Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

It is NOT logically possible, by ANY interpretation of ANY evidence.

You are just another idiot trying to justify Nancy's bullshit.

Educate yourself in basic science unless you wish to remain a clueless moron.

ZetaTalk has ALWAYS seemed crazy to anyone with a functioning brain and some intelligence, and it still does, because it is 100% pure bullshit.

Reading your posts makes me suspect you are just another ZetaTroll.

Yes, she does confuse it. But she is trying to explain something else and probably didn't feel it was important for her to look into libration properly; why? she knew she didn't to change her position on axis spin (since she seems to have thoguht she was talking about that). Others suggested there was a spin -- yes, there is, but not on its axis. They were uncharitable in how they expressed it to her.

And she didn't respond. This is how misunderstandings happen. That's obvious.

As to the idea that everything is perfectly normal -- I assume it is, too. I just don't know it is. Do you? Have you checked everything?

Anyway, I am most concerned not by the normal-or-not-normal skies, though that figures in her material quite a bit.

I am more concerned of whether there is evidence a PX approached, is by the Sun, pulled us by electromagnetic charge (and gravity) interpolation, is pushing our magnetic polar fields at times when normally they would be merely attracted by the Sun ... and other things I have thought of.

I ignore the rest as maybe or maybe not. If it is so, I would be interested to know, that something of a wiggle-wobble was happening.

But the idea that our magnetic pull (like water tidal, but from a PX not the moon, and on the crust) might be causing more earthquakes intrigues me.

Clare

No, he did not. Velikovsky simply speculated that the earth's magnetic field may be stronger with altitude than at the ground level. This speculation has nothing to do with the Van Allen belts discovered later, which are a layer of ionized radiation caught in the earth's magnetic field.

Well, I can tell the difference between independent minds and trolls. How can you not?

I thought the British were the most intelligent of all! :)



Okay, snarkiness aside ... when you really work out the issues that come up in Zetatalk -- and beyond that, in Velikovsky who WAS A MAJOR SCHOLAR, and in the long run, his main points have not been able to be dismissed ... and have been improved -- SOME of the issues in ZT do touch on plausibility if you work out the whole background on them.

It may still overall be wrong, but there are some indications that PX could be here. If those indications are correct in relating to a PX, we should be careful. That's all.

Wrong again. Gravity is calculated from mass only with no accounting for any "charge". Neither is magnetism taken into account because at planetary distances, it is way too weak to be a significant force. Orbital mechanics only takes gravity into account and perfectly predicts the planets' motions decades and centuries in advance. For instance, the 2004 transit of Venus in front of the sun was accurately predicted using ONLY gravitational forces well over 100 years prior in 1882...down to the second and exactly where it would appear to cross the surface of the sun. If there were other forces of any significance at play, they would have rendered the calculated transit in error, especially considering the the earth had made 122 orbits of the sun during that time and Venus had made nearly 200 orbits.

Alternatively, satellite orbits are also precisely calculated using only gravity, and relativistic time dilation effects where applicable. The GPS satellite orbits are known and accurate to within centimeters with no "charge" in the equations at all.

Charge as an actor at planetary distances?

LOL, Clare, you just outed yourself as an idiot.

You should stick to astrology. That's really more your speed.

I am an astrophotographer (you can see some of my work, if you care to, at www.machunter.org/hapspics.html) which absolutely relies on the accuracy and predicability of our location and orientation. Long duration photography can only work if the telescope's rotational axis is EXACTLY parallel to the earth's rotational axis so that only one motor is used to move the scope at a rate exactly opposite to that of the earth's. If the earth's axis were to change even a miniscule fraction of a degree (way too small to see), a phenomena known as field rotation would be evident in long exposures of the sky...in other words, stars would not image as pinpoints, but as arcs. Nancy claims not only that it has changed by many degrees, but that it "wobbles" visibly. This is simply ludicrous, as can be proven by any astrophotographer, or even anyone with a simple camera and tripod.

I also photograph objects that are so dim as to be undetectable visually through the scope. I rely on the ability of the tracking computer to slew the mount directly to any target in the sky when commanded...a function that relies on the location and orientation of the scope to be accurately known AND the orientation of the earth and its position in orbit to be accurately known at any point in time. If there were any unaccounted for forces or motions involved AT ALL, again, the GOTO functions of my and hundreds of thousands of other astronomers' scopes could not possibly work. They do. And wonderfully accurately at that.

