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.

 

Planet 9 was most likely an exoplanet stolen by our sun 4.5 billion years ago

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: intrptr

The evidence is there to show it had a beginning.
Everything has a beginning and an end , the Universe is no different.

Thats 3D linear thinking. But I don't try to convince 2D flatlanders what "up" means either.




posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I'm not going to lie. I like that idea A LOT for purely selfish reasons (my new novel-in-progress is called "Bubbleonia Rising").



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: intrptr

Ok, so why are most galaxies moving away from us, as demonstrated by red-shift?


Apparently, because we steal other star's stuff. In our defense, we were a lot younger then and we needed the planets. We don't do that anymore.



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr




Thats 3D linear thinking

That's following the evidence.
Space itself may be infinite and contain a myriad of other Galaxies each with their own properties or maybe space is being created as this Galaxy expands into it but at some point this Galaxy will cease to be , my personal belief is that the proposed Big Crunch will be the end for our Galaxy closely followed by another Big Bang , and on , and on and on.

Our perception of reality is just a perception.

edit on 2-6-2016 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

I can live with that. You saw the thread about the other Hubble Deep Field?



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: intrptr

I'm not going to lie. I like that idea A LOT for purely selfish reasons (my new novel-in-progress is called "Bubbleonia Rising").

Purely condoning writing novels and whatever ideas lighten your horizon is surely flattering.



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I wonder if it swings close to earth every 3600 years or so...?




L posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 01:15 AM link quote reply a reply to: GoShredAK Mike Brown , the man who Killed Pluto thinks so. twitter.com...^tfw

edit on 2-6-2016 by GoShredAK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Planet 9 ?

errr....how long was I asleep ?



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

I would like to propose the name "Nica" (pronounced NEEKA).

It is an acronym for "Nibiru Is Coming Again"



posted on Jun, 2 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

People read and post to ATS for lots of different reasons. Some do so because they are true believers. Others, because they like to debunk the first group. Others are just doing their homework.

This place has always been fertile ground for the later, in more ways than one.
edit on 2-6-2016 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

That why I are here. To disseminate information.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: intrptr

The evidence is there to show it had a beginning.
Everything has a beginning and an end , the Universe is no different.

I came back to readdress this…

The evidence show some galaxies receding, not all. Leading one to conclude that all came together at some point. Thats the theory anyway, not supported by actual fact of witnessing the 'Big Bang". I hold there are many big bangs and many bubbles out there in the "Uni"-verse, which I also hold is infinite, not bounded or started from one single event.

Something that has always been there doesn't have a beginning or an end, it just is.

I realize my theory can't be proven either, just that mine is not disproved. Every time they move the goal posts we see further… and further… still, no ending in sight.
edit on 4-6-2016 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

There was another thread I can't find where we were discussing the extent of the Universe and you suggested the Universe itself might be flat (disk like). Did you suppose that it is galaxy like, a whirlpool of galaxies (so far) to big to see? Like a galaxy of galaxies?

I was wondering what you thought about that?



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

I think that is as good an estimation as any. The way I visualize the multiverse is:

1) it is infinite. We perceive it as having a beginning, because we can only measure its size through optical measurements of our own Hubble volume. Because we can image distance within 500K light years the distance to the so called big bang, our observable universe is a sphere approximately 27 billion light years in diameter. Of course, our best math predicts it has continued to "expand" somehow, at a rate of 70.4 kilometers per second per megaparsec. This translates to about 3.3 million ly / second, which is, frankly, stupidly fast. In other words, the images of the most distant (and early) proto-galaxies we can see in Deep Field, et al, are images of galaxies more than 13 billions of years old. They do not look like that anymore, and they are no longer "where" they "were" when the image we are seeing was "taken." Our "real" universe (the contents of our own observable Hubble volume) is at least 90 billion ly across in diameter.

