It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science News..........."If Planet X exists........."

page: 5
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: Box of Rain

Wrong, at certain times many objects could be blocked out of view by orbiting Planets and Moons.


Well, sure. If something solid is blocking our view of an object, then it can't be seen - neither by a visible light telescope NOR and infrared telescope. I mean, yeah...it should go without saying that I can't seen an object that is directly behind another object.

My point is that there is no object that cannot reflect light. If it is a solid object, then visible light from the Sun falling upon it will reflect off of that object, making the object visible. Infrared helps when the object is too small or too far away from the Sun for that visible light to reach us -- such as a brown dwarf far away from the Sun...

However, a brown dwarf that is (say, for example) near the orbit of Saturn would be visible to visible light telescopes, and probably our eyes. Brown dwarfs are not "perfect black-body objects"; they reflect light, and even make a little light of their own. They would look like a bright planet if they were close enough.

Granted, as you pointed out, it could "hide" behind another object. However, the solar system is a dynamic and moving place; it wouldn't stay hidden for long. For example, an object that is behind the direction of the Sun as seen from Earth in December would be in the night sky (the direction away from the Sun) in July, because the earth would have swung around to the other side of the Sun.



Also, what direction a possible object could be in relation to planet Earth also plays its part.

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you are saying that an object (say, for example) that is located directly south of the earth can ONLY be seen from the South Pole, then you are incorrect. Practically all of the Southern hemisphere can see objects in space that are directly "above" (below?) the South pole. For example, Polaris (the north Star) is directly above the Earth's north pole, yet Polaris is visible from the entire Northern hemisphere.

If when you say "direction in relation to planet Earth" you mean something in the direction of the Sun, then I addressed that above. Something in the direction of the Sun today relative to Earth will be in the direction away from the Sun in 6 months, even if the object doesn't move - that's because the earth DOES move.


edit on 11/26/2014 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Sweet picture, very well done. What kind of exposure times are required to get that kind of clarity?



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: parad0x122
a reply to: ngchunter

Sweet picture, very well done. What kind of exposure times are required to get that kind of clarity?

Thanks, I used 5 minute long sub-exposures with a total integration time of a little more than 2 hours. The CCD itself is also very important in determining the level of clarity; this was with a ST-2000XCM camera with a KAI-2020CM chip actively cooled to -25 degrees Celsius. That's largely why the noise level is so low in the image.
edit on 26-11-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Not going to lie, I never even started toying with astrophotography so I'm only familiar with the general SLR variables/jargon, but it sounds like there's a decent level of computing going on to assist the image capture process. Being that I'm a techie sort of guy by trade... I'm intrigued! Thanks for the info, I plan on moving out to Colorado within the next few months, so maybe I can pick your brain down the road to get setup with a starter rig. Being as close to Philadelphia as I am right now, I don't think it'd be worth it at the moment given the high level of light pollution here.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Calm down, I never said that you were lying about anything. I have been in that thread and seen your posts, but it's hard to remember who posted what when you're not participating in a thread frequently.

Yeah that is the image in my avatar, it always interested me, but I don't think it's Planet X, if such a thing exists. ~$heopleNation



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

You make valid points, and I understand that the planets are orbiting the Sun. I just always assumed there are blind spots cause they always seem to all of a sudden discover a potential hazardous asteroid that comes near earth.

Maybe size has something to do with it I don't know. Not claiming to be an expert I just like discussing this kind of stuff.

Honestly I don't believe that there is a Planet X anywhere in our Solar System. ~$heopleNation


edit on 26-11-2014 by SheopleNation because: TypO



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

I think anything is possible. No one can prove or disprove the existence of a planet! you think all the planet X deniers are out there every night with their telescopes on the lookout for this planet? no, they're sitting their arses behind a computer screen saying they have proof that planet X isn't real.

maybe it's just my agnostic viewpoint, but God and planet X have this in common: We can't deny or prove it's existence.

s&f



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: ngchunter

Calm down, I never said that you were lying about anything.


originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: ngchunter
I own a very nice telescope, but I wonder if you in fact do

Your words.


I have been in that thread and seen your posts, but it's hard to remember who posted what when you're not participating in a thread frequently.

The fact that I own a telescope is stated in every single one of my posts, right in my signature. You tried to cast doubt on my honesty. Perhaps you did not realize I was willing to back that up with photographic evidence that it's mine, now you know.


Yeah that is the image in my avatar, it always interested me, but I don't think it's Planet X, if such a thing exists.

Well then that would beg the question of why you brought it up in the first place on this thread since the subject of the thread is "Planet X." Was it just to give an example of something that can essentially "only be seen in infrared?" In that case what does it tell you that even amateur astronomers like me can and do also see it in infrared? It sure seems like your original post was an attempt to suggest that "planet X" could be very obvious in infrared light yet undiscovered by the "average person" like me. I can certainly see why you suggested that perhaps I don't actually own a telescope at all; it would be very damaging to your point if I had in fact imaged the object myself with my own equipment.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: SheopleNation

I wouldn't go so far as to say I don't think "Planet X" exists, because I don't have enough data to know for sure. In fact I don't think anyone has enough data to know for sure.