Now, if you can explain how Nancy could be right about any of her claims along with the experience of every astronomer on earth showing nothing out of order, then be my guest. I'd love to hear it.

I know. I was expressing her sense of it.



I know. I was using different words to show that IF a person believes it's moving too much ... and DOES know of libration but doesn't understand its full meaning, so uses the term to mean "face movement" ... then that person (Nancy) would naturally conflate these ideas and confuse movements.

They would also think some movements were abnormal when they aren't.

Having said that, I don't PERSONALLY know how much exact movement is normal, and what she's claiming is "way off". She surely often does confuse the Moon stuff. But as to whether she is totally wrong about how much lately, I just wanted to admit I am not watching that personally. :)



Possibly. Yes. Here's an hypothesis, so as to still ask about PX: could be Nancy is not dedicated to that detail of science, gets impressions from Zetas, and misinterprets parts of this. Or could be Nancy has no Zetas. Or could be the Zetas are lying about some things, to form a discrediting of Nancy for the purpose of separating those who understand the PX direct hypothesis, versus those who focus on every claim she makes. It might be to protect her.

However, I say there are arguments for PX without Nancy's own.

And I hope the arguments are in fact wrong, but they work. They have to do with electromagnetism (which Nancy also stresses).



I know you feel you are. And maybe you are. I understand you want to do the right thing, and maybe you are!



The sense I get is that she is not trying to lie, but is instead *enthusiastic* about the topic (not happy- but worried-type enthusiasm), or shall I say, riled up?

Now, you could be right. She could be a mere psychopath -- and alien stuff itself I don't count for that, not after reading Dr Mack's treatise on the difference -- but she could be an actual psychopath who wants attention.

But if not, then very possibly she's looking for any anomaly or seeming anomaly. Hey, if she's really believing in/worried about PX, she'd hop on any suggestion that something was weird with the events going on. Even if the suggestion turned out to be a misunderstanding of her own, she'd at first produce it as possible evidence. That's what I think is going on.



Maybe. I hope so.



Good. I tend to worry less about the wobble-skies than the pull on us and causing smaller effects such as horrible weather pattern relationships, and earthquake correspondences. And the larger (albeit not catastrophic!) Chandler Wobble anomaly, the holes on our magnetosphere, etc.

I don't even bother with the claim that we currently have stopped, or the skies are off. But the pull on the wobble, possibly, and the seemingly 2nd-magnet effects on our poles and magnetosphere in total ... those interest me.

And they stand alone as a hypothetical argument for PX, WITHOUT THE SKY CHANGES, yet.

My mistake about the Polaris image. It was my one foray into that realm, and I was not sure. You helped me think that one through. On these other things, though, you seem not to have thought THEM through. By saying "this didn't happen" or "this was small" you have not handled WHAT happened. And you are not understanding (yet) the Newton vs Van Allen aspects of the universe, and how the latter wasn't fully incorporated into the movement dynamics of the planets, with all implications.

When you do, you will see that the Chandler Wobble issue COULD be a torque, albeit smaller, and from a big distance. Same with the holes in the magnetosphere and the mag Pole movements: as a magnified (Poles) or, with the magnetosphere holes, as a CONTARY push-pull of repulsion-attraction, which a) shouldn't be there with just the Sun, and b) are explained with a 2nd-magnet. In other words, a PX andnot just the Sun.

I hope something else explains it, but honestly, magnetic repulsion holes do not form "without magnetic cause"!




I don't. The only time I actually defended her CLAIMS on this, was re. the Polaris photo.

All other defenses have been for how she might have misunderstood, or be jumping on any (even misunderstood) anomaly, before really testing that. She is, as I have said, more worried/ riled up to help with a problem she thinks will affect the Earth in a big way. As such, who wouldn't be a bit quick off the mark with anything they thought would bolster their position?

She may be deluded or just simply lying. But I think the above is the most likely.




No problem. I have indicated that all along. And have said so.



I said "I dunno" to only one part. I dunno whether she's lying; I dunno if the Moon is off (in fact) though I suspect it's her own mistake -- or lie, but I doubt that, from her manner.

And my time was spent talking of how you might think through the fuller hypotheses of how she could get something wrong, or why, and how it's possible to still think on the OTHER possible PX issues, rather than HAVE to assume it's all Nancy or that Nancy HAS to be LYING to say what she does about the Moon. If you don't assume the latter, then more nuance about the whole PX issue and more kindness in discussion, are BOTH possible.

:)

Here's some.

Good! Glad to hear it.

