn are recurring. What in this quote from the link you supplied implies recurring, normal, seen this before, nothing unusual here?

"We have been observing storms on Saturn for almost seven years, so tracking a storm so different from the others has put us on the edge of our seats."

The Ring: New or not is not known. Anymore than the above mentioned storm new or not is not known. Why is this so important? Something caused them whether ancient or new is not known. If I look up one day and see 2 suns in the sky and say "wow - that's new" are you going to be there telling me that well that's not really true, it's newly discovered, it was there all the time?

Binary systems are common - get over it. The're in the majority - that's new - newly discovered - let's try to work with it.

Saturns Tilt: you debunked photos having to do with Saturn's tilt for which I have already expressed my appreciation. That doesn't mean that you can imperiously say, "Saturn's tilt is not off, I established that already." Resting on past laurels is a mistake.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Saturn has seasons. Saturn has seasonal storms. There is evidence that seasonal storms on Saturn are recurring. What in this quote from the link you supplied implies recurring, normal, seen this before, nothing unusual here?

You're selectively quoting. I can't say I didn't expect this, but I hoped for better.

It says:

Known as “Great White Spots”, these huge storms aren’t new to Saturn – they are common each Saturnian year.

They are recurring, Cassini has been watching Saturn for about 7 years. That's about 1 season on Saturn. This is the first opportunity Cassini has had to witness seasonal storms on Saturn. The only odd thing about it is the timing, but again, natural solar variation probably plays a part in that.

"We have been observing storms on Saturn for almost seven years, so tracking a storm so different from the others has put us on the edge of our seats."

Yes, 7 years, not 30, not even 15.

The Ring: New or not is not known.

To claim it's new simply because we never observed it before, knowing full well that Spitzer is a new addition to our astronomical arsenal, is not logical at all. It's up to you to prove it didn't exist before.

Anymore than the above mentioned storm new or not is not known.

We know Saturn goes through seasonal storms, sorry.

If I look up one day and see 2 suns in the sky and say "wow - that's new" are you going to be there telling me that well that's not really true, it's newly discovered, it was there all the time?

You analogy is deeply flawed; you've always had eyes that can see the sun. Spitzer has dramatically improved our ability to study individual objects at far infrared wavelengths in high detail, greater than anything that has come before it.

Binary systems are common - get over it.

Brown dwarf stars orbiting main sequence stars like ours are rare, very rare, get over it.
www.science20.com...
Any other type of star would have made itself quite obvious even at Oort cloud distances.

Saturns Tilt: you debunked photos having to do with Saturn's tilt for which I have already expressed my appreciation. That doesn't mean that you can imperiously say, "Saturn's tilt is not off, I established that already." Resting on past laurels is a mistake.

I measured the tilt, it's fine, there's nothing wrong with it.

Let it be clear: it is NOT Nibiru, it's Elenin. Nibiru is largely irrelevant. The latter, however, is deadly, and the main cause of the increase in natural disasters, including EQ, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

reply to post by yourmamaknows


There are lots of good hints at judging material posted here by the likes of ngchunter and djw001. Learn how to realize that the material is rubbish.

Take a look at the Nibiru data. Count how many digits are given in the numbers for things like mass and diameter. Then go to any site and check the measurements for actual planets. See how the numbers are given with different number of digits. That's a clue that the numbers are made up. After that look at the numbers for the distance from the Sun. Check that against the planets and see that they make no sense at all.