2) There are a near infinite amount of Hubble volumes, like ours, in the multiverse. You can visualize them by imagining our's as a mushroom cloud, exploding outward on a two dimensional "map" of the earth. The blast radius of a modern nuclear warhead varies, but let us suppose each blast fills a space 25 miles in diameter. So if you have one in Denver, you can have one in Colorado Springs as well, and they will not touch or overlap. Hubble volumes (as a mathematical construct CAN overlap however. So a Hubble volume, the same size as our own, when imaged from a planet like ours, 8 billion ly away, would be visible within our Hubble volume, albeit only as a snapshot, 8 billion years old. We would likewise be visible to them, but our sun would not have been formed yet, so they would be looking at a snapshot of a more primitive Milky Way galaxy, with a vast gas-cloud (still collapsing under its own weight) where the earth should be.
The mindbender (for me anyway!) is that if the hypothetical residents of this "other world," 8 billion ly distant from us, looked in the opposite direction, they would "see" more of our universe than we do, because the limit of their observation would also be (roughly) 13.7 billion years.

3) In this way, one could conceive of a daisy-chain of "Hubble volumes,: each centered on a vaguely earth-like planet with their own Hubble telescopem roughly 8 billion ly apart, who each "see" only 13.7 billion years worth of our multiverse, in any given direction. The third Hubble volume in this chain could not image our galaxy at all, and we cannot image theirs. Yet, still -- we may surmise that they (or at least their "space) are out there, as much a part of the greater multiverse as we are.

This is a very rough, and likely completely inaccurate representation of both notions: our Hubble volume is -- for all intents and purposes -- finite, but it probably exists within a multiverse of Hubble volumes, of near endless (or absolutely endless) size, containing an infinite amount of space -- as observed by any planet, like ours, located at any particular point within it. In this way, a multiverse shaped like a sphere would be of such incredible size and diameter, that any particular Hubble volume within it would measure their perceivable universe as (nearly) flat.

The truly remarkable bit here is that the whole multiverse might exist as a vast inflation bubble, just "inside" the event horizon of a relatively modest black hole, and we would never know the difference.

And new one's might be popping in, all the time.

Thus, our greater multiverse may contain (near) endless multiverses filled with (near) endless Hubble volumes. Or it's just turtles, all the way down.
edit on 4-6-2016 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

Thanks for laying that out for me. I didn't expect to have so much agreement with what you project. I also think its infinite, I also think there're many bubbles within bubbles, ad infinitum.
We can see soap bubbles piling up like foam on the ocean. Each bubble is its own multiverse within the wider stretch of things. And within each bubble it is impossible to see any but more little bubbles of foam; seeing the sky, the beach or ocean would be impossible from the bubble perspective.

Okay so…


So a Hubble volume, the same size as our own, when imaged from a planet like ours, 8 billion ly away, would be visible within our Hubble volume, albeit only as a snapshot, 8 billion years old.

What do you think of Quasars? Long before they realized what Galaxies were they thought this galaxy was the only one. Those soft smudges of light in the telescope lens weren't understood as other galaxies in a wider Universe.

Could Quasars be those other big bangs occurring so far away, outside our Universe "bubble"?

I don't know about within a black hole or not, those are pretty well defined and understood. Like other massive gravity sources, the closer one gets the more dangerous they are.

But what about this…

A hurricane on earth is similar in appearance to many spiral galaxies (uncanny, imo). Each molecule of water vapor that makes up the hurricane and the overall structure of them as seen from space… could the number of water vapor droplets, rain drops and hail in a hurricane be similar to the number of stars in your average galaxy?

Hurricanes are dependent upon atmosphere to exist, what 'ether' do galaxies float in? Just Gravity?

You propose a multiverse of bubbles, what if those bubbles turn out to be in a shell like the atmosphere of the earth is; blanketing the earth, providing currents and eddies, heat and updraft to make "Hurricane-Galaxies" like those that exist in our shell of atmosphere? From a water vapors point of view within the hurricane, the earth, ocean and other worlds are invisible.