However, if "Planet X" does exist, I bet it is only a relatively small (earth sized?) planet that orbits in the Kuiper Belt and never leaves the Kuiper belt. In fact, I suppose there could be dozens of earth-sized bodies out there in the kuiper belt, minding their own business, doing their own thing out there for the past 4 .5 billion years.

It was just 2005 when Eris was discovered -- and Eris is bigger than Pluto. I wouldn't be shocked if there were things out in the kuiper belt bigger than Eris. However, I don't believe that any of these "Planet Xs" would behave anything like the mythical Nibiru (i.e., with an orbit that takes it through the inner solar system).

There is mathematical data that shows a planet with an orbit such as Nibiru's cannot exist.

Planet X? Sure, why not.
Nibiru-type planets? No.


edit on 11/26/2014 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Midnight13
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE
you think all the planet X deniers are out there every night with their telescopes on the lookout for this planet?


You haven't been paying close attention to this thread have you? If this planet exists and you know the coordinates, yes, its existence CAN be proven. Give me the coordinates and I'll be glad to take a picture of it. Even if it's only visible in infrared for some reason that is not automatically a guarantee that I can't see it. SheopleNation inadvertently brought up a perfect example (though I get the feeling they now regret that) and alluded to the coordinates 09h 47m 57.406s +13° 16′ 43.56″. I've imaged those coordinates myself and saw that particular object just fine:

Even if it's only visible in the southern hemisphere there are plenty of amateurs down there and a whole array of powerful private telescopes that can be controlled over the internet as well. In fact the telescope that hold's the world's record for farthest object detected by an amateur astronomer is located in Australia and is quite sensitive to infrared light.
edit on 26-11-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: Box of Rain
I just always assumed there are blind spots cause they always seem to all of a sudden discover a potential hazardous asteroid that comes near earth.

No, that is because the systematic surveys that look for asteroids have limits to the maximum magnitude they can detect. Above that magnitude (generally around magnitude 20-21) the asteroid is too dim to be detected. Small asteroids are far too dim to see until they are relatively close to our planet, and even then you're dealing with something that is still orders of magnitude too dim to see by eye. The only real blind spot is from the sun itself - angular separation from the sun needs to be decently high to stand a chance of detection by the major surveys.


Honestly I don't believe that there is a Planet X anywhere in our Solar System. ~$heopleNation

I don't know why you'd say or believe that. It's entirely possible, just not anywhere "close by." If it exists though it will not resemble the characteristics ascribed to it by people like Marshall Masters, Nancy Lieder, and the OP who all seem to think it's perpetually visible near the sun to people with webcams, cell phones, and airplane windows, or can only be seen from the south pole, or sometimes both conditions all at the same time.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Amen. a reply to: Bedlam



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   
First you said it's not biased, then you agreed with everything I said. a reply to: amicktd




posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Parthin

I did agree with what you stated, just thought you misused the word biased. I'll look up the definition maybe I'm just mistaken.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: parad0x122
a reply to: ngchunter

Not going to lie, I never even started toying with astrophotography so I'm only familiar with the general SLR variables/jargon, but it sounds like there's a decent level of computing going on to assist the image capture process. Being that I'm a techie sort of guy by trade... I'm intrigued! Thanks for the info, I plan on moving out to Colorado within the next few months, so maybe I can pick your brain down the road to get setup with a starter rig. Being as close to Philadelphia as I am right now, I don't think it'd be worth it at the moment given the high level of light pollution here.


Yes light pollution can be a problem taken in the middle of 150 houses with street and Christmas lights on !!!

20 secs f4 iso 3200



but you can always finds ways to get info from your images !


edit on 26-11-2014 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I didn't mean that the people involved were biased, but that the data was a skewed sample which gave an incomplete and possibly misleading result. We are far from gaining a complete picture of alien solar systems, and the farther away from the star a planet is, the harder it is to detect and analyze. a reply to: amicktd



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Melbourne_Militia
This is nothing new. !st I remember mention of Planet X was in the mid 70-'s when Astronomaurs said there had to be a much larger object further out past Pluto to explain the gravitational pull on Uranus's and Neptune orbits.


Hahahahaha.. you said ur-anus!
2nd line



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Apparently you're too busy patting yourself on the back to have a discussion, and assuming I didn't expect you to provide an image, which I am glad that you did.

I also don't always look at people's signatures when responding, I mean why the hell would I say that if I did?

Anyway, I can name two guys off the top of my head that post over there, like WMD and Erik. Once you brought it to my attention, I recalled your posts. ~$heopleNation



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

I always keep an open mind, but I never mentioned anything about Nibiru. ~$heopleNation



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: SheopleNation
a reply to: ngchunter

Apparently you're too busy patting yourself on the back to have a discussion, and assuming I didn't expect you to provide an image, which I am glad that you did.

Then why was your first reaction to question whether or not I even had a telescope? I think we both know the answer to that question. Perhaps I do pat myself on the back some, but at least I'm intellectually honest.




top topics



 
40
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join