Okay, before I slam my head into the table one more time, what's your justification for this claim?
Go ahead and slam your head on the table Mr Know-It-All haha, here's my justification. You better catch up on what you 'think' or blindly 'believe' is true.
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moonpr1.htmIf it comes from this planet and has a core, it's considered as a 'planet.
As for the Sun....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlanetDo you know what is considered a planet 100%?
Much like "continent", "planet" is a word without a precise definition, with history and culture playing as much of a role as geology and astrophysics. Recent definitions have been vague and imprecise; The American Heritage Dictionary, for instance, formerly defined a planet as:
A planet is any body in the solar system that is more massive than the total mass of all of the other bodies in a similar orbit
Which is why the anciens INCLUDED the Sun as a planet too.
Which is why the ancient considered the Sun as a planet too. Planet is a definition, people today don't even fully agree on a definition so who are you to say what the ancient considered as a planet and put in their very drawings AND writings talking about the sun itself. You have to put yourself in the concept that was agreed on at its time, and at its time, the sumerians considered the Sun as a planet also, as for the moon well you already saw, it CAN be considered as a planet of its own orbiting the Earth and the sumerians knew that very well.
Now, about the tenth planet, go and check on what the measurements of Voyager 2 showed. Basically, they showed that what we though were anomalies were just inaccurate measurements. There in fact are no perterbations of planetary orbits that would necessitate a tenth planet to explain them.
There ARE anomalies or else why do you think an astronomer in 2003 would be theorizing and making a schematic on his very real calculations and observations, it's HIS job and HE knows how to do it.. What the hell are you talking about? You seem so certain of your uncertainty, you should've become an astronomer maybe? Then I'd be more willing to accept what you sya as if it's your job.
And now, to prove you haven't actually been paying attention to science or the news media in the last year. Early this year, while scouring images taken back in 2003 (give these guys a break, they've got a lot to work on), astronomers were astonished to find an object in the Kuiper Belt, orbiting our sun, which is larger than Pluto. We may have to redefine the term "planet," but if Pluto is a planet, this object (referenced as 2003 UB313 and nicknamed "Xena") would have to be a planet as well.
But remember that it doesn't fit into any of your claims about the tenth planet.
It WASN'T Xena they were talking about because Xena DOESN'T have the orbit that the astronomer in France had found from his own calculations.
You're mixing just about ANYTHING in there to justify exactly that, anything.
Yes, Xena DOES exist but from the astronomer calculations and from NASA's own reports there IS something further than Plato. Stichin had even met NASA astronomer Dr. Richard Harrington and both their deparate discoveries completed eachother WITHOUT contradicting anything. Even Immanuel Velikovsky, the same guy who got proved RIGHT many times about his calculations about Venus talked exactly about that a not yet discovered planet existing in our solar system. Go read it before you judge on it, because ifyou're just doing that, you're wasting ALL of our time.
http://xfacts.com/planetx_search.htmlYes Xena exists. So? You get on with the recent discoveries of NASA And what Dr. Harrington himself had found. Including that July discovery that the rocks in the asteroid belt have the EXACT composants as the composants Earth has. Even the Sumerians had the answer to that and it holds together up to now...
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=108404http://www.sitchin.com/"The Bible says so" is not proof. It's not even evidence. It's hearsay at best, myth at worst. Give me an empirical reason to believe this, or else your pleas for faith will fall on secular ears.
Empirical reason, WTF? Science itself is based on never being sure of what you know so that science can advance, benefit of doubt. You're contradicting your veyr self. If science had ALWAYS been sure of it's discoveries we would be still sitting on our asses right now thinking the Earth is flat while still having the zodiac symbols from the past.. You can judge yourself, are there things the Bible has written which up to now we know are true and real, yes, historically and naturally. Are there also things we still don't know? Of course! It even says itself WE arent supposed to know everything until the very end. As for are there falsities, up to now, NONE. None as if the Bible had written something completely false like water is not liqiud and where we wouldve discovered water IS liquid. There are NO contradictions up to now. Science IS always playing with probabilities and advancing in a sphere of Logic. Has the Bible been outwright wrong up to now, NO. It's for you to judge, if YOU want to 'magically' believe that everything is false without the benefit of doubt sitll existing for many reasons which do exist (truths, archeological and all that we have found up to now), that's up to YOU and only YOU. YOU are the one to 'magically' believe all is false without reasons.
Now, as for the prophecies you referenced, very few of them actually give a definitive time that scholars agree upon (rough translations and cryptic writing, you know). Also, a lot of scheduled dates for the apocalypse have already passed eventless.
Very few of them give a definitve time, comon, you know how to recognize things and judge from the very amount of 'coincidences' that make it fit together. How much 'coincidence' can you have when the Mayan calendar and Hopi (two tribes very far apart) both have the end of their very strong mathematical calendar on the date of December 2012, the pope prophecies putting this pope as before last, Nostradamus.... Comon, it's just luck again for you? All is luck then? It's also luck you're talking to me? Luck that you're in front of a pc? Cant you judge yourself when things fit in on MANY things, what are the probabilities on that?
Now, have you ever heard of the multiple endpoints theorem? Basically, it says that if you look for something specific, you have a low chance of finding it. But if you look for something general, you have a high chance of finding it. How this applies is if you were to pick four doomsday prophecies at random, and see if they all agree on the exact time of doomsday, it would be a significant finding. But if you scour every prediction ever made and find four that give roughly the same time, it means nothing. You had a good chance of finding that from the get-go.
You don't understand. The Mayan and Hopi tribe, have their VERY strong mathematical calendar (even for our time) with the end date on 2012 and they fit in on EVERYTHING wether it is Zodiac signs, new Ages, seasons, the way stars are placed at several times, ALL. Then you got the other prophecies about the pope which have been KNOW for centuries and which place OUR pope NOW as the before last and all of the past popes also fit. Nostradamus also fitting it with our time. Comon, did you even go and read them for yourself? Tell me how much probabilities you have of all of that fitting together? You understand that after 2012, both the Mayan, Hopis, St Malachy (since the next pope will not be coming so far, he's the NEXT and final), Revelations, would be over. After 2012, it there's nothing true, they're ALL untrue... You judge from the probabilities of all of them fitting together. You think the Mayans didnt know mathematically what they were doing? Why? Are you basing yourself on anything?
I'd like to specifically address your comment about Revelations, as this is the only one I know about already. The fact about this is that Revelations gives no time estimate whatsoever for when the apocalypse will take place. There is a reference in the Bible, however, to around the year 2000 being the end of an era and the beginning of the age of Aquarius (sorry, I forget what it was before. Whatever comes right before on the Zodiac calendar). The previous era was one with the philosophy that humanity needed to be led. This era is one where humanity has to think for itself and make its own way. Ironically, if this is true, it actually could be an end to religion in the world.
You said it, just like the Mayans, Hopis prophecisez, the next age is a Golden one for all the prophecies. Religion wont have to blindly exist because EVERYBODY in it will just KNOW who 'God' is. If you've got 'God' in front of you, you dont need to maybe think, is it true, is it not true, it just IS. You're right about that part, all the prophecies say the same thing that religion as we know today will end but it will BE. As for why that date is in the Mayan Calendar, it is EXACTLY because the start of the Age of Aquarius is on December 21, 2012. I'm not the one inventing it. It's known everywhere. Again, why does it fit? You realize that this is a ONCE in a thousand years opportunity, what are the probabilities that all of these fit...
http://www.crawford2000.co.uk/maya.htm
Poll