Planet-X, Why "Look Around"
Nancy Lieder
>> Just as electrons are not a single particle, but composed
>> of some 387 particles, light is likewise not composed
>> of a single particle, as hundreds of particles are
>> involved in the phenomenon called light. This should
>> be obvious to man, as light spreads into the colors of
>> the rainbow, and as his scientists describe the behavior
>> of red light as Red Shift, where no such behavior is
>> ascribed to other colors in the light spectrum.
>
> Whoa ... we also talk of "blue shift" ... red shift/blue shift
> simply refer to shifts to longer/shorter wavelegths and do
> not ascribe special characteristics to red or blue light.
Red light is the one most NOTED. There are a lot of particles in the
light spectrum that man can’t see. We’re not discussing those, here,
either. We see few colors. The point it, the light from Planet X is
predominantly in the red spectrum, and bends more readily than the
predominant light from starlight, sunlight, your flashlight, etc.
In Article <a2ctr1$4j6$2...@quark.scn.rain.com> Bill Nelson wrote:
>>> will cease the practice of giving special coordinates
>>> from this date forward, as the viewing public is going
>>> ZetaTalk
>
>> It is funny that "special coordinates" are necessary, when
>> that is not the case for Pluto (closer than this reputed object)
>> or any other distant object such as Proxima Centari (much
>> further than this reputed object).
>
> The question then becomes, if it is not necessary for objects
> both much closer and much further away than the reputed
> Px, then what physical law dictates that such is necessary
> for Px alone?
Because what you SEE is the predominant light coming from stars,
sunlight, your flashlight, etc. and what you MISS is dim bulbs
predominantly in the red spectrum. You’d not know Planet X was where it
is had the Zetas not given the RA and Dec to “look around” and had Open
Minded not taken a 20 minute CCD and had the Zetas not pointed out the
spot where he had captured Planet X and had various folks not done
contrast and brightness enhancements to show that THERE was a new blob
NOT on the Palomar 45 minute CCD
(http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90375.htm).
Pluto is reflecting sunlight, Planet X is not, yet.
In Article <3c4cfa70$0$10110$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au> Webster
Smogpule wrote:
> Jeff Root wrote:
>> Next time the Sun is out at mid-day, put a finger up at
>> arm's length, to cover it. You will see that you can just
>> barely cover it, and so much light will come from the
>> sky near the Sun that it will still look very bright.
>>
>> Next time Sun is out at sunrise or sunset, put a finger
>> up at arm's length, to cover it. You will see that you
>> can cover it completely, and the sky around it will not
>> be so bright.
>>
>> Why are you able to cover the Sun with a finger at
>> sunrise or sunset better than you can at mid-day?
>
> Aha! You conveniently forget the famous
> expanding-finger-at-sunset syndrome.
> I *always* get "fat finger" at sunset.
Give me a break. At mid-day the Sun is an intense bright spec. A
sunrise and sunset the Sun gets HUGE. It comes up squashed, then
fattens out, then as it rises it gets smaller. Point is, why does it
change, or squash and flatten, or whatever, unless RED LIGHT BENDS big
time.
In Article <d7e36c6c.02011...@posting.google.com> Matt wrote:
> How about some facts (from a University Physics instructor
> with a PhD in Physic s):
>
> "The refraction of sunlight off moisture and density
> fluctuations in the atmosphere is what makes the sky
> blue and the sunset red[1]. When the sun is near the
> horizon, light from overhead is mainly a result of
> the large refraction of the blue end of the spectrum,
> while light coming from the direction of the sun is
> very little refracted and thus appears red."
> http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/demobook/chapter6.htm
So he’s saying that the big sun at sunrise and sunsset is the REAL size
of the Sun? Humm. So much for PhD’s. No wonder they have to hide out
in Universities.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Greg Neill
news:3C52F9FB...@zetatalk.com...
> In Article <3C49B8FE...@telocity.com> Open Minded wrote:
> >> Just as electrons are not a single particle, but composed
> >> of some 387 particles, light is likewise not composed
> >> of a single particle, as hundreds of particles are
> >> involved in the phenomenon called light. This should
> >> be obvious to man, as light spreads into the colors of
> >> the rainbow, and as his scientists describe the behavior
> >> of red light as Red Shift, where no such behavior is
> >> ascribed to other colors in the light spectrum.
> >
> > Whoa ... we also talk of "blue shift" ... red shift/blue shift
> > simply refer to shifts to longer/shorter wavelegths and do
> > not ascribe special characteristics to red or blue light.
>
> Red light is the one most NOTED. There are a lot of particles in the
> light spectrum that man can't see. We're not discussing those, here,
> either. We see few colors. The point it, the light from Planet X is
> predominantly in the red spectrum, and bends more readily than the
> predominant light from starlight, sunlight, your flashlight, etc.
You must have missed your Encycolpedia article on refraction.
Blue light bends more than red.
[mercy snip]
>
> Give me a break. At mid-day the Sun is an intense bright spec. A
> sunrise and sunset the Sun gets HUGE. It comes up squashed, then
> fattens out, then as it rises it gets smaller. Point is, why does it
> change, or squash and flatten, or whatever, unless RED LIGHT BENDS big
> time.
Common misconception due to optical illusion. See, for example:
http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/Physics/9609/p00495d.html
I M Openminded
> In Article <3C49B8FE...@telocity.com> Open Minded wrote:
>
>>>Just as electrons are not a single particle, but composed
>>>of some 387 particles, light is likewise not composed
>>>of a single particle, as hundreds of particles are
>>>involved in the phenomenon called light. This should
>>>be obvious to man, as light spreads into the colors of
>>>the rainbow, and as his scientists describe the behavior
>>>of red light as Red Shift, where no such behavior is
>>>ascribed to other colors in the light spectrum.
>>>
>>Whoa ... we also talk of "blue shift" ... red shift/blue shift
>>simply refer to shifts to longer/shorter wavelegths and do
>>not ascribe special characteristics to red or blue light.
>>
>
> Red light is the one most NOTED. There are a lot of particles in the
> light spectrum that man can't see. We're not discussing those, here,
> either. We see few colors. The point it, the light from Planet X is
> predominantly in the red spectrum, and bends more readily than the
> predominant light from starlight, sunlight, your flashlight, etc.
Red light does not bend more than the other colors of the visible
spectrum, it bends less! Your repeatedly stating the opposite simply
can not make it true.
> In Article <a2ctr1$4j6$2...@quark.scn.rain.com> Bill Nelson wrote:
>
>>>> will cease the practice of giving special coordinates
>>>> from this date forward, as the viewing public is going
>>>> ZetaTalk
>>>>
>>>It is funny that "special coordinates" are necessary, when
>>>that is not the case for Pluto (closer than this reputed object)
>>>or any other distant object such as Proxima Centari (much
>>>further than this reputed object).
>>>
>>The question then becomes, if it is not necessary for objects
>>both much closer and much further away than the reputed
>>Px, then what physical law dictates that such is necessary
>>for Px alone?
>>
>
> Because what you SEE is the predominant light coming from stars,
> sunlight, your flashlight, etc. and what you MISS is dim bulbs
> predominantly in the red spectrum. You'd not know Planet X was where it
> is had the Zetas not given the RA and Dec to "look around" and had Open
> Minded not taken a 20 minute CCD and had the Zetas not pointed out the
> spot where he had captured Planet X and had various folks not done
> contrast and brightness enhancements to show that THERE was a new blob
> NOT on the Palomar 45 minute CCD
> (http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90375.htm).
> Pluto is reflecting sunlight, Planet X is not, yet.
The spot pointed out by you is on both the PSS-1 103-aE image (which was
not a CCD) and the PSS-2 image. It can not be your planet.
> In Article <3c4cfa70$0$10110$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au> Webster
> Smogpule wrote:
>
>>Jeff Root wrote:
>>
>>>Next time the Sun is out at mid-day, put a finger up at
>>>arm's length, to cover it. You will see that you can just
>>>barely cover it, and so much light will come from the
>>>sky near the Sun that it will still look very bright.
>>>
>>>Next time Sun is out at sunrise or sunset, put a finger
>>>up at arm's length, to cover it. You will see that you
>>>can cover it completely, and the sky around it will not
>>>be so bright.
>>>
>>>Why are you able to cover the Sun with a finger at
>>>sunrise or sunset better than you can at mid-day?
>>>
>>Aha! You conveniently forget the famous
>>expanding-finger-at-sunset syndrome.
>>I *always* get "fat finger" at sunset.
>>
>
> Give me a break. At mid-day the Sun is an intense bright spec. A
> sunrise and sunset the Sun gets HUGE. It comes up squashed, then
> fattens out, then as it rises it gets smaller. Point is, why does it
> change, or squash and flatten, or whatever, unless RED LIGHT BENDS big
> time.
It is not huge as Jeff pointed out. It can be covered by a finger in
exactly the same fashion at sunrise and at noon. Instead of posting more
words, go out tonight and try the experiment he proposed. Then come
back and admit you are wrong. The flattening is due to greater bending
of all colors the closer one looks to the horizon which causes the
bottom edge of the sun to appear higher in the sky than the top edge.
> In Article <d7e36c6c.02011...@posting.google.com> Matt wrote:
>
>>How about some facts (from a University Physics instructor
>>with a PhD in Physic s):
>>
>>"The refraction of sunlight off moisture and density
>>fluctuations in the atmosphere is what makes the sky
>>blue and the sunset red[1]. When the sun is near the
>>horizon, light from overhead is mainly a result of
>>the large refraction of the blue end of the spectrum,
>>while light coming from the direction of the sun is
>>very little refracted and thus appears red."
>>http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/demobook/chapter6.htm
>>
>
> So he's saying that the big sun at sunrise and sunsset is the REAL size
> of the Sun? Humm. So much for PhD's. No wonder they have to hide out
> in Universities.
This passage is unfortunate because it is simply wrong. If you can
understand that a PhD can make a mistake why can you not admit that you
also can make a mistake?
josX
>"Nancy Lieder" <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote in message
>news:3C52F9FB...@zetatalk.com...
>> In Article <3C49B8FE...@telocity.com> Open Minded wrote:
>> >> Just as electrons are not a single particle, but composed
>> >> of some 387 particles, light is likewise not composed
>> >> of a single particle, as hundreds of particles are
>> >> involved in the phenomenon called light. This should
>> >> be obvious to man, as light spreads into the colors of
>> >> the rainbow, and as his scientists describe the behavior
>> >> of red light as Red Shift, where no such behavior is
>> >> ascribed to other colors in the light spectrum.
>> >
>> > Whoa ... we also talk of "blue shift" ... red shift/blue shift
>> > simply refer to shifts to longer/shorter wavelegths and do
>> > not ascribe special characteristics to red or blue light.
>>
>> Red light is the one most NOTED. There are a lot of particles in the
>> light spectrum that man can't see. We're not discussing those, here,
>> either. We see few colors. The point it, the light from Planet X is
>> predominantly in the red spectrum, and bends more readily than the
>> predominant light from starlight, sunlight, your flashlight, etc.
>
>You must have missed your Encycolpedia article on refraction.
>Blue light bends more than red.
>
>[mercy snip]
Yes it does, what i saw on the white-paper was most likely an optical
illusion.
(I was WRONG as wrong can be, somehow always thought red refracted better.)
Jos
--
I M Openminded
Have you wondered how Nancy, with her supposed superior sources of
information, could be so doggedly clinging to this wrong idea?
jrla...@shell.golden.net
I M Openminded <open...@telocity.com> wrote:
>Nancy Lieder wrote:
>
>> Red light is the one most NOTED. There are a lot of particles in the
>> light spectrum that man can't see. We're not discussing those, here,
>> either. We see few colors. The point it, the light from Planet X is
>> predominantly in the red spectrum, and bends more readily than the
>> predominant light from starlight, sunlight, your flashlight, etc.
>
>
>Red light does not bend more than the other colors of the visible
>spectrum, it bends less! Your repeatedly stating the opposite simply
>can not make it true.
Even if Nancy threatens to throw a temper tantrum and hold her breath
until she turns blue? :-)
--
john R. Latala
jrla...@golden.net
josX
Yes i have, and yes it has affected how i think about credibility: it has
gone down proportionally.
These are my hypotheses:
1. (for your sake on No. 1) It is all not true, she failed on this one,
she must is wrong everywhere.
2. They had a communications problem, nancy has misunderstood her source.
3. The source got replaced through something, wrong source.
4. We are wrong after all in some weird way (doubt that seriously).
5. They did it on purpose, for whatever reason (perhaps they do not
want to be taken seriously, or too seriously).
Whatever the case, this is not good for ZT credibility. If it is a
communications error, this might have played into other information as
well, and that is the best case here. I know that within the ZT=true
hypotheses (she doesn't lie), she has been busy with a discrediting
campaign from Mike Hazelwood, and her source has relayed she was
"exhausted". This was before the light-error. Ofcourse, any nullbrain
asshole will now think i am "going with that totally, without looking
back a second" because i mention it, too bad, these ppl will always
exist and think you are one of them.
I'm not a diehard believer, i may believe her though for my own logical
reasons, and they have more to do with evidence of past pole-shifts
(you are aware of a new sunken-city being found off shore in India for
instance to just name the latest piece of evidence i came accross?,
or the fact that Mars's polarcaps are also melting (some kind of
Mars global warming) etc etc), and the lack of rationality i find in
current science/political-honesty, then that i like to run after the
newest craziest idea i can find, because it is "different".
regards,
jos
--
tho...@antispam.ham
> Red light is the one most NOTED. There are a lot of particles in the
> light spectrum that man can’t see. We’re not discussing those, here,
> either. We see few colors. The point it, the light from Planet X is
> predominantly in the red spectrum,
Before it was allegedly infrared that was predominant. Do make up your
mind, Nancy. Or shall I point out yet another contradiction of yours?
> and bends more readily than the predominant light from starlight,
> sunlight, your flashlight, etc.
Incorrect, Nancy; the predominant light from starlight, sunlight, a
flashlight has a shorter wavelength than red light, and red light
bends LESS than shorter wavelengths.
> Pluto is reflecting sunlight, Planet X is not, yet.
Same old contradiction. Before it was reflecting 81 times less sunlight
than Pluto. Now it's not reflecting sunlight at all. Do make up your
mind, Nancy.
> Give me a break. At mid-day the Sun is an intense bright spec. A
> sunrise and sunset the Sun gets HUGE.
Incorrect, Nancy; it's all an optical illusion.
> It comes up squashed, then fattens out, then as it rises it gets
> smaller.
Incorrect, Nancy; in fact, as it rises, it gradually gets closer to you,
possibly by as much as the radius of the Earth if you happen to be at
the subsolar point, therefore the angular size INCREASES.
> Point is, why does it change, or squash and flatten, or whatever,
> unless RED LIGHT BENDS big time.
All the colors of the visible spectrum bend, Nancy; of those, red
bends the least.
Anders Eklöf
> > In Article <d7e36c6c.02011...@posting.google.com> Matt wrote:
> >
> >>How about some facts (from a University Physics instructor
> >>with a PhD in Physic s):
> >>
> >>"The refraction of sunlight off moisture and density
> >>fluctuations in the atmosphere is what makes the sky
> >>blue and the sunset red[1]. When the sun is near the
> >>horizon, light from overhead is mainly a result of
> >>the large refraction of the blue end of the spectrum,
> >>while light coming from the direction of the sun is
> >>very little refracted and thus appears red."
> >>http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/demobook/chapter6.htm
> >>
> >
> > So he's saying that the big sun at sunrise and sunsset is the REAL size
> > of the Sun? Humm. So much for PhD's. No wonder they have to hide out
> > in Universities.
>
>
> This passage is unfortunate because it is simply wrong. If you can
> understand that a PhD can make a mistake why can you not admit that you
> also can make a mistake?
I suggest both you and Nancy read that passage again.
It's wrong - but not in the way Nancy implies.
The passage says absolutely nada about the size - or even the
apparent size - of the sun. It's all about color.
But it's the diffraction - not refraction - of light off small
particles (of dust, water and ice) that gives this effect.
