Inuit elders sharing information with NASA regarding Earth's "WOBBLE"

I see that Sedna is very close in it's orbit to our solar system, why then would this not be a domino tugging/wobble effect on the entire solar system? It seems to me that gravitational forces play a part here.

A second speculative explanation for Sedna's orbit is that a larger body, perhaps Mars-sized or larger could exist at around 70 AU in a circular orbit and could have caused Sedna to get thrown into its strange orbit. If such a planet existed, we would likely have already found it in our survey, though there are still a few places left to hide.

Are there more inner Oort cloud objects like Sedna that we haven't seen?

It is very likely that there are more inner Oort cloud objects like Sedna. We have looked at only 15% of the sky before finding Sedna. As we continue to look at the sky, we may find a few more objects like Sedna. But this is only the beginning. Kepler's law states that an object on a very elliptical orbit like Sedna spends most of its time farthest from the Sun. Thus, for every Sedna we find near closest approach, there should be many more very far from the Sun that we can't see because they are so far away and faint. Also, Sedna is rather large, about 1/2 to 3/4 the size of Pluto. Most solar system populations like the Kuiper belt objects and the asteroids actually have many more smaller objects than large objects. So, for every Sedna we find that is large, there should be many more that are small that we missed because they were faint. Although it is very difficult to make predictions from one object, it seems very likely that the inner Oort cloud will have thousands of times more objects than just Sedna. It is likely that there is more mass in the inner Oort cloud than in the Kuiper belt and the asteroid belt combined.

web.gps.caltech.edu...

The Inuit story of Sedna;

www.hvgb.net...

originally posted by: InTheLight
I see that Sedna is very close in it's orbit to our solar system, why then would this not be a domino tugging/wobble effect on the entire solar system? It seems to me that gravitational forces play a part here.

See a lot of that from, say, Jupiter? Saturn? Neptune?

That old r^2 term covers up all but the very largest masses, at the distance Sedna orbits. Sedna is about 1 millionth the mass of Jupiter, Jupiter is much much closer, so you ought to see many times the gravitational effect from Jupiter. Yet, you don't unless you're pretty close, astronomically speaking.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: InTheLight
I see that Sedna is very close in it's orbit to our solar system, why then would this not be a domino tugging/wobble effect on the entire solar system? It seems to me that gravitational forces play a part here.

See a lot of that from, say, Jupiter? Saturn? Neptune?

That old r^2 term covers up all but the very largest masses, at the distance Sedna orbits. Sedna is about 1 millionth the mass of Jupiter, Jupiter is much much closer, so you ought to see many times the gravitational effect from Jupiter. Yet, you don't unless you're pretty close, astronomically speaking.

So, again, Jupiter is our protector? Really? Not even a little tug?

a reply to: InTheLight

Jupiter does tug on our sun, as does each planet that orbits it. How much of a tug depends upon the mass of the planet.

Get a bucket, fill it halfway with water. Then, holding the bucket, spin around with the bucket. You will feel the bucket pulling on you.

Now, get a needle and thread it. Do the same thing with it as you did with the bucket. Physically it is tugging on you when you do that, but due to your mass being way, way much more than the needle, the tugging it does on you is very, very, very small.

It's the same thing with Sedna. It's mass is so small that it barely "tugs" on the sun at all.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: InTheLight

Jupiter does tug on our sun, as does each planet that orbits it. How much of a tug depends upon the mass of the planet.

Get a bucket, fill it halfway with water. Then, holding the bucket, spin around with the bucket. You will feel the bucket pulling on you.

Now, get a needle and thread it. Do the same thing with it as you did with the bucket. Physically it is tugging on you when you do that, but due to your mass being way, way much more than the needle, the tugging it does on you is very, very, very small.

It's the same thing with Sedna. It's mass is so small that it barely "tugs" on the sun at all.

Yes of course.

originally posted by: InTheLight

So, again, Jupiter is our protector? Really? Not even a little tug?

Consider. Jupiter is 1-freakin-million times more massive than Sedna. And Sedna's 15 times as distant as Jupiter.

We don't need a "protector". Do you lie awake worrying about Jupiter? No. Neptune? No. Why Sedna? You'd be hard put to measure any gravitational influence on Earth by Jupiter, much less Sedna.

Oh, by the way, Sedna was named that in 2003 by the discoverers at Palomar. The Inuit did not have any clue that it existed.