It is not necessary to a PX claim in the pre Pole-Shift phase. So I don't usually bother with it, as I've said.

I personally think it's a deflection from the other evidence ... as I've said.

Actually, you have just absorbed a split-minded training on this.

Of course there's charge; and there are reasons that it hasn't been acknowledged: Newton didn't point it out (historical reasons at the time) and subsequent electromagnetic discoveries, predicted by Velikovsky, were not predicted by the others, and when discovered, were not theoretically worked out. They were merely grafted onto non-charge Newtonian mass physics. But electromagnetics are never static: they leave charge.

It would seem, instead, therefore, that the NON-PHYSICAL full implications of electromagnetics have not been thought through by the educational system, is all. This is typical in history, though. As is resistance.

There is one other thing to say here, however: Newton's mere descriptive algebra (not a full theory about HOW, as he admitted) for mass-related gravity, may in fact have conflated both mass-gravity AND electromagnetism.

By the way, the main test has never been done. It can be found in the Velikovsky correspondence with Einstein. Einstein's near-deathbed request to perform it was never done, by astrophysicists who resisted as you are.

Not directly testing is a non-answer, not an answer to whether it is so. Of course.

And no, I am not an astrologer.

You cling to Nancy and Velikovsky. Both are cranks, long discredited.

Maybe you *should* champion astrology, just to complete the trifecta of nonsense!

mclarek there is a stunning pattern to your threads.

There are variations, of course, but at it's core, your pattern is pretty much:

quote someone's post

admit they could be right

maintain they could be wrong

maintain you don't know yourself

vaguely claim it's possible no one knows anything

suggest the user you've quoted hasn't put enough thought into something

vaguely endorse a Nancy/Planet X-claim, while leaving just enough wiggle-room through to which to facilitate your own plausible deniability.

For instance:

"Possibly. Yes."

Your endorsement/admitting they could be right.

"Here's an hypothesis, so as to still ask about PX: could be Nancy is not dedicated to that detail of science, gets impressions from Zetas, and misinterprets parts of this."

Maintain they could be wrong/vague endorsement of Nancy's claim with room for plausible deniability.

"Or could be Nancy has no Zetas. Or could be the Zetas are lying about some things, to form a discrediting of Nancy for the purpose of separating those who understand the PX direct hypothesis, versus those who focus on every claim she makes. It might be to protect her."

More vague endorsements/vaguely maintaining it's possible no one knows anything.

"However, I say there are arguments for PX without Nancy's own.

And I hope the arguments are in fact wrong, but they work. They have to do with electromagnetism (which Nancy also stresses)."

Maintaining you know, but you don't know/plausible deniability on the bigger picture.


"Is there? Maybe not. But why pick on words?"

Claiming you know, but don't know, thereby saying nothing.

"She's not stupid, clearly. Nor are you. But she's also clearly trying to say any potentially related anomaly ... even if some turn out not to be related or even anomalous."

Vague, vague, vague. No one knows anything for certain in clareville, but the fact that someone maintains "any potential anomaly" potentially means something relevant (no matter how ludicrous or easily disproven) is enough for clare to think they're on to something...

"I know you feel you are. And maybe you are. I understand you want to do the right thing, and maybe you are!"

Again, no one knows anything or says anything for certain when clare has the floor.

I've been catching up on this thread from about 5 pages back. I soon noticed that you perpetually cling to the basic premise that...well I don't even know how to put it into words.

Basically, as a way of validating Nancy's "claims" you've been falling back (consistently) on variations of:

"..well, who knows? Maybe it's possible. Maybe the aliens are real and they made it this way. If that's the case, HOW could we know...? So who's to say?"

While simultaneously maintaining that "Planet X/Nancy's claims" are the best explanation for changes in the Earth's magnetosphere, "wild" weather, and other...things. Which is insultingly laughable considering the plethora of FAR FAR FAR FAR more viable and coherent theories/evidence for all... that shit.

It's...maddening because...you never say anything. Vague, vague, vague.

Answering this a second time: you didn't actually cover the magnetic charge issue. You see, you can't. Unfortunately. And it makes the Chandler Wobble and "Holes" (of repulsion when the Sun was attracting), and magnetic Pole direction and speed of movement North ... it makes all of these HYPOTHETICALLY RELATED into the hypothesis of PX.

Hence a case can be built for PX. That's all.

