Humans close to finding answers to origin of universe: Hawking

[Fred]

All you need is a tiny perturbation from far enough out to deviate the comet/asteroid, and if you change its spin + the radiation blast front that should in principle be enough.

You would want to blast a neutron bomb or something of that nature for the maximum directed throughput as well as a direct impact nuke.

But again, maybe im missing something obvious here. Lets say you split an extinction lvl event asteroid into two large inhomogenous pieces from far enough. These two pieces will now in their frame more or less only feel their own gravitational effects. This in principle could convert the objects net momentum after the blast into some small angular momentum piece.

Now, an inhomogenous object(s) that have interacting angular components will add tiny vector components to its net orbit assuming you aren't in a complete vacuum. Since you in principle have a years worth of time for such tiny perturbations to become significant, it strikes me that we aren't that far off from being enough to deviate it.

 

[Nesh]

No, I'm saying that you need to post something real, or it's of no use as a basis for discussion. Anecdotal, "I remember seeing something like this one time," isn't very useful, because memory changes over time, and you may well have misinterpreted the original author's statements anyway.

Your reaction though wouldnt have been the same if I posted without any links something you could accept .It was also mostly offensive than indicative that you were willing to know more or discuss. Anyways you give the impression that you are aiming to disprove me no matter what links I might provide you with.

Anyways, although its a possibility that my memory changed, some of them are recent, like what my proffesor has told me, and I remember it exactly the way he said it. Abd I still have the book of the unknown history of man.

Problem is since the "sources" are specific, and not from the web I dont know if I can provide you with any links. If they were more general I could have found easily a link.

So lets leave it as such.

 

[KimB]

Most such things that are of any interest are re-posted online.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Why is it that Nesh is the only person capable of rubbing Chalnoth the wrong way?

 

[arjan de lumens]

Abd I still have the book of the unknown history of man.

Does the book have a name

 

[NRP]

Your reaction though wouldnt have been the same if I posted without any links something you could accept .It was also mostly offensive than indicative that you were willing to know more or discuss. Anyways you give the impression that you are aiming to disprove me no matter what links I might provide you with.

Nesh, this isn't the Console Forum. No one has any agenda to disprove what you say.

Speculation is fine so long as it's tied to what we know or can experimentally test. Anything else is beyond science, and is therefore nothing more than mental masturbation, which, while stimulating, is ultimately an exercise in futility.

Please don't take this the wrong way. No one is trying to discourage you. Just try to be more substantive.

 

[Frank]

This is a nice page about the best recorded meteor strike in our history:

http://www.psi.edu/projects/siberia/siberia.html

(the pictures are paintings according to eye witnesses)

while this is an actual picture of the scene afterwards:

As this is the best data we have on actual meteor impacts and we only became aware of it in the last few decennia (there was a lot of speculation before that about what had really happened there, most people not having any idea about meteor impacts), it seems clear to me that we are in a bad situation here: we really need more data, but the potential damage is staggering.

Happily, the chance of a meteor levelling a major city seems quite remote.

 

[satein]

Hawkings probably ment in some decades when he said we are near
...
There were also previous beliefs from religions that werent in the past accepted by scientists but are now. For example the logic of center everywhere with a periphery of no where. Or that everything is an expression of one and the same thing.

That is very interesting state as I feel that many things might share a similar core, but it is differently applied. Anyway, could you please give me the book name of 'the unknown history of man'? It sounds rather interesting reading :smile:

 

[Nesh]

Does the book have a name

Yeah. "The unknown history of man"

Only problem is this is a direct translation of the title written in a different language.

That is very interesting state as I feel that many things might share a similar core, but it is differently applied. Anyway, could you please give me the book name of 'the unknown history of man'? It sounds rather interesting reading :smile:

I ve seen a few discussions and documentaries on the subject and its a thing accepted even more as time passes. Also Da Vinci used that same logic. By observing and studying some things helped him study and discover other things.

Also if we are all and everything made from the big bang then everything shares the same source.

edit: Ok found it on my library. The author of thata book is Robert Charroux and the book is probably very very old. The specific book doesnt make much references to that specific thing though. It just mentioned it somewhere.

edit3: Searched for him in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Charroux
edit4:http://www.jornalinfinito.com.br/materias.asp?cod=105

Probably written during 1976. Some info are just refering to various myths and superstitions, not stated as a fact in the book. A huge part of it though is refering to very strange ancient and present discoveries that change the way we might percieve history and the evolution of man.. Some strange phenomena are still unexlplained, some are finally explained today and others are just theories (dont forget the book is very old).

It also makes some references to some scientific observations here and there.

Not exactly much related to the topic here though for those that are interested I d also suggest Zacharias Sitchin's books refering to the mysteries of Egypt and the Sumerians. Here is a link of some discussions http://www.sitchin.com/

He is universally one among very very very few people that can read Sumerian.

I think some of you might have also heard of his most famous book the 12th planet. Some of you might also remember a recent discovery of a massive strange and unknown object that was discovered by scientists in our solar system.