--
* Anders Eklöf * Phone: + 46 8581 74712 * "I blame you for *
* Glimmerstigen 46 * ae at radfysdotksdotse * the moonlit sky" *
* S-196 33 KUNGSÄNGEN * or andekl at saafdotse * ---- *
* SWEDEN * (sorry - had to garble) * Tasmin Archer *
P. Edward Murray
Sad, but true.
Ed
Bill Nelson
>>
>>Have you wondered how Nancy, with her supposed superior sources of
>>information, could be so doggedly clinging to this wrong idea?
> Yes i have, and yes it has affected how i think about credibility: it has
> gone down proportionally.
It is very honest of you to admit you were mistaken. Some people cannot
manage to do so - even if all it does is bruise the ego a little.
> These are my hypotheses:
> 1. (for your sake on No. 1) It is all not true, she failed on this one,
> she must is wrong everywhere.
> 2. They had a communications problem, nancy has misunderstood her source.
> 3. The source got replaced through something, wrong source.
> 4. We are wrong after all in some weird way (doubt that seriously).
> 5. They did it on purpose, for whatever reason (perhaps they do not
> want to be taken seriously, or too seriously).
> Whatever the case, this is not good for ZT credibility. If it is a
> communications error, this might have played into other information as
> well, and that is the best case here. I know that within the ZT=true
Have you looked closely at her web page - where she posts the supposed
explanations about various natural phenomenon?
Look at the explanation for a thunderclap. It is wrong. Most of the
other explanations are either incorrect, incomplete or partially wrong.
I cannot give other examples right now - it has been a couple of months
since I looked at the page and my memory is not as good as it used to
be.
This is why most of us are so doubtful about Nancy's claims. If she
cannot explain even simple phenomenon, which are well described in
such common references as an encyclopedia, then how can we trust her
to be right about something that we have not been able to detect?
Her claims for the reasons for not being able to view Px are as bogus
as her scientific explanations.
Also keep in mind that she still is claiming that 3 different people
saw the reputed planet visually - with instruments smaller than those
available to some very well trained amateur astronomers who know how
to look for dim and diffuse objects.
And then she claims that it was found in the CCD image that was posted,
even though the person who took the image stated that there is nothing
there that was not there in the Palomar image made years ago.
Further, the claimed artifact is so dim that there is not the slightest
possibility of being able to visually see anything of that magnitude, even
if using the largest telescope on Earth.
She cannot have it both ways, but that has not mattered in the past.
> I'm not a diehard believer, i may believe her though for my own logical
> reasons, and they have more to do with evidence of past pole-shifts
> (you are aware of a new sunken-city being found off shore in India for
> instance to just name the latest piece of evidence i came accross?,
I only know of the supposed "city" off the coast of Japan. This has
support from only one scientist, as far as I know. All others say it
is just natural erosion - and you can see identical structures above
the coastal water line in the same area.
Be careful about what you believe from the sensation hunting press
and new media. If there is the slightest chance that there is any
sunken city found, there will be hundreds of archeologists converging
on the area to study it. If that does not happen, then you can bet
that the whole thing is a product of someone's imagination.
> or the fact that Mars's polarcaps are also melting (some kind of
> Mars global warming) etc etc), and the lack of rationality i find in
The polar caps of Mars melt every Martian year - due to the tilt of
the planet. It is seasonal temperature change, just like here on Earth.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
josX
>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Have you wondered how Nancy, with her supposed superior sources of
>>>information, could be so doggedly clinging to this wrong idea?
>
>> Yes i have, and yes it has affected how i think about credibility: it has
>> gone down proportionally.
>
>It is very honest of you to admit you were mistaken. Some people cannot
>manage to do so - even if all it does is bruise the ego a little.
np
>> These are my hypotheses:
>> 1. (for your sake on No. 1) It is all not true, she failed on this one,
>> she must is wrong everywhere.
>> 2. They had a communications problem, nancy has misunderstood her source.
>> 3. The source got replaced through something, wrong source.
>> 4. We are wrong after all in some weird way (doubt that seriously).
>> 5. They did it on purpose, for whatever reason (perhaps they do not
>> want to be taken seriously, or too seriously).
>
>> Whatever the case, this is not good for ZT credibility. If it is a
>> communications error, this might have played into other information as
>> well, and that is the best case here. I know that within the ZT=true
>
>Have you looked closely at her web page - where she posts the supposed
>explanations about various natural phenomenon?
>
>Look at the explanation for a thunderclap. It is wrong.
<quote 'Zetatalk on Booms' http://zetatalk.com/science/s70.htm>
ZetaTalk: Booms
Increasingly as the pole shift nears, the Earth will give evidence of
the compression and tension in her surface by what humans will perceive
to be sonic booms. The mechanism is in fact the same, clapping air
masses, the same mechanism that produces thunder. Where thunder is <--
caused by air masses separated by what is essentially a vacuum created <--
by the superheating lightning bolt, and where sonic booms are caused
by a compressed air mass pushed in front of the plane exploding back
to equalize with the thin air mass trailing the plane, pre-cataclysm
booms are caused by heaving in large bodies of water. Earthquakes where
plates are compressing are measured by humans as the friction causes
jolting, but for every compression adjustment there is, somewhere,
a widening in a rift. Most often these rifts lie underwater, as water
fills low lying places. A widening rift does not jolt the bordering
plates, it is a silent adjustment. However, the sea water rushing to
fill the new void has an effect on the air masses above, creating a
thin air mass and causing the air on all sides of this thin air space
to rush in, and clap!
</quote>
> Most of the
>other explanations are either incorrect, incomplete or partially wrong.
>I cannot give other examples right now - it has been a couple of months
>since I looked at the page and my memory is not as good as it used to
>be.
>
>This is why most of us are so doubtful about Nancy's claims. If she
>cannot explain even simple phenomenon, which are well described in
>such common references as an encyclopedia, then how can we trust her
>to be right about something that we have not been able to detect?
>
>Her claims for the reasons for not being able to view Px are as bogus
>as her scientific explanations.
>
>Also keep in mind that she still is claiming that 3 different people
>saw the reputed planet visually - with instruments smaller than those
>available to some very well trained amateur astronomers who know how
>to look for dim and diffuse objects.
>
>And then she claims that it was found in the CCD image that was posted,
>even though the person who took the image stated that there is nothing
>there that was not there in the Palomar image made years ago.
>
>Further, the claimed artifact is so dim that there is not the slightest
>possibility of being able to visually see anything of that magnitude, even
>if using the largest telescope on Earth.
>
>She cannot have it both ways, but that has not mattered in the past.
I am not positive of either one of these sightings/pictures, even if she
seems to be. You do have a point here, but i like it to be stronger because
all of this is so diffuse: sigthings without drawings by non-amateurs by
scopes pointed by ppl we can potentially not trust, photo without details etc.
Am i dragging my feet? maybe a little, but not all that much i think.
>> I'm not a diehard believer, i may believe her though for my own logical
>> reasons, and they have more to do with evidence of past pole-shifts
>> (you are aware of a new sunken-city being found off shore in India for
>> instance to just name the latest piece of evidence i came accross?,
>
>I only know of the supposed "city" off the coast of Japan. This has
>support from only one scientist, as far as I know. All others say it
>is just natural erosion - and you can see identical structures above
>the coastal water line in the same area.
>
>Be careful about what you believe from the sensation hunting press
>and new media. If there is the slightest chance that there is any
>sunken city found, there will be hundreds of archeologists converging
>on the area to study it. If that does not happen, then you can bet
>that the whole thing is a product of someone's imagination.
>
>> or the fact that Mars's polarcaps are also melting (some kind of
>> Mars global warming) etc etc), and the lack of rationality i find in
>
>The polar caps of Mars melt every Martian year - due to the tilt of
>the planet. It is seasonal temperature change, just like here on Earth.
Check these links (i have reproduced the information for convinience:)
<quote 'lost city'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1768000/1768109.stm>
Saturday, 19 January, 2002, 06:33 GMT Lost city 'could rewrite history'
Excavated Harrapan remains (Picture: North Park University) The city
is believed to predate the Harappan civilisation By BBC News Online's
Tom Housden
The remains of what has been described as a huge lost city may force
historians and archaeologists to radically reconsider their view of
ancient human history.
Marine scientists say archaeological remains discovered 36 metres
(120 feet) underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of
India could be over 9,000 years old.
The vast city - which is five miles long and two miles wide - is
believed to predate the oldest known remains in the subcontinent by
more than 5,000 years.
The site was discovered by chance last year by oceanographers from
India's National Institute of Ocean Technology conducting a survey
of pollution.
Using sidescan sonar - which sends a beam of sound waves down to the
bottom of the ocean they identified huge geometrical structures at
a depth of 120ft.
Debris recovered from the site - including construction material,
pottery, sections of walls, beads, sculpture and human bones and
teeth has been carbon dated and found to be nearly 9,500 years old.
Lost civilisation
The city is believed to be even older than the ancient Harappan
civilisation, which dates back around 4,000 years.
Marine archaeologists have used a technique known as sub-bottom
profiling to show that the buildings remains stand on enormous
foundations.
The whole model of the origins of civilisation will have to be remade
from scratch
Graham Hancock
Author and film-maker Graham Hancock - who has written extensively
on the uncovering of ancient civilisations - told BBC News Online
that the evidence was compelling:
"The [oceanographers] found that they were dealing with two large
blocks of apparently man made structures.
"Cities on this scale are not known in the archaeological record
until roughly 4,500 years ago when the first big cities begin to
appear in Mesopotamia.
"Nothing else on the scale of the underwater cities of Cambay is
known. The first cities of the historical period are as far away from
these cities as we are today from the pyramids of Egypt," he said.
Chronological problem
This, Mr Hancock told BBC News Online, could have massive repercussions
for our view of the ancient world.
Harappan site in Pakistan, BBC Harappan remains have been found in
India and Pakistan
"There's a huge chronological problem in this discovery. It means
that the whole model of the origins of civilisation with which
archaeologists have been working will have to be remade from scratch,"
he said.
However, archaeologist Justin Morris from the British Museum said more
work would need to be undertaken before the site could be categorically
said to belong to a 9,000 year old civilisation.
"Culturally speaking, in that part of the world there were no
civilisations prior to about 2,500 BC. What's happening before then
mainly consisted of small, village settlements," he told BBC News
Online.
Dr Morris added that artefacts from the site would need to be very
carefully analysed, and pointed out that the C14 carbon dating process
is not without its error margins.
It is believed that the area was submerged as ice caps melted at the
end of the last ice age 9-10,000 years ago
Although the first signs of a significant find came eight months ago,
exploring the area has been extremely difficult because the remains
lie in highly treacherous waters, with strong currents and rip tides.
The Indian Minister for Human Resources and ocean development said
a group had been formed to oversee further studies in the area.
"We have to find out what happened then ... where and how this
civilisation vanished," he said.
See also: 22 May 01 | South Asia [41]Indian seabed hides ancient
remains 12 Feb 01 | South Asia
</quote>
-- -- --
<quote 'Mars takes its cap off' http://www.nature.com/nsu/011213/011213-1.html>
Mars takes its cap off
Mars' polar ice caps are slowly melting.
7 December 2001
[21]PHILIP BALL
[mars_160.jpg]
Mars' ice caps are mostly frozen carbon dioxide.
© NASA
The martian ice caps are shrinking. As they are made mostly of frozen
carbon dioxide, this evaporation could trigger an increase in Mars'
own greenhouse effect.
Images from the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft show that ice ridges
and escarpments have retreated over the past two years or so. The
orbiting probe has also captured the ice thickening and thinning with
the passing seasons.
The reason for the change is not yet clear. But it means that Mars'
climate may be changing. "These observations," say Michael Malin and
co-workers at Malin Space Science Systems in San Diego, California,
"suggest that the present martian environment is neither stable nor
typical of the past."
Malin and his colleagues studied photos of the two ice caps taken
between October 1999 and August 2001^[22]1. The pictures show ridges
and pits of ice, some just a few metres wide. In some places, the
edges of these features seem to have retreated by up to three metres
over the observation period.
In other words, the ice caps have shrunk, irrespective of seasonal
changes. The researchers estimate that if all the losses are due to
evaporation of carbon dioxide, the amount of this gas in the atmosphere
must be increasing by about 1% every martian decade.
Mars' atmosphere is very thin - its pressure is less than 1% of that
on Earth - and consists mostly of carbon dioxide. But enough carbon
dioxide evaporating from the poles would make a big difference. Because
atmospheric carbon dioxide prevents solar heat radiating back into
space, it warms the planet.
Ice cycle
[mars2_160.jpg]
Pits in the martian ice cap expanded over the course of a year.
© M. Malin
The Mars Global Surveyor also carries a laser altimeter, an instrument
that can track changes of as little as a few centimetres in the height
of the ice^[23]2.
Using this device, David Smith of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
in Maryland and co-workers have found that ice height at both poles
changes by about a metre between summer and winter. This shows that
there is a considerable reservoir of carbon dioxide in the ice caps
that can be pumped to and from the atmosphere.
The researchers find that the size of the north and south polar
caps seem to change by about the same amount, despite the fact that,
because of the shape of Mars' orbit, the planet's north pole is thought
to get hotter than its south. [spacer_trans.gif] [spacer_trans.gif]
References 1. Malin, M. C., Caplinger, M. A. & Davis,
S. D. Observational evidence for an active surface reservoir of
solid carbon dioxide on Mars. [24]Science, 294, 2146 - 2148, (2001).
2. Smith, D. E., Zuber, M. T. & Neumann, G. A. Seasonal variations
of snow depth on Mars. [25]Science, 294, 2141 - 2146, (2001).
</quote>
-- -- --
<quote 'Photos Show Melting of Mars' Southern Ice Cap'
http://www.space.com/news/marspix_803.html>
[18][b_news.gif]
[h_marsphotos_01,5.gif]
Photos Show Melting of Mars' Southern Ice Cap
By Glen Golightly
Houston Bureau Chief
posted: 05:29 pm ET
03 August 1999
The latest images of the NASA's Mars Global Surveyor show a springtime
scene - a first-time glimpse of ice retreating from the southern
polar cap.
Though the surveyor has been mapping the planet for the last few
months, the southern polar cap has been shrouded in darkness.
One of the images is a wide-angle shot showing the reddish brown
planet with the white southern cap, while another shows more details
of the frozen surface.
The ice likely consists of frozen water.
"It's been interesting to see the progression of seasons on Mars,
but we couldn't see the southern polar cap" said Michael Ravine,
advanced projects manager for Malin Space Science Systems. "Now we
can see some of the craters' reddish brown color rims come through."
San Diego-based Malin and the California Institute of Technology built
the camera used aboard the surveyor, while NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. manages the project with partner
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics.
Monday also marked the spring equinox for the southern hemisphere of
Mars. Autumn begins for regions north of the equator. Dust storms
frequently develop along the margins of the polar cap, as the colder
air moves northward into warmer regions.
Ravine added that these photos give a glimpse into where the Mars
Polar Lander is scheduled to land in early December.