You need to understand this link, which goes against "received" thinking in astrophysics, but is actually a real debate inside, in its own right, which has been attenuated over many years, with only a few people asking the key questions. But even if there's no PX, we need that debate to be taken up. Anyway, in understanding this is, at the very least, an open question, then you can see that the hypothesis which would relate the anomalies mentioned above, could indeed indicate a PX effect is in play.

Though I don't know for sure, of course, if it's there in fact.


Anyway, on with Part 2 of the response to your post:



There were several images quickly scrubbed from Nasa. The Bad Astronomy site claims they are "pixel flares", and shows one of THEM from 2005 as a kind of scienitific posture of determination proof of their claim they were pixel flares. I asked the salient questions: do you have any that are from BEFORE 2003 since that would be before anyone claims PX was here ... and note, they'd have to also be ROUND "flares" from before 2003.

They scrubbed the questions.

So the key tests on their claims were never performed. Technically speaking, this leaves it all inconclusive.

The most likely thing is though that they are shills to stop good questions. But <shrug>



You asked for evidence of "where is it". I pointed out there are suggestions it is by the Sun, but to understand those, we have to understand what the debunkers say and what they don't have a currently provided answer to. Then we can say, "not knowing if they are pixel flares, they might still be PX". The key tests I mentioned were never provided.

Paranoid? How odd. No, not paranoid. Concerned, yes.



If a person yawns at evidence, and the arguments on each part, then they are no good as an assayer of the value.

Again, I would not want you at a murder trial, if you weren't all ears to all parts of it: fully engaged in figuring out all segues and cul-de-sacs, mistakes and missteps, in order to figure out the case for or against the suspect.



My points stand.



No, of course not. As I said above, when I first used the term "sneaking", I was representing it emotionally, not literally.

It came in, from the south, it seems, on its long orbit; it supposedly has a dark star at the other focus of its long elliptical orbit. Our Sun would not be rotating in this binary star system, but rather would be stable, and this planet rotating between the two.

Now, there is some direct evidence for such a Sun, but it MAY BE a misunderstanding -- however, any arguments inside the astronomy circles about it, disappeared after 1987. Here's a record of the possible 2nd Sun star, in Newsweek, 1982: [link to the-rabbits-hole.com]
And here's a record of how serious the suggestion was at the time (even if it was a mistake), in the New Science and Invention Encyclopedia, 1987 -- which also shows a Planet X -- [link to the-rabbits-hole.com]

So there is some suggestion these things may have been found.



The PX / pixel flares are round with rays. Now a LIGHT FLARE would do this. But a pixel flare would normally be mosaicized (pixellated) much more noticeably; I asked Bad Astronomy to show me some pixel flares -- they suggest it could be regular X-ray flare effects -- but as I said, they had no answer AND the only comparative example that IS on their site about it, is from 2005, which is not a mutually exlusive contrary proof: PX (according to Nancy, etc.) has been here since before 2005, or roughly 2001-2003 would maybe show up in images. So they'd have to show a much-earlier comparable image which was ALSO round and was known to be a pixel flare. They have NO examples of similar flares of ANY kind (except the 2005 image), for comparison ... but definitely none from before 2001, and round, by the Sun.

<shrug>

So yes, there is some science to be done on "whether" PX was in those images, before you can say there are no proofs it's here ... not in our skies visible yet, but here.

I hope it's not, of course.



Silly. There is lots I don't know, but I do know what we need to ask about these images, and what we should ask about the Chandler Wobble and "Holes" and so on ... and I do know about the suppressed debates on electromagnetism (at all, before 1955, and as a dynamic player, post 1955).

Oh, okay, it's all clear now.

Clare got his/her ass kicked over at Bad Astronomy and came crawling to GLP to try spouting their bullshit on a different field.

I should have realized that as soon as they trotted out Velikovsky and the tired old bit about NASA messing with images.

News flash, Clare -- you're getting you ass kicked here too.

Maybe you should find a NASCAR forum somewhere and see if they'll swallow your tripe.

Bullshit. :)

When I say "it's possible" or something "could be" right or wrong, I am saying I have an open mind, but we must prove our claims. And a PROOF is a PROCESS, not an individual fact (unless in certain specific instances where the two conflate, fortunately).

And it is not "vague" to claim that it's possible I don't know, or that someone else doesn't: it is reasonable. I know I might be wrong; I know another might be; and I know we both could be and something else could be right.

It actually means I'm NOT a Zetatard, or any kind of fanatic.

And it also means that I want NOT to be vague, but rigorous in all questions of the PX hypothesis in its varying foms, and all questions of the non-PX hypothesis in its varying forms.