So would the rest of the atmosphere be 'over the horizon', or on the other side of the planet… we couldn't see it from our place in the Hurricane. Maybe we could see further if we were on the outside of the spiral or on top of it, (our place in the Galaxy is now thought to be closer to the edge between two spiral arms, so we have a clearer view of the cosmos). But we still can't see over the horizon from where we are on earth.

Neat doing mind gazing with you.

carry on…



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Those are great questions, and I am barely qualified to answer, let alone speculate. Fortunately -- I have something in common with Quasars: first, -- I'm old, from an earlier version of our universe, and, second -- I love to read.

Quasars are fairly mysterious: they seem to dwell in a very young version of our universe, when the galaxies were fairly new, and a lot closer together, and collisions between them were common. Traditionally, they are thought to be powered by super-massive black holes, much like the ones that live at the center of modern galaxies, like ours. In theory, they feed off the collisions of early galaxies, swallowing the massive galactic structures which give birth to proto-galaxies, and even the remnants of proto-galaxies, which are ripped apart through collision with other, larger galaxies. They are thought to produce a level of energy equal to trillions of stars. As such, your notion they are actually distant "big bangs;" -- inflationary bubbles forming new universes is at least partially true. If not actually, than as a physical metaphor.

One other thing that fascinates me about quasars is that we only see them in very distant portions of space/time, in the earliest days of our universe, after inflation. Hubble has cleared up some of the specifics, but there is speculation that quasars may simply be a very old version of newer (and nearer) phenomena. Quasars are part of a class or family of space objects called active galactic nuclei, which also include blazars and seyfert galaxies. Cosmologists are in general agreement that all three are likely the same thing, viewed from different perspectives. This is all a fairly poor way of saying "we don't really know, and are guessing," -- though guessing in science implies several things traditionally not associated with guessing, in a more literal or terrestrial sense.

I honestly believe quasars are the rowdy teenage years of the grown up objects we detect as the super-massive black holes which stitch large, complex galaxies like the Milky Way together, and give them shape. That said, --the notion that they are themselves either literally super distant inflation volumes, forming "new" universes is intriguing. It is also possible that their jets are (or simply function as) -- white holes, or at the very least -- are powered by them. They may be some other phenomena entirely, which only appear to burn with the energy of a trillion suns, but actually lenses the far distant forces in play when the universe itself was born from inflation. Some of these scenarios are more likely than others, and all fail miserably at approximating the understanding of a real astrophysicist. I just read a lot and love to write and speculate.

Finally -- your physical metaphor of a hurricane as a universe in miniature is lovely. I could probably write for hours on this notion alone, but I'll wrap this post by pointing out that -- in a holographic multiverse -- certain patterns of energy / force would be represented, again and again, from the very large, to the very small. In a very real sense, our conception of the multiverse, and everything in it, *is* contained within an atmosphere which represents the limits of our understanding of reality itself. Still, such an atmosphere must itself, circle a star-like thing, possibly in procession with other "worlds" (realities) as complete as our own. These worlds and their star would, in turn, be part of a greater galaxy, and --ultimately a universe. Every single one is currently outside of our perception of potentiality; a landscape of pure dreams, and imagination. Perhaps their energy reaches us to, in subtle ways, through similar mechanisms?

*

In light of all of this -- a cosmic big picture which springs from both math and imagination -- it is relatively easy to imagine a neighborhood, like ours, at a time when our star was first formed, 4.5 billion years ago, when the nearest stars (and their planets) were nearer still. It is not much of a stretch that such a neighborhood might exchange planets, like the hypothetical planet nine. Who knows? Our new-born star may have captured a brown dwarf, AND it's planet. Binary star systems are terribly common, after all.
edit on 4-6-2016 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s


Quasars are part of a class or family of space objects called active galactic nuclei, which also include blazars and seyfert galaxies. Cosmologists are in general agreement that all three are likely the same thing, viewed from different perspectives. This is all a fairly poor way of saying "we don't really know, and are guessing," -- though guessing in science implies several things traditionally not associated with guessing, in a more literal or terrestrial sense.

