NASA admits the mysterious Planet Nine is real, but says ‘deadly’ Nibiru is a fraud

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Yeah -- I was going to say that the phrase "NASA has finally admitted the existence of a “super-Earth" [Planet Nine]" is odd wording.

Not only that, it's completely wrong. A "super-Earth" is a rocky planet orbiting in a star's "Goldilocks Zone". While we don't know anything about Planet Nine's planetary type, it's a safe bet that it's an ice giant like Neptune, and it's certainly not in any star's "Goldilocks Zone."

I think whoever wrote the story saw that the planet was believed to be 10 times the size of Earth, had also heard the term "super-Earth" without really understanding it, and added apples and oranges together to make four.

But it IS in the Goldilocks zone. The inhabitants are silicon based lifeforms who thrive at -273 degrees Celsius. As we all know, atoms no longer move at this temperature which enables FTL synaptic thought speed giving rise to their ability to wrap Nibiru in a Dyson sphere sucking all the energy from its molten core to create thrust in order for a sub space leap directed at Earth.

originally posted by: MuonToGluon

originally posted by: one4all
Vlar Global Continental Displacement Wave .... Noahs Vlar GCDW induced flood.

*Blink*

What the f**k BS did I just read...?!

*Blink*

The Vlar part...that doesn't happen to be named after a member here, is it?

Prepare to drop through a rabbit hole... www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Yeah -- I was going to say that the phrase "NASA has finally admitted the existence of a “super-Earth" [Planet Nine]" is odd wording.

Not only that, it's completely wrong. A "super-Earth" is a rocky planet orbiting in a star's "Goldilocks Zone". While we don't know anything about Planet Nine's planetary type, it's a safe bet that it's an ice giant like Neptune, and it's certainly not in any star's "Goldilocks Zone."

I think whoever wrote the story saw that the planet was believed to be 10 times the size of Earth, had also heard the term "super-Earth" without really understanding it, and added apples and oranges together to make four.

While the term "Super Earth" does seem misleading, it is not being used wrong here.

"Super Earth" when speaking of exoplanets -- or even a hypothetical Planet Nine -- refers only to a planet's size. Super Earths are large than Earth, but smaller than the size of Neptune, which is an ice giant. A Super Earth could be It could be in the goldilocks zone or not.

...That is to say, the term is all about the size; up to 10 times the mass of Earth.

What is a Super Earth?

In the strictest sense, a super earth is just a planet with more mass than Earth, but less than a larger planet like Uranus or Neptune. So, you could have super earths made of rock and metal, or even ice and gas. These planets could have oceans and atmospheres, or made of nothing but hydrogen and helium. The goal, of course, is to find a rocky super earth located in the habitable zone. This is the region where the planets are the right distance from the star for liquid water to be present.

What Is a Super-Earth? (different article, same title)

A super-Earth is a planet with a mass between 1 and 10 times that of Earth. The super-Earth classification refers only to the mass of the planet, and does not imply anything about its surface conditions or habitability.

Some astronomers think the name is confusing (implying the idea that every Super-Earth planet is rocky and in the habitable zone -- which may not always be the case), so a better term would be "Mini Neptune". But the problem with "mini Neptune" is that the term could imply that every Mini Neptue is small an ice giant.

I admit there needs to be a better term, but "Super Earth" was not used incorrectly here.

a reply to: audubon

Won't Jupiter somewhat gobble up most incoming asteroids from the Kuiper Belt dislodged by this mysterious Planet 9, by way of its immense gravitational field?

After all she is somewhat of our star systems cosmic vacuum cleaner.

a reply to: andy06shake

Only if it happens to pass very close (less than ~5 million miles) to it, and the chances of that are rare. The stuff that Jupiter ejected or absorbed was mostly short-period comets & asteroids by virtue of the simple fact that, closer to the Sun, they make more laps and thus give more of a chance of a close-encounter with Jupiter. Stuff coming from the Oort cloud and the Kuiper Belt has only one chance coming in and one chance going out to encounter a planet; then they won't get another chance for hundreds or thousands of years (if ever).

a reply to: MrCrow

According to who lmao?!?!


