Comets and Asteroids

[Berzerker]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/25/BAGCUL5HS.DTL

What does this do to the Oort Cloud theory?

According to Zecharia Sitchin's theory, asteroids and comets share a similar origin - debris from a collision at the current asteroid belt.

[BeBMan]

Comets +2
Asteroids -2

*hides*

[Dauphin]

It will then release a lander to the comet's surface and bake samples in an oven for analysis right there

Sending ovens into space.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Comets and Asteroids

Originally posted by Berzerker

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/25/BAGCUL5HS.DTL

What does this do to the Oort Cloud theory?

According to Zecharia Sitchin's theory, asteroids and comets share a similar origin - debris from a collision at the current asteroid belt.

What does this do to the Oort Cloud theory? Nothing. It's a sample size of one, and a sample that was contaminated at that. It crashed into the Utah desert, remember? If the Oort cloud doesn't exit, then another source of comets needs to be found. I suppose interstellar space could be littered with the things that occasionally fall into a star system.

[Perfection]

Re: Comets and Asteroids

Originally posted by Berzerker

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/25/BAGCUL5HS.DTL

What does this do to the Oort Cloud theory?

According to Zecharia Sitchin's theory, asteroids and comets share a similar origin - debris from a collision at the current asteroid belt.

I dunno what it means for the Oort Cloud theory. Maybe it's in closer and made more of protoplanetary fragments then intersteller material then believed before, but that's just an offhand guess based on that and the discovery of SDOs and a few things I read from planetary scientists.

What I do know is that Zecharia Sitchin is a moron. While the scientists may be incorrect about comets and the Oort Cloud, there's no evidence that they're from a giant impact in the asteroid belt and Sitchin's claims are completely unfounded.

And thats one of his better claims his other claims get stupider and stupider. A high school student with a calculator and some basic knowledge of physics can totally destroy his moronic thoeries.

[Berzerker]

che

What does this do to the Oort Cloud theory? Nothing. It's a sample size of one

Yeah, but thats all we have that can be confirmed, the Oort Cloud theory has nada. I'd say its rather important that the first comet we can actually test not only doesn't jive with the Oort Cloud but does jive with the asteroids.

perf

Maybe it's in closer and made more of protoplanetary fragments then intersteller material then believed before, but that's just an offhand guess based on that and the discovery of SDOs and a few things I read from planetary scientists.

You mean maybe it aint a comet? The other comets we'll be testing will show more affinity with the asteroids than interstellar medium (whatever that may be). Frankly I find the notion that objects out that far could develop into anything but grains or dust particles with a coating of ice far-fetched. There just aint enough material out there for the space involved.

What I do know is that Zecharia Sitchin is a moron.

Even sarcasm and satire require a kernel of truth, thats just so far from any truth it says more about you. I understand, hyperbole helps make up for lack of evidence

While the scientists may be incorrect about comets and the Oort Cloud, there's no evidence that they're from a giant impact in the asteroid belt and Sitchin's claims are completely unfounded.

Thats just an unsustainable assertion We now have evidence of a comet sharing asteroidal characteristics; and while you deny this, the asteroid belt is evidence of something - a "failed" planet or a collision. A trail of debris exists so for you to say there is no evidence, that means the failed planet theory has been proven and it hasn't been proven, its a theory - like the Oort Cloud.

Btw, I think Sitchin says (based on his interpretation of the text) the comets were part of Tiamat's army defending her from Marduk's "winds" and that they fled or were dispersed by the celestial battle with some acquiring Marduk's orbital characteristics, kinda like the Jovian Trojans perhaps. The text makes a distinction between these objects and the actual "Heaven" or hammered out bracelet of debris left by the collision.

And thats one of his better claims his other claims get stupider and stupider. A high school student with a calculator and some basic knowledge of physics can totally destroy his moronic thoeries.

Well, I'm not here to defend everything he claims, but he's just reading what the ancient stories say and applying modern knowledge where he can. You dismiss this, I just find that amazing. He goes against the "scientific consensus" or whatever you wanna call it and the first evidence in supports him and you call him a moron. You cant even give the guy any credit for anything, that too says more about you than him.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Berzerker
You mean maybe it aint a comet?

Piss no.