Then we might come to a truly best-case presentation on both sides, "defense and prosecution", to put it in legal terms. And only then, can we really jury each.



I am not following Nancy to the letter, or even in parts of the main claims. And still am presenting PX suggestions.

In doing so, the only "wiggle room" is that we don't FINALLY KNOW yet. I am marshalling a few pieces of a larger hypothesis-proof which might in fact turn out to predict that we WILL see PX soon, by the naked eye.

I do this because it is imperative to know if there IS any hypothesis proof which would support a PX arrival, with or without Nancy's claims.

And if you can't follow the fact that one takes a claim and see what fits about it and what does not, you cannot build a logic train. This is not "vague".

As to "easily diproven", nothing I have said is "easily disproven". Except a previous discussion on Polaris, which was a side light to my usual thinking anyway -- and which Menow and I have not been able to determine absolutely, but tentatively we do agree the photo "anomaly" is likely not to be.

If you cannot maintain careful reading, weighing just enough to see each direction and logic train in the way, then you do not actually understand vaguery versus neutrality. And note, neutrality does not mean not taking sides to find out where they lead; it means following all aspects to see what they connect to. I am sure you know that, but it bears saying, since your comments betray that you were not applying it here.

You obviously do not understand Velikovsky. He was not discredited, at all.

The points he raised in gist have all borne out. And in the '70s, he was being taught, but the big resistance was so hot, it was allowed to languish.

To the detriment of science.

You should show failiarity with the developing debates and the fact that most of the debaters actually lost to him, and were shown to have not read the argments or use false discreditation logic: the main woman who was hired by the smear campaigners (whose egos and careers would be hurt if V. was right), she wasn't even correct on her physics, the smear campaign was waged through massive pressure on the publisher, and so on.

Like with Stone's movie JFK.

Oh well.

As to Nancy, I am no "follower" of her. I came to her SECOND. I was not aware of her claims on PX first. Also, I think PARTS of what she says lend further weight to what I am saying, and some do not.

Bye

How funny.

Bad astronomy was not my source, of course. I went to them to CHECK the images. So it's not a "different field" and it's not "coming over here" to try.

Also, they didn't trot out Velikovsky.
I am a semi-expert on Cuvier and Velikovsky. I was even more, from University on, when I did sections in a history of science course on it.

NASA does mess with images; that much is proven again and again. Why not? Are you so trusting as to think the top end aren't under pressure? I guess you believe a computer from a cave can make 9/11 happen? Ha ha ha.

Okay, not gonna keep being nasty, but you were.

I think I've given enough information over these posts, to help open some lines of thinking on many things.

And I think I've also given some outlines for a simple reminder of how we must work out a case hypothesis before we can suggest that our impressions something is easily discountable really is so discountable.

-- And yes, even using "any weird fact, however small" if it works into a hypothesis. If it does, it could be a missing link.

It also could be a weak link, and we must look at that when the whole is worked out. It is not determinable which, until both worked-out hypotheses (arguments) are finished.

And no, this is not vague, to say something small could be a missing link OR a weak link. You know this.

Good night, guys (and gals?).

Clare

according to you? Please show your math.



Un-period.

Then how do satellites and probes orbit as they should under Newtonian rules?



But only YOU have noticed this alleged effect?



So your claim is that Newton's rules only work if there is magnetism between the objects? And... that magnetism, although vastly different in different objects, somehow remains hiddin within Newton?

Right.




You just now realized that you wrote that, even AFTER I asked you if that's what you meant to type and you said YES?
You really don't pay much attention to what others are saying.



You mean he talked about 'mass' as opposed to 'weight'?? That doesn't mean his theory "didn't make sense", as you imply.



Ohh... no reason. Carry on...



It "could be"?? So this is more of your "anything is possible" tack?



Bother paranoid and ludecrous.



No, I don't "ask for proof". I show where the alleged 'proof' Nancy offers is nothing but a pack of lies.



And you think we have not examined the 'evidence for PX' before now?



Your first attemp at that, with the Polaris image, was inauspicious.



I was talking about the position of objects in our sky. There are no abberations, yet Nancy lies, saying that there are. Don't you GET that?



Build away, then. Why would I stop you? Invent forces as you see fit.
(snip)

Goodness gracious.

You said the Wobble DIDN'T GO BACKWARD, and there were NO HOLES IN THE MAGNETOSPHERE.
You said that. We can argue about their implication in our constrasting hypotheses, but they happened.