Is it scientifically possible??

Sure.. at least the silicone life part...

But you worded it “are” not could possibly be...

Which is also ignoring the changes in things we take for granted at that temperature...

If I’m right most matter and particles act different at those temps.

So..

A) I don’t know that technology would even be possible if you were starting from a Stone Age culture...

Can you make electricity as easily??

How do conductors and such act??


B) any silicone life that was made to exist at those temps, would almost certainly melt on any trip into the inner solar system..

Say instead of water they use methane as a bio solvent. Well that methane that is a liquid at -275 , become a gas at less than room temp here. It would be the equivalent of us boiling on mercury..



Logistics, logistics , logistics..


Any conspiracy theory you hear, you must ask yourself.

“What would it realistically take to pull that off?

a reply to: Saint Exupery

I think you are underestimating the size of the solar system compared to the size of the earth...

The earth is a speck in the solar system...

I didn’t do the math, but I bet If the earth was a the size of a single grain of sand. Then the solar system would be the size of a football field..

Say you shoot 1 million grains of sand out of a leaf blower onto the football field. What is the chance you hit the grain of sand representing the earth???

Not much..

So even if the ort cloud sent thousands of asteroids at the sun. That would still likely be a million to one chance of an impact.

a reply to: MrCrow

Also the godielocks zone concerns water.. not every place where ANY type of life might form..


The goldielocks zone is the area with the BEST CHANCE for life. Not where life might accidentally be possible ONLY because we recognize we don’t really understand the origin of life...

Silicone based life might not be possible..

Life requires a solvent. Something to clean up the unwanted stuff. Water makes by far the best, most universal solvent. So, while silicone based life doesn’t necessarily break the laws of physics. That doesn’t mean it is actually possible..


I think most of this type nonsense is based off the fact scientists will always concede something may be possible.. then people fill that gap with. Whatever they want.

a reply to: wildespace

What in God's name...(RIP Dots, you served me well)

Now I know why the rabbit abandoned that hole, I'm staying out of that hole - I cannot follow what has no logic.

Also looking at those posts, I'm retiring my use of "..." part way through my sentences, I feel dirty using my dots after attempting to read those posts.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

How about the term which actually fits?

When we do not have the necessary data to establish whether the planet is rocky, icy, liquid surfaced or a gaseous planet of some sort, how about we just call it a planet? The word has been around for ages, does not specify, either deliberately or by accident any particular characteristics (other than to say that the object it describes could be any one of the classifications of possible planet types), and is well known.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I stand corrected. Looking into it, I see that the current definition of what constitutes a "super-Earth" was arrived at in 2011. It may be that my understanding of a super-Earth was fixed before then. Anyway, I'm definitely wrong today, so thanks.

a reply to: TrueBrit

When talking about exoplanets, they can't always discern whether an exoplanet is rocky or gaseous (i.e., its density).

To calculate density, they would need to know the planet's mass AND the planet's diameter/volume (density would be mass divided by volume).

They can determine the mass of the planet, which is often done by measuring the "wobble" exerted on its parent star (via the radial velocity method for detecting planets) and/or by the planet's orbital characteristics.

Diameter/volume can be discerned when using the transit method for finding exoplanets by analyzing the amount of light it blocks when transiting (passing in front of) its star. However, not every known exoplanet has been observed transiting its star, so the diameter of many known exoplanets may remain unknown...

...and without knowing diameter, they can't calculate the density, and without density, they can't speculate on whether it is rocky, gaseous, or icy.


When it comes to the hypothetical Planet Nine, they can estimate its mass based on hypothetical orbital characteristics, but they have no good method for determining its diameter -- so they cannot determine whether it is rocky, gaseous, or ice.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Saint Exupery

I think you are underestimating the size of the solar system compared to the size of the earth...