Originally posted by Berzerker
The other comets we'll be testing will show more affinity with the asteroids than interstellar medium (whatever that may be).

And you know this how? Maybe this comet hit an asteroid. Maybe this comet was from the asteroid belt but most aren't.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Frankly I find the notion that objects out that far could develop into anything but grains or dust particles with a coating of ice far-fetched. There just aint enough material out there for the space involved.

You're setting up a false ultimatum here. If comets aren't from intersteller material, that doesn't mean that they are from the asteroid belt, and if they are from the asteroid belt they might not be from a collision or explosion or something.

The fact is that there's no evidence for any great collision.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Even sarcasm and satire require a kernel of truth, thats just so far from any truth it says more about you. I understand, hyperbole helps make up for lack of evidence

It isn't sarcasm or satire. The dude is utterly incompetant at physics or more colloquially a "moron".

Originally posted by Berzerker
Thats just an unsustainable assertion We now have evidence of a comet sharing asteroidal characteristics; and while you deny this, the asteroid belt is evidence of something - a "failed" planet or a collision. A trail of debris exists so for you to say there is no evidence, that means the failed planet theory has been proven and it hasn't been proven, its a theory - like the Oort Cloud.

Yeah, something did happen there. It's just not what that moron Sitchin says and it probably wasm't an impact or collision.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Btw, I think Sitchin says (based on his interpretation of the text) the comets were part of Tiamat's army defending her from Marduk's "winds" and that they fled or were dispersed by the celestial battle with some acquiring Marduk's orbital characteristics, kinda like the Jovian Trojans perhaps. The text makes a distinction between these objects and the actual "Heaven" or hammered out bracelet of debris left by the collision.

Comets aren't soldiers, they can't join armies!

Originally posted by Berzerker
Well, I'm not here to defend everything he claims, but he's just reading what the ancient stories say and applying modern knowledge where he can.

Well, that "modern knowledge" that he applies certainly isn't physics

Originally posted by Berzerker
You dismiss this, I just find that amazing. He goes against the "scientific consensus" or whatever you wanna call it and the first evidence in supports him and you call him a moron. You cant even give the guy any credit for anything, that too says more about you than him.

Well, I'll give him credit for duping a bunch of folks with his stupid stories. It's not that he goes against the scientific consensus on some contoversial or debatable fact like the precise origins of cometary material, but that he makes claims that can be debunked by a teen with a high school education and a calculator. For example, he claims that the biblical floods were caused by Niburu reaching perihelion in the asteroid belt, but no planetary mass object could cause such tides at such a distance. Tidal forces follow an inverse cube law, and anyone can easily prove that, but for some reason Sitchen didn't bother to do the basic physics needed to disprove his completely idiotic claims.

[Berzerker]

Originally posted by Perfection
Piss no.

And you know this how? Maybe this comet hit an asteroid. Maybe this comet was from the asteroid belt but most aren't.

I dont, I'm making an educated guess based on the fact the only comet we've tested so far resembles asteroids. But there's a novel thought, maybe it came from the asteroid belt. Oh wait, that moron Sitchin said that over 30 years ago. Since you seem to think people are morons if they dont understand physics, can you explain how a comet loses the characteristics of a comet (while still qualifying as a comet) and acquires the characteristics of an asteroid by hitting an asteroid? I'd love to hear that one...

You're setting up a false ultimatum here. If comets aren't from intersteller material, that doesn't mean that they are from the asteroid belt, and if they are from the asteroid belt they might not be from a collision or explosion or something.

I'm just explaining why I dont think this Oort Cloud exists.

The fact is that there's no evidence for any great collision.

Wow, there's all sorts of evidence... But we've had this debate before and you dont think all that debris flying around means anything.

It isn't sarcasm or satire. The dude is utterly incompetant at physics or more colloquially a "moron".

That makes damn near everyone on the planet morons

Yeah, something did happen there. It's just not what that moron Sitchin says and it probably wasm't an impact or collision.

That moron Sitchin says a collision occurred and you say he's wrong, but then in the very same sentence you say he might be wrong?

Comets aren't soldiers, they can't join armies!

Geez, its a metaphor. A story about the celestial origin of the Earth put in human terms.