I said absolutely nothing about the magnetosphere. I said that I thought you were referring to a previously touted glitch in the monitoring system. Nancy commonly finds normal, but unusual-appearing, to the lay-person, bits of 'data' and misrepresents them as supporting her PX story. Again... don't you GET that?



No. You said that the image showed Polaris to be too far 'off-center'... too far from the NCP. Even if that WAS what was shown by that image(it wasn't), that DOES NOT support Nancy's claim(or yours) of an abnormal 'wobble'. This is about the 4th time I have brought this up.



Classic! You can account for effects you ae not sure are there! So if there are no results of your alleged effects, where did they suddenly go?



So you overlook the specifics of Nancy's claims in favor of a nonspecific 'wrongness'?? Priceless!

Problem is... we ARE 'on true'. This is the constant position of Nancy's appologists.... Nancy claims some large and undeniable anomoly, and then people beging picking out things they think they can find which are well within the margin of error of thier observations. I have seen this over and over and over again, and now with you.




You have yet do show, despite requests, that the alleged 'anomoly' you found is unprecidented or even unusual.



Then why are you not waiting until you can show an acutal anomoly, to go into such a tirade as this?

(snip)


Where is PX? #11?

Answered again and again: seemingly it would be still by the Sun, and only visible to satellites ... some of which seem to have been showing it, along with cover-up.


Ridiculous. Show any such satellite images.



No, I didn't mean that, you condescending ass.



No, it's just that you are arguing minutia. It's as if you want to know if there is an elephant in your living room, but instead of just looking, you are sending off for equipment to determine if there are any molecules of the scent of its dung in the air.



Then what is causing all the 'anomolies' you claim to see?


(snip)

Anyway, I submitted that it seemed that the North Star was off centre inappropriately. You pointed out, quite rightly, that the stars sweeping to the left of the seeming Polaris star (the bright one) could be from stars being picked up by the long-time light exposure, which allows invisible stars to show up. These might be stars closer to the Pole, even, than the North Star. If so, and if the scale of the photo were right for your claim, then I was wrong, and the Pole Star was shown correctly.

We still don't know -- but it seems that this piece of evidence might be not anomalous at all.


Then why is Nancy lying about it?

I have recreated the post. I hope you enjoy it...




Understood. No problem 'tall.



It does, if only because she has claimed the Zetatalk '100 percent accuracy' thing repeatedly. I am interested in analyzing specific claims of Nancy, and then the thought process of believers and apologists when her claims so totally fly in the face of testable reality. Among those claims are her 'halted Earth' idea, so that's a place to start.



Yet: we are not stopped. You can test this claim very easily for yourself: just go to a star party near you. If ANY telescope there can track the heavens, then the heavens must be moving as predicted (since telescopes have no way of compensating for any unpredictable movement). The predicted movements the telescopes must compensate for include:

1)Earth's motion around the Sun
2)Earth's rotation about its axis, and the alignment of the axis
3)Other planet's continued motions around the Sun

If ANY of those motions have changed, in any unpredictable way, there is NO mechanism by which the telescope can compensate. None.

Therefore, since telescopes DO continue to track properly, as evidenced by long exposure astrophotography images taken year round, Nancy's claims of a halted or unpredictably wobbling Earth must be false.

Do you agree? If not, why not?



Except people with solar filters look at the Sun all the time. And PX magically doesn't occult the Sun. And it just happens to be on a course that doesn't allow us to see it, and then magically halts near the Sun, completely in contradiction to every law of motion we know, and supposedly hovers near the Sun for years...

Would you believe I have an invisible dragon living in my garage? Why not?



Except that Earth's BEING stopped is a fundamental leg of Nancy's whole cosmology/mythology. She has stated that Earth is stopped, therefore we *must* be stopped in order for her to be right. It can't be both ways.



That doesn't strike you as *terribly* convenient? That such huge unpredicted motions could have occurred, yet any time you MEASURE any of those supposed motions there is no sign of them whatsoever?

We could get into a debate about solipsism: and we could argue that all of reality is manipulated totally, and we can't know anything. However, there is no way to prove or disprove such a supposition, so I will, instead, stick to what we CAN measure, in common: the predicted motions of the planets and stars. So far, those motions are spot-on to fairly old predictions, and you can go and measure them yourself. That they measure correctly belies Nancy's claims, utterly.



