Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Poll-Planet "X"

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 04:17 AM
link   
sorry to get off topic, but this sounds a lil like something off the movie event horizen.......
good movie, must see




posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Yes I do. They found it when I was in high school. I remember almost every day the T.V.'s would be on so we could learn more about it. It was the big thing in our school. It came time to name it, then we never heard about it again. Several of us wrote to NASA to find out what they named it and what happened to it. We had followed all the news about it. They wrote back and said "forget you ever heard of it", and "dont ask us again". If you look deep enough into the NASA files, you can find record of these conversations from several of us not just from my school but from several people all over the country who remember this from high school. Also we tried to look it up on the National Geographic site (it was one of the chanels we watched it on) There were a few places that said it was there, but when we clicked on the link, it was not there anymore.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by kyateLaBoca


I'm not sure what you mean by "other anomalies." When I said, "he did find anomalies," I was refering to the anomalies that already existed from the masses that were known at the time. Its all in that video. He talks about how something is pulling on Uranus and Neptune, and how a large mass(planet X) could account for the strange orbit of those outer planets.

Ok, however those anamolies are entirely accounted for by pluto, when the correct masses are used. Infact, thats how pluto was found in the first place. With all the anamolies accounted for,


Something a real time astronomer can do[...] if your an average joe, don't expect to be able to hunt and peck for direct statements that say, "The anomalies found were..." Science reports(bio, physics, chem) are never that simple and direct.

Here is my issue with the Harrington paper. The paper begins with the assumption that Planet X exists and uses inaccurate information.
It -clearly- does not support the existence of Planet X. I think he presented it to say, if Planet X exists, this is where to look for it. It takes the anamolies that are known about neptune and uranus and says -if- planet x exists then how does it play a part in these anamolies. Furthermore, it seems that every paper about Planet X, Neptune and Uranus, uses the pre-voyager information.

but from experiences in reading other science papers, its not always directly stated.

If Harrington isn't directly stateing critical information, then he, or anyone else for that matter, isn't writting very good science papers.

It is a burden for a theoy to present its data/evidence. But then the burden is then handed to the person hearing the theory. It's his choice of whether he wants to accept it or not.

The evidence should make it clear, not personal preference tho. The evidence for Planet X is insufficient, entirely.

People still discredit evolution. Go fig.

Yes but evolution has overwhelming evidence in its favour, Planet X does not.

In addition, if a theory is presented, it is a skeptic's job to present counter evidence.

Fair enough, but Harrington's Paper is not evidence for Planet X, so there is no need to present 'counter evidence'.

So if your a skeptic the burden is also on you to disprove.

I wouldn't want to disprove it. If good evidence is presented then I'd be exstatic to accept that there is another whole planet out there.

You presented what you felt was counter evidence, but only did so after many posts that had no links.

Because I was never presented anything as evidence. I was told that there's a french magazine, and dozens of books out there. Thats not presenting evidence.

It hypothesizes planet X exist just like any other hypothesis based on the scientific method.

It doesn't hypothesise that planet x exists, it hypothesises that one can predict characteristics about a planet according to the formula presented. It assumes planet x exists. I'm sure the guy wrote other papers that have what he thought was evidence for the existence of planet x, but this isn't one of them. He apparently wanted to determine where to look for planet x, assuming it exists in the first place. It was a perfectly valid and scientific way to go about things, but its not evidence that it exists in the first place. The primary hypothesis of the paper, the one that is being critically examined/tested in it, is that this Eckes formula can predict some characteristics of the planet.

and points to a general location of the planet from the data they found.

But the data used was inaccurate.

. But you started bashing me for almost no reason, so I wasnt going to sit back and relax.

I was only joking around about the not presenting evidence. You weren't involved with the main bulk of the thread, so I couldn't have even been talking about you specifically. I was just being sarcastic, not tryig to bash you. If you felt I did, then I aplogize.