Because of its frigid temperatures, the team has named the object Sedna, after the Inuit goddess of the sea from whom all sea creatures were created.

linky

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: InTheLight

So, again, Jupiter is our protector? Really? Not even a little tug?

Consider. Jupiter is 1-freakin-million times more massive than Sedna. And Sedna's 15 times as distant as Jupiter.

We don't need a "protector". Do you lie awake worrying about Jupiter? No. Neptune? No. Why Sedna? You'd be hard put to measure any gravitational influence on Earth by Jupiter, much less Sedna.

Oh, by the way, Sedna was named that in 2003 by the discoverers at Palomar. The Inuit did not have any clue that it existed.

Because of its frigid temperatures, the team has named the object Sedna, after the Inuit goddess of the sea from whom all sea creatures were created.

linky

I am wondering (not worrying) about what other exoplanet(s) may be interracting with our solar system on a cyclical basis. Let's face it, our planet has had many catastrophic events throughout time.

originally posted by: InTheLight
I am wondering (not worrying) about what other exoplanet(s) may be interracting with our solar system on a cyclical basis. Let's face it, our planet has had many catastrophic events throughout time.

There isn't any suggestion that there is one. Sedna's not an exoplanet. It's a transKuiper belt planetoid. It's always been there. It does not swoop through the solar system with flying monkeys, causing Sitchinian havoc. Because that doesn't, quite frankly, happen at all.

If we're having big problems, I feel sorry for you, son, we've got 99 problems but Nibiru ain't one.

a reply to: InTheLight

Exoplanets are planets around other stars.

Unless we were in a binary (or more) system, with their planetary orbits coming close to our sun and the planets that orbit it, they do not have any effect upon our solar system.

Catastrophic events on our planet have been caused by many things, but not all of them come from space.

Read about the Permian-Triassic Extinction that happened 250 million years ago. It's referred to by many as "When The Earth Almost Died", because events that happened almost wiped out nearly all life on Earth.

And none of it was from space.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: InTheLight
I am wondering (not worrying) about what other exoplanet(s) may be interracting with our solar system on a cyclical basis. Let's face it, our planet has had many catastrophic events throughout time.

There isn't any suggestion that there is one. Sedna's not an exoplanet. It's a transKuiper belt planetoid. It's always been there. It does not swoop through the solar system with flying monkeys, causing Sitchinian havoc. Because that doesn't, quite frankly, happen at all.

If we're having big problems, I feel sorry for you, son, we've got 99 problems but Nibiru ain't one.

Right, I mixed up planetoid, planet and exoplanet terms, sorry. I didn't say Nibiru exists, because we really don't know what it out there, now do we? Not yet, any way.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: InTheLight

Exoplanets are planets around other stars.

Unless we were in a binary (or more) system, with their planetary orbits coming close to our sun and the planets that orbit it, they do not have any effect upon our solar system.

Catastrophic events on our planet have been caused by many things, but not all of them come from space.

Read about the Permian-Triassic Extinction that happened 250 million years ago. It's referred to by many as "When The Earth Almost Died", because events that happened almost wiped out nearly all life on Earth.

And none of it was from space.

How do we know that for sure? What if a large planet(oid)'s orbit cyclic journey brings with it asteroids that could threaten our planet? Just a thought.

originally posted by: InTheLight

How do we know that for sure? What if a large planet(oid)'s orbit cyclic journey brings with it asteroids that could threaten our planet? Just a thought.

Well, you can tell that no large body has come through the inner planetary area any time in the last bazillion years.

So Sitchin's 3600 year cycle can't be true. The orbit would have to be so long it isn't an orbit any more.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: InTheLight

Exoplanets are planets around other stars.

Unless we were in a binary (or more) system, with their planetary orbits coming close to our sun and the planets that orbit it, they do not have any effect upon our solar system.

Catastrophic events on our planet have been caused by many things, but not all of them come from space.

Read about the Permian-Triassic Extinction that happened 250 million years ago. It's referred to by many as "When The Earth Almost Died", because events that happened almost wiped out nearly all life on Earth.

And none of it was from space.

How do we know that for sure? What if a large planet(oid)'s orbit cyclic journey brings with it asteroids that could threaten our planet? Just a thought.

As you said, you mixed up your terms. There is no way for planet that orbits another star from light years away can have any effect on our solar system. Too small and much, much too far away.

Now another planet entering our system: That is always a possibility if you are referring to a "Rogue Planet", which is a planet that has been flung out of it's own star system. Astronomers theorize that there are most likely plenty of them out there.