Then why does Newton still hold up? Newton's laws took no account of such motions, yet the predictions of the Newtonian model, later modified by Einstein, (as far as they go) predict with extreme accuracy. If such complicated wobbles and spins and rotations were occurring, how can their age-old predictions remain correct?





These are interesting ideas, but I would ask you by what means those ideas could be falsified? What experiment or observation can you propose that the regular model does NOT explain, that the charged model would explain better?

And, of course, these interesting ideas are distracting us from the main points of *this* post, as they don't seem to have direct relation to the question of whether or not PX, as Nancy describes it, even exists. Regardless of whether you consider a wobble or torque the result of traditional gravitation models, or electromagnetic ones, neither is of any relevance until you can *demonstrate such a wobble.*

Thus far, I have made several suggestions of experiments that should prove whether the Earth is experiencing any unpredicted motions in its orbit or rotation. Those experiments repeatedly come back negative, simply by the virtue that telescopes track the heavens *at all.* Nancy has never adequately addressed this. Perhaps you might.

I will ask my question again, here: you gave some insight into what you believe, but I must ask you to please answer my direct questions with direct answers (and I will, thus, rephrase them as such), as it certainly helps me understand your point of view.

1)By what mechanism can GOTO and permanently mounted telescopes compensate for the unpredicted movements of the heavens? How could they still find objects were there, in fact, a new NCP?

2)How can Earth be moving or rotating or wobbling unpredictably, yet aged charts are still correct regarding sunrises, sunsets, lunar movements, stars rising and setting, and constellations appearing on schedule? How can sextants still reveal your correct position on Earth when taking Noon sightings, or Lunars?

3)What is your opinion on Nancy's claim that the Earth is halted in its orbit around the Sun, and supposedly has been for years? How do you reconcile other planets still showing retrograde motions, which depend on Earth normal motions?

4)Is there was any physical evidence whatsoever that you could IMAGINE being presented that would force you to conclude that Nancy's claims are false? Any at all?

Thanks for the civility.

No, that can't be it, since you went on to clarify that a "self-axis spinning" body is also "(not having an orbit)", which Earth certainly does. Care to try again?



Wrong. The Moon DOES spin on its own axis! Why would you think it does not? What motions would the moon display if Earth(and even Sun) suddenly went missing?

Oh, yes, question number 5: Were the Earth unpredictably wobbling, why do Focault Pendulums worldwide continue to behave normally?

Hadn't thought about those in some time.

Don't you realize that when Nancy is confronted by an event like the Venus conjunction or, specifically, a Venus transit that came off exactly as predicted a few years ago, she does not admit error? No, in fact she(or "Zetas) just simply invent an 'explanation'. On the Venus transit, Nancy then began claiming that "Zetas" MOVED Venus so that the transit would come off as expected. Every time there is an astronomical event occurring right on time, Nancy now claims that it was only 'simulated' to keep people from panickiing. Nancy has, for years, simply invented new and more outrageous bits to 'explain' her prediction or claim failures. She has no interest in determining the truth, at all.

You seem to pride yourself in admitting errors, when made, and improving the accuracy of your understanding. Nancy is held back by no such ethical limitations.

So all incorrect and false claims of Nancy's, you now conveniently write off as some sort of... "I-MEANT-TO-DO-THAT"??

Back up to the math AND REQUIRED EFFECTS of electromagnetics. Look that up.
Then "add to your mind, as a concept" the math of Newton's mere bollide "law" (algebra).

Then "add" in your mind the fact that electromgnetism has been discovered in the system.

Then ask yourself why the astrophysicists have not counted all the effects of the physics of electromagnetism (charge) into the solar system dynamics.

Then learn about mental resistance and historical discoveries and how they don't just "happen" to be accepted into an existing thought-process socially among inquirers/scientists.

Then realize electromagnetism is now "counted" in our astrophysics, without its full implications allowed into the typical depiction of the solar system.

Then say, well, where is it? Is it partly hiding in the "gravity" equation of Newton?

Indeed it is. You can look up experiments where under electromagnetic forces (charge, ha ha), objects' weight (not mass, weight) change. Duh.



Ha ha ha.



The rules are fine; they describe the system, but by CONFLATING two effects into one, which is only a detectable error either a) under specific circumstances (one of which Einstein sent off a letter on behalf of Velikovsky to have the test done, but the scientists ignored the request), b) when a big new object comes into the solar system, and shows us if such effects are in fact the case.