The focus of this argument has shifted away from whether inaccurate data was used or not to what the hypothesis of his paper is and if he did find anomalies.

lets put it this way, people in the other forum I noted seem to be pretty well versed in this stuff, and they seem to beleive that Harrington used the old data. I would gather that they worked out out from the formula he gives. Does anyone state that Harrington used the correct data? WHy doesn't harrington state what the data is? And, also, the paper in question, its looking at the orbits of neptune and uranus and figuring that the pull their orbits exhibit are entirely from planet x, which is strange, considering that Pluto is known to pull on them.

As stated in the video they did find some form of pulling on the outer planets, which had to accout for another planet.

When I had first heard about Planet X back in the day, the idea was, I thought, that it pulls on pluto. Pluto was discovered because an unknown massive somethign was pulling on neptune and uranus. So it made sense that if another planet exists it should pull at least on Pluto, if not all three. Unfortunately there is no mystery pull on pluto, and the pull on N&U is accounted for entirely by Pluto.
[qquote] just because, Harrington used the old data and the new data showed there to be no anomalies does not necessarily disprove planet X all together.
I agree entirely. However, I would think that if planet X exists, and it is planet sized, then there should be a pull on N, U, and/or Pluto. However I'd think that it could still be there, perhaps far away enough to not have an affect, or in some sort of weird orbit that cancels the affect, or there could be some entirely unknown factor that cancels out the affect. Anything like Sitchin's Niribu however would by now not only be showing up but be causing gravitational havoc throughout the system. And be visible. Anything like Nemesis would be even more havoic wreaking and visible.

as well as others who agree with his translations that talk about planet x.

I'm actually getting really insteresting in Sitchin, if for nothing other than entertainment pruposes. Which of his books do you recommend? Do any of them detail his translation? Or is he just reinterpreting the myths, perhaps re-translating some key words? Do any akkadian linguists agree with him?

That debate can pretty much go both ways because there will always be critics and always be believers. We can save that for another time and another place.

Probably best. For now suffice to say we are talking about a 'normal' planet x, something bigger than 'sedna' with a slightly ellicptical orbit, rather than a massive planet that screams between the inner planets and the deep reaches of space, inhabited by sumerian gods whith atomized gold in the atmosphere.

But can I also address the same question to you. If your so confident enough that this planet doesn't exist, then why bother?

I don't understand the question. I'd like to know if it does or does not exist. It looks like it doesn't. I just want the best cases for and against.
I'll be looking at muadibb's info shortly.

edited to fix attributions

[edit on 18-10-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   
How is it that with all the astronomers in the world, we can find little, teen-tiny chunks of rock and ice at the very edges of our solar system, but no one has found this supposed planet? I can not believe that EVERY scientist in the world is in on some kind of conspiracy to cover this up.

[edit on 18-10-2004 by Der Kapitan]



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Der Kapitan
How is it that with all the astronomers in the world, we can find little, teen-tiny chunks of rock and ice at the very edges of our solar system, but no one has found this supposed planet? I can not believe that EVERY scientist in the world is in on some kind of conspiracy to cover this up.

[edit on 18-10-2004 by Der Kapitan]


Well the problem is we dont know what the size of this planet is. How far it is, what its gravitational pull is aside from the Sumerian descriptions(which have been disputed to smaller sizes). Lets not forget, we just RECENTLY found Sedna. Whats up with that? I dont think every scientist in the world is in on a conspiracy, but on the same token not every scientist in the world has bothered to look for the planet. All these factors combined contribute to X's evasiveness. In the end, only time will tell. Maybe planet X was a space ship rather then an actual planet? A spaceship that did not orbit our solar system, but came here far from pluto, which would be like a 10th region. The 10th region being some star far away. Who knows? In either case, the main question is, was our evolution modified?

Thats why planet X, the Annanaki, and the grays are so important.

