Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Does 'Planet X' really exist?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   
I found this rather interesting in light of all the nibiru/planet x talk.

www.badastronomy.com...

What do you think?




posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I don't know about this guys reasoning. He's trying to make claim that we should be able to see Nibiru already if it were on a 3600 year orbit... but what if Nibiru is travelling fast enough that it only appears within the solar system for a period of a couple years?

Also, he didn't make any reference to the other ideas, like that Nibiru is actually a large collection of asteroids that are travelling in a 'pack', so to speak.

Also, the Sumerians had depictions of ALL the planets of the solar system, plus Nibiru (which, if I remember correctly, appeared to them to be about the same size as the moon when viewed from earth, and glowed red like a dull red sun).



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Earthscum

Also, the Sumerians had depictions of ALL the planets of the solar system, plus Nibiru (which, if I remember correctly, appeared to them to be about the same size as the moon when viewed from earth, and glowed red like a dull red sun).


The Sumerians wrote that Nibiru is 4x the size of Timanut (earth)



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Right, Illmatic... I was just stating visual reference from the earth, or rather how big it was in the sky (kinda gives you an idea of how freakin close it was!)

What has always gotten to me about Nibiru is that (correct me if I'm even remotly wrong) the sumerians were told of the planets of the solar system supposedly by the inhabitants of Nibiru. If these same inhabitants are what they referred to as their gods (not the same as the god christians worship, but rather higher beings... much like a tribe of people who have no knowledge of technology would view someone who could 'make fore from a stick without burning themselves' or (even better) who could 'fly into the heavens on their flaming chariot') then that would be pretty explanatory as to why we haven't had any gods inhabiting earth in so long. Also, in the depictions of the soalr system, the planets are quite accurate in relative size to eachother! They even had Pluto... really wish I could go back to those times and find out what was REALLY going on.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 02:02 AM
link   
If Nibiru does exist as a planet 4x bigger than Earth and all the legends are true we still wouldn't be able to see it because its orbit would put it between us and the sun right now. The glare of the sun would totaly cover it. We would only be able to see it when its REALLY close.

Illmatic its actually Tiamat and thats not Earth. Tiamat was (supposedly) the planet that is now our asteroid belt, and half of which became Earth (the moon tagged along as well, it was called Kingu).

I wouldn't put too much faith in that Bad Astronomy site when it comes to Planet X if I were you.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Faceless
If Nibiru does exist as a planet 4x bigger than Earth and all the legends are true we still wouldn't be able to see it because its orbit would put it between us and the sun right now. The glare of the sun would totaly cover it. We would only be able to see it when its REALLY close.


so then how do you explain being able to see venus, mercury, and comets when they're near or between us and the sun?



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 04:55 AM
link   
I didn't know you could see them if they were in front of the sun.

The only thing I've ever seen infront of the sun is the moon.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 08:54 AM
link   
In a way, they were almost right...after all, we did just recently confirm another planetoid outside Pluto's orbit... However, it's not quite a planet...(of course, neither is Pluto, but that's a whole other debate....) Technically, it fits the definition more as an Ort Cloud object....only it's proximity makes it definable as a planet...



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Earthscum: How fast do you think such an object would need to be travelling? We can track small objects travelling at relatively high speeds, like meteoroids and satellites, very easily. A *BIG* object like Planet X should be spotted no problem, partly because it should be extremely bright. Look at it like this - the orbit you just described fits a comet *perfectly.* We can track those from a long ways off and they're tiny. A planet should be a piece of cake, in comparison.

As for it being a pack of asteroids, that's actually impossible. If it were a large object, its own gravity would pull those rocks together into a coherent body. If it's not big enough, it would remain a loosely bound cluster of rocks and as soon as it got near one of the gas giants, it would be destroyed. Think Shoemaker-Levy 9.

Faceless: The Sun is bright, but you can still see objects in front of it. I for one plan to be watching Venus pass between us and the Sun on June 8. Check out the latest Sky and Telescope for an explanation of the transit *and* photos of Venus in front of the Sun taken the last time it did this. You can see Mercury and comets do the same thing, from time to time. Keep in mind that all those objects are smaller than the Earth. An object four times the size of the Earth would be way easier to spot.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Cool I didn't know that. But one thing I can't help thinking is that IF Nibiru is real the government ain't gonna want people to know, maybe its a cover up. But now I know that objects infront of the sun can be seen maybe Nibiru isn't real.

Or maybe its somewhere else



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Faceless
Cool I didn't know that. But one thing I can't help thinking is that IF Nibiru is real the government ain't gonna want people to know, maybe its a cover up. But now I know that objects infront of the sun can be seen maybe Nibiru isn't real.

Or maybe its somewhere else


Well think of this, if we can see Sedna, which is much smaller than the earth, we could have seen Nibiru even further out than Sedna. And as soon as it got inside the orbit of Saturn, we would have seen it witht the naked eye.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Everyone knows that the people of nibiru purchased cloaking technology from the klingons. Thats why you can't see the planet.

