Originally posted by Adam

I'm not in posession of Worlds oceans capacity glass right now, and don't have icecube equilvalent to size of north pole, but thanks for your comment, = )

You don't need them - the principle remains the same regardless of relative volumes.

 

Ever wonder why ice expands, even though it's a solid of water? Ever wondered why they say 6/7 of an iceberg is always below water? Ever thought there might be a corrolation?

 

Just do the experiment I described and you will see. This is how you derive actual results - by experimentation.

But really, what kind of half-arsed cover up involves a visitors centre?

Originally posted by Skye

But really, what kind of half-arsed cover up involves a visitors centre?

The sad thing is you'll probably get an answer for that.

Adam remember when you gave me spatial coordinates of where to observe the incoming planet, and I looked up and saw nothing? Idiot.

Furthermore, a nova is an exploding star, impossible to be confused with a near-by planet. Should you ever give me CORRECT coordinates, I have access to my university's observatory and will be more than happy to print out pictures showing theres nothing there, and if there is something there, I'll measure its size, distance, and spectrum to prove its not a planet.

And yes, I need more evidence as photos and measurements of a rock formation don't make it an ark.

Provide the following from CREDIBLE sources (i.e. no ufo.org type sites) and I'll start believing it could be Noah's ark:

 

Material analysis (if it actually is carbon dated to the right period, where's the proof it's even made of wood?)

 

Evidence linking whatever it is to Noah (like he's the only one who ever built an ark)

 

 

 

Furthermore, to prove your claims of another planet, i'd need to coordinates. As you said yourself, you're not an "astro physician" so you have no business talking about what causes the Earth to spin. You're probably on of those people who think at 12 noon the sun is always at the highest point in the sky. If you think that, which Im sure you do, you need to shut the hell up when it comes to talking about solar system physics.

Originally posted by Adam

imagine a planet 4 times bigger than earth,

size of jupiter and

 

24 times as densed puling on earth.

 

erm.... 4x earth is not the size of jupiter.

if you take spin gravity into account

spin gravity? thanks, I won't sleep tonight now

Originally posted by fafalone

Adam remember when you gave me spatial coordinates of where to observe the incoming planet, and I looked up and saw nothing? Idiot.

 

 

I acknowledge you calling me an "IDIOT" , I'm sure you'l go far in field of science with your type of criticsm and judgement. But following those coordinates i gave you a specific date that they are only valid on, if you can tell me what was that date, and the coordinates i gave you, I'l believe you actualy went to observatory and checked them out. If you can't oviously you're just trying to degrade me.

Originally posted by fafalone

Furthermore, a nova is an exploding star, impossible to be confused with a near-by planet. Should you ever give me CORRECT coordinates, I have access to my university's observatory and will be more than happy to print out pictures showing theres nothing there, and if there is something there, I'll measure its size, distance, and spectrum to prove its not a planet.

 

Look at my first quote, use ur brain wisely , and think what is a best explanation for an upcoming planet, which has to be covered up.

I told you I was going to the observatory the following night, you gave me coordinates and said to look there. Nothing but the blackness of spane.

 

 

There is no coverup, because there is no planet. An asteroid would be far more plausible.

About 10,000 years ago there is some evidence of a great surge of glacial water at the end of the ice age. This can be supported by fossil evidence of ocean depth changes on many coastal areas.

Geological evidence shows a flood in the Middle East was probable that might have started the Noah story. This is evidence and ideas but it is still not fact pending further research.

There should be plenty of easily found evidence to support your planet idea if it was based on reality.

If the Earth stopped, how come the balancing rocks in the US deserts didn't topple over? Sorry but there is more evidence that you are wrong than right at the moment.

Just aman

If there was a planet that came close to Earth every 3600 years it would appear in the written and oral histories of dozens of cultures, at least 3 times.

Originally posted by Sayonara³

The poles do flip magnetically, but it has not happened for tens of thousands of years.

 

Had it happened 3,600 years ago, there would be nothing on the planet right now more sophisticated than a simple bacterium.

The only evidence needed to disprove the planet-magnet-flipper idea.

Originally posted by Sayonara³

The only evidence needed to disprove the planet-magnet-flipper idea.

You're wrong. But explain to me your viewpoint

Just in MAY, you will see for yourself, I promise.

Originally posted by Sayonara³

If there was a planet that came close to Earth every 3600 years it would appear in the written and oral histories of dozens of cultures, at least 3 times.

 

 

It did, infact it's mentioned in the bible, Almost every culture, I'm not sure if all. Have something written about this event, In bible its called warmwood , the asian culture called it "the fire dragon" as the planet passed with it's red comet tail.

Originally posted by Adam

You're wrong. But explain to me your viewpoint

It's not a viewpoint, it's fact.

 

Every now and then the Earth's core does a bit of a backflip and the magnetic field of the planet changes polarity for a few hundred years. The change can leave the planet without any magnetic field at all for several years at a time. You can see the signature of these events in the magnetic strips on the ocean floor, which are formed by plate movement over the years and have been mapped by sattelite.

 

Without a magnetic field, the planet is vulnerable to all the lovely intense radiation in the solar wind. Not a lot can escape bombardment by this radiation, and previous events charted by the patterns on the ocean bed corrolate with past extinction events.

 

There was no extinction event 3600 years ago, because there was no flip. Afaik, the last flip was around 30,000 years ago and DID match up with widespread and sudden extinctions.

 

Google for more info.

Originally posted by Adam

It did, infact it's mentioned in the bible, Almost every culture, I'm not sure if all. Have something written about this event, In bible its called warmwood , the asian culture called it "the fire dragon" as the planet passed with it's red comet tail.

"Wormwood", which incidentaly is "Chernobyl" in Russian. There's some fuel for the crazy fire.

 

I would like to know how you established that this unnamed planet which has not been observed, and the comet mentioned in the bible (which is hardly the most accurate historical document written) are one and the same thing.

 

And it would be nice if you could actually address the question.

 

Saying "Almost every culture, I'm not sure if all" is not sufficient. Cite your references or don't mention it at all.

Originally posted by Adam

 

 

It did, infact it's mentioned in the bible, Almost every culture, I'm not sure if all. Have something written about this event, In bible its called warmwood , the asian culture called it "the fire dragon" as the planet passed with it's red comet tail.

textual analysis please, inclusing the techniques used by the authors of such documents to distinguish it from, say, Mars.

The Bible is NOT an accurate historic account of events.

 

 

No.

Am I the official Troll Eater and General Debunker yet?

Originally posted by Sayonara³

I would like to know how you established that this unnamed planet which has not been observed, and the comet mentioned in the bible (which is hardly the most accurate historical document written) are one and the same thing.

Deal with this please, I haven't got all week.

Originally posted by fafalone

The Bible is NOT an accurate historic account of events.

 

 

No.

 

 

 

The arc seems pretty accurate to me, Maybe i should go to Turkey and look at it with "scientific eye'