[edit on 18-10-2004 by kyateLaBoca]



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Yes, but they are looking out to the edges of our solar system. There are fairly recent images of small cometary bodies at Space.com. There is interest in what is creeping around the edges out there. I know that the solar system is still a pretty big place, but with research continuing, shouldn't something turned up? There is evidence of a "dark twin" to our sun out there (some have called it Nemesis) it was not discovered visually, but by the detection of a large mass pulling on the sun, not accountable by the planets. This Planet X is said to make the rounds every 1200 yrs. How long since the last time it passed? Are we not due for a visit soon? By that then, it would be in-bound and therefore more easily detectedable. Where is it?


[edit on 18-10-2004 by Der Kapitan]



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyateLaBoca
the main question iswas our evolution modified?

On that the evidence seems to indicate no. There is nothing that suggests human evolution was tampered with by intelligent aliens or anything like that. Unless one were to contend that they tampered with evolution in such a way that is entirely undetectable and gives the appearance of having occured normally.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I must vote no also. It takes too much faith for me to believe planet X exists. The only doubt comes from the arguement planet X triggers the polar shifts which are known to be in progress.
Sorry for the slightly indecissive post.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
WOW am i the only person that watches the news it was found a couple of months ago when someone pulled up some star charts and said hey isn't that out of place. It's the farthest planetoid from the sun, and take 10500 earth years for one of it's own, and they named it planet sedna.
heres a link www.chinadaily.com.cn...



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by kyateLaBoca
the main question iswas our evolution modified?

On that the evidence seems to indicate no. There is nothing that suggests human evolution was tampered with by intelligent aliens or anything like that. Unless one were to contend that they tampered with evolution in such a way that is entirely undetectable and gives the appearance of having occured normally.


Well actually theres a lot of stuff that doesnt quite explain how evolution occured. When you compare DNA base pairs of us and monkeys, it will show you that there is only a 2 percent difference in the actual base pairs sequencing. Pretty accurate right? However, the amount of chromosome pairs is wrong and doesnt match ours. So that's where the idea of the missing link comes into play. And from my knowledge...we have no way of comparing DNA base pairs with our extinct Home genus relatives. We can only compare bones. That only suggest evolution was taking place toward becoming homo sapiens, but does not tell us how or who did it.


Unless one were to contend that they tampered with evolution in such a way that is entirely undetectable and gives the appearance of having occured normally


Well I've just told you, there is the issue with the DNA base pairs. Thats pretty detectable and makes you wonder why we have less chromosome pairs than monkeys. And there is no way to check up on our extinct relatives DNA. So its a question of where and who is the missing link?

The main point is we dont even know the main story on evolution, we can only suggest trends from our fossil record and by looking at base pairs.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   
IQkid:

Sedna's not a planet yet. They're still debating on whether it should be allowed.

And just because a new planet is found doesn't make it the legendary Planet X. Technically it would be Planet X, but it would have to be of significant mass, etc. to account for all the things that Planet X is supposed t'do.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Here is my issue with the Harrington paper. The paper begins with the assumption that Planet X exists and uses inaccurate information.
It -clearly- does not support the existence of Planet X. I think he presented it to say, if Planet X exists, this is where to look for it. It takes the anamolies that are known about neptune and uranus and says -if- planet x exists then how does it play a part in these anamolies. Furthermore, it seems that every paper about Planet X, Neptune and Uranus, uses the pre-voyager information.


Here is his conclusion from the paper: Planet X, if it exists at all, is most likely to be found, at present, in the region of Scorpius, with a considerably lesser likelihood that it is in Taurus. Now he put that conclusion in the paper from the data they gathered. You just have to, like I said previously, be able to understand the paper in full depth. I'm sure if he put a conclusion in like that, his paper would support it, but you have to be able to interpret and understand it, something an astronomer can do.

Now back to your issue: you said your problem with his paper is that it assumes planet x exists, and inaccurate information. Well I think we've move past the inaccurate information part. We're arguing what he found from the data the was available to him. It seems to me that your saying(correct me on this) Harrington didnt find anything even with the inaccurate information, so it is fruitless to even have any hype with his old data. I'm arguing that he did find something with that data, which is stated in his conclusion.