Well, that "modern knowledge" that he applies certainly isn't physics

How does physics refute Sitchin's theory of a collision at the asteroid belt?

Well, I'll give him credit for duping a bunch of folks with his stupid stories. It's not that he goes against the scientific consensus on some contoversial or debatable fact like the precise origins of cometary material, but that he makes claims that can be debunked by a teen with a high school education and a calculator.

But he did go against the scientific consensus on cometary origins and this new data supports him, not the scientific consensus. We had this debate at CFC and you kept arguing comets come from the Oort Cloud, this evidence doesn't support you.

For example, he claims that the biblical floods were caused by Niburu reaching perihelion in the asteroid belt, but no planetary mass object could cause such tides at such a distance.

Tidal forces follow an inverse cube law, and anyone can easily prove that, but for some reason Sitchen didn't bother to do the basic physics needed to disprove his completely idiotic claims.

So your changing the subject, nice. According to his theory, Nibiru has an inclined orbit. That would place it either above or below the ecliptic at perihelion, and that means a tidal force effecting the ice sheets overlying the oceans. He doesn't say tides caused the flood, but a dislodgement of ice. You dont even understand what he said...

[Geronimo]

Re: Re: Comets and Asteroids

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


What does this do to the Oort Cloud theory? Nothing. It's a sample size of one, and a sample that was contaminated at that. It crashed into the Utah desert, remember?

Genesis was the probe that crashed not Stardust.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I dont, I'm making an educated guess based on the fact the only comet we've tested so far resembles asteroids.

Educated guess requires meaningful education, which you don't have.

Originally posted by Berzerker
But there's a novel thought, maybe it came from the asteroid belt. Oh wait, that moron Sitchin said that over 30 years ago.

Maybe it did, but if it did it ain't for any reason that that moron Sitchin pulled out his ass, and if it did that doesn't mean all comets are from the asteroid belt.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Since you seem to think people are morons if they dont understand physics, can you explain how a comet loses the characteristics of a comet (while still qualifying as a comet) and acquires the characteristics of an asteroid by hitting an asteroid? I'd love to hear that one...

Uh, it hits an asteroid, and there's asteroid junk on it, so when they take the sample it's got asteroid stuff in it.

Originally posted by Berzerker I'm just explaining why I dont think this Oort Cloud exists.

And I'm just explaning why I think your reason sucks.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Wow, there's all sorts of evidence... But we've had this debate before and you dont think all that debris flying around means anything.

Of course it means stuff, it just doesn't mean you're right or that there was a collision. That something that you don't seem to be able to grasp.

Originally posted by Berzerker
That makes damn near everyone on the planet morons

It's a two part deal, you have to be ignorant about it but you also have to be spouting off as if you know it, for me to call someone a moron, and that moron Sitchin qualifies.

Originally posted by Berzerker
That moron Sitchin says a collision occurred and you say he's wrong, but then in the very same sentence you say he might be wrong?

That moron Sitchen doesn't only say that a collision occured in the asteroid belt.

Originally posted by Berzerker Geez, its a metaphor. A story about the celestial origin of the Earth put in human terms.

A moronic metaphor.

Originally posted by Berzerker
How does physics refute Sitchin's theory of a collision at the asteroid belt?

I don't know, I don't know exactly what his moronic theory is. What I do know is he's a moronic moron who is utterly incompetant at physics.

Originally posted by Berzerker
But he did go against the scientific consensus on cometary origins and this new data supports him, not the scientific consensus. We had this debate at CFC and you kept arguing comets come from the Oort Cloud, this evidence doesn't support you.

No, it doesn't. That doesn't mean it supports that moron Sitchin's moronic theory, nor does it mean we should throw out the current model because of a single irregularity.

Originally posted by Berzerker
So your changing the subject, nice.

It's highly related. Understanding the moronicness of Sitchin is important.

Originally posted by Berzerker
According to his theory, Nibiru has an inclined orbit. That would place it either above or below the ecliptic at perihelion, and that means a tidal force effecting the ice sheets overlying the oceans. He doesn't say tides caused the flood, but a dislodgement of ice. You dont even understand what he said...