If one came through our solar system, what would happen would depend on a LOT of things:

1) Mass of the rogue planet.
2) Angle of entry.
3) Distance from the sun when it passes through.
4) Position of our planets around our sun when it passes through.

If it were say, a large gas giant like Jupiter, and it passed through the inner solar system: it would be a disaster for all the inner planets. It would cause changes in orbits (forget about making our planet tilt more, that would be NOTHING compared to what could happen), enough so where some planets, including Earth could end up spiraling into the sun or being ejected out of the solar system.

If it passed through the outer planets region, it would depend on who is the the neighborhood (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune). It could cause problems with their orbits if it passed close enough, and that could spell disaster later on if it caused one or more of them to migrate closer to the sun.

If it passed much further out, it could cause objects from the Kuiper Belt or Oort cloud to fall in towards the inner solar system.

If it were a smaller rocky planet:

Passing through the inner solar system could cause problems. Depends on where all the inner planets are, and if it passed close to the asteroid belt. If it passed right through the solar system from say Celestial North to South, through the Earth's orbital area, but while Venus, Earth and Mars are on the other side of the sun, then the answer would be nothing will happen.

If it passed through the outer planets region, it would be gobbled up by one of the gas giants, or captured as a new moon, or pass right through with no issues.

If it passed through the Kuiper Belt or Oort cloud areas, again, it could kick start some objects to fall in towards the sun.

However, before you loose any sleep over this, keep these things in mind:

The last sky survey did not reveal any large gas giant planets near by. If there was something there that was just out of range, we are talking up to one light year away. Even at orbital speeds, it would mean not only hundreds but thousands of years before it would arrive. So, it's not going to suddenly show up tomorrow or any time soon.

Small rocky planets are much harder to detect. BUT: look at all the dwarf planets we've detected way out in the Kuiper Belt. These dwarf planets are pretty small compared to Earth or even Mars. If there were something that size, it will get seen, and again, because of how vast space is, it would take a very long time for it to come crashing through our solar system.

So again, nothing to loose any sleep over.

Just keep in mind this: In order to shift the Earth's spin axis (which is not the same as it's Figure Axis), it takes some sort of outside influence, such as a high mass object pass close by. Which would be quite visible from the sun's light reflecting off of it (unless it's a black hole......which would mean we're all dead anyways).

However, the thing is, it wouldn't just shift our axis.....it would change our orbit around the sun too. And you don't want that. Because if it tugged hard enough, it could change our eccentricity so much that the following summer all our oceans would boil, and that winter, parts of the atmosphere would start freezing solid.

The only other way is: Impact with a planetary sized object. No need to go into detail what would happen then. Axis shift would be the LEAST of our (very brief) worries if that were to happen.

So you see, it's kind of hard to change just the Earth's tilt of it's spin axis, with out also causing something else that would be much more hard not to notice.

Here's yet more evidence that Planet X is responsible!!

**"In the July 15, 1999 paper published by the journal, Geophysical Research Letters, the Sahara desert's arid climate change occurred quickly and dramatically 4000 to 3600 years ago. A team of researchers headed by Martin Cluassen of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact research analyzed computer models of climate over the past several thousand years.

They concluded that the change to today's desert climate in the Sahara was triggered by changes in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of Earth's axis. The switch in North Africa's climate and vegetation was abrupt. In the Sahara, "we find an abrupt decrease in vegetation from a green Sahara to a desert scrubland within a few hundred years" scientists reported.

No longer were grasses and other plants collecting water and releasing it back into the atmosphere; now sand baked in the stronger sun and rivers dried up. The scientists do not say what caused the change in the tilt of Earth's axis."**

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

a reply to: EndOfDays77

oh read - lests see what cluassen really said :

Conclusions
In conclusion, our results indicate that the long-term
cooling and drying from mid-Holocene to present-day is
triggered by subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit. However,
the abrupt desertification in North Africa during the
mid-Holocene can be explained only in terms of internal,
mainly regional, vegetation-atmosphere feedbacks in the cli-
mate system whereas the timing of this event depends on the
state of the global climate system. Further experiments are
necessary to more precisely quantify the contribution of low
latitudes versus high northern latitudes, oceanic feedbacks
versus biospheric feedbacks, to the timing.
Our simulations suggest that Saharan desertification, the
largest change in land cover during the last 6000 years, was
a natural phenomenon as it can be described in terms of
climate-system dynamics only. Although humans lived in
the Sahara and used the land to some extent, we hypothesize
that ancient land use played only a negligibly small role in
mid-Holocene Saharan desertification.