I also hear there is a giant space turtle that shoots lazers from his eyes hidden by the sun.

I bet niether can be prooved untrue!

Before anyone presents "evidence" of planet X. I'd just like to point out that the same "evidence" proves that the space turtle is REALLY big.

Mixing scientfic data with gross speculation is fun.


jra

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   
You know any one can get a telescope and put a really really dark lens filter on it, so that you can look at the sun. If there was anything between us and the sun we would have seen it.

The only reason why we only just found Sedna was because it's so freakin small. If there were a planet 4x the size of Earth out there we would have seen it long ago i'd imagine.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
You know any one can get a telescope and put a really really dark lens filter on it, so that you can look at the sun. If there was anything between us and the sun we would have seen it.


no... you can't just "put a really really dark lens filter on it," unless you still want to loses your eyes. for solar viewing you should use either a hydrogen-alpha or a white light filter.


jra

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Oh ok. I just thought they used an incredibly dark filter, but either way my point still stands. Anyone can look to the sun with the right equipment and see what is or isn't there.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Oh ok. I just thought they used an incredibly dark filter, but either way my point still stands. Anyone can look to the sun with the right equipment and see what is or isn't there.


correct. i'd just hate to have anyone get the wrong idea and end up burning out there eyes.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Taibak: Actually, a cluster of asteroids isn't impossible, or even improbable. All you need is one large asteroid/meteorite with enough mass to have a significant gravitational effect on smaller ones. I believe they have found small clusters before, but not too sure... been about 2 years since I even researched any of that.

Not really sure how fast it would have to travel, really... just speculating. I believe that Nibiru was in the sky for several generations, if I'm not mistaken. Not really sure.

About filters: you can actually be safe with 2 lenses used for arc or TIG welding stacked, but you need to limit the amount of time you expose your eyes to even the filtered light. If you have a telescope, you can most likely just purchase a sun filter pretty cheap.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Earthscum
Taibak: Actually, a cluster of asteroids isn't impossible, or even improbable. All you need is one large asteroid/meteorite with enough mass to have a significant gravitational effect on smaller ones. I believe they have found small clusters before, but not too sure... been about 2 years since I even researched any of that.


Problem is the larger rock would have to be planet sized to have that much gravity. That takes us back to a big, easy to spot object.

As for the clusters we have seen, the only asteroid I know of that has a satellite is Ida. Its satellite, Dactyl, is only about 1.6 km across - incredibly tiny - and orbits at about 100 km. If Ida were to have more rocks bound to it, they would either be close enough to bounce off each other, which could easily disrupt their orbits, or they'd be far enough to be bound only weakly. Either way, if the cluster were to pass close enough to one of the gas giants, the cluster would be broken up, at least in part, by the planet's *much* larger gravity. Or, consider the possibility that such a loosely bound cluster would have been ripped apart by the Sun's *huge* gravity.

Dactyl aside, the only other clusters of asteroids that I know of are not gravitationally bound to each other. Instead, they're merely herded together by being 'pushed' at regular, repeated intervals by the gravity of a much larger object - Jupiter for the asteroid belt and Neptune for the Kuiper Belt. The gravity of the asteroids/Kuiper Belt objects is negligible.


Not really sure how fast it would have to travel, really... just speculating. I believe that Nibiru was in the sky for several generations, if I'm not mistaken. Not really sure.


In which case, how did the ancient Europeans, Chinese, Russians, Indians, Egyptians, Cambodians, Mesoamericans, South Americans, Amerindians, Australians, and Polynesians miss it? It's more than a little suspiscious that the *only* people who supposedly saw this honkin' bright object were the Sumerians. And even then, that theory rests solely on the work of Zacharia Stichin, whose translation is laughable - at one point he even misses the difference between carbohydrates (bread) and hydrocarbons (kerosene)!


About filters: you can actually be safe with 2 lenses used for arc or TIG welding stacked, but you need to limit the amount of time you expose your eyes to even the filtered light.


A number 16 welding filter will do the trick. If you want to go this route, do *NOT* settle for a lower number - if you do, the filters will not block the infrared light and your eyes will be burnt to a crisp.


If you have a telescope, you can most likely just purchase a sun filter pretty cheap.


Celestron's runs about $60 for a filter designed to fit a 5" Newtonian.

(Edited once to fix a typo)

[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Taibak]



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 08:04 PM
link   
im not really into astronomy but wots stopping this planet x from having the same yearly orbit as us but being on the other side of the sun? so no matter how hard we try to find it , it will always be on the other side



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Just getting back on topic, i recall reading that when pluto was discovered it was not thought to be the planet they where seeking. Due to its size they felt it couldn't be what causes Neptunes orbit to vary as much as it does.

This new planet they discovered sounds like its about the size of Pluto. Maybe the two combined could be the planet they where originally seeking? Sedna and Pluto combined may be the fabled Planet X?






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join