Planet X information

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This is not science. Please move this thread to Spiritual Forum.

Arguably neither is it sprituality, while the Nibiru part is, the planet X thing isn't, I dunno, I'm not going to make a fuss about it, but I think having a little homework session love-in is too far too. Part of science is to come out with ideas that people are going to reject unless you can prove them using the scientific method. Arrakis failed to do that here, but that's part of science too, and is an important part of science that we shouldn't simply try to sweep under the carpet. If the user refuses to use the scientific method, fine, boot them from teh science forum, but Arrakis, while having proposed a nuts idea which in some quarters is pseudo religious, was not himself as far as I'm aware making religious connotations. Astrologers prey on astronomers work all the time, it doesn't debunk astronomy.
Ideas need to be dealt with one at a time in context. To do so in the science forum, they should be dealt with using the scientific method, that was being done.
Anyway, that's my tirade...

Originally posted by agryson
Arguably neither is it sprituality, while the Nibiru part is, the planet X thing isn't, I dunno, I'm not going to make a fuss about it, but I think having a little homework session love-in is too far too. Part of science is to come out with ideas that people are going to reject unless you can prove them using the scientific method. Arrakis failed to do that ...[text shortened]... dealt with using the scientific method, that was being done.
Anyway, that's my tirade...

I read some parts of the links given and couldn't find any science at all. Some did refer to the bible in a highly speculative fashion.

Planet X is a term used for any planet other than the nine classical. X stands for roman ten, or stands for the unknown. Now we know about many trans-neptunian planets, not only Pluto, but some also larger in diameter than Pluto. So that there are other heavenly bodies in the outskirts of our solar system is not news.

The interpretation of these planets are religious in its nature, some apocalyptic even. It is not science, but it may appear as science-like by people not usually interested in science. If the links given was from NASA or JPL, then it would have much more credibility, but from Paranormal... well, no.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I read some parts of the links given and couldn't find any science at all. Some did refer to the bible in a highly speculative fashion.

Planet X is a term used for any planet other than the nine classical. X stands for roman ten, or stands for the unknown. Now we know about many trans-neptunian planets, not only Pluto, but some also larger in diameter ...[text shortened]... as from NASA or JPL, then it would have much more credibility, but from Paranormal... well, no.

Exactly my point, it was his sources which were unscientific, but arrakis him/herself had not specifically made any comments with a religious leaning. Like I said, I'm not making a fuss about it, but I think that this thread, in the science forum, would have had a positive use in demonstrating what qualifies as a source.
Also, though we know of other "planet X's" Arrakis's claim was mroe specific than that, and thus a good opportunity to demand equally specific evidence, that was not being provided, but instead of seeing that as a ticket to the spirituality forum, I feel it was a missed opportunity to make a clear point in philosophy of science with regards to the quality of evidence required for particlular claims.
Furthermore, the links he provided were not religious in the main, they were indeed apocolyptic and pseudoscience, but they involved no supernatural beings to worship, or specific social codes to adhere to. I put this on a par with conspiracy theorists and UFOlogists. The problem with these groups is the quality of their evidence, which I feel is a problem deserving discussion in a science forum...
but then, I'll just start a thread there about it.

Originally posted by agryson
Exactly my point, it was his sources which were unscientific, but arrakis him/herself had not specifically made any comments with a religious leaning. Like I said, I'm not making a fuss about it, but I think that this thread, in the science forum, would have had a positive use in demonstrating what qualifies as a source.
Also, though we know of other "plan ...[text shortened]... rving discussion in a science forum...
but then, I'll just start a thread there about it.

Arrakis is free to continue his line of arguments here at spirituality forum. Here it doesn't have to be science.

The links of Arrakis led to pure nonsense. But, as I saw it, they were treated as authorative sources by Arrakis.

One link (that I have quoted earlier says that Noa was the saviour of mankind with his ark. There is scientific proof that this was not near a the truth, as mankind should be whole lotta more inbred with only one family present in the ark. Scientific verifiable. To explain this, one have to trust some divine interaction. And here we have religion.

The article says also that things happened million of years ago. Not true if you trust the bible. Universe is not that old yet, ssays them who believe the letters of the bible.

And so on, and so on. So the links was with no doubt religious.

I am about to start a new thread about the very definition of what this phenomenon called 'religion' really is. I wonder where I will put it...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Arrakis is free to continue his line of arguments here at spirituality forum. Here it doesn't have to be science.

The links of Arrakis led to pure nonsense. But, as I saw it, they were treated as authorative sources by Arrakis.

One link (that I have quoted earlier says that Noa was the saviour of mankind with his ark. There is scientific proof that ...[text shortened]... finition of what this phenomenon called 'religion' really is. I wonder where I will put it...

I repeat, his sources may have been flawed, but as he was not himself making religious claims, we cannot be sure that the parts you were reading are the parts he is apparently convinced by.
Least you could have done is verify whether he believed in the religious end of it before deciding on his behalf.

dont get your feathers ruffled on the planet x thing. man, they knew about this "planet" for about 100 years, yet they tell you that they just discovered it! they control us by controlling the information they give us. they mix the truth with gossip and see who can tell which is which. those who can are placed in a special class from the rest pending levels of secrecy.

they also don't tell you that at the upper eschelons astrologers have already contacted planet x AND beings have entered to and fro this planet. now why doesn't nasa/nsa with all their technology fail to see this? everything is controlled by levels of information. you just have to get past the crap to glean the diamonds in the ruth.