Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Nibiru........True or False??!!

12346»

Comments

  • #252
    Talk E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 461 ✭✭Talk E


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well for one there's no such thing as "absolute freezing point".
    There's a freezing point and there's absolute zero, but they're not the same thing. And if the thing is made of matter it cannot be at absolute zero.
    And even then it being at absolute zero would have no effect on whether it's visible or not. And if it was at absolute zero, it couldn't have be observed on an infra-red telescope as described in the article you posted.

    I meant to say absolute zero, simple error.

    They can use infrared satellites to spot cold bodies if they use supercold helium. The body was said to be no more than 40 degrees above absolute zero.

    Perhaps some folk do understand this better than myself but you are not one of them. If the "thing" is matter, it can indeed be absolute zero. :rolleyes:
    King Mob wrote: »
    You might think you can slam words together like technobabble in star trek, but unfortunately there's people who do actually understand the words you're using.

    Again, it's not you as you have just proved, yourself.:pac:
    King Mob wrote: »
    So what about the scientists who have explicitly said that Nibiru is nonsense?
    Why is this scientist telling the truth while the others must be lying?

    Some lie, some tell the truth. Are you suggesting this one is lying ?
    I bet if you asked him today he would deny this article, then he'd be lying.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Or maybe he just made a mistake in his observations and jumped the gun by announcing it in the media, then Cters desperate for any evidence to support their fictional planet jumped on it unquestioningly.

    In the interest of fairness I just came across this article which I am guessing you came across too. So I retract the earlier news article, for now. Though the part in bold I find rather questionable to say the least.
    IRAS did not see Nibiru, Planet X, or anything of the sort, despite the claims of the doomcriers. Of course, they now claim that NASA is clamping down on the press for Planet X. The original Post article, they say, was hastily retracted due to pressure from the NASA thugs. Of course, the doomcriers have absolutely no evidence of this (because, of course, this claim is wrong), but they continue to state it as if it is fact. It is nothing of the sort. They like to make claims like this for many reasons: it generates an "us vs. them" mentality, which is great for conspiracies, and it helps sell books and/or videos. But it's wrong at best and a lie at worst.
    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/science.html


  • #253
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,488 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Talk E wrote: »
    I meant to say absolute zero, simple error.

    They can use infrared satellites to spot cold bodies if they use supercold helium. The body was said to be no more than 40 degrees above absolute zero.
    But you said:
    If it's absolute freezing point, and black, it wouldn't be bright.
    So you're now saying it's not at absolute zero?
    Talk E wrote: »
    Perhaps some folk do understand this better than myself but you are not one of them. If the "thing" is matter, it can indeed be absolute zero. :rolleyes:
    Again, it's not you as you have just proved, yourself.:pac:
    But if it's a body close to the Sun, cosmologically speaking, it's being heated by it, therefore it cannot be at absolute zero.
    Talk E wrote: »
    Some lie, some tell the truth. Are you suggesting this one is lying ?
    I bet if you asked him today he would deny this article, then he'd be lying.
    And you've avoided the question as usual.
    Why do you think he was telling the truth in that article?
    Talk E wrote: »
    In the interest of fairness I just came across this article which I am guessing you came across too. So I retract the earlier news article, for now. Though the part in bold I find rather questionable to say the least.


    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/science.html
    You did read the very next lines right?
    Of course, the doomcriers have absolutely no evidence of this (because, of course, this claim is wrong), but they continue to state it as if it is fact. It is nothing of the sort. They like to make claims like this for many reasons: it generates an "us vs. them" mentality, which is great for conspiracies, and it helps sell books and/or videos. But it's wrong at best and a lie at worst.


  • #254
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Talk E wrote: »
    If the "thing" is matter, it can indeed be absolute zero. :rolleyes:

    You're wrong. Matter can't be at absolute zero. Matter can, theoretically, be a few degrees or even fractions of a degree above absolute zero, but not at absolute zero.


  • #255
    Talk E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 461 ✭✭Talk E


    gvn wrote: »
    You're wrong. Matter can't be at absolute zero. Matter can, theoretically, be a few degrees or even fractions of a degree above absolute zero, but not at absolute zero.


    Name something that is absolute zero and I'll tell you if it's matter or not. :D


Advertisement