Dear All,I watched a science programme on TV about the latest information on SETI. It seems that scientists have given up on detecting en-coded radio signals from space but instead are concentrating on trying to find exo-planets. I was astonished at just how excited one scientist got at the prospect of finding an Earth-like planet. his exuberance was almost child-like! The way they do this is to search for a star that either twinkles or oscillates. The twinkling, they say, would be caused by a planet traversing across its face and the oscillations, they also say, by the gravitational effect caused by an orbiting planet. Apparently they found one last year and it has got them all excited. They even used the all too familiar computer generated images of how they think this planet would look. It was pathetic to see so called intelligent people revelling in such fantasies. Their findings however suggest that life as we know it would not exist there. I have to say that their evidence is so tenuous as to be meaningless. They have constructed a computer program that is designed to model an accretion disc that watches it develop an earth-like body. I had to laugh out loud at this because the idea that dust clouds can conglomerate into planets is not a uniformally accepted idea. Like all these cosmic ideas it cannot be observed and does not stand up to physical laws. The driving force behind all this is to try and debunk the idea of a creator and nothing less. I am willing to bet that the program is designed with a massive bias so that the desired result is achieved. Order cannot come from disorder in the sense that scientists would like. If this were the case then what is 'entropy'? Scientists have had a very complex code staring them in the face since Watson and Crick, but their refusal to accept that it must have had an intelligent origin is a technological scandal. Its just plain stupid! Cosmic research is a total waste of time and resources; it merely keeps a great number of people employed using tax payer's money. Apart from Teflon what has any space research achieved that has really benefited mankind? Don't mention computers! We could easily survive without computers and indeed they have caused us more trouble than anything I can think of. Yes I use a computer because that is the way things are and the quality of our lives would be far better if they didn't exist. Computers are an example of the more complex something becomes the more unreliable and unmanageable it is. DNA is the one thing that gives the lie to this statement but then it wasn't man that designed it.
Jack Regner Trampedach wrote:
Hi Philip, Your bogosity alarm-bells should indeed go off. The equatorial South pole will bee right on the horizon if you are at the equator - it can be seen from half the Earth (obviously hosting less than half the population) - it is hardly secret. Ever heard of the Southern Cross? - I thought so. It is in the general vicinity of the equatorial South pole - again, hardly secret. There are several major observatories in the Southern hemisphere (they can therefore see the equatorial South pole). That something should be coming in from 90 degree South at Earth's distance from the Sun is, to put it mildly - unlikely. In our neck of the woods things orbit much closer to the ecliptic, say +/-30 degrees at most. And if it was a comet it would be easy to spot well in advance - they grow large comas this close to the Sun. If it was an asteroid, we would have a harder time spotting it - but then, they don't have that kind of orbit. Equating "Planet X" with Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud objects, is really grasping for straws. "Planet X" was invented at the beginningof the 20th century to explain anomalies in the orbits of the outer planets.These anomalies disappeared with improved measurements (from Voyager 2) of the mass of the outer planets, notably Neptune's. Current statistics suggest about 35,000 Kuiper Belt objects larger than 100km and 100,000,000 objects larger than 20km across - hundreds of times more than in the asteroid belt - but obviously a much larger volume so the density in the Kuiper Belt is orders of magnitude smaller. These and asteroids and comets et al., are called "minor planets" - not planets, as McCanney wants you to believe. I don't know what "NASA announcement" he refers to, but I suspect he exchanged "planet" for "minor planet" or "Galaxy" for "Solar System". Towards the end he seems to describe a comet - an ordinary comet. Why should we care (except from an astronomical view) about just another comet - we have seen thousands of them. If he wants an ordinary comet to be "raging", well, fine with me, but it doesn't really mean anything. And why, why! would anybody be interested in hiding (apart from that you can't do that) a comet from the public??? I don't know his motives, but he seems to be a good fear-monger.Reading other astro-related parts of his website, it is clear that he readsa lot and mixes and matches words from various sources and makes his own (scary) reality. Regner philip madsen wrote:On Astronomy:McCanny made a sort of prophecy today.based upon " */so NASA one week ago proclaimed it now envisions the solar system with THOUSANDS of planets ... the new official nasa view of the solar system (concept thoroughly stolen from my many lectures on "The Many Planet X Objects") ... while The Discovery Channel announces to the world that Planet X is being searched for by teams of astronomers world wide as announced by Japanese astronomers who have been watching changes in the orbits of the outer planets ... they even call it Planet X in the journal article that published their study " /* *//* *He claims that a rogue planet or comet if you like is maybe due to become visible in May. He bases this "time" on certain political activities.. listed at the end of this message...... AND (and here is the lead to my question), as it is coming from the south, we ordinary folk not having any access to southern observatories sufficiently south to see that sky, will finally get to actually see it in May. * ** *Now is it true and possible that there is a part of the sky that cannot be seen below the South pole.. ??? Excluding government access of course, such as satellites etc. * ** *His reasons:* */then there is the military edict that all US military bases were to be moved to underground bases by may of 2008 ... wait !!! it is 2008 ... and all naval facilities had to be relocated to a set of new facilities by ... yup ... may 2008 ... remember that everyone wants to talk about 2012 ??? i have always said that the main reason for the 2012 diversion is to keep everyone thinking distant future and not concentrating on the present ... and then there is the "last grab" with the seeming lack of interest in the financial and social destruction of the good ole united states and world wide for that matter ... NASA and the standard news media such as Discovery Channel sure would want to be in the news media drivers seat if something like a planet X object shows up ... they sure would not pre-announce to far in advance because the short memory US public would not remember more than a few hours let alone weeks - months or years ... and last but not least we are heading into the merry merry month of may ... the one time during the year when we get a glimpse of that small patch of sky to the far south in late may and early june ... the time of year that Dr Harrington (deceased head of the US naval observatory that was in charge of the NASA funded and administered 1980s program called "The Search for Planet X" ) ... the time of year harrington chose to head down under to new zealand to take astro-graph pics of ... Planet X ... HMMMM ... what do you think ??? are we about to get our first glimpse of one of these celestial intruders ... remember it will come into the solar system and erupt into a giant raging comet ... and NASA will try to tell you of course (along with their mouth piece The Discovery Channel) that ... don't mind that thing up in the sky ... its just one of those little dirtly snowballs ... if such an event is on the horizon ... certainly they will want to be in control of the "news" you see ... and certainly will not want you listening to me ... jim mccanney/* ** *Philip. * **