And I am merely arguing that we should already have considered electromagnetic charge as part of the dynamics (it's overdue and you can study the suppression over 300 years). If we already had that concept then the Chandler Wobble anomaly, and the magnetic pole and "hole" repulsion gaps would strike you: as they should. Now, they MIGHT have another explanation, but given charge and electromagnetism, which is well understood in principle, if not applied constantly to the planets in our minds ... I submit that such effects might very well indicate a PX is here.

And if you put in "where is it" because you can't see it yet, I will not answer it. I have already answered that it would be by the Sun, invisible to us by naked eye, and that there MAY BE SUGGESTIONS that NASA had images of it. I'm not going to repeat that sub-argument.



No. It is mostly conflated with Gravimetrics. However, studies in electromagnetism indicate gravity changes (measured outputs, not mass totals, of course). And conversely, Velikovsky and others over the years have pointed to the logic of charge on the planets. (Why not? Because it's scary.) In the 1940s-50s many astrophysicists thought they had it all down pat. Then the Van Allen and the Jupiter Radio noises were found. When they were, the resultant exploration of the electromagnetic effects around the solar system were begun.

Unfortunately, though, the basic picture remained unchanged: for all the effects being described, the key RELATIONAL DYNAMICAL IMPLICATION of electromagnetism (charge) was not "added" to the Newtonian thinking.

My guess, as I've said, is most of the charge-balance effect is measured IN Newton's mass-gravity equation. In fact, he just assumed that his equation for the pull was due only to mass, and how it could be, he admitted he had no idea.

Let's go back there, so we can get this straight, without using an "appeal to authority" fallacy (where we assume because our teachers said something, it was the right thing).

Oh, by the way, a "few small facts" plus some clear "necessary full implications" of already known areas of research: led to the theory of relativity, which added to but superseded parts of Newtonian ballistic physics.

So, that's the same kind of issue as your question on how satellites can "use Newtonian physics" but also be orbiting in an electromagnetically dynamic solar system.

And it's important to understand, because it shows why the anomalies in the Wobble and in the Magnetosphere and Poles are actual anomalies from business as usual with the Sun and dynamics, and why they would be SIGNIFICANT anomalies, not "mere movements".

It is also why the SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES say it's shocking and weird (re. the repulsion holes).

Something has to be doing this! Perhaps something is doing all 3. In an electromagnetically charged solar system (with gravity and charge being most of the time conflated in effect), something WOULD do all three, but it would be a PX type body. If not "mere co-incidence". But these are physical charges (that much is admitted re. the North Mag Pole and the Holes). So, what is repelling as well as the Sun's attraction?

............ The rest to follow. I'm having dinner.
:)

All along, I said I don't reall trust the putative "God-claims" ...

The only off-kilter ("wobble") item I addressed was that photo of Polaris.

**As to all my other comments, it has been my "legal" (hypothetical) defense of Nancy, that, if not attempting to lie, she could be saying THOSE things because she's so worried, that she jumps on any seeming anomaly in the sky.

And as to the Zetas, if they exist, telling her that they've stopped the Earth: I have said I have a hypothesis that either she's getting that wrong from their message (and THEN jumping on misunderstood aspects of the Moon, and so on, because she's worried, and over-eager -- not in a positive, happy sense of "eager" but as concern); or instead of getting it wrong she might be being lied to, to make her not be taken too widely seriously, for her own protection.**

There are many people you consider Zetatards who get that PART of the story can be true and another false or mistaken.

Or of course she could be lying -- and this is not vague; don't try that with me. This is acknowledging both sides are possible and I want to present the other side which often doesn't get aired. See above [in **]

Clare

Then how the fuck was it not seen and imaged thousands of times by the world's astronomers??? Ohh... they are all controlled, right?



Such an orbit is not stable, by its very nature.

Someone like Hap or Astronut can explain that better than I, and perhaps they will want to dive in on your "round flares" or whatever.

I've had about enough..

Hi, 74444! Thanks.

I was JUST GOING TO HAVE MY BELATED DINNER! Sorry.

I will try to reply to all this -- and the rest of Menow's last post, which I cut off short in reply -- a bit later.

In the meantime, have a look through my posts. Others have been trying to slam me but I have replied as you will see, with the best expression of a full position, and seeing all sides so that temporarily we can take on one or another for (mental) testing.

I hope you do see that, if only over several posts. In any given post -- as with any argument -- things can seem one way but overall be another. I have tried to be wide-ranging.

Auf viedersehen!
Clare

P.S. There was one post on this page where I forgot to type in my name. So it says Anonymous Coward, but it does have my number.

Scriptbot?