</quote>
-- -- --
<quote 'GLACIAL RETREAT FEATURES IN THE NORTH POLAR REGION OF MARS'
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001AM/finalprogram/abstract_27509.htm>
GLACIAL RETREAT FEATURES IN THE NORTH POLAR REGION OF MARS
[1]FISHBAUGH, Kathryn E.1, HEAD, James W.1, and MARCHANT, David R.2,
(1) Geological Sciences, Brown Univ, Box 1846, Providence, RI 02912,
fish...@porter.geo.brown.edu, (2) Department of Earth Sciences,
Boston Univ, 685 Commonwealth Ave, Boston, MA 02215
Building upon previous studies of the north polar region of Mars
[e.g., Dial, A. (1984) USGS Misc. Invest. Ser. Map I-1640; Tanaka,
K. & D. Scott (1987) USGS Misc. Invest. Ser. Map I-1802-C; Thomas,
P., S. Squyres, K. Herkenhoff, A. Howard, & B. Murray, (1992) in
Mars, H. Kieffer et al., eds., U. of Ariz. Press, 767-795; Zuber,
M. et al. (1998), Science 282, 2053-2060.], we [K. Fishbaugh &
J. Head (2000), JGR 105, 22455-22486] outlined evidence for retreat
of the polar cap, including the presence of polar material remnants
and kettle-like features in the Olympia Depression concentric to the
cap. In this study, we further characterize and categorize features
in this region using Viking and MOC images and high-resolution MOLA
data. Within the Olympia Depression are large, deep, irregularly-shaped
depressions and associated higher-standing topography. Together,
these constitute what we term rough terrain. These features appear
to have undergone significant removal of volatiles and subsequent
collapse. Evidence of moraines, sedimentation at the margins, and
drainage channels has also been found. Dome-like features, which
could be volatile and sediment-rich, lie just to the south of the
rough terrain. Their morphology and dimensions are dissimilar from
terrestrial and Martian south polar volcanic domes [Ghatan, G. &
J. Head (2001), LPSC 32, Abs. 1039] and from impact-related central
peak structures. On Mars, the high concentration of polar deposit
inter-layered debris (about 40%) will favor the development of kames
as ablation occurs. The morphologic features within the Olympia
Depression are transitional to Olympia Planitia, a partially ablated
lobe of the polar cap, and to the main polar cap. We interpret the
rough terrain as armored ice remnants and large, proximal kame and
kettle features, formed primarily by stagnation of ice blocks. The
dome-like features are interpreted as distal, smaller, armored ice
remnants and kame features which may represent an earlier stage of
retreat, possibly involving more meltwater. Evidence for melting has
also been found in the form of a large reentrant, Chasma Boreale,
which may have formed by a sub-cap melting event. Retreat of the polar
cap has apparently occurred geologically relatively recently (in Late
Amazonian times), and melting may have contributed to this retreat.
[2]GSA Annual Meeting, November 5-8, 2001 Session No. 132--Booth# 16
[3]Planetary Geology (Posters) Hynes Convention Center: Hall D 1:30
PM-5:30 PM, Wednesday, November 7, 2001
References
1. mailto:fish...@porter.geo.brown.edu
2. http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001AM/finalprogram/abstract_27509.htm
3. http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2001AM/finalprogram/session_1176.htm
</quote>
I M Openminded
Actually it is Rayleigh scattering off of molecules that gives us blue
skies and red sunsets. Scattering off dust adds white and diminishes
the saturation of the blue (hence a "hazy" day).
I M Openminded
Why not ask Nancy at her next online chat? Report back her answer.
NancySux
> >> Just as electrons are not a single particle, but composed
> >> of some 387 particles, light is likewise not composed
> >> of a single particle, as hundreds of particles are
> >> involved in the phenomenon called light. This should
> >> be obvious to man, as light spreads into the colors of
> >> the rainbow, and as his scientists describe the behavior
> >> of red light as Red Shift, where no such behavior is
> >> ascribed to other colors in the light spectrum.
> >
> > Whoa ... we also talk of "blue shift" ... red shift/blue shift
> > simply refer to shifts to longer/shorter wavelegths and do
> > not ascribe special characteristics to red or blue light.
>
> Red light is the one most NOTED. There are a lot of particles in the
> light spectrum that man can't see. We're not discussing those, here,
> either. We see few colors. The point it, the light from Planet X is
> predominantly in the red spectrum, and bends more readily than the
Shaddup you crazy, shit-stupid, kook. There is no planetX. There are
no zetas. You can't even get something simple like what color of light
is refracted (for Nancy the imbecile and her moronic followers, that
means bent) more by the atmosphere. You didn't really think you could
get away with posting your lies and drivel unmolested to a sci group
did you? Whadda loser. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
You are nothing more than an insane kook and the leader of a third
rate doomsday cult full of clueless clowns even more shit-stupid than
you are.
Go here to learn about Nutty Nancy Lieder:
http://www.kook-watch.net/nancy/
NancySux
Jeff Root
> The point it, the light from Planet X is predominantly in the
> red spectrum, and bends more readily than the predominant light
> from starlight, sunlight, your flashlight, etc.
Obviously you've never looked closely at the light dispersed
by a prism! What a thing to miss!
Somewhere in your home you must have some cut crystal or glass
with a beveled edge or something you can use as a prism. If
you can't find anything, let a friend know that you'd like a
prism or a suncatcher and they will probably get one for you.
Or buy one online. One company I just found on the Internet
which sells suncatchers has this tagline: "Color is to the
eyes what music is to the ears".
I realize that not everyone understands how a rainbow works
(since they are made by a combination of refraction *and*
reflection, it is a bit complicated), but I thought every
sighted person over the age of four was familiar with light
from prisms.
The only difference for astronomers is that they *have to*
understand exactly how light refracts in order to design,
build, and use telescopes that work.
Every astronomer knows that blue light bends more strongly
than red light when it is refracted, because they have seen
it with their own eyes.
If you have believed for many years that red light is bent
more strongly, that is one thing. Everyone gets mixed up
occasionally. But the Zetans told you the same thing! You
should wonder why they have given you incorrect information
about something which is so easy to check for yourself.
Bill Nelson wrote:
>> It is funny that "special coordinates" are necessary, when that
>> is not the case for Pluto (closer than this reputed object) or
>> any other distant object such as Proxima Centari (much further
>> than this reputed object).
>>
>> The question then becomes, if it is not necessary for objects
>> both much closer and much further away than the reputed Px, then
>> what physical law dictates that such is necessary for Px alone?
> Because what you SEE is the predominant light coming from stars,
> sunlight, your flashlight, etc. and what you MISS is dim bulbs
> predominantly in the red spectrum.
*All* objects in the image were seen by their red light. Making
images in red and infrared light is very common in astronomical
imaging.
The fact that the light coming from an object is red or any other
color has no effect on where it will show up on the CCD image in
relation to the background stars.
When the Zetans tell you that red light appears on images in a
location different from where some other color would, they are
again giving you incorrect information. You should wonder why
they are giving you incorrect information which is so easily
found to be incorrect, and which is found out as soon as you
pass the information on to someone else.
Obviously, they know the correct information. Why are they
giving you incorrect information?
> You’d not know Planet X was where it is had the Zetas not given
> the RA and Dec to "look around" and had Open Minded not taken a
> 20 minute CCD and had the Zetas not pointed out the spot where he
> had captured Planet X
circle you drew, *not* inside it. The circle could have easily
been drawn around the spot. Instead, it was drawn right over
the spot, covering and hiding it. Very poor work. Evidently
the Zetans were either sloppy or deliberately mislead you as to
where to draw the circle.
> and had various folks not done contrast and brightness
> enhancements to show that THERE was a new blob NOT on the
> Palomar 45 minute CCD
> (http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90375.htm).
*not* CCD. CCD hadn't been invented yet when they were made.
> Pluto is reflecting sunlight, Planet X is not, yet.
You said before that planet X is reflecting 1/81 as much light
as Pluto.
The CCD image that "Openminded" took shows that the actual
amount of light coming from planet X is far, far less than
1/81 as much as comes from Pluto.
Jeff Root wrote:
>> Next time the Sun is out at mid-day, put a finger up at
>> arm's length, to cover it. You will see that you can just
>> barely cover it, and so much light will come from the
>> sky near the Sun that it will still look very bright.
>>
>> Next time Sun is out at sunrise or sunset, put a finger
>> up at arm's length, to cover it. You will see that you
>> can cover it completely, and the sky around it will not
>> be so bright.
>>
>> Why are you able to cover the Sun with a finger at
>> sunrise or sunset better than you can at mid-day?
> Give me a break. At mid-day the Sun is an intense bright spec.
> A sunrise and sunset the Sun gets HUGE. It comes up squashed,
> then fattens out, then as it rises it gets smaller. Point is,
> why does it change, or squash and flatten, or whatever, unless
> RED LIGHT BENDS big time.
sunset is curious. Probably the majority of people on this
planet know that the image does not actually change size, but
only *seems* larger when you are looking at it beyond objects
on the distant horizon. Look at it with only nearby objects
in your field of vision, and the illusion goes away.
Do it. See for yourself. Hold the barrel of a pen at arm's
length to cover the Sun at mid-day, and at sunrise or sunset.
You will see that the image does not change size, except, as
you say, for the squashing or flattening which is sometimes
visible at sunrise or sunset. A pen 3/8" in diameter would
be just about perfect -- depending on how far away you hold
it, of course. It works best farther from your eye, because
the diameter of the pupil is larger than a pinhole.
You can do this at mid-day when there are clouds thick enough
to greatly reduce the Sun's brightness, but thin enough that
you see its outline clearly.
Again, the Zetans have given you incorrect information which
is very easy to see is incorrect, and which most people know
is incorrect. Why are they doing this? What other incorrect
information have they given you?
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
.
I M Openminded
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
...
>>and had various folks not done contrast and brightness
>>enhancements to show that THERE was a new blob NOT on the
>>Palomar 45 minute CCD
>>(http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90375.htm).
>>
>
> The Palomar images were made on glass photographic plates,
> *not* CCD. CCD hadn't been invented yet when they were made.
>
>
>>Pluto is reflecting sunlight, Planet X is not, yet.
>>
>
> Is this your own interpretation of what the Zetans have said?
> You said before that planet X is reflecting 1/81 as much light
> as Pluto.
>
> The CCD image that "Openminded" took shows that the actual
> amount of light coming from planet X is far, far less than
> 1/81 as much as comes from Pluto.
Actually, my image tells us only that her planet was not located in the
sky where she said it was. The spot she pointed out on my image is
visible on both the PSS-1 (I have examined direct prints made from the
original 103-aE plate) and PSS-2 images taken years ago. It is accurate
to say that the spot she erroneously attributes to her planet is far,
far less bright than Pluto.
jrla...@shell.golden.net
Jeff Root <je...@freemars.org> wrote:
>
>Do it. See for yourself. Hold the barrel of a pen at arm's
>length to cover the Sun at mid-day, and at sunrise or sunset.
>You will see that the image does not change size, except, as
>you say, for the squashing or flattening which is sometimes
>visible at sunrise or sunset. A pen 3/8" in diameter would
>be just about perfect -- depending on how far away you hold
>it, of course. It works best farther from your eye, because
>the diameter of the pupil is larger than a pinhole.
Your little finger works well for this since the angle covered by it is
about the same. A bigger person has a bigger little finger but since their
arm is usually longer you end up with about the same angle. A smaller
person, with a thinner little finger, has a shorter arm so once again you
end up with the same angle.
I remember reading an astronomy book years ago. It was on naked eye
astronomy (i.e. no optical assistance of any kind). To help you move from
constellation to constellation he used your body. Width of a finger or
fingers. Width of your palm. Etc. Can't remember the name of the book
right at the moment though.
Michael L. Cunningham
> Yes it does, what i saw on the white-paper was most likely an optical
> illusion.
>
> (I was WRONG as wrong can be, somehow always thought red refracted better.)
Careful jos, Nancy will drive you from her flock!
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand Am GT
e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Remembering the World Trade Center Massacre
Sept. 11, 2001
Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war!
Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum!
"If you want to be counted... stand up!
If you want to be heard... speak up!
If you want to be appreciated... shut up!"
We've been notified by Building Security that there
have been 4 suspected terrorists working at our office.
Three of the four have been apprehended. Bin Sleepin,
Bin Loafin, and Bin Drinkin have been taken into
custody. Security advised us that they could find no
one fitting the description of the fourth cell member,
Bin Workin, in our office.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
josX
<3C5440...@telocity.com>:
Alright, i already did just that, here is a chat log: (<cut> snips other ppl)
<...>
privmsg #zetatalk :hi Nancy
<cut>
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :Hello all. I just sent Jurian and
Gerard the Agenda. Will pre-post it here for those coming early.
<cut>
privmsg #zetatalk :Nancy, are you sure about the red-light bending most ?
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :COMMUNICATION
<cut>
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :1. Whose idea the IRC sessions
were and why are they held weekly and not twice a week for instance?
<cut>
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :2. How many Zetas appear in
these communications? Can you make a distinction between them as
being different personalities, having different "voices"? Do they
consider these sessions as "big events" (we surely do) or but as usual
chatting? Do they need to prepare for these or have real-time access
to assistance if needed? Do the Zetas read all the peoples mind on
the IRC-session?
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :3. Will the Zetas and/or others
be available for us somehow to chat with after the pole shift too?
<cut>
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :VOLCANIC ASH
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :1. Will all the volcanic ash
in the atmosphere adversely affect the world temperature to a lower
range for a time (even in areas near the equator), as in the formally
much talked about "nuclear winter"?
<cut>
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :2. How well will local edible
plants grow in British Columbia (and other temperate, fertile areas)
in the years following the shift (ie. will there be enough growth to
support the survival of small groups)?
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :CHARIOT OF THE GODS
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :1. What can Zetas say about Erik Von
Däniken?
<cut>
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :AFTER DEATH
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :1. What are the stages the spirit
experiences after the death of the body?
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :2. Can the spirit communicate
to everyone in the afterlife?
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :3. Can the spirit learn then,
from others and/or from itself by thinking, or everything is just in
constancy?
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :May not get to it all ...
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :Jos, that was NancyTalk (I
checked) my error.
privmsg #zetatalk :pfff...good to hear that...
<cut>
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :Red light bends a lot, blue may
bend more, but is not a factor in viewing much of anything, I think.
<cut>
privmsg #zetatalk :ok, i was afraid you picked up on my error somehow maybe
<cut>
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :My bad. Checked the Red Light
ZetaTalk done last week.
privmsg #zetatalk :it was there all along that blue bends better ??
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :I was so behind on my work due
to the Hazelwood thing and the release from constipation afterwards.
Will explain.
privmsg #zetatalk :ok, i can check that...:)
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :Apparently, the Hazelwood
matter held a lot up, as if it SUCCEEDED then ZetaTalk and any clue
of correctness was to be deep-6'd
privmsg #zetatalk :yeah, they said you were tired too, so...
<cut>
privmsg #zetatalk :alright, that's good news indeed.....
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :It was supposed to take ZT down,
not because Hazelwood was wonderful but 1. money scams dirting ZT
and TT, 2. takover of 2003 issue
<cut>
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :This didn't happen, and in fact
by making a big fuss over the money issue, and causing folks to talk
and all, he went LIMPING into Art Bell.
<cut>
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :But the biggie was the Open
Minded posting of an image, infrared, and there it IS and all, the
blob not on the Palomar.
<cut>
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :So on top of it all, ZT held
through, and Hazelwood going down.
<snip>
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :Jos, re blue bending, Maybe this
is true, but blue light is not a factor in viewing, so irrelevant,
my lastest post on this matter (today).
<cut>
privmsg #zetatalk :ok, but ZT-accuracy is a factor...
<snip>
privmsg #zetatalk :anyway, yes, blue light bends better then red light,
afaics at least
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :Blob which the Zetas had me
circle in red before we knew it was there :-).
<cut>
privmsg #zetatalk :but if it was there in ZT already, that is less
of a problem, maybe there was a transmission problem (?)
<snip>
privmsg #zetatalk :(to any sceptics, yes, i have everything downloaded,
so could you :)
<snip>
privmsg #zetatalk :(everything = whole ZT site)
:NancyL!lieder@.. PRIVMSG #ZetaTalk :They have noted that intelligent
folks post now and then in support of ZT, or asking questions showing
they are reading it.
<...>
Alright, i am now trying to find the spot where they say blue bends more...
(can't resist to post this:)
ZetaTalk: Space/Time Curves (./science/s89.htm)
_________________________________________________________________
Regarding the amusing human notion that space/time curves. This theory
gained credence recently as humans have been able to track
cosmological events more closely with the Hubble, and noted that the
perimeter of an explosion curved slightly as the event progressed. Do
you imagine that light rays are immune to gravitational influences?
They are formed of particles, just as what you call matter is, and as
such as subject to the same influences. We have stated that the
Auroras, which are visible light shows and not at all related to
magnetic fields, are caused by the bending of light subjected to the
Earth's gravity. This would be visible elsewhere around the globe, but
except in the dim light near the poles does not stand out. Why would
particles move in a curve?
Humans should keep in mind that what they see of the Universe reflects
* the original situation, such as a nova, that caused the light to
escape and move in the direction of Earth.
