Support for planet x, Niribu, orbit

While looking at the asteroid belt, and looking at the orbital pattern of the dwarf planet Ceres1 I thought it looked like a strong case for understanding the reality of the orbital pattern for Niribu.

It’s been suggested that Niribu, here idealistically a brown dwarf star with orbital planets of its own, smashed into a progenitor planet, Tiamut, that later became the earth in a lower orbital plain and left the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

The largest known object in that asteroid belt is Ceres1, a dwarf planet, that has a strong tilt in it’s orbital plain.

Wouldn’t this be looked at as strong evidence to the tilted orbit of Niribu and also that there was in fact a collision event? I feel it is so because if it were not the case the object Ceres1 should share the same orbital plain as the asteroid belt.

Thoughts?

Here's a link to the info about Ceres

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 27-11-2007 by Incarnated]

This was a link, but I moved it up to the orignal post and there's no delete so I'll just smile.



[edit on 27-11-2007 by Incarnated]

Yeeaah... it's Nibiru, not Niribu. You might want to get the fundamentals right first before going any further.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at. Are you saying that because Ceres's orbital inclination is unique, this shows that your hypothetical Nibiru must have had a large inclination too? I just don't quite understand your logic. However, if you're saying that most of the asteroid belt has low inclinations, then that's not quite correct:

en.wikipedia.org...
Look for a graph about two-thirds down the page that plots inclination versus eccentricity for many asteroids. As you can see, there are many asteroids with inclinations that are similar or even much greater than Ceres's (which is only about 10 degrees).

[edit on 27-11-2007 by cdrn]

The second largest asteroid (2 Pallas) has an orbital inclination of over 40 degrees, so the orbit of Ceres is hardly unique.

I really wish that people would stop wasting their time over this Nibiru myth.

reply to post by Mogget


100%%
agree

Originally posted by Mogget
The second largest asteroid (2 Pallas) has an orbital inclination of over 40 degrees, so the orbit of Ceres is hardly unique.

I really wish that people would stop wasting their time over this Nibiru myth.

Everything is or can be looked at as a myth.

One wonders what we should be wasting our time on?

Sure, Nibiru seems unlikely, but it does have evidence. Sure maybe unbelieveable, but still again more real the "stargates" and such.

Only time will tell, and so let us all waste more of it.

More unbelievable then you being the archangel Michael?

Originally posted by Incarnated
While looking at the asteroid belt, and looking at the orbital pattern of the dwarf planet Ceres1 I thought it looked like a strong case for understanding the reality of the orbital pattern for Niribu.

It’s been suggested that Niribu, here idealistically a brown dwarf star with orbital planets of its own, smashed into a progenitor planet, Tiamut, that later became the earth in a lower orbital plain and left the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

The largest known object in that asteroid belt is Ceres1, a dwarf planet, that has a strong tilt in it’s orbital plain.

Wouldn’t this be looked at as strong evidence to the tilted orbit of Niribu and also that there was in fact a collision event? I feel it is so because if it were not the case the object Ceres1 should share the same orbital plain as the asteroid belt.

Thoughts?

Here's a link to the info about Ceres

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 27-11-2007 by Incarnated]

shouldnt you know all these answers already?

this is just too weird. one of the highest of angels and your asking for human thought on subjects, hmmmm