Current model of Nibiru debunked?, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times

reply posted on 3-6-2008 @ 04:12 PM by Anonymous ATS

reply to post by Agent Venom

Hi guys

Im afraid that you missundestood something.

scape velocity is not the vetorial velocity of the planet. That velocity is just the one that a body should achieve to go out of the influence of the sun"s gravity. It means that only at that speed the planet wound't come back in a eliptical orbit arroud the sum. For shure that speedy is unconciable!
I hope I could help.
sorry the bad english !

enric[snip]
from Brazil !
Regards !

[edit on 6-3-2008 by worldwatcher]

reply posted on 3-6-2008 @ 04:15 PM by undo

can't see poster above. it's an anonymous poster who shows up as having posted in this thread in my fav threads list, but isn't actually visible in most of the threads i see the anonymous user posting in.

anyone wanna explain this?

reply posted on 3-6-2008 @ 04:33 PM by worldwatcher

I'm confused

in a 2012 book I read, I think it's called Apocalypse, the author whom I can't remember at the moment sited material that said that "Planet X is 18% larger than Pluto" and that it was discovered in 1989 I believe.. I have to go look for the book.. So which is it??

reply posted on 4-6-2008 @ 07:26 PM by Anonymous ATS

reply to post by nsk123

Good job there is too many people out there like me that get shook up and if any threat out there was true? what could we really do to stop it. One question thou?

In order for planet x to pass us by and the other planets, wouldn't we have to be staying in our own orbital space around the sun? What I mean is even thou earth and the other planets orbit the Sun. At the same time isn't the Sun and the planets around her moving threw space as we orbit her?

reply posted on 7-6-2008 @ 07:00 AM by VIKINGANT

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here? Yes the sun is moving through space and the planets are moving with it. Our soler system is orbiting the milky way as with other solar systems. Some even say we are not only moving 'around' the milky way but heading up (or down if you prefer) throught the horizntal as well.

My confusion is how does this apply to PX? Maybe it was ther but since its orbit is so elongated maybe we left it behind some time ago? Now if everyone else would leave it behind we could all be happy.

reply posted on 2-7-2008 @ 08:44 PM by thefascinatedmusician

damnit!!!, i wish nibiru was real, i was looking forward to a good riot lol,
thanks for clearing this up for me guys, i've only stumbled on this theory about a week ago and i was hooked ever since, now i can focus on more serious issues
peace

reply posted on 17-2-2009 @ 04:58 AM by ignorant_ape

i have to ask - but what EXACTLY is " the current model of nibiru " ? because all i see is an illogical gaggle of often contradictory claims from various people using various sources

and to be blunt few are even internally consisant - never mind mutually exclusive

reply posted on 18-5-2009 @ 06:11 PM by zorgon

Originally posted by worldwatcher
I'm confused in a 2012 book I read, I think it's called Apocalypse, the author whom I can't remember at the moment sited material that said that "Planet X is 18% larger than Pluto" and that it was discovered in 1989 I believe.. I have to go look for the book.. So which is it??

That "Planet X" would be Eris with moon Dysnomia, formerly called Xena with moon Gabrielle and before that designated as 2003 UB313 first discovered in 2003 but not confirmed till 2005

The problem most people have is confusing the term "Planet X" with "Nibiru" They are not the same though have become so in internet chatter.

Percival Lowell first sought Planet X as there was missing influence in the planetary orbits so there must be a 10th planet...

Eris is slightly larger than Pluto and was what cause Pluto being bumped to Dwarf Planet status.

We also have Ceres (in the asteroid belt) and several other planets (or dwarf planets) recently discovered in the Kuiper belt..

Here is Eris's orbit and size comparison. As you can see this is a very long elliptical orbit

Here are some of the others

Now everyone is picking on Sitchin, but I have to ask where everyone is getting this 2012 Nibiru thing from...

Nibiru settled into a clockwise orbit (equal to 3,600 orbits of Earth
around the Sun). Nibiru stabilized into a clockwise orbit, equal to
3,600 orbits of Earth around the Sun until 10, 900 B.C.E., when
Nibiru arrived earlier, due to increasing drift from Solaris of
Uranus. Uranus' gravity sped Nibiru's orbit. As a result of this
close encounter between Nibiru and Uranus, one of Nibiru's moons,
Miranda, was captured by and became a moon of Uranus as Nibiru and
Uranus pulled at each other. From 10,000B.C.E. on, Nibiru's
revolution sped to 3.450 Earth years; which makes Nibiru's next
return 2900A.D. rather than 2012 as predicated on the earlier 3600-
year orbit [Sitchin, Z., 2007, The End of Days, pages 315 - 317].

2900 AD not 2012

Thats a long time away... so why worry?

It would really help if people actually read the work they try so hard to debunk

reply posted on 25-2-2011 @ 11:22 AM by Cheerup

reply to post by Agent Venom

Good post bu you do need to do your math again. You have mistake in the calculation of F. It should be 1.1952*10^24 N , not 1.1952*10^44 N/s. Huge difference(btw force is defined in Newtons, not in Newtons per sec)

Did calc. on escape velocity as well.If you consider new walue of 1.1952*10^4 N as new value of M then you have result of Ve = 46.1km per sec. Which is more than enough for Jupiter size body to escape Suns gravity at 0.5 AU.

reply posted on 25-2-2011 @ 02:13 PM by zorgon

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
i have to ask - but what EXACTLY is " the current model of nibiru " ?

Well according to the Zeta's THIS is the current orbit model of Nibiru

But NASA now calls it NEMISIS

reply posted on 21-4-2011 @ 09:54 AM by asjemenouja

reply to post by Agent Venom

Hello agent venom,

At first I was quite convinced by this theory but I felt something was wrong and I found out what.
You made quite some critical errors in the formula’s.

First, you don’t need the gravitational pull at all for calculating the escape velocity.
For M you have to fill in the mass of the planet that is orbited, in this case the sun.
The mass of the orbiting planet or satellite, in this case nibiru is not implied.
You also filled in km’s instead of meters.

Check Wikipedia and you’ll see that the mass of the orbiting satellite or planet doesn’t have to be filled in and why.
en.wikipedia.org...

you made mistakes though in the first formula, big ones, I’m sorry.

For gravitational pull you used km’s instead of meters.
If you fill in meters, this gives F=1,1202 X E25 N (not N/s)

If I recalculate the outcome of your first formula it gives F=1,1202 X E31 N
Now idea how you achieved the …E44 value.
F = G x Msun x Mnibiru / r^2
F = 6.67 x 10^-11 x 1.9891 x 10^30 x 1.8986 x 10^27 / (150,000,000 x 1000)^2 = F=1,1202 X E25 N

Now the escape velocity:

V = (2 x G x Msun / r)^0,5
V = (2 x 6.67*10^-11 x 1.9891 x 10^30 /( 150,000,000 x 1000))^0,5 = 13304,5 m/s.
Making km/u out this: 13304 x 3,6 = 47896 km/u.
Per day this is 47896 x 24h = 1,149,512 km

This is quite reasonable.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^