* the direction those light particles were pulled in, by
gravitational influences
What humans on Earth do not see is
* light that was not moving in a straight line path toward Earth, to
begin with
* light that was pulled so that it was no longer in a straight-line
path toward Earth
Your human scientists are aware of this, identifying places in space
where no light seems to escape as black holes. Nevertheless, as
curving space/time seemed like such an interesting possibility among <
those hoping to always prolong their stay at the trough the taxpayers <
are obliged to fill, NASA talked it up. They know better but don't <
want the paychecks to stop. <
All rights reserved: Zeta...@ZetaTalk.com
..you gotta love it ;]...
)
..found this regarding light (science/s06.htm)
<snip>
would be presented, not the steady consistency that they observe. They
are of course assuming a constancy in the substance of light, which
can be altered as a substance just as any other. Do not the heavier
particles that man is familiar with change radically their behavior
with the addition or subtraction of a subatomic particle at the core,
or in the electrons circling the core? Man assumes that light rays are
constant only because they have not yet been able to dissect them.
Light rays deflected are in the process of being altered.
<snip>
Finally found something when grepping: http://zetetalk.com/science/s90.htm
ZetaTalk: Light Particles
_________________________________________________________________
In the recent past, humans considered the world around them to be
composed of either mass or energy, energy being anything they could
not put their hands around. Only within the past century has the
notion that both mass and energy are solid particles become widely
accepted. Energy is just really small stuff, moving fast.
Increasingly, the really small stuff is identified, at least in theory
as it is too small to be observed directly. The clues, for humans
struggling to understand the world around them, lies in the behavior
of small particles under different circumstances. Light is not
composed of a singular particle, but dozens of particles, thereby
accounting for much of what humans call the strange behavior of light.
* Rainbows are caused by the various particles responsible for what
humans call color, the color of an object being determined by
which particle is overwhelmingly present in the flood of particles
striking the eye. Diffraction of light in water laden air
following a rain storm results in what humans call a rainbow,
where the eye perceives light particles sorted out by the degree,
or angle, of diffraction from one side of the rainbow to the
other.
* Auroras, colorful light displays of waving banners across the
northern or southern skies, are caused by the susceptibility of
the various particles to the gravitational pull from the Earth.
These light displays are visible to humans where the glare of
sunlight does not drown them out, as the eye registers the
overwhelming particle nature of the light flood, discarding minor
particles that might be present as so much noise.
* Brilliant sunsets and dawns have been assumed by humans to be
caused by dust suspended in the air, when of course those dust
particles are present during the day as well and cause no such
color variation. The human eye receives in the dim light of dawn
or dusk an overwhelming flood of light composed of particular
particles which are more prone to bend toward the gravitational
pull of the Earth than other particles. Thus the sunset or dawn is
most brilliant at a point just before or after the full glare of
sunlight, when the particle flood is strong but is not mixed in
with competing light particles to the point of being drown out.
All rights reserved: Zeta...@ZetaTalk.com
--
Jeff Root
>> The CCD image that "Openminded" took shows that the actual
>> amount of light coming from planet X is far, far less than
>> 1/81 as much as comes from Pluto.
> Actually, my image tells us only that her planet was not located
> in the sky where she said it was. The spot she pointed out on my
> image is visible on both the PSS-1 (I have examined direct prints
> made from the original 103-aE plate) and PSS-2 images taken years
> ago. It is accurate to say that the spot she erroneously attributes
> to her planet is far, far less bright than Pluto.
image and the PSS images. There *do* appear to be two blobs
on your CCD image where you pointed to. The image labeled
PSS-1 E also looks like it *might* have two blobs. I'd like
to see these without the JPEG artifacts.
Jeff Root
I have some questions.
Are you in contact with just one individual Zetan, or several,
or a large number of them?
Do you receive emotional content from them when they talk to
you, as you do when you hear a person speaking? (You can tell
how a person feels from the sound of their voice, even if they
are speaking a language you don't know at all.) Or can you
only learn how they feel from what they say?
Do you ever sense that they feel frustrated with the questions
you ask?
Do they ever have difficulty answering your questions?
Do they ever ask you questions?
Nancy Lieder
>>
>>> Red light is the one most NOTED. There are a lot of
>>> particles in the light spectrum that man can't see.
>>> We're not discussing those, here, either. We see few
>>> colors. The point it, the light from Planet X is
>>> predominantly in the red spectrum, and bends more
>>> readily than the predominant light from starlight,
>>> sunlight, your flashlight, etc.
>
>
> information, could be so doggedly clinging to this
> wrong idea?
Pity the poor Zetas. They deal with a press secretary who
1. needs sleep and gets bleary after an 18 hour day,
2. has an IQ one-third the level of theirs,
3. has been educated in human schools and thus is knowledge deficient,
4. has her own opinions.
I can just see those long slender gray fingers wrapped around their big
brainy heads - "She's done it again!". But they usually let me know
about that right off, and did not do so here, so I went back into the
sci.astro Usenet postings I made, to see what was said about red light
bending more than blue light. Here's what I found:
Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:51:55 -0600
<3C49961B...@zetatalk.com>
Re: Planet-X, Why "Look Around"
Just as electrons are not a single particle, but composed
of some 387 particles, light is likewise not composed
of a single particle, as hundreds of particles are
involved in the phenomenon called light. This should
be obvious to man, as light spreads into the colors of
the rainbow, and as his scientists describe the behavior
of red light as Red Shift, where no such behavior is
ascribed to other colors in the light spectrum. How
does this affect viewing the inbound Planet X, which
emits light primarily in the red spectrum due to the
cloud of red dust around it though which any light
escaping from the planet must pass. RED LIGHT, AND
LIGHT CLOSE IN THE SPECTRUM TO RED LIGHT,
BENDS MORE READILY THAN OTHER PARTICLES
IN THE LIGHT GROUP. This can quickly be
determined by the common man if he compares the
rising and setting sun to other objects he sees in the sky.
ZertaTalk
This was apparently interpreted to be "Red light, and light close in the
spectrum to red light, bends more readily than ALL other particles in
the light group". Which is not what was said. If I want to imply that
Greg if fat, grossly overweight, so much so that heads turn and people
stare as he thunders past, fascinated by the giggling rolls of blubber,
and I say "Greg is heavier than other men", I have NOT stated that Greg
is the fatty of the world, as perhaps in Africa there is a man weighing
500 lbs, who has mesmerized the village such that they bring his smelly
carcass food by the ton and carry away his mountains of waste, daily.
If the focus of the discussion is slim men past in the office, and heavy
men past in the office, and in discussions on why, after Greg passes,
people must place the lamps back on the tables and the office manager
must say "OK, everyone, back to work, shows over", I simply say "Greg is
heavier than other men" and do NOT say "Greg is heavier than other men
except for that dude in Africa bla bla bal" as the dude in Africa is not
in the context.
In looking at the skies and taking images, we have:
RED Shift
InfraRED imaging
RED Sun at dawns and sunset
not green or blue or yellow or whatever. RED is compared to WHITE light,
during discussions, as star light is white light. I think white light
is a combination of all colors, considered to be that. So in discussing
how a relatively nearby brown dwarf, Planet X, some 9 Sun-Pluto
distances away, emitting predominantly RED spectrum light, should be
viewed, the Zetas are above describing this as compared to WHITE light.
That's the intent of what was said by the Zetas.
Nancy Lieder
> And then she claims that it was found in the
> CCD image that was posted, even though the
> person who took the image stated that there
> is nothing there that was not there in the
> Palomar image made years ago.
This issue keeps getting discussed as thought the NEW blob in the
recent, 20 minute CCD is already ON the older Palomar 45 minutes CCD,
which it is not. In addition, the existing dot Open Minded is referring
to is ALSO on the new CCD, in ADDITION to the new blob.
In Article <3C3E469C...@zetatalk.com> Nancy wrote:
> In Article <3C3D03DF...@telocity.com> Open Minded wrote:
>> See my updated web page:
>> http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
>
> The Zetas object is NOT in your Palomar images. In the image
> called "Nancy's" there are TWO dots, one LARGER than
> the Palomar (and how could that be, in that all other dim
> objects are SMALLER in the 20 minute CCD than the 45
> minute Palomar CCD), and one just above the Zeta object
> but smaller. Look closely.
Please note that:
1. all dim object are SMALLER on the recent 20 minute CCD
2. except for the NEW object, which is LARGER
3. the new 20 minute CCD also has the dim star in the 45 minute Palomar
4. so the NEW blob is ....
=> NEW <=
If it were equivalent to the little dot being refered to as "existing",
then why are their TWO dots there? And if one wants to use the logic
that the new blob is one and the same as the "existing" dot in the 45
minute Palomar, then why is the NEW dot LARGER on the CCD with less
exposure time, when all other dim spots are SMALLER. There are two
arguments here, for the blob being NEW.
Hello!
Palomar 45 Minute CCD
. <=dot
Recent 20 Minute CCD
. <= dot
* <= new blob
This is not NEW?
Greg Neill
news:3C5C5E49...@zetatalk.com...
>
> In looking at the skies and taking images, we have:
> RED Shift
> InfraRED imaging
> RED Sun at dawns and sunset
> not green or blue or yellow or whatever. RED is compared to WHITE light,
> during discussions, as star light is white light. I think white light
> is a combination of all colors, considered to be that. So in discussing
> how a relatively nearby brown dwarf, Planet X, some 9 Sun-Pluto
> distances away, emitting predominantly RED spectrum light, should be
> viewed, the Zetas are above describing this as compared to WHITE light.
> That's the intent of what was said by the Zetas.
If refraction had the significant effect of shifting the viewed
position of a red object as you claim, then intrinsically "white"
stars which comprise light from across the visible spectrum would
appear as elongated streaks, not points. We need to use spectrometers
to spread the light out to that degree.
Again, you know nothing.
Greg Neill
>
> Please note that:
> 1. all dim object are SMALLER on the recent 20 minute CCD
> 2. except for the NEW object, which is LARGER
> 3. the new 20 minute CCD also has the dim star in the 45 minute Palomar
> 4. so the NEW blob is ....
either an image artefact or an object of less than magnitude 20.
It therefore cannot be your object.
And have you forgotten? The original author of the image checked
the original Palomar plates, and the blob *is* there, but faint.
Have you forgotten this as a matter of personal convenience?
Tut, tut.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Open Minded wrote:
>> Greg Neill wrote:
>>> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>>>> Red light is the one most NOTED. There are a lot of
>>>> particles in the light spectrum that man can't see.
>>>> We're not discussing those, here, either. We see few
>>>> colors. The point it, the light from Planet X is
>>>> predominantly in the red spectrum, and bends more
>>>> readily than the predominant light from starlight,
>>>> sunlight, your flashlight, etc.
>>> Blue light bends more than red.
>> Nancy, with her supposed superior sources of
>> information, could be so doggedly clinging to this
>> wrong idea?
> Pity the poor Zetas. They deal with a press secretary who
> 1. needs sleep and gets bleary after an 18 hour day,
Try posting less, Nancy.
> 3. has been educated in human schools and thus is knowledge deficient,
Try paying more attention to what some of us have been telling you
in this newsgroup, Nancy.
> 4. has her own opinions.
Your opinions are irrelevant to the issue of refraction, Nancy.
> I can just see those long slender gray fingers wrapped around their big
> brainy heads - "She's done it again!". But they usually let me know
> about that right off, and did not do so here, so I went back into the
> sci.astro Usenet postings I made, to see what was said about red light
> bending more than blue light. Here's what I found:
You didn't need to go back to the postings you made to see what you
said about red light, Nancy. The relevant quotation has been
preserved in the quoted text above. You said, quite clearly:
"the light from Planet X is predominantly in the red spectrum,
and bends more readily than the predominant light from starlight,
sunlight, your flashlight, etc."
--Nancy Lieder
Rather poor attempt on your part to spin doctor your error.
tho...@antispam.ham
> This issue keeps getting discussed as thought the NEW blob in the
> recent, 20 minute CCD is already ON the older Palomar 45 minutes CCD,
> which it is not.
You're erroneously presupposing that there is a "NEW blob" in the
recent CCD image, Nancy. There is certainly nothing new there
anywhere close to magnitude 11.
josX
?? that wasn't all that great for what i can tell
Btw, i thought this thing was solved already ?!
<snip>
* Rainbows are caused by the various particles responsible for what
humans call color, the color of an object being determined by
which particle is overwhelmingly present in the flood of particles
striking the eye. Diffraction of light in water laden air
following a rain storm results in what humans call a rainbow,
where the eye perceives light particles sorted out by the degree,
or angle, of diffraction from one side of the rainbow to the
other.
<snip>
* Brilliant sunsets and dawns have been assumed by humans to be
caused by dust suspended in the air, when of course those dust
particles are present during the day as well and cause no such
color variation. The human eye receives in the dim light of dawn
or dusk an overwhelming flood of light composed of particular
particles which are more prone to bend toward the gravitational
pull of the Earth than other particles. Thus the sunset or dawn is
most brilliant at a point just before or after the full glare of
sunlight, when the particle flood is strong but is not mixed in
with competing light particles to the point of being drown out.
All rights reserved: Zeta...@ZetaTalk.com
<snip>
But please, correct me if you were wrong ;-).
regards,
jos
--
This is a Test.
(from my backup file:
-rw-r--r-- 1 joshb joshb 105266 nov 25 2001 ./save/irc/log2.~12~)
<...(snipped other ppl)>
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: We predict that long before
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-----------^^^^^^^^^^^^
the shift, a barter system will be replacing the current paper money
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
system.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: The value of the dollar, in
ALL countries, will be falling, such that in any transaction one or
both parties will feel they are getting a fair deal ONLY is a THING,
not a representation, is given or received.
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: This is a common practice in
countries where the dollar is falling, and a natural migration as the
though occurs readily to mankind, the barter system being recent in
their cultural evolution.
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: What will this mean for the
common man, and what will it mean for the rich?
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: The common man will find they
are pleased with themselves if they have had the foresight to secure
good of value, such as seeds or tools or dried food.
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: The value of applicanes that
are dead and not able to run, even of cars unable to run over broken
roads, will be zero.
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: The value of items that can
INCREASE worth, such as a need and thread which can repair clothing
otherwise worthless, or a shovel that can create a garden otherwise
a weed patch, will BALOON.
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: The rich will of course whine
endlessly, and try to convince anyone who will listen that their
goods will RETURN in value, which it will not.
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: We advise the common man, as we
have in the past, to relieve themselves of stock and jewels and paper
money that will fall in value, perhaps suddenly and without warning.
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: Better to stock up on things
that will have value, candles and matches, school books and a guitar,
than what the rich treasure.
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT End
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :Followup questions?
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: In that one's skill sets can
be considered a bartering item, one should examine their own skill
set by the following exam.
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: If you were in the middle of
a wilderness, ALONE, what steps would you take to survive?
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: What is the FIRST skill that
you would need, and not have? Whom do you know that you would wise
about you, in such as circumstance? What is that skill that they
possess, that you perhaps could develop?
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: Imagine a group in such
a setting, having arrives at a land dump where various pieces of
junk are about and could provide mechanical devices or shelter,
if ultilized creatively and resourcefully.
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: How would YOU go about creating
a comfortable home for yourself, and others, in such as situation?
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: If you are clueless on how to
use junk to structure a home, recycle and hook up, then perhaps you
should work with a junk man, in his yard, and take lessons!
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: What we are telling you is
that you should mentally put yourself in the setting, and you will
have no difficulty determining what is useless or most worthwile,
in a skill set.
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT End
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: Moneies will be used as a
medium of exchange, as will jewels and art, in some settings, for a
brief period of time.
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: This will occur until those
being offered these at bargain prices realize the shift has happened
WORLDWIDE, and rescue and a return to civilization as they knew it
will not occur.
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: Perhaps months, but more likely
weeks, and only in limited settings.
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT end
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: Skills and services ARE a
barterable item, but only if of worth as we have described.
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :ZT: If you are an accountant,
and cannot translate this skill into becoming a trailor or herdsman
or cook, your skill us useless!
:NancyL!lieder@ PRIVMSG #zetatalk :End ZT
<snip></paste>
josX
If light of the sunset is red because of a larger red-light refraction in
gravity, the light-day should be longer then expected for if everything
were normally refracting only in the atmosphere and the red is because of
dust. Right?
I have no idea about how much light should refract in the atmosphere, maybe
some of you do.
bye.
