Former supervising astronomer of US Naval Observatory on Planet X [Video], page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 17-11-2008 @ 11:09 AM by v01i0
reply to post by ngchunter


Thank you for the update. I guess you took that Nibiru as an issue because of Sitchin in that video? Yes, he was talking about planet X, not Nibiru. I think it is now settled enough even though the title of this thread already suggested it.

Anyways, gotta take a look on that research you linked. It seems interesting! Personally haven't heard about it before but it sure is from sound source Thank you for pointing it out! Anyway, how much can one tell about planets by mere optical analysis? Well, I am no expert, but I'd say it would take more than a close look to tell whether some distant gravitional force is affecting them?

Sincerely,

-v

[edit on 17-11-2008 by v01i0]



reply posted on 17-11-2008 @ 12:27 PM by ngchunter
Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by ngchunter


Thank you for the update. I guess you took that Nibiru as an issue because of Sitchin in that video? Yes, he was talking about planet X, not Nibiru. I think it is now settled enough even though the title of this thread already suggested it.

My apologies, I can't view youtube videos at the moment, had to go on what others were saying about the video.

Anyway, how much can one tell about planets by mere optical analysis? Well, I am no expert, but I'd say it would take more than a close look to tell whether some distant gravitional force is affecting them?

You can tell a lot by optical analysis. You can measure the position of the planet down to the arcsecond in the sky, and with that information you can determine the orbit of the planet directly. By looking at the motions of the moons of a planet you can also determine the planet's mass to a fair amount of accuracy (the faster the moons orbit their parent the more massive the parent must be). The problem was that plugging in the numbers for the planets' mass and distance from the sun left a very tiny discrepancy between the expected orbit of Uranus and the true orbit. The reason was that we had the mass for neptune a tiny bit wrong until about 15 years ago. Notice in this picture how large the moon Triton looks compared to Neptune; this is because Neptune is so far away, it's almost right at the resolution limit of most of our telescopes. Triton is basically a point light source, and Neptune is nearly so (only about two and a half acrseconds across, that's tiny!)
www.ipac.caltech.edu...
Therefore, our ability to measure triton's orbit with extreme accuracy was limited. The better our numbers, the better we can predict what we'll see in the telescope. Until Voyager made a flyby, our ability to measure Neptune's mass was the limiting factor in predicting the correct orbit of uranus. As you can see in this paper, it was as recently as 1988 that we were trying to nail down the exact mass for Neptune by looking at distant triton:
adsabs.harvard.edu...

[edit on 17-11-2008 by ngchunter]
Pages:     ^^TOP^^