Now with your issue on him assuming planet x initially exists. I'm not so sure he assumed it existed if you read his conclusion. It says, "If planet x exists at all...". And once again, from the data he obtained, he showed that there was tugging on the outer planets. So what would cause that tugging? Another possible planet, so it was a logical conclusion for him to make with the data that he had at the time available to him. And once again, he never stated in his conclusion, "PLANET X EXISTS FOR FACT AND IS FOUND HERE..." He talks about if it exists then it is located in that region.


If Harrington isn't directly stateing critical information, then he, or anyone else for that matter, isn't writting very good science papers.


See his conclusion. The critical information is right there, and watch his video(like I've been telling you to do). Its made for average joes like me and possibly you and it will give you a better feel of his report. One other thing you have to understand is, these reports arent made for citizens, there made for other astronomers to interpret. I think that report, is just only an outline of the stuff he had to do. But if an astronomer got his hands on this report, he'd be able to reproduce this same exact experiment. Theres a difference between writing a scientific report for the scientific community versus writing a report for the average people to see. Why do I know this? Becuase every science class I've taken stresses the importance on knowing the difference between writing the report for the people versus writing one up for the citizens.


Fair enough, but Harrington's Paper is not evidence for Planet X, so there is no need to present 'counter evidence'.


Well Yes and No. Harrington's paper was a form of evidence for planet x when the slightly inaccurate masses were being used back then. However, at this time, since the correct masses are being used, it is not. But you cant say that his paper was never considered to be evidence at all, becuase he did do his calculations correctly and made a logical assumption based on inaccurate data. So it was evidence back then, but was disproved now with correct masses. Wouldn't you consider that counter evidence?


Because I was never presented anything as evidence. I was told that there's a french magazine, and dozens of books out there. Thats not presenting evidence.


You were presented many links. I'll agree with you on the french magazine thing. Someone even called you out on the anomalies, which you didnt even bother to disprove(by using links) until now.


He apparently wanted to determine where to look for planet x, assuming it exists in the first place. It was a perfectly valid and scientific way to go about things, but its not evidence that it exists in the first place.


See above discussion about assuming planet x exists. In addition, it was evidence because he found something to be pulling and tugging on the outer planets, but with the inaccurate data. But that's not the issue, your saying he didnt find anything at all with the inaccurate data. But from the data, he found the region of where it would be located.


I was only joking around about the not presenting evidence. You weren't involved with the main bulk of the thread, so I couldn't have even been talking about you specifically. I was just being sarcastic, not tryig to bash you. If you felt I did, then I aplogize.


Well it did seem like you were bashing me in particular at first, but since you say it wasnt directed at me in particular, then I guess I can accept your apology.



I agree entirely. However, I would think that if planet X exists, and it is planet sized, then there should be a pull on N, U, and/or Pluto. However I'd think that it could still be there, perhaps far away enough to not have an affect, or in some sort of weird orbit that cancels the affect, or there could be some entirely unknown factor that cancels out the affect
exactly. I think if it was too far away, then there would be an issue in measuring.


I'm actually getting really insteresting in Sitchin, if for nothing other than entertainment pruposes. Which of his books do you recommend? Do any of them detail his translation? Or is he just reinterpreting the myths, perhaps re-translating some key words? Do any akkadian linguists agree with him?

I havent had a chance to read any of his books so I cant help you there. And I dont know anything about cuneform, becuase language is not my major. Do any akadian linguist agree? Well let me steal a quote from another thread that I saw, did anyone INITIALLY agree with mendal? Hell No. They found out he was right many years after his death. The poor guy didnt even see his discovery come to life and in agreement during his lifetime. Him and many other scientists and philosophers have suffered the same fate when you go against mainstream.

[edit on 18-10-2004 by kyateLaBoca]



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by IQkid
WOW am i the only person that watches the news

No, you aren't. I think most of the people here are aware of sedna, since its been brought up in the thread. Its not a planet 'proper', but a planetoid.

kyatelaboca
However, the amount of chromosome pairs is wrong and doesnt match ours. So that's where the idea of the missing link comes into play

Why should the chromosome number of man and chimp be expected to be the same? The missing link is merely the intermediates between man and more primitive apes.

we have no way of comparing DNA base pairs with our extinct Home genus relatives

Neanderthal DNA (i beleive mitochondrial) has been used in genetic studies.

does not tell us how or who did it.

I just don't understand the alien idea, if there isn't anything that suggests they did it, then why think they did?

So its a question of where and who is the missing link?

www.talkorigins.org...
I've noticed a number of people think that the 'missing' link is still missing. At least this should clear that up.

The changing in the number of chromosomes is something that happens normally in evolution though, so i don't see why it should be evidence of alien manipulation. I'm just trying to understand the issue, and find out if there is any hard evidence for it.

So what would cause that tugging?

Pluto.

He talks about if it exists then it is located in that region.

Yes he does. From what I understand about the paper thats precisely what he is saying, and thats precisely what the paper is testing, if planet x exists, where is it. The formula he gives, its for finding its location, assuming it exists.

The critical information is right there,

I meant his numbers for the mass of neptune and uranus.

watch his video

I might watch it, but I don't see any point to it. He's a legitimate researcher, anything he found is going to be in the papers he published.

he'd be able to reproduce this same exact experiment

Maybe he is talking about a different paper in the video then, because the 88 paper isn't an experiment, its about what a forumla cant tell us.

oh crap, I just found this. I had found a page that had a list of his papers (with abstracts only tho), and this popped up. Seems to be supportive, but also indicate that the older data is what is used.

here is a references link. I searched under "Planet X" for the title and abstract, tho it looks like many are talking about Pluto (which was the original planet x)

But, again, the 88 paper simply can't be used as evidence for planet x. It isn't intended as a test for planet x. Its 'experimenting' with something else. I'm not saying that nothing he wrote can be used as evidence, or at least isn't a test for it, but this 88 paper isn't.
[edit to add:]

Wouldn't you consider that counter evidence?

I would consider it to counter the conclusion that planet x should be found in such and such location, not counter evidence to the existence of planet x.

Someone even called you out on the anomalies,

I had thought that it was generally understood that the Voyager probe made a more accurate mass estimate for the planets, resulting in a mass that didn't require another planet beyond pluto to account for the orbital characteristics.
Oh crap, you're right, post id: 855581. That was a rather flippant response. I think I was just surprised that this wasn't known. No good excue tho.

Him and many other scientists and philosophers have suffered the same fate when you go against mainstream.

Gregor Mendel's work might not be the best example tho. His studies were largely unnoticed and forgotten. In a sense too they were 'ahead of their time', because the physical basis of inheritence was completely unknown. It was only when they were rediscovered years later that they were understood. Sitchin seems to be working with stuff people understand, and they seem to be saying he's wrong, whereas mendels implications seemed to fly over everyone's head. Maybe I'll start a thread about which sitchin book is a good representative.

[edit on 19-10-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Neanderthal DNA (i beleive mitochondrial) has been used in genetic studies.
[edit on 19-10-2004 by Nygdan]


Well even if they did study mt DNA, there have been issues with that and mt DNA has been subject to scrutiny. I actually found this on the site you provided me.

www.talkorigins.org...

"The rate of mtDNA mutation is not well known. A study by Parsons et al. (1997) found a rate 20 times higher than that calculated from other sources. In an article reviewing mtDNA research, Strauss (1999a) reports that mtDNA mutation rates differ in some groups of animals, and can even vary dramatically in single lineages. Although there are many agreements, some divergence dates for modern animals calculated from mtDNA do not match with what is known from the fossil record. There are suggestions from a few sources that paternal mtDNA can sometimes be inherited, which could affect analyses based on mtDNA."

"The studies of Neandertal mtDNA do not show that Neandertals did not or could not interbreed with modern humans. However, the lack of diversity in Neandertal mtDNA sequences, combined with the large differences between Neandertal and modern human mtDNA, strongly suggest that Neandertals and modern humans developed separately, and did not form part of a single large interbreeding population. The Neandertal mtDNA studies will strengthen the arguments of those scientists who claim that Neandertals should be considered a separate species which did not significantly contribute to the modern gene pool. "

So you have one pair of scientists saying yes this mt DNA is good enough, while another are saying it is completely inaccurate. DNA from the nucleus is the best served, which we dont have.


Why should the chromosome number of man and chimp be expected to be the same? The missing link is merely the intermediates between man and more primitive apes.


But we dont know at which stage the DNA pairs went missing and why they went missing. Why does that matter? Becuase thats where the theorys of intervention with aliens comes into play. If we were genetically modified, then that would account for a possible change in chromosome number. But you could also argue for evolution as well. The main point is we dont know becuase we dont have a clear understanding of our past.

Go to....www.starchildproject.com and try to make time and watch the video. It describes the hybrid experiments in the early days and the evidence of bones. Now that isnt human evolution modification but it is DNA modification to create a hybrid. Its 30 min. and longer then the sitchen video. You can also read his paper, which is 12 times longer. The video gives a good synopsis.


From what I understand about the paper thats precisely what he is saying, and thats precisely what the paper is testing, if planet x exists, where is it. The formula he gives, its for finding its location, assuming it exists.


Well thats for nasa's sophisticated equipment to decide isnt it? They just recently found Sedna, which so much more closer then planet x. If they just did this now, how could they have found something so far away? And if you look at the Sedna images with the arrow pointing right on the location, these astronomers have no good leeway. They have to look at different bright points(so many) on those images and make determinations.


I might watch it, but I don't see any point to it. He's a legitimate researcher, anything he found is going to be in the papers he published.

Actually you might be right, I think there are 2 papers he published. One of which is an abstract only. www.planet-x.150m.com... The first 2 links.


But, again, the 88 paper simply can't be used as evidence for planet x. It isn't intended as a test for planet x. Its 'experimenting' with something else. I'm not saying that nothing he wrote can be used as evidence, or at least isn't a test for it, but this 88 paper isn't.


Well depends on how you interpret the data. It does test for planet x becuase the anomalies he found with the masses. So one possible and logical conclusion is that there has to be a planet to account for the pull. And because of that pull, they were able to map the region of where planet x is. No equation maps the region out for you. You have to go to the equipment and test it.

Well I dont know how long we're going to continue this debate...but if you do decide to reply to this thread, then send me a u2u as well. I wont be on ATS for a while becuase of school and work.

[edit on 19-10-2004 by kyateLaBoca]



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by kyateLaBoca
www.talkorigins.org...

Yes, it can't be used for certain types of studies. The talk origins site is very informative, its a good clearinghouse of information on these sorts of topics.

So you have one pair of scientists saying yes this mt DNA is good enough, while another are saying it is completely inaccurate.

Not precisely. There are limitations to what mtDNA can be used for, and precautions that have to be taken with it.

DNA from the nucleus is the best served, which we dont have.

All DNA has limitations and precautions that apply to it. That, however, doesn't eliminate or change the evidence that supports the evolution of man from 'lower' primates. Even the mtDNA studies, which, as noted above, have limitations, are useful.

Why should the chromosome number of man and chimp be expected to be the same? The missing link is merely the intermediates between man and more primitive apes.


But we dont know at which stage the DNA pairs went missing and why they went missing. Why does that matter? Becuase thats where the theorys of intervention with aliens comes into play.

knowing what stage it happens in wouldn't be informative as to whether or not aliens did it.

If they did play some role in genetic modification, then you would expect such drastic changes. Yes a loss of a few chromosome pairs is a drastic change.

I believe in fact that there are members of the same genus amoung animals that have different chromosome number. Its not a negligable change, but its not one that requires alien intervention. That is the problem, find changes or evidence that requires alien intervention.


Go to....www.starchildproject.com and try to make time and watch the video.

I'll give it a shot

They just recently found Sedna, which so much more closer then planet x. If they just did this now, how could they have found something so far away?

Yes, but an ameteur astronomer-farmboy detected and discovered pluto in the previous century. Before Sedna I'd've said that if it hasn't been found, then that means it probably doesn't exist. Now I'd say its mute on the topic, but, still, you'd think a planet could be found by now, there's been a lot of searching for it, for a long time, with no success. Sedna wasn't being looked for for a particularly long time. They certainly have the capability to detect it, I don't think one can say if they only found sedna now, they shouldn't be able to find something furhter away tho.

becuase of school and work.

What? you're going to focus on your work and studies rather than argue with a blockhead like me? Seriously tho, good luck with school.



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 06:39 AM
link   
I think planet X is just a big frozen lump of rock and that it isn't a planet at all but then again you could say the same about pluto



posted on Oct, 31 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Okay, plain and simple. Would someone (other then me) go and pick up the Novemer 2004 issue of Discover magazine, and read the cover article on "Planet X"? Some useful information there.

It goes into detail about the search for Planet X, talks about Sedna and several other large spherical objects found outside Pluto's orbit.

It also mentions how the asteriod belt was first found. They had discovered a large body, which they (the astronomers at the time) had dubbed a planet. Then lo and behold, they discovered another, and another, and yet a forth "planet" within the same orbit... this led to the discovery of the asteroid belt, and the definition that if several bodies of similiar nature occupy the same orbital range, it isn't a planet (which must be solitary in it's orbit). It took quiet a few year to dismiss the claims of four planets within the asteriod belt...

Same with Pluto.

Now, Pluto will be a bit more harder to discredit as a planet... but with the discovery of Sedna and, I believe, three other 1000 mile plus wide "planets" discovered within the same orbital range, on top of several (to say the least) planetoids and asteroids also within this field... anything discovered in that area will be, more than likely, grouped together as part of the Kip field. Pluto by itself could be a planet, but it isn't by itself, not with the other discoveries.

IF there were to be a tenth planet, it would have to have an orbital plane which is totally different then our excepted 9 planets... it would have to run almost verticle. Why? If it was on the same horizontal plane, AND if it shared the same characteristics of Pluto and Sedna (size, for one), it would be considered a member of that "cloud". Coming from "outside" our excepted notion of plantery orbits, it wouldn't be grouped with the cloud.

...

Those last two paragraphs really didn't make any sense, did they?

...

Anyway, pick up the November issue of Discover... it'll help explain to people why Pluto isn't a planet, and why there isn't a tenth planet.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   
remote sensing of a vortex mis-interpreted as planet-x?

gravitational forces, emission of high enery, "unseen but there"... could the signs of a inter-dimesional vortex be mis-identified?

was planet-x mistakenly identified as an asteroid by nasa? then denied as an embarrasement?

or is there more to the story when it began to emerge some decades ago?

if interdimension travel does exist, would modern science be able to describe how it occurs?

just a thought, cuz another dimension might as well be another planet



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
No, Planet 10 (X is the Roman numeral for 10, there's already 9 planets, so it's not X as in the letter. Just my mini-rant on a lot of people, back to the real purpose of this post now.) does not exist.

Now if you're taking Planet 10 to be something like one of the planets from Venus to Neptune, then I would have to say that someone, somewhere would have detected it by now, through one or more of various observing techniques. Even if it were unable to be seen because of something blocking it, it's position could be hypothesized through math and physics.

So no, Planet 10 does not exist in my mind.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
The true reason why the planet is called X, is because, for all practical purposes, it is shaped like the letter X...

Steven Joseph Christopher

[edit on 26-1-2005 by Byrd]





new topics




 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join