--
josX
<snip>
>If light of the sunset is red because of a larger red-light refraction in
>gravity, the light-day should be longer then expected for if everything
>were normally refracting only in the atmosphere and the red is because of
>dust. Right?
>
>I have no idea about how much light should refract in the atmosphere, maybe
>some of you do.
Sorry to keep replying to myself, but i just figured science might
have postulated a magical heavy-refraction-layer in the atmosphere
somewhere (?).
So, the time difference between the red sunset and the blue-flash
(which is postulated to be because of atmospheric bending) might
give a live clue to how much light bends in the atmosphere, since
if the time is long, the spectrum was spread out more and that is
characteristic of heavier bending, and if short, the reverse.
Did i miss anything?
hope not,
jos
ps (this is about comparing it to the longer light-day, see if the real
light-day is longer then expected because of the atmospheric refraction
as calculated with the blue flash and sundown time difference).
pps Maybe it'll all work out though
--
josX
But really, do i still care what you "science" people have to bark
about it?
To tell you the truth, no i don't. I am getting utterly desinterested
in you, and your cult of idiocy...
And make no mistake about me, i was a great science fan for all
my life, i was subscribed to childs magazines about science and a
magazine about the stars ("kijk" and "zenit"), both for many years. I
like the discovery channel above all else, and i buy the occasional
scientific american, i have books about astronomy and now 2 scopes,
and chose all the science i could get in school (chemistry, physics,
math), and i wanted to be an astronomer since i was 6.
If you cannot admit there can be no escape-velocity for the known
law of gravity, then what am i still doing here?
Similarly i have argued Special Relativity, but it is all no use
(in multiple newsgroups). It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong
around here, you all couldn't care less.
The stupidness about fundamental math proves once and for all that
people are INCAPABLE of thinking, and that emphatically includes
"""science""".
Little children, that are the big names here, little children who
can't even shit in a diper hanging around their asses.
I can admit a mistake, can you ?
No you can't, i already know that.
- escape vecolity and taught law of gravity, one is wrong
- Special Relativity of Einstein, wrong
- math axiomas, and the failure to recognise they are just experimental
These things are not "important enough" ?
Well, they sure are to me, and if science cannot change their ways
because of whatever, then i say, goodbye, goodbye "science", you are
not science any longer.
I did my best, there is no hope for you, not in my lifetime anyway.
I would be happy to see a real argument and concede my wrong, but in
reality about NONE of these issues i have even hardly SEEN a rational
counter argument (or it was really really scant and weak). Sorry,
but that really does it. I guess the escape-velocity thing is finally
sinking in.
Have fun with your redicilousness.
adios
--
Maybe i'll come back now and again to smak your faces, who knows,
considder it educational.
I M Openminded
I'm not sure what you are working on here. The refraction of light in
the Earth's atmosphere is a topic that has been studied in great detail,
especially by astronomers. It depends on the temperature and pressure
profiles vs. height and the surface curvature. Details of the sun's
image as it sets below the horizon (including the green flash) have been
used to infer data about the profiles. Sundown time calculations are a
very imprecise way of studing these things but all of us who produce
tables of sun/moon rise/set include simple refraction.
I M Openminded
Give us a simple english languge explanation of the reason that the blob
your claim is your planet is many 1000's of times fainter than your
statement of its brightness and far too faint to be visible to a human
looking through the eyepiece of a telescope.
Nancy Lieder
> Blue light bends more than red.
Going back to what the ZETAS said on this matter (something else has
occurred to me).
Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:51:55 -0600
<3C49961B...@zetatalk.com>
Re: Planet-X, Why "Look Around"
Just as electrons are not a single particle, but composed
of some 387 particles, light is likewise not composed
of a single particle, as hundreds of particles are
involved in the phenomenon called light. This should
be obvious to man, as light spreads into the colors of
the rainbow, and as his scientists describe the behavior
of red light as Red Shift, where no such behavior is
ascribed to other colors in the light spectrum. How
does this affect viewing the inbound Planet X, which
emits light primarily in the red spectrum due to the
cloud of red dust around it though which any light
escaping from the planet must pass. RED LIGHT, AND
LIGHT CLOSE IN THE SPECTRUM TO RED LIGHT,
BENDS MORE READILY THAN OTHER PARTICLES
IN THE LIGHT GROUP. This can quickly be
determined by the common man if he compares the
rising and setting sun to other objects he sees in the sky.
ZertaTalk
I checked in my Britannicas, and found:
- in the visible spectrum of light colors, even yellow
bends more readily than red, as a prism bending
white light into a rainbow has visible RED on one
end, thence yellow, thense blue, with ALL these
colors in the rainbow apparently bending more
readily than red. Point well taken
- man sees a very NARROW range of light rays, as
infrared for instance is not seen by man as is a
larger spectrum, thus, when the Zetas referred to
the "light group", they were not limiting themselves
to the VISIBLE spectrum, as this was not the
qualification.
- in the rainbow, VIOLET is at the far end of the
visible spectrum from, odd as and in creating
violet/purple, one mixes BOTH red and blue
together to get this color. Thus light particles
creating red light are at BOTH ENDS of the rainbow,
encompassing blue which lies more in the middle.
Thus, when the Zetas said "red light, and light close
in the spectrum to red light, bends more readily
than other particles in the light group", they were
correct, as blue, being between red and violet in
the rainbow, is WITHIN the red light spectrum.
- there must be more light in the visible light
spectrum than these colors, as we see starlight
from afar, UNBENDED in the main, as white light,
and there is no term such as White Shift where we
have Red Shift. If red shifts (bends) and all other
colors bend MORE, then what we're seeing as star
light can't be these easily disbursed color rays! So,
when white light passes through a prism and
creates a rainbow, is there ALSO white light,
unbent, mixed in? So even in the "light group"
visible to man, there is MORE unbend (becoming
color) that there is "close in the spectrum to red
light". Right?
Nancy Lieder
> In Article <3C3D03DF...@telocity.com> Open Minded wrote:
>> See my updated web page:
>> http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/CCDimages.htm
>
> The Zetas object is NOT in your Palomar images. In the image
> called "Nancy's" there are TWO dots, one LARGER than
> the Palomar (and how could that be, in that all other dim
> objects are SMALLER in the 20 minute CCD than the 45
> minute Palomar CCD), and one just above the Zeta object
> but smaller. Look closely.
I've copied the images Open Minded has on this web site, where he points
to an EXISTING small dot and states that the new large blob, the Zeta
object is that. This is on my web site
(http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90407.htm) and I've drawn triangles
to show that:
1. the existing dot is on the older Palomar, also
on the recent CCD from January 5, at the
SAME ANGLE from the neighboring stars.
2. there is an ADDITIONAL blob on the recent
CCD, and the triangle drawn between neighboring
stars to THIS blob is DIFFERENT, location and
placement is different.
3. I've left an untouched copy of Open Minded's
images, also, so one can see this clearly, as
drawing the triangles overlays data beneath
the lines.
Michael Davis
> In article <a3j8md$i07$1...@news1.xs4all.nl>, josX wrote:
> <snip>
> >If light of the sunset is red because of a larger red-light refraction in
> >gravity, the light-day should be longer then expected for if everything
> >were normally refracting only in the atmosphere and the red is because of
> >dust. Right?
> >
> >I have no idea about how much light should refract in the atmosphere, maybe
> >some of you do.
>
> Sorry to keep replying to myself, but i just figured science might
> have postulated a magical heavy-refraction-layer in the atmosphere
> somewhere (?).
>
> So, the time difference between the red sunset and the blue-flash
> (which is postulated to be because of atmospheric bending) might
> give a live clue to how much light bends in the atmosphere, since
> if the time is long, the spectrum was spread out more and that is
> characteristic of heavier bending, and if short, the reverse.
>
> Did i miss anything?
Yes, an education. Damn, you are stupid!
> hope not,
> jos
> ps (this is about comparing it to the longer light-day, see if the real
> light-day is longer then expected because of the atmospheric refraction
> as calculated with the blue flash and sundown time difference).
> pps Maybe it'll all work out though
> --
Whatever. You should be spending your time thinking up excuses for when planet X
and the pole shift fail to arrive next year.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Flaggy random killfile member #33 1/3
"For men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness to believe,
but in proportion to their readiness to doubt." - H. L. Mencken
tho...@antispam.ham
> If you cannot admit there can be no escape-velocity for the known
> law of gravity, then what am i still doing here?
Why should anyone who understands the simple concept of conservation
of energy admit that there can be no escape velocity for the known
law of gravity? The former can be easily derived from the latter.
> The stupidness about fundamental math proves once and for all that
> people are INCAPABLE of thinking, and that emphatically includes
> """science""".
Your "science". Apparently you are incapable of thinking about
conservation of energy.
> I can admit a mistake, can you ?
Sure; which mistake would you like me to admit? Now, when will you
admit that there can be escape velocity for the known law of gravity?
> - escape vecolity and taught law of gravity, one is wrong
Assuming you mean "velocity" rather than "vecolity", why must one be
wrong?
> - Special Relativity of Einstein, wrong
On what basis do you make that claim?
> Well, they sure are to me, and if science cannot change their ways
> because of whatever, then i say, goodbye, goodbye "science", you are
> not science any longer.
Change their ways to match your misunderstandings? Why? It is
illogical to change scientific laws just to match people's
misconceptions. Would it be a service to the student if I suddenly
started teaching them that the seasons are caused by the Earth's
changing distance from the Sun, even when there is abundant
observational evidence to counter such a hypothesis?
> I did my best,
Which wasn't very good.
> there is no hope for you, not in my lifetime anyway.
Such arrogance!
> I would be happy to see a real argument and concede my wrong,
You already have.
> but in reality about NONE of these issues i have even hardly SEEN a
> rational counter argument
Incorrect; conservation of energy is a rational counter argument.
> (or it was really really scant and weak).
On what basis do you make that claim?
> Sorry, but that really does it. I guess the escape-velocity thing is
> finally sinking in.
Let me know when you finally figure out why comet Bowell has an
eccentricity of 1.05 and therefore has escape velocity. Let me
know when you finally realize that Voyager 1 and 2 both have escape
velocity from the Solar System and won't be coming back.
> Have fun with your redicilousness.
How ironic.
> Maybe i'll come back now and again to smak your faces, who knows,
> considder it educational.
I'd consider it illogical of you.
tho...@antispam.ham
> I have no idea about how much light should refract in the atmosphere, maybe
> some of you do.
The amount of refraction depends on temperature, pressure, and even
relative humidity, and those are variable with the weather. However,
for purposes of computing the times of sunrise and sunset, it is
convention to adopt 34 arcminutes of refraction at the horizon.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Diffraction of light in water laden air following a rain storm
> results in what humans call a rainbow,
Incorrect; there is a fundamental difference between diffraction and
refraction. Blue light refracts more than red light, but red light
diffracts more than blue light. Rainbows are caused by refraction,
not diffraction.
> Brilliant sunsets and dawns have been assumed by humans to be
> caused by dust suspended in the air, when of course those dust
> particles are present during the day as well and cause no such
> color variation.
The effect during the day is signficantly reduced because the path
length through the atmosphere that sunlight travels is significantly
shorter. If you measure the length of the path that light travels
when the Sun is directly overhead and define that to be one unit of
distance, then when the Sun is on the horizon, the path is something
like 30 times longer.
> The human eye receives in the dim light of dawn
> or dusk an overwhelming flood of light composed of particular
> particles which are more prone to bend toward the gravitational
> pull of the Earth than other particles.
Incorrect; what property allegedly makes some particles more prone
to bend?
> Thus the sunset or dawn is most brilliant at a point just before
> or after the full glare of sunlight, when the particle flood is
> strong but is not mixed in with competing light particles to the
> point of being drown out.
The brightness of twilight is simply a function of how much of the
atmosphere of the Earth is still receiving sunlight. When the Sun
sets for someone standing on the ground, the Sun has not yet set
for the atmosphere above that person. At the instant of sunset for
that person, the shadow of the Earth has moved up to the level of
that person's eyes and continues to move up after that. As the
shadow gets higher and higher, less and less of the atmosphere
(which scatters sunlight down to the observer) receives sunlight,
so the sky gets darker. It has nothing to do with differential
bending of particular particles.
tho...@antispam.ham
> RED LIGHT, AND LIGHT CLOSE IN THE SPECTRUM TO RED LIGHT,
> BENDS MORE READILY THAN OTHER PARTICLES IN THE LIGHT GROUP.
Incorrect; blue light refracts more than red light. What do
you think causes the green flash?
> This can quickly be determined by the common man if he compares
> the rising and setting sun to other objects he sees in the sky.
It can be quickly determined to be incorrect by observing the
green flash.
> Thus light particles creating red light are at BOTH ENDS of
> the rainbow, encompassing blue which lies more in the middle.
Incorrect; red falls at only one end of the visible spectrum.
> Thus, when the Zetas said "red light, and light close
> in the spectrum to red light, bends more readily
> than other particles in the light group", they were
> correct,
No, "they" (meaning you, really) aren't. What do you think causes
the green flash?
> as blue, being between red and violet in
> the rainbow, is WITHIN the red light spectrum.
Nonsense; you're just trying to spin doctor another one of your
frequent errors, Nancy.
> - there must be more light in the visible light
> spectrum than these colors, as we see starlight
> from afar, UNBENDED in the main, as white light,
> and there is no term such as White Shift where we
> have Red Shift.
Even "red shift" is misleading, as it NOT mean that infrared
light is shifted toward the red (meaning shorter wavelengths).
> If red shifts (bends) and all other colors bend MORE,
Now you're confusing two entirely separate physical
phenomena, Nancy. Refraction has nothing to do with
the Doppler effect.
> then what we're seeing as star
> light can't be these easily disbursed color rays! So,
> when white light passes through a prism and
> creates a rainbow, is there ALSO white light,
> unbent, mixed in?
No.
> So even in the "light group"
> visible to man, there is MORE unbend (becoming
> color) that there is "close in the spectrum to red
> light". Right?
Wrong.
tho...@antispam.ham
> 1. the existing dot is on the older Palomar, also
> on the recent CCD from January 5, at the
> SAME ANGLE from the neighboring stars.
Irrelevant, as neither is anywhere close to magnitude 11.
> 2. there is an ADDITIONAL blob on the recent
> CCD, and the triangle drawn between neighboring
> stars to THIS blob is DIFFERENT, location and
> placement is different.
Irrelevant, as the so-called "ADDITIONAL blob" is also
not anywhere close to magnitude 11.
> 3. I've left an untouched copy of Open Minded's
> images, also, so one can see this clearly, as
> drawing the triangles overlays data beneath
> the lines.
Why bother? Nothing in that image is your object, Nancy.
David Paterson
>But really, do i still care what you "science" people have to bark
>about it?
Well, you seem to go on about it a lot, so I can only assume you have
some sort of interest in it.
>To tell you the truth, no i don't. I am getting utterly desinterested
>in you, and your cult of idiocy...
You have a strange definition of the word "cult"....
>And make no mistake about me, i was a great science fan for all
>my life, i was subscribed to childs magazines about science and a
>magazine about the stars ("kijk" and "zenit"), both for many years. I
>like the discovery channel above all else, and i buy the occasional
>scientific american, i have books about astronomy and now 2 scopes,
>and chose all the science i could get in school (chemistry, physics,
>math), and i wanted to be an astronomer since i was 6.
It's one thing to have ambition, it's another to have the ability to
fulfill that ambition. Did you ever pass any exams in any of these
subjects?
>If you cannot admit there can be no escape-velocity for the known
>law of gravity, then what am i still doing here?
A good question.
Unfortunately there _is_ escape velocity in the "known laws of gravity",
and this has been shown to you on several occasions. You seem to think
these laws are wrong, but you've never yet come up with your
alternative, better laws which will give exactly the same results, yet
don't have this pesky escape velocity in them.
Since I've been discussing this with you recently in another thread, I
should perhaps explain why I haven't posted any further comments.
You were firstly given a proof based on conservation of energy which you
dismissed as using some "magic" energy equations. While I can't see the
reasons for not accepting this, I'll go along with you wanting a better
proof.
