Does 'Planet X' really exist?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmartinez
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


The gravitational affects on the other planets would still be detectable.




posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Faceless

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.


Oh, Tiamat, that's right. Tiamat however indeed is Earth.

I didn't look at that website.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmartinez
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


that would be the planet vulcan, which has been disproved. it was a theory for a long while, but no one was able to find it. also, the Fibonacci numbers don't call for another body there.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67

Originally posted by Faceless

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.


Oh, Tiamat, that's right. Tiamat however indeed is Earth.

I didn't look at that website.


Here is a link to Sitchin: sitchin.com... Tiamat was the original name until the moons of Nibiru slammed into it making the " Hammered Bracelet" and changed the orbit of Tiamat we now call Earth.
Sedna is not Planet X but shows signs of something else having a gravitational pull on it. We found Pluto thru mathematics perhaps Nibiru will found the same way?

Michael



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ark-Angel
Sedna is not Planet X but shows signs of something else having a gravitational pull on it. We found Pluto thru mathematics perhaps Nibiru will found the same way?


Hrm, any links or further information about Sedna showing signs of an external gravitational pull that isn't accounted for? I've heard nothing of that.

As far as Pluto, it was kind of found by Mathematics, but it was more luck than anything else. Uranus was found due to the effects it had on Saturn's orbit. Neptune was found from the effect it had on Uranus' orbit. Then it was calculated that there must be a planet further out due to a wobble in Neptune orbit. Pluto was found, but was a lot smaller than the calculations suggested. But. As more and more observations were made of Neptune's orbit, the calculations called for a smaller and smaller object. In the end it was found that the original calculations were in error, and there was no wobble in Neptune's orbit. But Pluto had already been classified as a Planet. Noone wanted to take the title off it


Pluto was lucky to sneak into the Planet category. While it was found because of a calculation based on Neptune's orbit, the calculation later turned out to be incorrect. We've had a lot more time since then (and a lot higher powered equipment) to continue measurements. If there was anything else nearby of a decent size it would have been noticed.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tensor

Originally posted by madmartinez
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


The gravitational affects on the other planets would still be detectable.


In addition to this, we've now sent probes and things that are/have been capable of peeking into this area of space. It's empty. If we were trying to find it simply by looking from Earth - we wouldn't have been trying hard enough.

Besides, the distance between here and the Sun is pretty big - it doesn't take much of a change of angle out here to alter the view significantly.



posted on Mar, 28 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Kano, you are correct in every respect. I think the interesting thing abour Sedna is that the orbit must have been perterbed by something bigger than what we can account for at the moment. (So I have heard.)

Having not read the entire thread here, maybe that's already been stated.

However, it was either VERY long ago by a passing sun-like object or a rather large, yet undiscovered, very FAR out ice ball. And equally difficult to find due to the distance. I doubt very much it this unknown world would have ANY effect on the innner planets. And it most likely has NEVER ventured this way to be remotely visiable.



posted on Mar, 29 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kano

Originally posted by Ark-Angel
Sedna is not Planet X but shows signs of something else having a gravitational pull on it. We found Pluto thru mathematics perhaps Nibiru will found the same way?


Hrm, any links or further information about Sedna showing signs of an external gravitational pull that isn't accounted for? I've heard nothing of that.



www.earthfiles.com... Linda Moulton Howe website

Updated Palomar Photos - March 15, 2004 - Most Distant "Icy Planetoid" in Our Solar System
Has A Most Baffling Orbit. Click here for report.
"How it got there in such an eccentric orbit that comes as close as 76 astronomical units
to our sun and goes all the way out to nearly 1000 astronomical units away is a complete mystery!
There might still be something else out there causing this object's peculiar orbit."
Brian Marsden, Director, Minor Planet Center,
Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

Enjoy,

Michael



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

that would be the planet vulcan, which has been disproved. it was a theory for a long while, but no one was able to find it. also, the Fibonacci numbers don't call for another body there.


Planet Vulcan theory was not about a planet in the same orbit as Earth, but supposedly a Planet that was observed inside the orbit of Mercury.

The discovery of Neptune made Le Verrier (who calculated where it would be, which lead it's discovery by Johann Galle and Heinrich d'Arrest) world famous, but his next investigation, the search for an intra-Mercurial planet, came to a very different conclusion. Mercury was not moving as it might have been expected to do; could there be an inner planet pulling it out of position? Le Verrier believed so, and his faith in the planet was never shaken. The planet was even given a name: Vulcan, after the blacksmith of the gods. Obviously it would be difficult to see, because it was bound to remain very close to the Sun in the sky. The only chance of glimpsing it would be either to catch it in transit across the Sun's face, or identify it at the time of a total solar eclipse. In 1859 Lescarbault, a French country doctor and amateur astronomer, announced that he had seen the planet in transit; Le Verrier made haste to see him - and accepted the story. Confirmation was lacking, but there was a revival of interest in 1878, when two well-known observers - Swift and Watson - surveyed the neighbourhood of the totally eclipsed Sun and reported finding not one Vulcan, but several.

All in all it is hard to see how a man such as Le Verrier, noted for his 'irritability', could have been convinced by Lescarbault, and later in his life Lescarbault claimed another discovery, that of a bright starlike object which, he said, he had 'never seen until today... I believe I saw it well, and was not the victim of an illusion.' In fact, the good doctor had made a completely independent discovery of Saturn, and this surely shows his lack of elementary knowledge. Other claims of seeing Vulcan were equally dubious; there was for instance the Chevalier D'Angos, who was a complete charlatan and who made a habit of reporting comets which did not exist at all. And in time the motions of Mercury were fully explained by Einstein's theory of relativity.

Vulcan does not exist, and never did; the hunt for it was finally abandoned after the total solar eclipse of 1929.

www.britastro.com...


[Edited on 1-4-2004 by Popeye]



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Of course planet x exists, although it may not be nibiru (I don't know what nibiru is.) There are many small pluto, chiron, triton, and charon size bodies past pluto like in the kuiper belt. I believe 2060 chiron is the largest known comet. 5145 Pholus is a similar body that's orbit stretches from inside saturn's to a ways beyond uranus. There are supposedly many similar object further out.




new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join