I have also just found now a link that might be related to that "everything is one" theory.
http://open-site.org/Science/Physics/Modern/Theory_of_Everything/

edit2: Just found another one but havent checked it in detail so I dont know if it is related. http://www.hyponoesis.org/html/essays/e029.html

 

[KimB]

Oh, God. There are only 8 objects in our solar system which could be accurately described as planets. Pluto is one of many Kuiper belt objects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

Many other objects near the size of Pluto and Charon (Pluto's companion) have been located.

 

[Nesh]

Oh, God. There are only 8 objects in our solar system which could be accurately described as planets. Pluto is one of many Kuiper belt objects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

Many other objects near the size of Pluto and Charon (Pluto's companion) have been located.

Ahm...yeah I know. And Sacharias Sitchin knows it. But because you arent trying to discuss but rather disprove you are the one who makes the mistakes simply because of your ignorance and lack of knowldedge on the matter. It is the 12 "planets" according to the Sumerian astronomy and archeology which includes the Sun, the Earth's moon, a planet if memory serves me right that was destroyied living a ring of dust and probably the other massive object in our Solar system that was discovered recently.

 

[Neeyik]

Oh dear Lord - are we reduced to believing that past civilisations had a better understanding of astronomy than we do today?

 

[Nesh]

Oh dear Lord - are we reduced to believing that past civilisations had a better understanding of astronomy than we do today?

What does this have to do with everything?

 

[Neeyik]

The phrase is "what does this have to do with anything?", not "everthing". Explaining the latter would clearly be impossible.

I think some of you might have also heard of his most famous book the 12th planet. Some of you might also remember a recent discovery of a massive strange and unknown object that was discovered by scientists in our solar system.

Ahm...yeah I know. And Sacharias Sitchin knows it. But because you arent trying to discuss but rather disprove you are the one who makes the mistakes simply because of your ignorance and lack of knowldedge on the matter. It is the 12 "planets" according to the Sumerian astronomy and archeology which includes the Sun, the Earth's moon, a planet if memory serves me right that was destroyied living a ring of dust and probably the other massive object in our Solar system that was discovered recently.

You are implying that Sumerians knew of the existance of Kuiper belt objects, which is clearly impossible. You also insult somebody who actually works in the field of astronomy by saying:

you arent trying to discuss but rather disprove you are the one who makes the mistakes simply because of your ignorance and lack of knowldedge on the matter.

...but insist that this newly discovered object is "strange" and "massive" when it is neither.

People were right from the very start of this - this is nothing more than hand-waving, not-even-pseudo-science and not because it's not scientific, but simply wrong.

 

[Nesh]

The phrase is "what does this have to do with anything?", not "everthing". Explaining the latter would clearly be impossible.

Ok "what does this have to do with anything?" then

You are implying that Sumerians knew of the existance of Kuiper belt objects, which is clearly impossible. You also insult somebody who actually works in the field of astronomy by saying:

Thats your own view of my post

I am not insulting anyone. A planet is what Chalnoth said and what astronomers call a planet.
The book isnt refering to 12 planets literally and neither does it try to prove today's astronomers wrong, ignorant for stupid for not calling the sun or moon a planet. Ofcourse they arent wrong. They are completely right.
The 12 "planets" (notice the " " once again) are just the bodies in our solar system to which the Sumerians were refering to in their scriptures. Nothing more nothing less. They arent planets.

But because Chalnoth had no idea of the book or what Sacharian Sitchich studies or talks about he jumped to conclusions fast and went directly to disprove than ask because thats what he is trying to do no matter what.

A real astronomer who takes his work seriously would have tried to find out what he ment by 12 planets when they are actually 8. And indeed they are 8.

...but insist that this newly discovered object is "strange" and "massive" when it is neither.

Thats how it was called by the media. Dont blame me

People were right from the very start of this - this is nothing more than hand-waving, not-even-pseudo-science and not because it's not scientific, but simply wrong.

If you have been told centuries ago that the earth wasnt flat you would have reacted the same way.
And neither are you a scientist that studied all possible fields. Can you read Sumerian? Have you studied all fields of science and archeology? Do you know everything astronomers know, study and wonder about? Ofcourse not.

You are the same case as the previous poster. You arent trying to discuss either. You are aiming to disprove no matter what. These things could be truthful or wrong. But you arent trying to find whats is or whats not. You are only trying to satisfy your predetermined opinion and reject everything that opposes it and because of that you might be the one to often ironically contradict science instead of me. Even more ironically you are reminding of conservative religious people that follow the "never question or study just accept and follow" rule.

I only give information. Its your choice to read them, study and wonder.

 

[KimB]

No, no, no. Sitchin claims that the ancient Sumerians knew about a "planet" beyond Pluto, which they called "Nibiru." This is complete and utter nonsense. They, quite simply, didn't have the technology to detect an object as dim as any of the large Kuiper belt objects beyond Pluto. If you do a simple search, you'll find a great number of websites debunking Sitchin's works. Here's one:
http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/

 

[Neeyik]

Thats your own view of my post...

I am not insulting anyone.

So this is acceptable as part of a discussion?

you are the one who makes the mistakes simply because of your ignorance and lack of knowldedge on the matter.