I'm not sure why you're saying that, considering that the whole point of my post was to point-out how very rare the chance of even a reasonably close pass to the largest planet in the solar system might be.

I didn’t do the math, but I bet If the earth was a the size of a single grain of sand. Then the solar system would be the size of a football field..

Oddly enough, I have done the math, and the result was that last spring Phage & I built a scale model of our Solar System on a beach. Our scale was 1:12,756,000,000 which made the Earth exactly 1 millimeter across.

We used a 4-inch Styrofoam ball (available at Hobby Lobby) for the Sun. I took paint stir-sticks (from a hardware store) and painted them black. Then I carefully painted the planets and the largest moons on each stick. Earth was a pale blue dot 1mm across, with the moon a tiny, 1/4mm grey speck 3cm away on the same stick. I cut lengths of wire coat-hangers and attached them to the Sun & sticks so we could stick them into the ground without them blowing away.

Here's the numbers (Object, color, diameter in mm, distance from Sun in meters):

Sun, white, 109.2mm
Mercury, grey or grey-brown, 0.4mm, 4.54m
Venus, white, 0.9mm, 8.48m
Earth, med-light blue, 1mm, 11.73m
- Luna, grey, .25mm, 30.2mm from Earth
Mars, orange, 0.5mm, 11.73m
Jupiter, yellow w/brown stripes & 1mm oval red spot, 11.2mm equatorial & 10.5mm pole-to-pole, 61.04m
- Io, orange, 0.25mm, 33.1mm from Jupiter
- Europa, light pink, 0.25mm, 52.6mm from Jupiter
- Ganymede, grey-green, 0.4mm, 83.9mm from Jupiter
- Callisto, grey-brown, 0.35mm, 147.6mm from Jupiter
Saturn, yellow, 9.4mm equatorial & 8.5mm pole-to-pole, 112.38m
- Rings, yellow & tan, from 7.2mm to 11mm from the center of Saturn
- Titan, light orange or brown, 0.4mm, 95.8mm from Saturn
Uranus, blue, 4.0mm, 225.19m
- Miranda, grey, 0.1mm, 10.1mm from Uranus
- Ariel, grey, 0.1mm, 15.0mm from Uranus
- Umbriel, grey, 0.1mm, 20.9mm from Uranus
- Titania, grey, 0.1mm, 34.2mm from Uranus
- Oberon, grey, 0.1mm, 45.7mm from Uranus
Neptune, blue with a dark blue 0.5mm spot, 3.9mm, 352.39m
- Triton, brown, 0.2mm, 27.8mm from Neptune

So really (depending on how big you consider a grain of sand), it might be you who is underestimating the size of the Solar System!

Here's a few extra things to consider:
1.) At this scale, Voyager 1 is now ~1,642m (just over a mile) from the Sun.
B.) At this scale, Proxima Centauri is an orange, 2-inch ball 4,858 kilometers from our Sun (roughly the distance from Boston in the USA to Dublin, Ireland).
III.) If you took all of the asteroids in the main belt between Mars & Jupiter and merged them into a single planet, it would still be smaller than our Moon. So if we wanted to model the Asteroid Belt, we would have to take that tiny, 1/4mm grey dot, grind it up into hundreds of thousands of microscopic specs and scatter them in that 43-meter gap between Mars & Jupiter - and I don't mean in a line; but in a huge disk between 18 and 61 meters in radius centered on our Sun. Space is really, really empty.
Δ.) Since both distance and size are modeled accurately, if you set up a telescope next to the Earth-stick and looked through it at the other planet-sticks, the size of the painted planet in your 'scope will be the same angular size as if you were looking at the actual planet through the same eye-piece.

So even if the ort cloud sent thousands of asteroids at the sun. That would still likely be a million to one chance of an impact.

Yes, but as every Terry Pratchett fan knows, million-to-one chances happen nine times out of ten.