You asked for a proof based only on the equations for gravitational
force and simple dynamics. I spent some time on this and with a little
help worked out a calculus-based approach which didn't involve those
nasty energy equations.
I thought I'd check sci.physics to see if this had been mentioned
before, just to make sure I had the correct solution, and I found you'd
already been shown exactly the same proof, but still dismissed it out of
hand. I didn't see the point in posting the same proof again.
I've also run simulations (which I believe you too were doing) and these
also gave the expected results. Of course, due to the limitations of
computers, I eventually get an overflow when the distance gets very
large. However, plotting the rates of change of velocity and force
output from the simulation show very clearly that, for initial
velocities greater than escape velocity, the velocity is _not_ falling
off fast enough to reach zero before the force does.
Since you've been doing simulations as well, maybe you could tell us
what results you got....
>Similarly i have argued Special Relativity, but it is all no use
>(in multiple newsgroups). It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong
>around here, you all couldn't care less.
Again, I've seen your discussions about this on sci.physics - perhaps
you should just admit that you really, fundamentally don't understand
the theory, so finding a flaw in it is probably beyond your abilities.
>The stupidness about fundamental math proves once and for all that
>people are INCAPABLE of thinking, and that emphatically includes
>"""science""".
You seem to have the idea that maths is "all wrong" as well, and you
keep going on about alternative axiom systems. Frankly I doubt if you'd
know an axiom system if it came up and barked in your face. What
exactly _is_ wrong with our axioms, and which ones should we be using?
>Little children, that are the big names here, little children who
>can't even shit in a diper hanging around their asses.
You seem rather angry about something - could it be that your realising
that Nancy's alleged Zeta's have now been shown to be completely wrong
about refraction of light, and you're now starting to think that
everything else they've been telling you might also be a load of dingo's
kidneys?
Why do you think so many people, and most of them amateurs in astronomy
and other sciences, keep saying this? We can't _all_ be part of this
great conspiracy of yours (or can we :-)?
>I can admit a mistake, can you ?
>
>No you can't, i already know that.
Wrong. I'm very willing to admit to mistakes, and I'm also willing to
learn from them. The best part about finding out you were wrong is the
opportunity to increase your knowledge.
>- escape vecolity and taught law of gravity, one is wrong
>- Special Relativity of Einstein, wrong
>- math axiomas, and the failure to recognise they are just experimental
In previous discussions I said several times that mathematicians
recognise that their subject is both theoretical and experimental,
although you kept ignoring this.
However we have a convention to use axioms which reflect the way we
treat numbers in everyday life. I don't have to ask a shop keeper which
axiom system he's using to calculate prices, or get into arguments about
the cost of a newspaper and a Mars bar if A+B isn't equal to B+A.
You also forgot your assertion that calculus is "wrong", but again you
never did explain how it was flawed, or gave a single example which
could back up your claim.
>These things are not "important enough" ?
On the contrary they're fundamentally important to everything in
science, which is why they've been studied long and hard for many, many
years. Somehow all that study hasn't thrown up these glaringly obvious
flaws you seem to have discovered....
>Well, they sure are to me, and if science cannot change their ways
>because of whatever, then i say, goodbye, goodbye "science", you are
>not science any longer.
No, I think science will continue to be science, and continue to apply
the scientific method which you seem to dislike so much to solving
problems and finding out interesting new things about the way the
universe works.
What you seem to think of as science - believing in unproven assertions
made by telepathically channelled aliens - isn't usually seen as a good
approach to improving our understanding.
Interestingly, you seem to participate very readily in this "bowing down
to authority" that you continually accuse the scientific community of -
maybe you should practice what you preach and start questioning and
proving all of this "information" before blindly accepting it.
>I did my best, there is no hope for you, not in my lifetime anyway.
>
>I would be happy to see a real argument and concede my wrong, but in
>reality about NONE of these issues i have even hardly SEEN a rational
>counter argument (or it was really really scant and weak). Sorry,
>but that really does it. I guess the escape-velocity thing is finally
>sinking in.
LOL - so all our arguments are scant and weak? Is that because you
could see flaws in them (but were too polite to point them out) or just
because you couldn't understand them?
You've admitted you don't understand algebra :-
>>>If you want to know, algebra was something i was looking forward to when
>>>i was about 10 or so. However, it was forced down my throat without me having
>>>a chance to look it over, so i have extreme distrust of it.
and you seem to have a problem with education in general :-
>>>No wonder i couldn't make it in university, too many lies, too
>>>little content.
so why, with limited knowledge and ability, do you think that almost
everything presented as scientific fact is wrong or part of some
conspiracy to keep "the truth" from the general populace?
>Have fun with your redicilousness.
>
>adios
Good bye. I had hopes at one time that you would eventually learn
something from these discussions, but I doubt if you ever will. It's
not that you can't learn, it's that you don't want to....
I'll be watching with interest to see what excuses you and Nancy come up
with when no new planet appears in our skies.
DP
Michael L. Cunningham
>
> Greg Neill wrote:
> > Blue light bends more than red.
>
> Going back to what the ZETAS said on this matter (something else has
> occurred to me).
Just answer the question. What happened to your 11th magnitude planet?
Bill Nelson
> - in the rainbow, VIOLET is at the far end of the
> visible spectrum from, odd as and in creating
> violet/purple, one mixes BOTH red and blue
> together to get this color. Thus light particles
> creating red light are at BOTH ENDS of the rainbow,
> encompassing blue which lies more in the middle.
> Thus, when the Zetas said "red light, and light close
> in the spectrum to red light, bends more readily
> than other particles in the light group", they were
> correct, as blue, being between red and violet in
> the rainbow, is WITHIN the red light spectrum.
I don't think that purple is a spectral color - but may be
wrong. I think the progression is green - green-blue - blue-green
blue - blue-violet - violet-blue - violet.
You can get a purple by mixing red and blue. So what? You can
get green by mixing blue and yellow. And you get brown by mixing
green and red (and brown is not even a spectral color).
The visible light spectrum is NOT acontinuum. Red is not located
at both ends of the spectrum.
In other words, your explanation above is wrong.
> - there must be more light in the visible light
> spectrum than these colors, as we see starlight
> from afar, UNBENDED in the main, as white light,
> and there is no term such as White Shift where we
> have Red Shift. If red shifts (bends) and all other
Of course we don't have "white shift" - the term would be
meaningless. We do have "blue shift" however.
Neither red shifts or blue shifts have anything to do with
bending of light.
> colors bend MORE, then what we're seeing as star
> light can't be these easily disbursed color rays! So,
> when white light passes through a prism and
> creates a rainbow, is there ALSO white light,
> unbent, mixed in? So even in the "light group"
No, there is no white light mixed in.
I see stars as blue or orange or yellow or white, when I look
at them through my telescope. The reason most appear colorless
to the unaided eye is that the light intensity is not high
enough to trigger the color receptors in the eye - so they
appear to be white.
> visible to man, there is MORE unbend (becoming
> color) that there is "close in the spectrum to red
> light". Right?
Wrong.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
tho...@antispam.ham
> I don't think that purple is a spectral color - but may be
> wrong. I think the progression is green - green-blue - blue-green
> blue - blue-violet - violet-blue - violet.
Violet is another name for purple, however.
> You can get a purple by mixing red and blue. So what? You can
> get green by mixing blue and yellow. And you get brown by mixing
> green and red (and brown is not even a spectral color).
>
> The visible light spectrum is NOT acontinuum.
Why do you say that?
> Red is not located at both ends of the spectrum.
Correct.
Jeff Root
purple. That is not the case in the encyclopedia article.
Spectral violet is between blue and ultraviolet, at one end
of the part of the spectrum visible to humans. You can see
it in a rainbow or with a prism.
Purple is, as you said, a mixture of red light and blue light.
Purple and violet look rather similar, when not compared
side-by-side, so many people think they are different shades
of the same color. They are not. Pure violet NEVER contains
any red light at all, while purple ALWAYS contains red light.
The fact that these two different colors seem rather similar
is a quirk of the human visual system. However, looking at
the two side-by-side, it is easy to see that they are quite
different, and that purple has a reddish look to it that
violet does not have.
Between blue and violet is sometimes added the color indigo,
so the spectrum is usually described as ROY G BIV: red, orange,
yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet.
There are no boundary lines between colors. Blue shades to
indigo, which shades to violet, which shades to ultraviolet,
which is, of course, invisible to human eyes.
Just as there are no boundaries between colors, there is no
particular limit to how far beyond the blue the eye can see.
The light simply looks dimmer and dimmer as it shades from
visible violet light to invisible ultraviolet light.
The same thing happens at the other end of the visible part of
the spectrum. Visible red light shades to invisible infrared
light, with no particular boundary between the two.
Ultraviolet light refracts more strongly than violet, which
refracts more strongly than indigo, which refracts more
strongly than blue, which refracts more strongly than green,
which refracts more strongly than yellow, which refracts more
strongly than orange, which refracts more strongly than red,
which refracts more strongly than infrared.
> Thus light particles
> creating red light are at BOTH ENDS of the rainbow,
> encompassing blue which lies more in the middle.
> Thus, when the Zetas said "red light, and light close
> in the spectrum to red light, bends more readily
> than other particles in the light group", they were
> correct, as blue, being between red and violet in
> the rainbow, is WITHIN the red light spectrum.
blue is near the other end. Blue light and light close in the
spectrum to blue light refracts more strongly than does red
light and light close in the spectrum to red light. The Zetas,
or at least the individual Zetan who gave you this information,
was wrong.
> - there must be more light in the visible light
> spectrum than these colors, as we see starlight
> from afar, UNBENDED in the main, as white light,
> and there is no term such as White Shift where we
> have Red Shift.
with completely different causes.
I'll explain the term "red shift" below, so that you can see
why the term "white shift" would be meaningless.
> If red shifts (bends) and all other colors bend MORE, then
> what we're seeing as star light can't be these easily
> disbursed color rays! So, when white light passes through
> a prism and creates a rainbow, is there ALSO white light,
> unbent, mixed in?
correct proportions to match what your visual system needs.
The human visual system apparently evolved to interpret the
mixture of colors in daytime sunlight as being white.
Essentially, what you see is what you get.
I could write several hundred lines on how mixing different
colors of light produces different visual effects, but let's
leave it at that.
> So even in the "light group" visible to man, there is
> MORE unbend (becoming color) that there is "close in the
> spectrum to red light". Right?
prism is refracted according to its wavelength, or color.
There is no such thing as "white light". White light is a
mixture of colors.
In particular, the CCD image which supposedly shows the Zetan
planet was made using a red filter, so ALL the light that made
the image was in the red part of the spectrum, and thus ALL the
light from ALL objects in the image would have been refracted
by the same amount, in the same direction. Your Zetan friend
was wrong when she/he/it said that light from the planet was
refracted, while light from other objects was not.
If a red filter had not been used, and the amount of
atmospheric refraction were significant, then ALL objects in
the image would have been smeared out in the direction of the
refraction.
Now, to the topic of red shift.
Redshifts and blueshifts are observed in spectral lines.
A spectral line is caused when electrons in atoms absorb or
emit light of a precise wavelength. The redshift or blueshift
is a shift in the wavelength of all the lines seen in the light
coming from an object. Here is what happens to three spectral
lines when they are redshifted or blueshifted by a certain
amount:
IR Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Indigo Violet UV
Redshifted: || |
No shift: || |
Blueshifted: || |
All three lines (two of them yellow, one indigo) shift the
same amount. A shift from the blue end of the spectrum toward
the red end is called a red shift. A shift from the red end
toward the blue end is called a blue shift.
The Doppler effect causes redshifts and blueshifts. Doppler
radar measures the shift in wavelength of microwaves to find
the speed of moving objects, such as aircraft and rainstorms.
The fact that the spectral lines in light from most galaxies
are redshifted revealed that those galaxies are moving away
from us. Only a few of the very nearest galaxies are moving
toward us. Light from those galaxies is blueshifted.
"Red shift" is no more an effect involving red light than it
is an effect involving green light, blue light, ultraviolet
light, or X-rays. In saying that it involves only red light,
your Zetan friend shows considerable ignorance. Some Zetans
may be well-versed in science, but it is obvious that the one
talking to you is quite ignorant by human standards.
Greg Neill
> - in the rainbow, VIOLET is at the far end of the
> visible spectrum from, odd as and in creating
> violet/purple, one mixes BOTH red and blue
> together to get this color. Thus light particles
> creating red light are at BOTH ENDS of the rainbow,
> encompassing blue which lies more in the middle
You don't know the difference between mixing pigments and mixing
light hence, unsurprisingly, you jump to yet another wrong
conclusion.
One is an additive process, the other subtractive. Can you
guess which is which?
Thomas McDonald
Dear JosX,
Please don't forget our little wager. In the late spring of next
year, one of us will owe the other what we bargained. You, if wrong,
will owe me $1000. (USD) I, if wrong, will owe you several posts, as
agreed.
Tom McDonald
josX
<snip>
>Dear JosX,
>
> Please don't forget our little wager. In the late spring of next
>year, one of us will owe the other what we bargained. You, if wrong,
>will owe me $1000. (USD) I, if wrong, will owe you several posts, as
>agreed.
>
>Tom McDonald
McDonald, i surely haven't forgotten, and sometimes i get a bit scared
i have to pay :) (which i will), but im 'optimistic' again.
You are btw not entirely correct above, i need to pay you when the
shift as predicted has not happened, which is at *end may 2003*, but
you could be "required" (requiring yourself that is) to pay the debt
*much earlier*: at the moment that the object is sighted and tracked
according to the coordinates given by Nancy, which could be between
today and may-2003 (otherwise, within the context of a PS=happening,
i would have absolutely no use for my end of the bargain (eng?), when
your posts start at mid may-2003). So it is consievable that we both
lose, if the object shows, but doesn't cause a PS.
A complications has come up:
What if the economy crashes, i can't pay you 1000USD, 'cause it isn't
worth anything anymore.
An economy-crash is also predicted by Nancy, so, are you willing to keep
your end while my end becomes hard to keep?
(If it is realistically possible to pay my debt after a PS failed while
the economy is down, i will do so in other goods of similar worth.)
good luck,
jos
--
Thomas McDonald
You are right in your correction regarding my debt, should I lose. I will keep my end of the bargain, at such time as Planet X has been detected and tracked by amateur astronomers using the coordinates Nancy has given/will give. As I recall it, we both need to agree that the object seen and tracked by amateurs is Nancy's "Planet X." By that, I mean that the object is at the coordinates Nancy specifies, that it moves according to the ephemeris that Nancy provides, that it is the size and character of the object Nancy has described, and that its magnitude agrees with Nancy's statements on that subject.
I don't intend to be lawyer-ly about these definitions, especially since Nancy's own statements are, at the least, cloudy. If there is something in the area she specifies, that moves generally along her ephemeri, that is larger than Pluto, and that is in the ballpark of her magnitude specifications, then I'll agree you've won the bet. At that time, I will do as I've agreed (although I will have to look up the exact wording I'll have to use. I'm sure you will help me with that, though!)
I will hold you to the $1000 USD, unless there are no USD's around at that time. If the economy crashes, and money is useless, then it should not be difficult for you to scoop up $1000 of the stuff and get it to me (unless the economic crash is such that postal and other delivery services are down, too.) On the off chance that there is a hyper-deflation (where USD's become hugely _more_ valuable than they are now), I'd expect you to send me the equivalent of $1000 USD in _today's_ dollars. So, in a really bad, reverse-Germany-in-the-Twenties situation, you might only need to send me $1.00 in May 2003 dollars. I think that's fair; don't you?
I am confident that you will have to pay, and that there will be value in the USD in May of next year, and that there will be delivery services between your location and mine. I think that you, too, might be relieved when the pole shift doesn't happen, and Nancy's "Planet X" turns out to be non-existent. (Aside from the possible bruise to your pride, and wallet, of course;-)!)
Tom McDonald
josX
>josX wrote:
>>In article <3C5ED7D6...@wwt.net>, Thomas McDonald wrote:
>><snip>
>>>Dear JosX,
>>>
>>> Please don't forget our little wager. In the late spring of next
>>>year, one of us will owe the other what we bargained. You, if wrong,
>>>will owe me $1000. (USD) I, if wrong, will owe you several posts, as
>>>agreed.
