planet x

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjOPrlV1 ... re=related



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(dwarf_planet)
^
info about the planet as well

What his guy is saying is that somehow this planet crossed past mercury and didnt suck it into the sun . It should have because its mass was so great that it had enough gravity to pull the planet into the sun.

Also it would have messed up earth so bad that we would be lucky to have enough people to repopulate.

I think thats proof enough for me. I'm greatfull the earth did not end . Arent you?

Last edited by just-me on 31 Dec 2008, 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Proof of God how? I'm too lazy to watch the video. Summary?

Yeah............... RIGHT!! !

Proof of god? Look, I have nipples, I am a woman....

Well leave god out of it if you want.
Look at the science involved its amazing!

Just look at the fact that earth had such a close call and defied the laws of gravity.

I hope they are looking into the science of this because I think they need to see what else was a work because it wasent just gravity alone.

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong but:

1. Just because something is visually large doesn’t necessarily mean that it has a large mass.

2. Even something that has the same mass as Jupiter would be just a spit in the ocean as far as crashing into the Sun is concerned.

The mass of Eris can be calculated with much greater precision. Based on the currently accepted value for Dysnomia's period, 15.774 days,[36][8] Eris is 27 percent more massive than Pluto.

no your right. I didnt read the artical well enough to notice this^.

I thought it was much bigger then that with a much gerater mass. my mistake.

Good idea.

The presenter keeps talking about a comet "twice the size of Jupiter". He never says whether he means twice the mass, or twice the diameter, or what. He talks about a sun flare pushing the comet away from the sun. I didn't see the push he claimed. Whether there would be a significant change in orbit would depend a lot on the density of the comet.

Later the guy shows a computer simulation (it's not clear to me whether he believes it's a video) where he measures the size of the comet by including the tail. But that's dust and gas blown off the comet by heating and solar wind. The density of the tail is so low that the space probe Stardust could fly through a comet's tail at high speed. The actual solid cores of comets generally have diameters from 750m to 20km. The diameter of Jupiter is 143000km, so I would say Jupiter is larger.

Comets are usually described as dirty snowballs. Their densities are estimated to range from 0.1 to 2. So lets estimate the mass of a large (20km), dense (2) comet. The volume of a sphere is 4/3 * pi * r^3. If we measure r in metres we get a volume in cubic metres. We multiply the volume by 2 for the density to get the mass in tons. A 20km diameter means 10km = 10^4m radius. So the volume is 4/3 * pi * (10^4)^3 = 4.19 * 10^12 cubic metres. The mass would be 8.38 * 10^12 tons. Let's compare that to Earth, Mercury and Jupiter.

Mass of Earth: 6 * 10^21 tons. Roughly 1 billion (10^9) times as heavy as a large comet.
Mass of Mercury: 3.3 * 10^20 tons. Roughly 40 million times as heavy as a big comet.
Mass of Jupiter: 1.9 * 10^24 tons. Roughly 226 billion times as heavy as a large comet.

Looking at that, I don't worry a lot about a comet passing between Sun and Earth. I don't expect huge tidal waves unless it actually hits Earth.


It didn't.

The video claims the presenter is a physicist. I find that hard to believe. If he ever studied physics, he decided to ignore what he learned.

You mentioned the dwarf planet Eris. I'm not sure I understand the connection. Did you mean that Eris was the object twice the size of Jupiter that passed inside Earth's orbit? Eris' closest approach to the sun is 37.77 times as far from the sun as Earth.

This does not prove God in any way.

And this is one of the biggest loads of rubbish I have ever heard. If it was true, NASA would have publicised it. The fact that no one was talking about it is because it didn't happen! It was never mentioned on the news.

For example (this is true), NASA are predicting that an asteroid will pass close by the Earth with a very small chance of striking the Earth in a couple of years time. It has been publicised, because it has been calculated. It is not possible to get an exact answer of how close it will get to the Earth or whether it will strike the Earth due to the uncertainties in their measurements they obtain using their measuring instruments.

I can't remember exactly what the year is, but I think it's 2019.

Another layer of irrelevant fantasy speculation added to the metamyth.

Claiming proof of something by first assuming that there is something to prove renders the proof itself null and void.

And to think, you were at a seminary ...

My dad went to seminary (masters in theology) even though he was an atheist - they offered him a full scholarship because of all the volunteer work he did, helping people living in poverty and dealing with associated problems to improve their lives and living conditions.

He went to a really good school at which he learned Greek and read the earliest versions of the Bible, and studied the ways in which it (and Christianity) changed over time and affected world history.

That's an interesting subject to study, no matter what you believe personally.

Why would an atheist commit to studying theology? To become a better athiest, right? If your motivations amount to nothing more than the desire to demean others and belittle their worldview .. you have no right to study the Christian religion. It would be like a White Nationalist studying Black History to make himself a better, more effective racist.

There are many good reasons to study things that one does not necessarily hold to be true - to expose oneself to new ideas, to better understand the way other people think, to better understand history, to better understand the current state of affairs in the world, to inspire new thoughts and experiences . . .

If you have only been exposed to what you believe and that which supports those beliefs, how can you be sure that this is truly what you believe? And how can you effectively argue with those who have different beliefs, to which you have not been exposed and therefore do not understand?

Plenty of books could be written on the subject. At the moment, I am not in the mood to argue, and I try to avoid boring people with long posts.

So here ends my contribution to this topic.

Have any atheists ever converted to Christianity after studying theology?

It may be as likely as Christians losing their faith after studying theology. After all, my stint in the Seminary actually initiated the erosion. See? That's me in the corner, losing my religion ...