A planet is what Chalnoth said and what astronomers call a planet.
The book isnt refering to 12 planets literally and neither does it try to prove today's astronomers wrong, ignorant for stupid for not calling the sun or moon a planet. Ofcourse they arent wrong. They are completely right.
The 12 "planets" (notice the " " once again) are just the bodies in our solar system to which the Sumerians were refering to in their scriptures. Nothing more nothing less. They arent planets.

In that case they are still totally wrong, not "completely right" because there are thousands are large objects in our solar system.

But because Chalnoth had no idea of the book or what Sacharian Sitchich studies or talks about he jumped to conclusions fast and went directly to disprove than ask because thats what he is trying to do no matter what.

No, you merely assumed this to be the case.

If you have been told centuries ago that the earth wasnt flat you would have reacted the same way.

No I wouldn't because scientists knew the Earth wasn't flat centuries ago, and have known this for thousands of years. It's modern misconception that scientists believed the Earth was flat in past times.

And neither are you a scientist that studied all possible fields. Can you read Sumerian? Have you studied all fields of science and archeology? Do you know everything astronomers know, study and wonder about? Ofcourse not.

Can you prove that I'm not? Are you for that matter? Is anyone? Does one have to be such a scientist in order to debate these topics?

You are the same case as the previous poster. You arent trying to discuss either. You are aiming to disprove no matter what.

Yes, that's the point of a discussion - I have a point of view on the matter which I firmly believe; ergo I will discuss the matter from my point of view. Why should I consider the alternative when I don't believe it is true?

These things could be truthful or wrong. But you arent trying to find whats is or whats not. You are only trying to satisfy your predetermined opinion and reject everything that opposes it and because of that you might be the one to often ironically contradict science instead of me. Even more ironically you are reminding of conservative religious people that follow the "never question or study just accept and follow" rule.

I don't need to find out - I already know. You've assumed that I've known nothing of this matter and that I've simply read this thread and jumped in with the point.

I only give information. Its your choice to read them, study and wonder.

You're offering an opinion on the information so you're doing more than just "giving" it.

 

[arjan de lumens]

You are aiming to disprove no matter what.

That is what scientists are doing to each other's new ideas and insights ALL THE TIME. If you cannot understand this concept and embrace it - if you cannot tolerate people trying to disprove whatever ideas you put forth when discussing ideas of science - then please get lost.

Any idea too weak to withstand merciless attack is also too weak to rely upon. This applies regardless of how wise and insightful the idea sounds.

 

[Nesh]

So this is acceptable as part of a discussion?

Ofcourse. He didnt know anything about Sacharias Sitchin's study and he jumped to a conclusion. He is the one that insulted me actually if you do a rerun of the supposed "discussion".

In that case they are still totally wrong, not "completely right" because there are thousands are large objects in our solar system.

Ahm.....once again you misinterpreted what I am trying to say. 12 important bodies for the Sumerians under this logic
a)8 the major planets,
b)the major star in the solar system
c)the closest body to earth
d)a major planet that was destroyied leaving a ring of dust and rocks
e)another huge planet that passes near earth every period of thousands of years

No, you merely assumed this to be the case.

No I didnt. He went to state that the book ment that 12 planets exist in our Solar System which isnt what the book sais. He has no idea of his study.

No I wouldn't because scientists knew the Earth wasn't flat centuries ago, and have known this for thousands of years. It's modern misconception that scientists believed the Earth was flat in past times.

Only if you were a scientist. A non-scientist of that age found it funny that the earth wasnt considered flat. Just as Galileo's belief that earth was round wasnt accepted.

Can you prove that I'm not?

Can you too prove that I am not?

Are you for that matter? Is anyone? Does one have to be such a scientist in order to debate these topics?

Ofcourse the reason why I dont reject or take anything I read for granted something you do, but choose to study various soources unlike you, than have a predetermined unchangable view of things something you have.

Yes, that's the point of a discussion - I have a point of view on the matter which I firmly believe; ergo I will discuss the matter from my point of view. Why should I consider the alternative when I don't believe it is true?

If we assume I believe everything I posted you like calling pseudo-science that its undeniably a fact then why are you doing the same thing you are accusing me trying to force me I am wrong?

The point of the discussion isnt to disprove someone no matter what, something you are trying to do

I don't need to find out - I already know. You've assumed that I've known nothing of this matter and that I've simply read this thread and jumped in with the point.

Yeah ofcourse you do. Thats what everyone things about theirselves. You are a scientist, an archaeologist, an astronomer and you can read Sumerian. You admited it earlier, right?

You're offering an opinion on the information so you're doing more than just "giving" it.

I have an opinion that doesnt necesarilly go against someone else's discovery or study, or force it, or disprove other people's knowledge without listening first objectively.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Neeyik was just saying that other people who specialise in the fields you mentioned have disproved that the Somarians discovered planets beyond Pluto(If you call Pluto a planet to begin with).

How could have Somarians discovered other planets let alone know what a star vs planet is by just looking at the sky?
Did they have special powers?