Humans close to finding answers to origin of universe: Hawking

arjan de lumens said:
Nah, not really. It's more that a whole bunch of people here have gotten extremely weary of non-constructive attacks on science and the scientific community, especially when the argument is one of close-mindedness and comes from someone who has just had their pet idea brushed off or picked apart.
Click to expand...
No no I insist. You do know everything.

You can write a book of REAL science unlike these pseudo scientists I follow so blindly. You can have a scientific discussion with scientists and understand everything a scientist studys.

Thats why you have the ability to judge and come up to conclusions of whats BS and whats not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chalnoth said:
I see no reason to read further if some of the basic premises are so horribly wrong.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I was referring to when I pointed out that you are just dismissing these ideas because they are against your beliefs. If you had read further you might find yourself in a position to make competent arguments rather than the ones you have presented which have only served to illustrate your ignorance of the subject at hand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chalnoth said:
It's not like I launched this discussion in order to debunk his theories.
Click to expand...

It seems like that is what it lead to which is fine, maybe I have misunderstood a few things with this thread. I'm not about to get into an argument about this Sitchin geezer.. no idea who he is what he stands for and why anyone should be arguing about his work.

/Exits left
 
kyleb said:
This is exactly what I was referring to when I pointed out that you are just dismissing these ideas because they are against your beliefs. If you had read further you might find yourself in a position to make competent arguments rather than the ones you have presented which have only serve to illustrate your ignorance of the subject at hand.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Thats why I didnt believe a discussion was achievable.

Its not that I believe whatever Sitchin sais is right.

Tahir2 said:
It seems like that is what it lead to which is fine, maybe I have misunderstood a few things with this thread. I'm not about to get into an argument about this Sitchin geezer.. no idea who he is what he stands for and why anyone should be arguing about his work.

/Exits left
Click to expand...

The reason I refered to him wasnt to convince that Sacharias Sitchin is right or that I believe him blindly. I mentioned him as an extra reference.

Besides he isnt the only one that studied the same things. There is also R.A Boulay and they disagree in some areas.

I am 100% postive that many of his beliefs are wrong. But some info in the book are based on real archaeological discoveries, which are interesting to know and study about and try to do a search on other sources about them. The discoveries exist, his interpretation and personal opinions on them may be wrong but thats not the matter.

I didnt try to force into anyone that we came from extraterestrials or that supernatural beings from mythology existed and neither I share the same opinion. Thats just a subject of more study I thought it was interesting make a reference for some to read and combine it with other sources.

Anyways here are some more sources
http://www.plutoportal.net/
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword26b.htm
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/astr263l/SStour/planetx.html

As you can see scientist havent ruled out the possibility of another planet, neither do they believe that it truelly exists. There are some observations that make them wonder if their is one.

But ofcourse....some REAL scientists here know 100% for sure that it doesnt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, recently those scientists have found very many new bodies that could be classified as planets. They could add all those and say that the actual amount of planets is unknown, but very large, or change the definition of what makes something a planet. Which would require them to drop Pluto from the list, to keep things consistent.
 
Nesh said:
Anyways here are some more sources
http://www.plutoportal.net/
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword26b.htm
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/astr263l/SStour/planetx.html

As you can see scientist havent ruled out the possibility of another planet, neither do they believe that it truelly exists. There are some observations that make them wonder if their is one.

But ofcourse....some REAL scientists here know 100% for sure that it doesnt.
Click to expand...
For discussion about a "tenth planet", you may want to look for sources that take into consideration the discovery of "2003 UB313" (that "new" planet, often referred to in the media as "Xena", even though it hasn't been given a final official name yet.)
 
Nesh said:
Anyways here are some more sources
http://www.plutoportal.net/
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword26b.htm
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/astr263l/SStour/planetx.html

As you can see scientist havent ruled out the possibility of another planet, neither do they believe that it truelly exists. There are some observations that make them wonder if their is one.

But ofcourse....some REAL scientists here know 100% for sure that it doesnt.
Click to expand...
Okay, first plutoportal doesn't seem to say anything about a "tenth" planet from what I can tell.

Secondly, zetatalk links a number of articles from the early 1980's. Due to the way that astronomy has been growing, that's roughly equivalent to stating that articles on computer hardware of the early 1980's would be applicable today.

The Perdue link has distressingly-little information.

I don't think you can draw the conclusion you do at all. Some scientists are exceedingly cautious as to what they will consider to be ruled out. Maybe it's because I'm still quite young, but I'm very willing to rule out the possibility of any planets beyond Neptune (with the definition that the Kuiper belt objects, which includes Pluto, are not planets).
 
Chalnoth said:
Okay, first plutoportal doesn't seem to say anything about a "tenth" planet from what I can tell.

Secondly, zetatalk links a number of articles from the early 1980's. Due to the way that astronomy has been growing, that's roughly equivalent to stating that articles on computer hardware of the early 1980's would be applicable today.