>>>
>>>Tom McDonald
>>>
>>
>>McDonald, i surely haven't forgotten, and sometimes i get a bit scared
>>i have to pay :) (which i will), but im 'optimistic' again.
>>
>>You are btw not entirely correct above, i need to pay you when the
>>shift as predicted has not happened, which is at *end may 2003*, but
>>you could be "required" (requiring yourself that is) to pay the debt
>>*much earlier*: at the moment that the object is sighted and tracked
>>according to the coordinates given by Nancy, which could be between
>>today and may-2003 (otherwise, within the context of a PS=happening,
>>i would have absolutely no use for my end of the bargain (eng?), when
>>your posts start at mid may-2003). So it is consievable that we both
>>lose, if the object shows, but doesn't cause a PS.
>>
>>A complications has come up:
>> What if the economy crashes, i can't pay you 1000USD, 'cause it isn't
>> worth anything anymore.
>> your end while my end becomes hard to keep?
>> (If it is realistically possible to pay my debt after a PS failed while
>> the economy is down, i will do so in other goods of similar worth.)
>>
>>good luck,
>>jos
>>
>Dear Jos,
>
> You are right in your correction regarding my debt, should I lose. I
>will keep my end of the bargain, at such time as Planet X has been
>detected and tracked by amateur astronomers using the coordinates Nancy
>has given/will give. As I recall it, we both need to agree that the
>object seen and tracked by amateurs is Nancy's "Planet X." By that, I
Not at all, the exact wording as i remember was "an object", im looking it
up.
<quote original>
If Planet-X is spotted by the amateurs (meaning they are in consensus
a fuzzy spot of light is there, exactly at the Zeta-coordinates):
</quote>
>mean that the object is at the coordinates Nancy specifies, that it
>moves according to the ephemeris that Nancy provides, that it is the
>size and character of the object Nancy has described, and that its
>magnitude agrees with Nancy's statements on that subject.
I feel you are going much too far here, this leaves this thing
much too open for manipulations (not necesarily by you, but by
the sceptic/negative-by-definition/design types).
You say "size, character magnitude and tracking", i only said "fuzzy
and appears" (not even tracked), later we agreed that it should be
tracked also. You can argue endlessly about size, and character,
that's the reason i like to keep it clean like that. What if nasa
broadcasts some bullshit that sounds believable that it is only small,
then we'd have to argue the size of it until may-2003, you see my point
i guess. Agree ? Note that Nancy's ephimerides are aparently impossible
according to Newton, so you could have an extra check there perhaps (?).
> I don't intend to be lawyer-ly about these definitions, especially
>since Nancy's own statements are, at the least, cloudy. If there is
>something in the area she specifies, that moves generally along her
>ephemeri, that is larger than Pluto, and that is in the ballpark of her
>magnitude specifications, then I'll agree you've won the bet. At that
>time, I will do as I've agreed (although I will have to look up the
>exact wording I'll have to use. I'm sure you will help me with that,
>though!)
I like to leave it to you entirely, you only need to comply with these:
1. Every one of the 5 posts must be an original product (not a simple copy).
2. It should have some pointers to sightings of the object.
3. You should state you have lost a bet, and roughly what that bet was about.
That's it, can't be that hard :).
> I will hold you to the $1000 USD, unless there are no USD's around
>at that time. If the economy crashes, and money is useless, then it
>should not be difficult for you to scoop up $1000 of the stuff and get
>it to me (unless the economic crash is such that postal and other
>delivery services are down, too.) On the off chance that there is a
>hyper-deflation (where USD's become hugely _more_ valuable than they are
>now), I'd expect you to send me the equivalent of $1000 USD in _today's_
>dollars. So, in a really bad, reverse-Germany-in-the-Twenties situation,
>you might only need to send me $1.00 in May 2003 dollars. I think
>that's fair; don't you?
That's excellent.
> I am confident that you will have to pay, and that there will be
>value in the USD in May of next year, and that there will be delivery
>services between your location and mine. I think that you, too, might
>be relieved when the pole shift doesn't happen, and Nancy's "Planet X"
>turns out to be non-existent. (Aside from the possible bruise to your
>pride, and wallet, of course;-)!)
>Tom McDonald
Really, i can't lose, either im right, or i have to pay, and i guess that
i have deserved that if nothing happens. At least it shows i wasn't crying
wolf just for the fun of it, or in some dark schemes, so losing and paying
will be good for my ego really :-).
regards,
jos
--
Thomas McDonald
As I said, I don't want to be lawyer-ly about it. I just want to be sure that there is some "there" there, and that it goes where Nancy says it is supposed to go. Just as you don't want to leave it only in the hands of folks like NASA, I don't want to leave it only in the hands of Nancy or folks on her "side." IIRC, we agreed that we would go by observations by amateur astronomers. I don't think that there is any way to control the many amateurs who will be both capable of observing an object like Nancy's, and motivated to do so because of the many "Planet X" posts on these NGs. (Even some folks who never have read this NG, or anything to do with "Planet X," would observe a body the size and trajectory of "Planet X," if it shows up, as part of their own normal observing. There's just no way to shut up such people; it would make the news, at least online.) I myself, with an 8" SCT, should be able to monitor the coordinates starting next summer. I understand that you have also gotten a telescope for the same purpose. Let's see what we see.
Tom McDonald
Bill Nelson
>>> You are right in your correction regarding my debt, should I lose. I
>>>will keep my end of the bargain, at such time as Planet X has been
>>>detected and tracked by amateur astronomers using the coordinates Nancy
>>>has given/will give. As I recall it, we both need to agree that the
>>>object seen and tracked by amateurs is Nancy's "Planet X." By that, I
>>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Not at all, the exact wording as i remember was "an object", im looking it
>>up.
>><quote original>
>> If Planet-X is spotted by the amateurs (meaning they are in consensus
>> a fuzzy spot of light is there, exactly at the Zeta-coordinates):
>></quote>
>>
>>>mean that the object is at the coordinates Nancy specifies, that it
>>>moves according to the ephemeris that Nancy provides, that it is the
>>>size and character of the object Nancy has described, and that its
>>>magnitude agrees with Nancy's statements on that subject.
>>>
>>
>>I feel you are going much too far here, this leaves this thing
>>much too open for manipulations (not necesarily by you, but by
>>the sceptic/negative-by-definition/design types).
To not do so leaves things open to abuse by Nancy. For example, there
are two comets currently visible in small telescopes. If one of them
happened to pass anywhere near Orion - Nancy could easily make the
coordinates of here "planet" match. It wouldn't be the first time that
such erratic movement was claimed.
Any such object would have to fit Nancy's description for size, color
etc - as already described. It must also pass close to the Earth in
May 2003.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Martin Brown
josX wrote:
> In article <3C604DAF...@wwt.net>, Thomas McDonald wrote:
> >josX wrote:
> >>In article <3C5ED7D6...@wwt.net>, Thomas McDonald wrote:
> >><snip>
> >>>Dear JosX,
> >>>
> >>> Please don't forget our little wager. In the late spring of next
> >>>year, one of us will owe the other what we bargained. You, if wrong,
> >>>will owe me $1000. (USD) I, if wrong, will owe you several posts, as
> >>>agreed.
>
> > You are right in your correction regarding my debt, should I lose. I
> >will keep my end of the bargain, at such time as Planet X has been
> >detected and tracked by amateur astronomers using the coordinates Nancy
> >has given/will give. As I recall it, we both need to agree that the
> >object seen and tracked by amateurs is Nancy's "Planet X." By that, I
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Not at all, the exact wording as i remember was "an object", im looking it
> up.
> <quote original>
> If Planet-X is spotted by the amateurs (meaning they are in consensus
> a fuzzy spot of light is there, exactly at the Zeta-coordinates):
> </quote>
>
> >mean that the object is at the coordinates Nancy specifies, that it
> >moves according to the ephemeris that Nancy provides, that it is the
> >size and character of the object Nancy has described, and that its
> >magnitude agrees with Nancy's statements on that subject.
>
> I feel you are going much too far here, this leaves this thing
> much too open for manipulations (not necesarily by you, but by
> the sceptic/negative-by-definition/design types).
The problem as far as the fake object is concerned is that she can latch her
Zetan friends onto any transient comet that happens to pass through the solar
system around the right time. There are plenty to chose from and sooner or later
one will pass close enough to her alleged fake object to allow it to jump on and
"hitch a ride" without doing anything more unphysical than it has already done.
> > I am confident that you will have to pay, and that there will be
> >value in the USD in May of next year, and that there will be delivery
> >services between your location and mine. I think that you, too, might
> >be relieved when the pole shift doesn't happen, and Nancy's "Planet X"
> >turns out to be non-existent. (Aside from the possible bruise to your
> >pride, and wallet, of course;-)!)
> >Tom McDonald
>
> Really, i can't lose, either im right, or i have to pay, and i guess that
> i have deserved that if nothing happens. At least it shows i wasn't crying
> wolf just for the fun of it, or in some dark schemes, so losing and paying
> will be good for my ego really :-).
You will be pole-axed by the lack of pole shifts and other advertised Total Tosh
events.
Don't attend any end of the world celebrations prematurely... Planet-X isn't
coming.
Regards,
Martin Brown
josX
<3C60659A...@wwt.net>:
> sure that there is some "there" there, and that it goes where Nancy
> says it is supposed to go. Just as you don't want to leave it only
> in the hands of folks like NASA, I don't want to leave it only in
> the hands of Nancy or folks on her "side." IIRC, we agreed that
> we would go by observations by amateur astronomers. I don't think
> that there is any way to control the many amateurs who will be both
> capable of observing an object like Nancy's, and motivated to do so
> because of the many "Planet X" posts on these NGs. (Even some folks
> who never have read this NG, or anything to do with "Planet X," would
> observe a body the size and trajectory of "Planet X," if it shows up,
> as part of their own normal observing. There's just no way to shut
> up such people; it would make the news, at least online.) I myself,
> with an 8" SCT, should be able to monitor the coordinates starting
> next summer. I understand that you have also gotten a telescope for
> the same purpose. Let's see what we see.
Well said. There was "fuzzy spot" in the discription, i would now
like to add "reddish" to that, since it is a fairly unambiguous
proporty. Comets/astoroids are afaic not reddish, so this should
reduce the chances of you losing because of a stray comet.
Anycase, since the object was suposed to come real close and bright,
ultimately we can't be in doubt.
> That's what I'm in it for, Jos; doing good for your ego. Well, that,
> and the money :-)!
I think we got this thing pinned down pretty well :). I am in it for the
fact of being in it ("put your money..."), and it would be nice to see
your posts undercutting any debunking activity that might be ongoing.
may the truth win,
jos
--
ps to the other posters in this thread, im certainly NOT going to be
attending any "end-earth celibrations" (celibrations??;), and saying
that Nancy has latched on to another body, is an argument that cannot
fail, like the counter-argument to somebody who has seen something:
``you lie'' really can't be countered either by that person because
those new arguments would also be lies then, so this line of reasoning
should be used with care, although it is a possibility that this
occurs (latching on), just like it is a possibility that someone is
actually lying.
Nancy Lieder
> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>> Please note that:
>> 1. all dim object are SMALLER on the recent 20
>> minute CCD
>> 2. except for the NEW object, which is LARGER
>> 3. the new 20 minute CCD also has the dim star
>> in the 45 minute Palomar
>> 4. so the NEW blob is ....
>>
>> => NEW <=
>>
>>
>> Palomar 45 Minute CCD
>> . <=dot
>>
>< Recent 20 Minute CCD
>> . <= dot
>> * <= new blob
>
> the reason that the blob your claim is your planet is
> many 1000's of times fainter than your statement of
> its brightness and far too faint to be visible to a human
> looking through the eyepiece of a telescope.
Ah! We’re beyond discussion of whether or not the blob is NEW, and into
discussion of magnitude. Thank you, Dear Open Minded, for this
acknowledgement. Zetas which to jump in here:
Magnitude, as has been discussed endlessly on this
Usenet, does not equate to visibility when the scope
of the object is SMALL, as is scarsely larger than
Pluto, and DIFFUSE, as is not having the intense
pinpoint of light emitted by stars or planets reflecting
sunlight as even your dot Pluto does. M31 is allowed
to be a Magnitude 3.7 but cannot be seen unless one
squints the eye and trusts that what they are seeing is
M31, because it is scattered about and thus diffuse.
No such allowance is given to the inbound smoldering
brown dwarf, which is likewise diffuse. Beyond the
many descriptions of magnitude, there is the issue of
what the eye can see and what equipment can capture,
what equipment has been DESIGNED to capture,
whether pronounced such or not. The scopes and
imaging equipment sold to the little guy SELLS
because it images stars, the biggie on Star Parties.
Infrared equipment is expensive, so is safely in the
hands of observatories which have been refusing to
look THERE lately, with or without imaging
equipment, as has been documented here on this
Usenet. Observatories are situated away from light
pollution and have long tubes insulting against this
so what is captured, and MAGNIFIED, can be
discerned. The observers who found a blob, not on
the star charts, and essentially where our RA and Dec
defined, last Spring, did to some degree by looking
out the side of their eyes, a technique also described
for seeing Pluto, by the way, by one astronomer on
the scene in Vancouver. Now, why did your CCD
capture Planet X? Because:
1. it was THERE
2. you used an infrared imaging device
3. you allowed for a minimum amount of time to
capture it, no more no less, we suspect on purpose.
Let’s imagine you had taken a full 45 minute CCD,
for a proper comparison to the Palomar. Let’s
imagine the viewing in South Africa by Sonja Jordaan
had taken place, or Steve Havas allowed to use the
scopes in Vancouver, perpetually closed now. Let’s
imagine that this brown dwarf was DEFINITIVE,
not suggested by a bit of “noise” on your 20 minute
CCD or by the odd behaviour or observatories.
What would you President Bush SAY to this proven
accuracy of ZetaTalk, already the buzz around the
world in lunchrooms and coffee shops, though this
not acknowledges by major media sources. What
would he or any leader in government say to the
demands of those governed as to what will be
DONE if such a passage, as the world attests to in
its history, were to occur? Trust me? We’ll cross
that bridge when we come to it? Just keep paying
your taxes and we’ll beef up defense spending?
They do not WISH for this to be proven, nor does
Open Minded which to push what would essentially
be the red button, except cautiously, a bit by little bit.
ZetaTalk
Nancy Lieder
>> Red light, and light close in the spectrum to red
>> setting sun to other objects he sees in the sky.
>> Brilliant sunsets and dawns have been assumed by
>> humans to be caused by dust suspended in the air,
>> when of course those dust particles are present
>> during the day as well and cause no such color
>> of dawn or dusk an overwhelming flood of light
>> prone to bend toward the gravitational pull of the
>> is most brilliant at a point just before or after the
>> full glare of sunlight, when the particle flood is
>> strong but is not mixed in with competing light
>> particles to the point of being drown out.
The above from
ZetaTalk, Light Particles
(http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s90.htm)
I should read ZetaTalk more often! GRAVITY pull, of course. I’d
forgotten! And then there is:
The Auroras are caused by refraction, a refraction not
thought possible as no light seems to enter on the
dark side of the Earth. Little understood by humans is
the degree to which energy particles are affected by
gravitational pulls. .... And what has caused these light
rays to be deflected at this point, to become Northern
or Southern Lights, and why no other point on the
globe? In fact, they are being deflected elsewhere
around the globe, but are not visible because of the
greater traffic in bright light. The Northern or
Southern Lights, happening at the equator, are lost in
the glare.
ZetaTalk, Auroras
(http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s06.htm)
Gravity pull. Which explains why the Zetas said the red light from
Planet X is pulled aside not only upon approach to Earth, but by where
it’s been BETWEEN Planet X and the Earth, by what lies between in our
solar system!
One of the images on Open Minded’s web site shows the RA and Dec
positions given by the Zetas for the Southeast, for Jan 5th, as well as
the general global RA and Dec for that day, and where the red circle
indicating where the Zetas said Planet X would be found. Tried to look
a a globe and see a pattern, but as I don’t know WHERE Open Minded’s
imagine took place, globe wise, I had a missing piece. I got the sense
from the Zetas that Latitude (N/S), not Longitude (E/W), mattered more
in any drift from the global position given.