Happy modelling!

a reply to: Saint Exupery

Just suggesting down to her mass, location and position in our system there's more chance of Jupiter managing to capture one of these Kuiper Belt asteroids that our Earth.

Then again statistically i seem to recall that our Earth is due for another large impact rather soon, or it's in the post.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: MrCrow

Also the godielocks zone concerns water.. not every place where ANY type of life might form..


The goldielocks zone is the area with the BEST CHANCE for life. Not where life might accidentally be possible ONLY because we recognize we don’t really understand the origin of life...

Silicone based life might not be possible..

Life requires a solvent. Something to clean up the unwanted stuff. Water makes by far the best, most universal solvent. So, while silicone based life doesn’t necessarily break the laws of physics. That doesn’t mean it is actually possible..


I think most of this type nonsense is based off the fact scientists will always concede something may be possible.. then people fill that gap with. Whatever they want.

Um... I'm sorry. It was an attempt at being humourous. My post had zero intention of spouting anything remotely factual. I though the penny may have dropped when I mentioned Nibiro being flung at earth in a way similar to bugs launching asteroids in Starship Troopers. I'll try to suppress my humour gland from now on...

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: wildespace

What in God's name...(RIP Dots, you served me well)

Now I know why the rabbit abandoned that hole, I'm staying out of that hole - I cannot follow what has no logic.

Also looking at those posts, I'm retiring my use of "..." part way through my sentences, I feel dirty using my dots after attempting to read those posts.

The logic is clear,every 3657 years Nibiru nears us pulls on us and causes our planet to rend bend and morph,during this process Continents shift and move,this process during one phase creates what are known as Vlar Global Continental Displacement Waves , these waves are not like a Tsnuamis where the water has offshore impetus and speed and is coming up onto the land...... these waves are caused when the Continent shifts and tilts slightly down then moves forward driving the water up and onto itself,then the motion of the Continent slows it levels itself off and it stops with the hydrualic actions of the waters which have inunndated the land leaving a clear and readable and immovable template.Well it is movable when the Nibiru visit possibly pulls on us enough again to catalyse Continental movement.

The Vlar Global Continental Wave Theory is explained using the Vlar GCDW model which illustrates the dynamic processes.

Sometimes Nibiru causes Continental Displacement and possibly sometimes only lesser levels of destruction....one would have to map and put in chronological order a series of Nibiru passes correlated to global events as Gill Broussard has done.

a reply to: Saint Exupery

Well played

a reply to: MrCrow

I prob didn’t read the whole post.. lol.

Sarcasm needs a font....

a reply to: one4all

The hypothetical "Planet Nine" is thought to exist because of eccentricities in the orbits of some Kuiper belt objects. That is to say, the presence of a planet sized body in the outer solar system would have an effect on the orbits of other bodies in the outer solar system. There are several Kuiper Belt objects whose highly eccentric orbits are all skewed to one side of the Sun, as if something is tugging on them.


So what about the effect a different planet-sized body (i.e., Nibiru) would have on the other bodies in the inner solar system? We would expect a similar effect; the regular orbits of the known planets would be different than as we know them, giving away the existence of Nibiru.

And it wouldn't matter if it came through every 3600 years or so. 3600 years is just a blink of an eye when it comes to orbital mechanics, and if a planet-sized object came through every 3600 years, there would still be a very noticeable fingerprint that planet-sized body would create in the orbits of the pother planets (just like Planet Nine is thought to affect Kuiper belt objects).

...but the orbits of the known planets do not show the existence of anything like Nibiru. The orbits of the planets would not be what they are if Nibiru (or any planet that regular travels through the inner solar system) existed.

Just putting this one out there: could Planet 9 (Plan 9 From Outer Space?) and or Nibiru be flat?

Seriously though, it just seems to me to be a bit sudden that science dudes are reporting this now. Was a lid smacked on this at NASA a while back for some reason and now we're being drip fed information?