The Perdue link has distressingly-little information.

I don't think you can draw the conclusion you do at all. Some scientists are exceedingly cautious as to what they will consider to be ruled out. Maybe it's because I'm still quite young, but I'm very willing to rule out the possibility of any planets beyond Neptune (with the definition that the Kuiper belt objects, which includes Pluto, are not planets).
Click to expand...

You can do some more extented search. These were results from a quick search. I am no t trying to prove its existence with these.

There is a list of books in plutoportal plus some external links and some search of the quoted articles in
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/astr26...r/planetx.html might give more information
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nesh said:
You can do some more extented search. These were results from a quick search. I am no t trying to prove its existence with these.

There is a list of books in plutoportal plus some external links and some search of the quoted articles in
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/astr26...r/planetx.html might give more information
Click to expand...
How many planets do you want? I might make you a definition of "planet" that gives you exactly that amount.
 
The IAU (International Astronomical Union) has yet to reach a conclusion on the formal definition of a planet as far as I'm aware (and 2003 UB313 hasn't helped the process at all).

That Purdue page is just a placeholder / speculation.
 
K.I.L.E.R said:
What the heck is a planet anyway?
Click to expand...

Well that's what the IAU debate is about, the precise definition. Clearly there are some properties it must have (it must be gravitationally bound to its host star), but in other properties eg. mass there are some real grey areas. At the lower end planets cease to become planets and become asteroids / comets / Kuiper Belt objects, at the upper end of the mass spectrum planets the boundary between planets and brown dwarfs is also slightly fuzzy (less so than the lower boundary though).

I've read that some scientists still debate whether Pluto is a planet.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
K.I.L.E.R said:
What the heck is a planet anyway?
I've read that some scientists still debate whether Pluto is a planet.
Click to expand...
The discussion of what is a "planet" has indeed heated up rather strongly lately, after the 2003 UB313 discovery. Basically, UB313 is an object that orbits the Sun; it is a bit farther out than Pluto, but evidently slightly bigger. There are also about a dozen or so other objects in similarly far-out orbits that are only slightly smaller than Pluto, that have been discovered over the lat 3-4 years.

This leads to a dilemma where we need to revisit our definition of what a "planet" is; the main alternatives are presumably as follows:
  • Keep Pluto as a planet and reject all the other "new" objects. This would leave Pluto as an odd-one-out special case as far as planet definition is concerned.
  • Keep Pluto and UB313 as planets, with a cutoff for planet size set just below the size of Pluto. This would lead to a consistent but rather arbitrary-looking criterion for what a planet is (it would e.g. reject 2005 FY9, which is about 10% smaller than Pluto).
  • Reject Pluto, UB313 and all the other Kuiper-belt objects, placing the cutoff for planet size above that of Pluto's size. Again, this is somewhat arbitrary, but since there are no known sun-orbiting objects with sizes between those of UB313 and Mercury (Mercury has about twice the diameter of UB313), it does avoid the problem of having to set an unreasonably sharp cutoff.
  • Accept all the new objects as completely worthy planets, as long as a criterion other than size, such as e.g. roughly-spherical-shape-due-to-gravitation is satisfied. This definition is rather elegant and nice - except that this definition would mean that the number of known planets in our solar systems has more or less doubled in the last 4 years alone.
Of course, the dilemma is really more one of communication with the public rather than scientific discovery per se; whether we call e.g. 2005 FY9 a "planet" is not going to affect the size, orbit, shape, diameter, color or any other measurable property of 2005 FY9.
 
arjan de lumens said:
Keep Pluto and UB313 as planets, with a cutoff for planet size set just below the size of Pluto. This would lead to a consistent but rather arbitrary-looking criterion for what a planet is (it would e.g. reject 2005 FY9, which is about 10% smaller than Pluto).
Click to expand...
Considering the size of the Oort cloud, the chance of there being larger bodies around is pretty high. So you would have to limit it to the Kuiper belt, they would all have to orbit in the right plane and direction, etc. Still more arbitrary criteria. But then again, you have some of those in any case, if you want to have a general definition.
 
To show the scales we're talking about:

kuiper3%20a.jpg


The Oort Cloud is what defines the size of our Solar system. It's many times more huge than you can fathom, and extends very far beyond the tiny part in the middle that holds the planets as we know them.

The part of it that is an extension of the disk that holds the planets is called the Kuiper Belt, like this (inner part of the inner Oort Cloud in the logarithmic diagram):

com-oort1.gif


source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DiGuru said:
Considering the size of the Oort cloud, the chance of there being larger bodies around is pretty high. So you would have to limit it to the Kuiper belt, they would all have to orbit in the right plane and direction, etc. Still more arbitrary criteria. But then again, you have some of those in any case, if you want to have a general definition.
Click to expand...
By the way, I would think that composition would be fairly good criteria upon which to distinguish Oort cloud and Kuiper belt objects from planets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top