Greg Neill
news:3C64826F...@zetatalk.com...
> Openminded (open...@telocity.com) wrote:
> >
> > Give us a simple english languge explanation of
> > the reason that the blob your claim is your planet is
> > many 1000's of times fainter than your statement of
> > its brightness and far too faint to be visible to a human
> > looking through the eyepiece of a telescope.
>
> Ah! We're beyond discussion of whether or not the blob is NEW, and into
> discussion of magnitude. Thank you, Dear Open Minded, for this
> acknowledgement. Zetas which to jump in here:
No, that's just you, jumping to personaly motivated conclusions.
[Inane babble based on a continuing inability to understand
visual magnitudes snipped]
Greg Neill
>
> Gravity pull. Which explains why the Zetas said the red light from
> Planet X is pulled aside not only upon approach to Earth, but by where
> it's been BETWEEN Planet X and the Earth, by what lies between in our
> solar system!
Note to Nancy: Stars with a coninuum of colors in their
spectrums do not appear as rainbow streaks in the sky.
Light from stars is not differentialy deflected by
gravity. Visible light of all wavelengths follows
the same spacetime geodesics.
>
> One of the images on Open Minded's web site shows the RA and Dec
> positions given by the Zetas for the Southeast, for Jan 5th, as well as
> the general global RA and Dec for that day, and where the red circle
> indicating where the Zetas said Planet X would be found. Tried to look
> a a globe and see a pattern, but as I don't know WHERE Open Minded's
> imagine took place, globe wise, I had a missing piece. I got the sense
> from the Zetas that Latitude (N/S), not Longitude (E/W), mattered more
> in any drift from the global position given.
Waffle, waffle, spin, spin. It's all rubbish.
Bill Nelson
... deleted ...
Nancy, the stuff you wrote above is all false, as has been
pointed out to you many times before.
> Infrared equipment is expensive, so is safely in the
> hands of observatories which have been refusing to
This is not true. Most film is sensitive to infrared, and a
reflector telescope (the kind most used for astronomy, both
by amateurs and professionals) does fine recording IR light
on film.
> the star charts, and essentially where our RA and Dec
> defined, last Spring, did to some degree by looking
> out the side of their eyes, a technique also described
> for seeing Pluto, by the way, by one astronomer on
Nancy. With the brightness of the "blob" on the image, NO
eye is going to be able to see it - averted vision or not.
That would even be true for the Palomar telescope.
It is impossible that anyone could have seen it visually.
That means they either saw something else - or just imagined
seeing something.
> the scene in Vancouver. Now, why did your CCD
> capture Planet X? Because:
> 1. it was THERE
It was also there on the Palomar survey plates - taken a few
decades ago.
> accuracy of ZetaTalk, already the buzz around the
> world in lunchrooms and coffee shops, though this
Oh, it is a minor matter of some discussion. Unfortunately,
it is derision. It is given about the same respect as those
that claim they were abducted by aliens.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
> The Auroras are caused by refraction, a refraction not
Wrong again. You need to point your "zetas" to an elementary
physics text. Even one for grade school students give a proper
basic explanation of the phenomenon.
Rest of silliness deleted. The auroral light phenomenon is well
understood.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
josX
<a42rn6$s4c$9...@quark.scn.rain.com>:
>Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote:
>
>... deleted ...
>
>Nancy, the stuff you wrote above is all false, as has been
>pointed out to you many times before.
>
>> Infrared equipment is expensive, so is safely in the
>> hands of observatories which have been refusing to
>
>This is not true. Most film is sensitive to infrared, and a
>reflector telescope (the kind most used for astronomy, both
>by amateurs and professionals) does fine recording IR light
>on film.
Film camera's (used to) have a setting for "infinity" and beyond
that, there is a setting for "infra red". This was for using
infra-red film, which is not used much anymore.
If the film you reference captures IR in addition to visible
light, that means all pictures are going to be blurry. IR comes
right after red, if you are talking about the /real near IR/,
then your answer is as invalid as how close you want to put that
IR to visible red.
I went to a shop and wanted to shoot P-X with an IR film, i was
told:
1. We don't sell this stuff anymore, if you want it you will have
to buy an entire box (damn ;).
2. This IR film has single digits asa values.
3. The really good IR is brought in cooled trucks and must be used
very soon, and handled specially, the shopkeeper told me nicely
that was not something i could do myself.
therefore i decided IR was not a viable option for me. This probably
includes everybody who cannot handle specially delivered (cooled) film
which has to be procesed rapidly and specially from normal film.
(Yes, this is a true anecdote.)
>> the star charts, and essentially where our RA and Dec
>> defined, last Spring, did to some degree by looking
>> out the side of their eyes, a technique also described
>> for seeing Pluto, by the way, by one astronomer on
>
>Nancy. With the brightness of the "blob" on the image, NO
>eye is going to be able to see it - averted vision or not.
>That would even be true for the Palomar telescope.
>
>It is impossible that anyone could have seen it visually.
>That means they either saw something else - or just imagined
>seeing something.
>
>> the scene in Vancouver. Now, why did your CCD
>> capture Planet X? Because:
>> 1. it was THERE
>
>It was also there on the Palomar survey plates - taken a few
>decades ago.
>
>> accuracy of ZetaTalk, already the buzz around the
>> world in lunchrooms and coffee shops, though this
>
>Oh, it is a minor matter of some discussion. Unfortunately,
>it is derision. It is given about the same respect as those
>that claim they were abducted by aliens.
Perhaps the problem is in the respect, it's not in the evidence
at least, nor in the logicallness of the propositions (stupid
english).
--
josX
<a42rvm$s4c$1...@quark.scn.rain.com>:
>Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote:
>
>> The Auroras are caused by refraction, a refraction not
>
>Wrong again. You need to point your "zetas" to an elementary
>physics text. Even one for grade school students give a proper
>basic explanation of the phenomenon.
The old "go to the library until you either die, or agree with us".
>Rest of silliness deleted. The auroral light phenomenon is well
>understood.
Like the curving of space i assume?
--
Anders Eklöf
> From: Bill Nelson <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote in
> <a42rvm$s4c$1...@quark.scn.rain.com>:
> >Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The Auroras are caused by refraction, a refraction not
> >
> >Wrong again. You need to point your "zetas" to an elementary
> >physics text. Even one for grade school students give a proper
> >basic explanation of the phenomenon.
>
> The old "go to the library until you either die, or agree with us".
Whe are you going to realize: Nancy is a fraud !!!
josX
<1f7cg69.1bicwik138peakN%andekl_no@saaf_spam.se>:
When 'it' doesn't show up. But even then, although the prediction fails,
and no further prediction can carry any weight, some of the ideas brought
forward are very interesting.
to list a few:
- short-range repulsion force
- alien intervention in the evolution of man
- good & bad aliens, who do not mix with eachother (that's not really
scientific, but interesting nevertheless)
I don't see conclusive evidence for her being a fraud so far. Yes i
think it's not going to be good *in a debunker debate* to be accepting
money, but if ppl want to send money to help, then it's their problem
and although it doesn't help credibility, it is not definitive proof
she is a fraud either, some ppl just wish to send money and hope for
the best, and it's not so that she is withholding crucial information
and advertises giving money all over the place (haven't found it myself
for instance, but i haven't searched for it).
-- I send her an email, asking her about this, below is her reply. You
decide what to think of it, as it is now, i first wait until The
Great Cliffhanger (P-X) fails or shows up.
<quote email>
From na...@zetatalk.com Sat Jan 19 23:50:32 2002
Envelope-to: joshb@localhost
Received: from mraha ([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost)
by mraha with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
id 16S4Jk-0000jf-00
for <joshb@localhost>; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 23:50:32 +0100
X-XS4ALL-To: <jo...@maildrop.xs4all.nl>
Received: from pop.xs4all.nl
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.3.3)
for joshb@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 19 Jan 2002 23:50:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mxzilla1.xs4all.nl (mxzilla1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.54])
by maildrop5.xs4all.nl (8.11.6/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g0JLKnG99988
for <jo...@maildrop.xs4all.nl>; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:20:49 +0100 (CET)
(envelope-from na...@zetatalk.com)
Received: from zetatalk.com (zetatalk.com [216.220.173.201])
by mxzilla1.xs4all.nl (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g0JLKmEd007112
for <jo...@xs4all.nl>; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 22:20:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from zetatalk.com [65.171.106.50] by zetatalk.com with ESMTP
(SMTPD32-6.03) id A32DE4C303DA; Sat, 19 Jan 2002 16:20:45 -0500
Message-ID: <3C49E19B...@zetatalk.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:14:03 -0600
From: Nancy Lieder <na...@zetatalk.com>
Organization: ZetaTalk
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: josX <jo...@xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: hi Nancy,
References: <E16RWRe-0000FX-00@mraha>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: 1011475249.maildrop5.99992
Status: R
Nonprofits are an open book. I don't get paid by the nonprofit, I just
spend thousands of hours on it, along with the web site. I spend 10k
helping to get my book in print, and to date only received less than
1k. I'm utterly broke to the point of chewing on shoe leather to eat,
virtually. Drive old cars (an '89 and a '73). Live in a 100 year old
house that needs painting. Work a job 40-50 hrs a week to keep afloat,
with arthritis and polio weakness.
Let them talk, they can't find anything of substance. Now Hazelwood,
and Mitch of Earth Changes TV, that's another story :-)
You can post this if you wish.
josX wrote:
>
> Hi Nancy,
>
> You agreed with what i thought a couple of times, so i figure
> that if i have another "idea", i best email it to too, because
> who knows, you might think it's a good thing to do too. Maybe
> not though, that is ofcourse completely up to you.
>
> I notice the ppl of sci.astro are suspicious of you accepting
> money, and who can blame them. They have every right to be,
> this Mike-Hazel is accepting money too, and what he writes is
> probably flawless context, so how can anybody know who is honest,
> and why should they trust /you/. They can't, not without credible
> evidence, and if they can't many can't either, and this will
> cost a great deal in terms of credibility, believe me.
>
> It is no option to give the money back, so i think you could
> make something (page?) that shows /proof/ about what you are
> doing with the money, and even better, show results that are
> worth the recieved money sofar (at least a bit reasonable).
>
> Please, they have every right to be suspicious in the extreme.
> They don't mean bad.
>
> If this stuff already exist, then perhaps it's a great idea
> to link to it from for instance the anual-report-page (and the
> like(?)). Ppl have a right to know unambiguesly what's happening,
> and i have little doubt they will have a problem if you need to
> use a little to support your life even. As long as it's open and
> credible.
>
> Maybe it's a wrong idea, maybe not: you decide.
>
> regards,
> jos
> --
</quote>
jos
--
Jeff Root
> Zetas which to jump in here:
>
> Magnitude, as has been discussed endlessly on this
> Usenet, does not equate to visibility when the scope
> of the object is SMALL, as is scarsely larger than
> Pluto, and DIFFUSE, as is not having the intense
> pinpoint of light emitted by stars or planets reflecting
> sunlight as even your dot Pluto does. M31 is allowed
> to be a Magnitude 3.7 but cannot be seen unless one
> squints the eye and trusts that what they are seeing is
> M31, because it is scattered about and thus diffuse.
he, she, or it needs corrective lenses. Squinting only helps
when the eye isn't focusing properly.
M31 is pretty easy for me to see, even when the sky is not
particularly dark. With cheap binoculars, I can see the shape
of the galaxy.
Your planet X was described as currently being magnitude 11,
yet the CCD image shows a spot which you identify as planet X,
and the spot is about magnitude 20, which is thousands of times
fainter. You also said that someone had seen planet X by eye,
through a telescope. That is impossible if the magnitude is
anywhere close to 20. No telescope in the world can provide
enough light to make a magnitude 20 object visible to the eye.
Wally Anglesea™
>andekl_no@saaf_spam.se (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_Ekl=F6f?=) wrote in
> <1f7cg69.1bicwik138peakN%andekl_no@saaf_spam.se>:
>>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Bill Nelson <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote in
>>> <a42rvm$s4c$1...@quark.scn.rain.com>:
>>> >Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> The Auroras are caused by refraction, a refraction not
>>> >
>>> >Wrong again. You need to point your "zetas" to an elementary
>>> >physics text. Even one for grade school students give a proper
>>> >basic explanation of the phenomenon.
>>>
>>> The old "go to the library until you either die, or agree with us".
>>
>>Whe are you going to realize: Nancy is a fraud !!!
>
>When 'it' doesn't show up.
Good, I shall taunt you immediately thereafter.
> But even then, although the prediction fails,
>and no further prediction can carry any weight, some of the ideas brought
>forward are very interesting.
And we note the cop-out.
>
>to list a few:
>- short-range repulsion force
>- alien intervention in the evolution of man
>- good & bad aliens, who do not mix with eachother (that's not really
> scientific, but interesting nevertheless)
>
>I don't see conclusive evidence for her being a fraud so far.
ask her about Hale-Bopp. She claimed it never existed. Kind of at
odds that you thought it was a spaceship huh?
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Bill Nelson
sci.astro wrote:
>>This is not true. Most film is sensitive to infrared, and a
>>reflector telescope (the kind most used for astronomy, both
>>by amateurs and professionals) does fine recording IR light
>>on film.
>
>Film camera's (used to) have a setting for "infinity" and beyond
>that, there is a setting for "infra red". This was for using
>infra-red film, which is not used much anymore.
That is immaterial. Even if it were out of focus for infrared, the
only effect would be that you would not have a nice sharp image, it
would be slightly blurred - like taking a picture with one of those
cheap disposable cameras that come preloaded with film.
The setting is NOT past infinity. There is a line for infrared, which
allows the proper offset for taking pictures of objects that are close
to the camera.
>I went to a shop and wanted to shoot P-X with an IR film, i was
>told:
>1. We don't sell this stuff anymore, if you want it you will have
> to buy an entire box (damn ;).
Immaterial. Camera shops only stock commonly used films.
>2. This IR film has single digits asa values.
The better films tend to be slow. But that is partly due to the
filter that is used over the camera lense to block visible light.
>3. The really good IR is brought in cooled trucks and must be used
> very soon, and handled specially, the shopkeeper told me nicely
> that was not something i could do myself.
All decent film (at least the pro film) is delivered in a refrigerated
truck.
I would agree with the shopkeeper. You don't know enough about films to
use IR properly. The handling is not that difficult - I have used it
many times.
>therefore i decided IR was not a viable option for me. This probably
>includes everybody who cannot handle specially delivered (cooled) film
>which has to be procesed rapidly and specially from normal film.
It doesn't have to be processed "rapidly", if it is stored in a cooler
after exposure. On the other hand, it will fog if left in the camera for
months - like consumer film often is.
And processing is easy. Normal developers work just fine.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Michael L. Cunningham
>
> Openminded (open...@telocity.com) wrote:
> > Nancy Lieder wrote:
> >> Please note that:
> >> 1. all dim object are SMALLER on the recent 20
> >> minute CCD
> >> 2. except for the NEW object, which is LARGER
> >> 3. the new 20 minute CCD also has the dim star
> >> in the 45 minute Palomar
> >> 4. so the NEW blob is ....
> >>
> >> => NEW <=
Bullshit.
Please explain why Steve Havas visually claims to have
seen this object at 11th magnitude (without filtering)
and you now claim it is at 20th magnitude. (Come on
Steve, we know you read this group and now Nancy is
making you look like on of Heaven's Gate's members.)
Please have the Zetas explain why Steve saw it at 11th
magnitude and now only CCD equipment can imagine it at
20th magnitude.
--
Michael L. Cunningham
So Cal SleeperS
2001 Grand Am GT
e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Remembering the World Trade Center Massacre
Sept. 11, 2001
Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war!
Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum!
"If you want to be counted... stand up!
If you want to be heard... speak up!
If you want to be appreciated... shut up!"
We've been notified by Building Security that there
have been 4 suspected terrorists working at our office.
Three of the four have been apprehended. Bin Sleepin,
Bin Loafin, and Bin Drinkin have been taken into
custody. Security advised us that they could find no
one fitting the description of the fourth cell member,
Bin Workin, in our office.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write
a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone,
solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program
a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein