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 X -- NASA Insider

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Hahah. Even if there was some magic planet floating around in an unspecified area of space that's being hidden from us, it would be impossible to see it from Earth. Especially with how big it seems compared to the sun! What a joke.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I joined this forum because of this topic, and I've read so many pro's and cons on here, that well... my head is spinning.

Im no astronomer, astrolger, or scientist. Surley someone out there must know the basic facts?

Obviously if this were true, the government wouldn't tell us... it wouldnt be able to cope with the general public demanding shelters etc, I mean lets be honest, if we knew for definate that this was going to happen, would we all sit here and say "ok, bring it on!" No, we'd screaming and taking out thousands of pounds in bank loans to build our own shelters.

If its not true, then surely there are some officials out there that know what people are saying... why aren't they doing anything to discredit this information.

I feel like hiding my head in the sand for the next 10 years... if its true, I'll wake up without my *ss! if its not, well then I've had a good sleep!

If it weren't for my kids, who in 2012 will be 8 and 12, I may just do that!!!
And what about our kids huh? if i is true, what do we tell them? how can we protect them... I guess we can't!



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by thatblissguy
This guy thinks he might know something about physics, he "assumes" constant density (which not even the Earth has). Also, MASS and GRAVITATIONAL PULL will vary based on the MATTER ELEMENTS that make up said object. You are ASSUMING that this planet is composed of the same ELEMENTS as EARTH! Why dont you run your calculation with a planet made of GOLD and see what you come up.

Note: I am not claiming PlanetX is made of gold, only showing that this smoking gun density calcultion is not comparable across different density mediums.


Actually, the people who gave me my degree assumed that I knew something about physics, as did the people who inducted me into Sigma Pi Sigma (I'll save you the Google search, it's the national physics honors fraternity).

As for my other assumptions:

Constant density: Given that the original article I was responding to claims that Planet X is 100 times as dense as Earth, you really should direct your criticism against them as well. While Earth doesn't have a uniform density (air isn't as dense as granite, except perhaps in L.A. during rush hour), it does have an average density (again, I'll save you the Google search, it's ~5.5 grams / cubic centimeter). If you want to be logically more accurate, you could substitute "Assuming that the distribution of strata with varying densities is similar in spherical bodies..."...or, you could take the simple way out, assume a constant density, and use much shorter language to get to the same result.

Mass and Gravitational Pull (see? You can actually type those words without resorting to all caps!) really aren't dependent on composition. 10kg of lead and 10kg of hydrogen both represent 10kg of mass. The 10kg of lead will be a much smaller package, but it won't have any more mass. You're confusing mass with density.

As for gravity, the gravitational force between two bodies can be calculated by this little gem: F =(G*M1*M1)/Rsquared, where G is the universal gravitational constant, M1 and M2 are the masses of the two bodies in question, and R is the distance between them. You can get all of this from any good physics textbook, if you're so inclined. Please note that there are no attached footnotes to the gravitational calculation about "matter elements". For that matter (no pun intended, honestly), what is a "matter element"? I don't know of any matter that isn't made up of elements (at least not once we get above the subatomic scale), and I certainly don't know of any elements that aren't made of matter.

Why don't I run my calculation with a planet made of gold? Because the link in the original post didn't posit a planet made of gold. The claim was that Planet X was 100 times as dense as Earth, and 4-5 times as large, so I ran calculations based on the given size range, and the given density range. I didn't make any assumptions about Planet X's composition other than the ones made in the original document. However, since you asked so politely, and since I'm an obliging sort of person, I'll run the same calculation based on a planet of gold, just so you can see how it would have looked.

First, since we 'know' that Planet X is 4-5 times larger than Earth, we can start by 'scaling up' Earth, just to see how massive Planet X would be if it had the same average density (5.5 g/ccm). Since volume goes up as the cube of the radius, Planet X (assuming it to be 4.5 times the size of Earth) would have 91.12 times the volume. Note that this number doesn't have anything to do with density or composition, it's a simple calculation of volume. If we then assume the same average density, that would make Planet X 91.12 times as massive. Now, if Planet X was made of gold, we can make the following calculation: Average density of gold is 19.3 g/ccm, average density of Earth is 5.5 g/ccm, so 1 cubic centimeter of gold is 19.3/5.5 = 3.5 times as dense as 1 cubic centimeter of gold. Since Golden X has 91.12 times as many cubic centimeters (see volume calculation above), we can figure its mass relative to earth as being 91.12*3.5 = 318.92 times as massive as Earth.

My "smoking gun" calculations really aren't linked to density or composition except at the very last stage, where I use numbers provided by the cited article. I do make the assumption that Planet X is spherical, simply because most planets tend to be spherical, with some minor degree of oblation. Now that I've laid the calculations out in more detail than you probably wanted, you can run them yourself for any average density you care to...but I will remind you once more (just in case you missed it when I said it before) that any assumptions about Planet X's composition are not mine, they are elements of the article cited in the original post. Likewise, assumptions about the density of spherical bodies aren't mine, they've been around since about 700 AD as empirical calculations, and probably a whole lot longer as 'rules of thumb'.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceekay
I joined this forum because of this topic, and I've read so many pro's and cons on here, that well... my head is spinning.


Welcome aboard! Don't feel too bad about a spinning head, it happens a lot around here! Pour yourself a tall cold one (tea, beer, single-malt...whatever floats your boat) and enjoy the ride.



Im no astronomer, astrolger, or scientist. Surley someone out there must know the basic facts?

Obviously if this were true, the government wouldn't tell us... it wouldnt be able to cope with the general public demanding shelters etc, I mean lets be honest, if we knew for definate that this was going to happen, would we all sit here and say "ok, bring it on!" No, we'd screaming and taking out thousands of pounds in bank loans to build our own shelters.

If its not true, then surely there are some officials out there that know what people are saying... why aren't they doing anything to discredit this information.


Basic facts about astronomy aren't nearly as common as they should be. For some reason that I really don't understand, astronomy isn't a 'cool' subject, so it doesn't get a lot of exposure in major media or in popular culture.

As for hiding the data on Planet X, as I tried to point out in one of my posts here, that's not an option for any government. There are too many amateur astronomers out there with their own equipment, and their own access to professional journals and to the internet...one or more of them would see an object as large as the hypothetical Planet X. I think part of the problem people have with that idea comes from a lack of understanding about amateur astronomers. We aren't a bunch of geeks standing in the back yard with old eyeglass lenses stuck in cardboard tubes...we're geeks who, in some cases, have professional-grade gear in home-built observatories. As an example, I've got two 'scopes...one is a commercial Celestron CGE 1100 that I use for casual gazing. For serious work, I've got an 18" Newtonian reflector that I built myself (don't ask how long it took!). Point being that either one of those beasts would be more than able to spot a planetary body without serious effort, and my tubes aren't the biggest or best amateur rigs that I know of, by a long push. Trust me...the amateur community has the gear and the know-how to spot this thing, and to make the information public, regardless of the government's opinion.

As for official denial...it's been done, repeatedly. The response from the "Planet X = Doomsday" crowd is an immediate shout of "DISINFO!!", and the immediate branding of the agency or spokesperson as "Part of the Government's big cover up operation!"



I feel like hiding my head in the sand for the next 10 years... if its true, I'll wake up without my *ss! if its not, well then I've had a good sleep!

If it weren't for my kids, who in 2012 will be 8 and 12, I may just do that!!!
And what about our kids huh? if i is true, what do we tell them? how can we protect them... I guess we can't!


If you're seriously worried about this, I'll simply point to the motto under the site logo. "Deny Ignorance". Do your research, fact-check any and all claims made, analyze the data you find.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by Brother Stormhammer]



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
If those Hubble photographs are of Planet IX (remember, Pluto doesn't count anymore!), it's going to have to really hustle to get here by 2012. Either that, or somebody is feeding us a line of something I became 'way too familiar with working around my grandfather's cattle.


Does this look familiar?

Planet X?


The image is V838 Monocerotis, which is a rather spectacular celestial object approximately 20,000 light-years from Earth. It's not a planet, and it's not going to be anywhere near us in 2012.





[edit on 15-10-2007 by Brother Stormhammer]



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Nibiru doesn't exist, guys. Accept it as a fact. There is no planet hiding behind the Sun. There is no massive planet from the depths of space heading for a passage through the inner Solar System in 2012. Those photos further up this thread are examples of planetary nebulae (stars that have shed their outer layers, forming a ring of gas around them). The objects around them are other stars, not moons.

Why are so many ATS members so gullible ?



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by KdogartIS
 


Not sure which nebula that is off hand, but it sure isn't a dwarf star nor anything anywhere near our solar system. Those 'moons' as you call them are actually stars (noticed how they are in the same configuration in each picture?)

I really thought all the planet X nonsense would end with the discovery of Eris and the numerous other dwarf planets now known to orbit with Pluto/Charon beyond Nepture - planets which, incidently, Sitchin's fictional aliens didn't know about (although they did know about Pluto. Odd that .... )


Ah thank you for clearing that up Essan, I'm not too smart when it comes to stars and what not. Anyway, my friend doesn't have any other damning info, but he is writing a book about Aids. What I am most intrigued by is the fact that these "Annunaki aliens" supposedly reside on this planet Nibiru. It is possible that we will see alien life very soon, as a matter of fact, I think before the end of this year as I said in my other post. We will see Extra terrestrials and their craft. Some of it I'm sure is gov operated but the others no.
Anyway, it is all interesting this stuff if you have the time to put into it. I apologize as I haven't gone on here in quite a while.

Cheers

Kdog



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
reply to post by cassini
 

It has been discovered we are NOT in the Milky Way. We are just off of it and i dont have the time to find all the articles now, however feel free to Google it.


feel free to check out badastronomy.com also, which talks about this and how its BS.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
No this makes PERFECT sense!, a couple of months ago (around sept 07, we live on the East coast of Australia) my brother and i were on the beach one night and noticed that all the water was sucked Waaaaaaaaaaaay back furthur than i have ever seen in my life, there was absolutely NO water or waves breaking around the headland and the water was sucked right back revealing the underwater rock outcrops normally well behind the breakers. We panicked at first and ran flat-stick up to the headland, thinking there was about to be a tsunami or something. It was at this point that my broter pointed out a really large prominent fire-coloured star that was much brighter than any of the other stars in the sky (and NO, it was not Jupiter). It was then that we realised that it might have been some kind of gravitational pull from this freaky big star that was affecting the tide. By this time we were really freaked out by the strangeness of it all, so we ran home and told our parents. They were amazed at the sheer size and odd colour of this unusual star and said that they had never seen anything like it before. within about 6 hours the ocean was back to normal, but strangely there was NO swell whatsoever for most of the morning. the ocean was completely flat which was also very strange where we live. If this planet-X has such density as is claimed, perhaps on that particular night the Earth was closest to it at that particular time and place during it's orbit, and thus had affected the tide in such an unusual manner that night. as this weird star had virtually dissapeared by the following night, so perhaps it IS starting to become noticible as it gets closer. It will be interesting to observe around sept this year (2008) to see if similar phonemena are observed and maybe have become more prominent enough to be noticible to other people too, not just a couple of kids on a lonely beach late at night way off in Australia. (p.s. i believe aliens have nothing to do with this whatsoever, but this planet seems very plausable)

[edit on 6-1-2008 by Ascention]

[edit on 6-1-2008 by Ascention]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Ascention
 


You've just discovered ......... tides


It's caused by the Moon (and to a lesser extent the Sun) and means that twice a day the sea recedes, revealing coastal rocks etc. And about 6 hours later it all comes back in again.

Mars is pretty bright atm. Perhaps that's what you saw? Whatever you saw would have been visible around the planet and any effect it had on the oceans would likewise have been the same all over the planet.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I Wana see the person who made up planet x and the belivers faces when the day comes, this man is clearly chatin bull#



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by anhinga
We have a network of
people who have verified that some NASA engineers are building
dome homes (the strongest know structures to man) in certain parts
of this country in anticipation of the destructive passing of Planet X.
The elite have already built mini-cities underground.. . . . Scientists forecast that as much as 70% of the earth’s population will
not survive the moment of the passing of this planet; another 20% will
starve to death in the aftermath, and only about 10% of the population
will survive.


Nope, sorry, this doesn't give. If Planet X really existed, and was going to stop the Earth's rotation, strip our magnetic field away, etc, it wouldn't be 70% of the population dying, it would be 100%. Every living creature would be wiped out in an instant.

Have you ever been in a fast moving car that made a sudden stop? You are propelled forward, right? Saved only by your seat-belt. The same principle applies to the Earth's rotation; we are not stationary objects, but are moving at the same speed. If the rotation were to suddenly stop, every living thing, including everything not bolted down would be flung out into space. Those inside undeground cities would be smashed against the inside of their homes at approximately 1700 kph. Even if you were strapped into something, no seatbelt known to man could save your life at a sudden stop of that speed; if you're lucky you'd be traveling so fast your brain wouldn't be able to register your body being ripped apart by your restraints.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by eskick
I Wana see the person who made up planet x and the belivers faces when the day comes, this man is clearly chatin bull#


Well, they will probably end up like Nancy Leider. She was claiming Planet X was coming in 2003. She would post pictures of ordinary astronomical phenomena, claiming it to be Planet X. When the date came and went, she said she made up the date to throw off the evil government, to prevent them from declaring martial law (which doesn't make sense...wouldn't giving a date speed up their plans?). Now she says she won't say when it's coming, other than soon.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Hopefully just another hoax like Y2k etc,, Definately going with the certain 100% mortality rate if the earth were to suddenly stop rotating, however this raises the interesting question that were the earth's rotation to stop slowly, say over the course of a few weeks, wouldn't that be the large scale equivalent of slowly applying a big handbrake? surely that would be survivable? also would somone please explain why the sun used to look yellow, but now it's turned white?

[edit on 7-1-2008 by Ascention]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by HeHasNoName
 


haha check badastronomy.com. I wonder how long you will be in denial when the signs become too obvious, like 3 days of darkness. lol have fun partying till the shift occurs!


EDIT:
SaviorComplex- if you would of read what I pasted you would understand the reason the Zetas did it, along with all the signs before and after that prove the government fell for it, but then again perhaps you did read it but your in denial. Either way it doesn't really matter lol


PS- why don't you email her and ask her why 100% of the earths population won't die when the rotation stops, she will respond within a day or two.



[edit on 7-1-2008 by CanadianVandal]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ascention
Hopefully just another hoax like Y2k etc,, Definately going with the certain 100% mortality rate if the earth were to suddenly stop rotating, however this raises the interesting question that were the earth's rotation to stop slowly, say over the course of a few weeks, wouldn't that be the large scale equivalent of slowly applying a big handbrake? surely that would be survivable? also would somone please explain why the sun used to look yellow, but now it's turned white?

[edit on 7-1-2008 by Ascention]


I'd think we might notice the slowing of the Earth's rotation, even if it was a slow process, rather than a catastrophic 'crash stop'...the lengthening days would be a really obvious sign, and trust me, the days aren't getting any longer (at least no more so than usual as the year progresses)...I know because I still don't have enough daylight to get done with my 'to-do' list before nightfall.


On the subject of the Earth's rotation, I'm still waiting for one of the Planet X folks to explain the mechanism by which our 'pole shift' and / or rotation change will take place...once we get a handle on that, we can discuss whether the Earth would survive the transition without becoming a gravel pit.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
cassini

you will find this very interesting reading regarding our solar system in relation to the Milky Way:

www.viewzone.com...



edit to fix link.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by smartie]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianVandal
SaviorComplex- if you would of read what I pasted you would understand the reason the Zetas did it, along with all the signs before and after that prove the government fell for it, but then again perhaps you did read it but your in denial. Either way it doesn't really matter lol


PS- why don't you email her and ask her why 100% of the earths population won't die when the rotation stops, she will respond within a day or two.


You mean the signs that were interpreted after the fact? Do you really think that if the government believed this drek that they would rely on some nobody with crappy website for their information. You still have not stated what signs there were.

Instead of me emailing her, why don't you tell us, since you supposedly have all the answer.

And tell us in your own words, instead of plagarizing from ZetaTalk.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


You are correct. They didnt hide it at first though. It was all over the news. I graduated in '95, I cant remember if it was my sophmore, junior, or senior year it happened, but all the T.V.'s in the school were on for about a week. They had found another planet, and described it like you did in your post. They were also excited because they found that the planet put off its own heat. Therefore even though it was so far away from the sun for so long, it was totaly capable of supporting life. The only thing left to do was name it. In class we were all having discussions on what to name it and why. That was the end of it. We never found out what they named it or anything. Teachers said back to work, and that was it.

So, no they didnt try to hide it at first. It is amazing how they can explain things and everyone blindly believes them though. They could say a big elephant fell over and that was why the earth wobbled, and I swear most people would blindly except it as fact.

Its good to see it discussed though. There is another thread somewhere - struggling to find it now - that talked about it starting to show up in 2008. For what it's worth that year was mentioned back then.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by mrsdudara]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by smartie
 


Interesting link....thanks for that. I had heard about the Sagittarius Galaxy but forgotten about it until I read through that.

-B



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join