Well, I was remembering from about 4 years ago from a second hand account from a stupid kid who spent all his time sitting in his basement fantasing about his adopted sisters, so I might be a bit off about some of the details (and I certainly am not willing to read that trash that that moron Sitchin shat out). But still, an object of a distance equivalent that alleged to Niburu at perihelion (in the asteroid belt) would need to be larger then the friggin' sun to have a tidal force on the order of that of the moon. (because tidal forces follow an inverse cube law for distance)

So while my details were off, my objection that that moron Sitchin don't know jack about physics still holds.

[Berzerker]

Educated guess requires meaningful education, which you don't have.

Actually this comet is the only meaningful education either of us have, the rest is theory... and guess what? It dont support the theory...

Maybe it did, but if it did it ain't for any reason that that moron Sitchin pulled out his ass, and if it did that doesn't mean all comets are from the asteroid belt.

Score

Sitchin 1
you 0

But you cant even admit it without throwing insults... Thats hardly an indicator of any meaningful education.

Uh, it hits an asteroid, and there's asteroid junk on it, so when they take the sample it's got asteroid stuff in it.

Where did the comet stuff go? Fun with physics

And I'm just explaning why I think your reason sucks.

No you didn't, you explained why even if the Oort Cloud doesn't exist, that doesn't mean comets came from the asteroid belt. You didn't even respond to what I said about the Oort Cloud.

Of course it means stuff, it just doesn't mean you're right or that there was a collision. That something that you don't seem to be able to grasp.

You've said there was no collision, dont attribute your asinine certitude to me.

That moron Sitchen doesn't only say that a collision occured in the asteroid belt.

But we aint talking about everything else he said, we're talking comets, asteroids, and the possible collision that spawned both. According to the Oort Cloud theory, that comet should not resemble an asteroid. That moron Sitchin explained why 30 years ago.

A moronic metaphor.

Well now you're a literary critic, whoopedy-do...

I don't know, I don't know exactly what his moronic theory is. What I do know is he's a moronic moron who is utterly incompetant at physics.

Well thats ******* brilliant. You dont know... I wont bother responding to your BS after this, Perfection my a$$

No, it doesn't. That doesn't mean it supports that moron Sitchin's moronic theory, nor does it mean we should throw out the current model because of a single irregularity.

It aint a single irregularity Einstein, "regularity" has never been established. Its all been theory up till now...

It's highly related.

Oh BS, they're two different subjects.

Well, I was remembering from about 4 years ago from a second hand account from a stupid kid who spent all his time sitting in his basement fantasing about his adopted sisters, so I might be a bit off about some of the details (and I certainly am not willing to read that trash that that moron Sitchin shat out).

You were talking about a meaningful education?

But still, an object of a distance equivalent that alleged to Niburu at perihelion (in the asteroid belt) would need to be larger then the friggin' sun to have a tidal force on the order of that of the moon. (because tidal forces follow an inverse cube law for distance)

It doesn't need to have the Moon's pull, his theory is the gravitational tug dislodged massive amounts of ice into the oceans.

[Perfection]

Okay, I'm not doing piece by piece for this. I want to first support my claim that Sitchin is a moron.

Originally posted by Berzerker
It doesn't need to have the Moon's pull, his theory is the gravitational tug dislodged massive amounts of ice into the oceans.

But it couldn't!

The proposed distance is so far away that the tidal forces would be minuscule. Let's say the bloody thing was 10 times the mass of Jupiter (which is about as large as any gas giant can reasonably get before we start calling it a star) and let's say it went to the very innermost edge of the asteroid belt (2AU from the sun) and Earth is as close to it as posible. Since the amount tidal force follows an inverse cube law we can find the relative force of this object compared to that of the moon with the following formula:

(force Niburu)/(force Moon) = ((distance moon)^3/(distance nibiru)^3)*(mass Niburu)/(mass moon) = (0.00257 AU)^3/(1 AU)^3*(3178 Earths)/(0.0123 Earths) = 0.00438579322

So this alleged force that caused such a great flood can be no greater then half a percent the force that the moon exerts on Earth and 1 percent that the sun does, thus it's completely unreasonable to expect it to have such catastrophic effects.

Since I first disproved this mathematically while I was in high school and used basic physics, I think we can be reasonably assured that Sitchin knows jack squat about physics and that his ideas are devoid of truth.