Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday November 20 2017, @09:34AM   Printer-friendly
from the there-IS-a-Domsday-Book dept.

Have you seen headlines that look like the following?

Nibiru BLACKOUT: Fears Planet X could knock out power worldwide
Nibiru PROOF: Footage sparks claims Planet X spotted over UK
Governments 'ALREADY preparing for Planet X apocalypse'
Could the end of the world come TODAY? Mysterious planet Nibiru 'set to wipe out all life with apocalyptic earthquakes'
Nibiru Apocalypse Upon Us Again—Here's How Yellowstone, Nuclear War and Asteroids Could Actually End the World

NASA scientist David Morrison has taken the time to debunk Nibiru... repeatedly (archive):

"I assumed that Nibiru was the sort of Internet rumor that would quickly pass," Morrison wrote in 2008, after his "Ask an Astrobiologist" website had become inundated with predictions that Nibiru was going to cross paths with Earth in 2012. "I now receive at least one question per day, ranging from anguished ('I can't sleep; I am really scared; I don't want to die') to the abusive ('Why are you lying; you are putting my family at risk; if NASA denies it then it must be true.')" he wrote.

Morrison laid out a detailed explanation, which he would repeat in years to come: There is no evidence that Nibiru exists; if it did exist, it would have screwed up the outer planets' orbits long ago; and people have predicted its arrival before and been wrong.

But to no avail:

"I got a note from a 12-year-old girl. She said she and her classmates were scared," he said in a 2011 video. "The simplest thing to say is there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of Nibiru."

[...] Nibiru theories have by now become so abundant that if you spend long enough on YouTube or PlanetXNews.com you can find an apocalypse scheduled for just about any given day of the week.

And that's why Morrison was on the SETI podcast this week, distracted from his science once again to talk about a world that never stops failing to end. "I got a phone call the other day," Morrison said. "The world was supposed to end Saturday. The man asked, 'Should I ought to work on Saturday, or stay home with my family?' "

He didn't say how he answered. At this point, does it even matter?

Even politicians have taken notice. Just give up?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ledow on Monday November 20 2017, @05:16PM (4 children)

    by ledow (5567) on Monday November 20 2017, @05:16PM (#599301) Homepage

    If the alternative is working / living with people intolerant of a different religion?

    Yup. I'm outta there. Rather a cabin in the woods than faking association or dealing with people judging me for it.

    Wonderfully, though, I live in a country where judging anything on that basis, especially employment etc., isn't legal or acceptable.

    (Hint: I'm actually an athiest and yet I've worked in strict Catholic schools)

    When the choice is "Live your life via our lies" or "anything else", I'll take "anything else".

    And over 50% of the country I live in identify as athiest or agnostic. Religion is a minority nowadays.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 20 2017, @05:33PM (3 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday November 20 2017, @05:33PM (#599304)

    You're lucky to live in a country that's like that, for now. How long ago was it that your country wasn't like that, and was under basically a theocracy (as much of Europe was, in various ways, until the 20th century), or under fascism (as much of Europe was until the mid-1940s)? Times change, and not always for the better.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday November 20 2017, @05:44PM (2 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Monday November 20 2017, @05:44PM (#599310)

      How long ago was it that your country wasn't like that, and was under basically a theocracy

      226 years ago? The Bill of Rights was adopted December 15, 1791. Not sure about under the Article of Confederation.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 20 2017, @06:18PM (1 child)

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday November 20 2017, @06:18PM (#599320)

        ledow doesn't live in the US, or else he's confused about the laws here. It's entirely legal for religious schools to discriminate based on religion here. Also, he says that over 50% of his country identifies as agnostic or atheist; the US does not fit that description. It might be 25-30% here at best. I'm guessing he lives in Europe somewhere.

        Anyway, the US was, in a way, a theocracy until recent times, and still is, sorta. States used to have official churches into the 1800s (remember, that whole "Bill of Rights" thing didn't actually apply universally until the 20th century; before that, it only applied to the Federal government in its dealings with the States), and the US adopted the "under God" line in the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s, and it's *still there*, and kids are still required to recite this in state-run public schools. And good luck getting elected to Federal public office if you're not religious. Even Trump had to lie about it to get elected.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @01:10AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2017, @01:10AM (#599471)

          ledow doesn't live in the US, or else he's confused about the laws here. It's entirely legal for religious schools to discriminate based on religion here.

          Actually, if I recall correctly, this is only true in some certain situations. For example, if the school has a chaplain, then the school can insist on a religious requirement. The janitor, on the other hand, no. Of course, IANAL, so I could be wrong about this. If someone knows better than I then feel free to chime in.