source

further :

changing tilt of the Earth triggered the rapid drying of the Sahara. Like a spinning top slowly wobbling on its tip, the Earth's tilt has decreased from 24.14 degrees to 23.45 degrees in the last 9000 years, resulting in cooler summers in the Northern Hemisphere. When Claussen introduced cooler Northern summers into a computer simulation of the Earth's atmosphere, ocean, and vegetation, the monsoon storms that provide water to the Sahara grew weaker, killing off some of the native plants. The initial reduction in vegetation further reduced rainfall, says Claussen, starting a vicious cycle of desertification that began to accelerate about 4000 years ago. Less than 400 years later, Claussen's team found, the drought caused by the vegetation-feedback mechanism could have wiped out almost all plant life in the desert.

source

using quote-mining planet ex idiot sites is not a good idea

a reply to: EndOfDays77

Your interpretation of Claussens' conclusion hinges on what he means by "quickly." Here is a less sensationalistic account:

The exact timing is uncertain, but one interpretation of the pollen data suggests that a relatively mild arid episode between 6000 and 7000 years ago was followed by a severe 400-year drought starting 4000 years ago....

[Edit for brevity. --DJW001]

Like a spinning top slowly wobbling on its tip, the Earth's tilt has decreased from 24.14 degrees to 23.45 degrees in the last 9000 years, resulting in cooler summers in the Northern Hemisphere.

news.sciencemag.org...

In other words, a shift in the Earth's axial tilt of less than 1 degree spread out over 7,000 years can cause the climate to change dramatically in as little as 400 years.

originally posted by: EndOfDays77
Here's yet more evidence that Planet X is responsible!!

Here's even more proof that bibliotecylapades isn't worth citing. In this case, they inserted a giant non-sequitur, hoping you wouldn't look at the source material. And you didn't.

The paper they quote as "PRROOFFFF!!11!!" says nothing of the sort. It's about climatic instability and negative feedback loops. The Earth, like any non-perfect spinning object, exhibits precession and nutation. Over huge periods of time, the axis DOES rotate around a centroid. And in the Holocene era, there was a really nice alignment between the closest approach to the Sun annually, and the axis of the Earth, so that you had VERY hot summers. As this changed over thousands of years, the Earth's climate remained fairly stable despite decreased insolation, until it couldn't compensate any further, and about 4000 years ago there was an abrupt "crash" of the climate over several areas. I might add that the Saharan climate change was also contributed to by goats and sheep, which eat grass AND roots, leaving dead soil behind. Which is one reason you always see cattle farmers and sheep farmers shooting each other in Westerns.

Warning: pdfs

your "PRRROOOFF!!1!!11!!" paper, which is nothing of the sort, but is free
and the key paper that they cite, also free

I can't say this often enough, apparently. Keyword searching without reading the material is not your friend. If you don't understand what you're reading, don't assume it agrees with your position,or is relevant to the discussion in any way at all, simply because you googled something and hit a keyword bonanza.

And letting someone ELSE do the keyword searching and lead you to a conclusion you could easily have checked is also not your friend, but it's what's going to happen if you get your "PRROOOFF!!!11!!" from biblio, or glp, or Sorcha Faal, or educateyourself, or keelynet, or zetatalk, or any of the other stunningly low quality sources that you will find posting Planet X doomporn.

Here's a nice animation showing the ACTUAL normal motion of the Earth's axis over a 26,000 year (more or less) period.

Nutation and precession are the periodic and long-term motion of the Earth's spin axis in space. The direction of the Earth's axis in space, shown in orange, changes over time with respect to extremely distant objects, such as quasars. When measured with respect to these distant objects, the spin axis appears to trace a circle in the celestial sphere over a long period of time (approximately 26,000 years). This precession motion is driven by the gravity of the Moon and the Sun acting on the Earth's equatorial bulge. However, because the Moon orbits the Earth once a month, in a tilted, elliptical orbit, the spin axis also undergoes a smaller set of nutation motions on much shorter time scales (days to years). This is why the line traced by the spin axis appears "bumpy" when viewed up close.

source

THIS is the "axial shift" that the papers you didn't read were talking about. Not something caused by "nibiru".

a reply to: Bedlam

That is fascinating and it looks like a very gentle shift.