You write very well, thanks again for covering.

Yah, just guessing. You made me remember that idea I had a long time ago about quasars maybe being far off other Universes. If the 'other bubbles' are out there, they should be resolvable if they are far enough away. We should be able to see them. Stay tuned about them coming to grips in their group think snotty astronomical societies.

I see groups of galaxies called clusters, a lot like star clusters. Star forming regions exist, why not galaxy forming regions, why not Universe forming 'regions'. If the Universe is infinite, and all. How big is big?

We are so short lived, so bounded by our perspective here in the third D, so to speak. We want everything to have a beginning and an end, like books, movies and our lives. This is the false paradigm. We make linear charts of open ended ELM for instance, we make time lines, too. We can't jump up from our 2D Flat world to resolve "up".



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: St Udio
if I recall correct... the Star which went Super-Nova & created the elements for our Solar System was itself a 2nd Generation Star that went Nova more than 4.5 billion years ago...& it is possible that our possible Planet X or 9 was a distant planet of that ancient solar system which survived the Nova explosion to become a 'Orphaned planet' > or a Planet without a SUN to orbit around

The going theory is that several stars went nova or supernova to contribute material to the dust cloud "stellar nursery" from which our Sun and its sister stars were formed.

I don't know if a entire planet that was part of one of those supernova systems could still be around (we and our sister stars have probably separated quite a bit from the area of the galaxy that our progenitor stars occupied), but I do find it interesting that the dust, rocks, and gas that makes up the planets in our solar system could have once been part of several other solar systems.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain


thanks for the added info about our Solar System likely origins...


the theoretical planet 9...needs to be either set aside as a separate thing or bundled with the 2 others...


In the Search for Nemesis Star myth/ Planet X Myth/ Planet 9 by scientific postulation of math data


So why haven't we seen it?
The study that modelled its interior also postulated how easy it would be to detect the object using surveys such as WISE, and estimated that Planet Nine's current size is just 3.7 times Earth.
This is considerably less than the 10 times our planet which was initially suggested.
They therefore argue that it would be very hard to spot the planet with current instruments, but suggest future telescopes may be able to.



Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... AoNXRTuQ


I suggest to narrow the field-of-search as the #1 priority

For more reasons than one, I suggest looking at the Star area named 'triangulum' there are both a northern constellation by this name

www.eastbayastro.org...

and another southern hemisphere 'triangulum' constellation properly identified as: triangulum-australe

www.constellation-guide.com...



...Triangulum Australe belongs to the Hercules family of constellations, along with Aquila, Ara, Centaurus, Corona Australis, Corvus, Crater, Crux, Cygnus, Hercules, Hydra, Lupus, Lyra, Ophiuchus, Sagitta, Scutum, Sextans, Serpens and Vulpecula...



'3' is a magic number, triangle is a magic form, with this metaphysical synchronicity brought into the daylight, planet X or planet 9 soon to come as the intruder...it stands to reason the people of Earth should look in the skies where a '3' or a Triangle is the prominent thing identifying that part of the sky...ergo - Triangulum~Australe should be the 1st focus point of this portal, window, vortex, gateway, stargate ? is that the Vatican Telescope target?
are they looking at the Northern Hemisphere 'Triangulum' instead of the southern hemisphere ' Triangulum'


so the hunt for the planet x should target the area of Triangulum Australe, occupying an area of 110 square degrees...as the prime target area for a visual confirmation of this inward bound planet sized body


thanks, I just wonder who would you tell to look at the proper place for planet 9...& just what is the proper part of the sky to search...
I guess just put it on a website & destiny will do the rest



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Everything has a beginning and an end , the Universe is no different.


You may want to have a little think about that. For example, what about reality itself? Are we to believe that there was once nothing at all? If so, where did "something" come from? In fact, can we truly grasp the concept of "nothing"?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join