NASA searches for Ancient Planet near Earth!

NASA probes are nearing a mysteries part of space in search of the theoritic planet "Theia". The probes are twins known as STEREO, they will be looking for the remains of Theia, which has been theorized by Edward Belbruno and Richard Gott of Princeton. The theory has a Mars sized planet crashing into the Earth and creating the moon.

NASA probes Space for Ancient Planet.

They have set up a web site to view the data and get updates.

Updates

It should be interesting, I am thinking this theory whether proven or not could open a whole can of worms depending what they find. It could prove the theory of Planet X. I know they are supposively looking for this "Theia" planet, but maybe the real mission is looking for planet X?

The timing on this and 2012 maybe just a another coincidence or not?

Here is a early discussion on Theia from a thread in January, 2009.

ATS
Thread on "Theia" theory!

Hopefully we can get some cool pictures and interesting data, it appears this debris is following or leading the earth in its own orbit!

Maybe Planet X is opposite of the earth on the other side of the sun! Maybe we are chasing our own tail?

Originally posted by mel1962
Maybe Planet X is opposite of the earth on the other side of the sun! Maybe we are chasing our own tail?

Nope. Since the Earth's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse, if there was another planet opposite us in the same orbit, we'd see a lot of it every year. I remember a sci-fi movie about that, though. 1969, maybe?

reply to post by mel1962

Did you actually read the article? There is no search for a planet. There is a search for

remains of an ancient planet which once orbited the Sun not far from Earth.

Remains...as in pieces.
They are looking for (among other things) debris from the collision which may have formed the Moon 4.5 billion years ago.

"Planet X" is the name given a hypothetical planet which orbits in the outer regions of the Solar System, no where near Earth's orbit.



[edit on 4/10/2009 by Phage]

I don't think they will have to search long.
I think we and NASA have already found the Mars
sized planet that collided with Earth and its Mars
itself.

Typical of science to look for something that is already
there.

Didn't any one read Velakovski.
He analyzed some of the best observational data on ancient planets
and their activities.

Aren't the remains of this "Theia" the asteroid belt??
2nd.

reply to post by impaired


no, that would be something like "Tiamat" or "Marduk", at least in my opinion. I believe that whatever destroyed that planet may have signaled the demise of Mars (even if it took millenia to play out).

I found this animation from the OP links very interesting to consider:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/97aedb2950f8.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by impaired
Aren't the remains of this "Theia" the asteroid belt??
2nd.

The asteroid belt must have gotten in the way of something.

Here is and interesting presentation.

These old glyphs have added images for effect so seeing is like
being lied to in many cases.

I found it in a search and there is even a 1936 reference to
Flash Gordon. The 1950s had these 1936 movies on all the time.
The movie even had telecommunication.

I'm sure the Tesla system would work that way with 1000s of
secure channels.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


The fact that the asteroid belt has such a well-defined, high concentration of asteroids suggests two things. One, that they are fragments of a planet that broke-up long ago, or two, that they are rocks that never managed to accumulate into a genuine planet. Currently, scientists tend to favor the latter explanation. According to Eric Chaisson and Steve McMillan, the authors of the text book "Astronomy Today", 1993 edition, "There is far too little mass in the belt to constitute a planet, and the marked chemical differences between individual asteroids strongly suggest that the asteroids could not all have originated in a single planet. Instead, astronomers believe that the strong gravitational field of Jupiter continuously disturbs the motions of these chunks of primitive matter, nudging and pulling at them, thereby prohibiting them from aggregating into a planet. The existence and composition of the asteroid belt joins the general properties of the planets and their moons on our list of features that any theory of solar system formation must explain."

This is so ludicrous, I don't know how to express how furious and absolutely amazed I am by their complete and outright lies and excuses for even more lies. Yes, the search for another planet, perhaps Tiamat, the one that lies in ruins, the one its rumored earth may have come from, is an interesting thought. But to tie in the moon to this in any way. They knew more about the moon based on many observations and telescopes, before they even went to it. Ingo Swann's book penetration brought out a lot of interesting facts about the moon.

On page 85-86 of Penetration we find:

Additionally, most sources, such as the Columbia Encyclopedia, regarding Space Exploration indicate that Moon missions produced "increasingly large amounts of scientific data."

Even so, until 1997, official scientific descriptions of the nature of the Moon remained more or less the same as they had been offered up in 1957 some forty-five years earlier.

The moon remained a dead satellite, airless with high mountains, craters and dry, dusty, glassy and stony plains....

The Moon's age was still given as 4.5 billion old, dating from the time when the rest of the solar system was formed.



page 88:
The Moon missions returned some 900 pounds of rock and soil samples. From these a curious factoid was ultimately revealed in 1973: some of the Moon rocks dated back to 5.3 billion years ago.
Thus between Earth and Moon, this factoid leaves an amusing discrepancy of some 2 billion years, with the errant moon rocks existing some 1 billion or so years before the solar system was formed.

Not to mention tons of other intersting information. So, relating this to the moon is definately not why they're searching for this planet. Not in the least.
They're not as uninformed as we are. We're the ones treated as mushroom slaves and kept in the dark and fed BS!

reply to post by mystiq


The BS is from Ingo.
The oldest Moon rocks are aged at 4.46 billion years.

Here is another reference to the information in 1973:
hiddenmysteries.com...

Harvard's respected astronomy journal, Sky and Telescope, reported that at the Lunar Conference of 1973, it was revealed that one moon rock was dated at 5.3 billion years old, which would make it almost a billion years older than our planet. This puzzle was compounded by the fact that the lunar dust in which the rocks were found proved to be a billion years older than the rocks themselves. Chemical analysis showed that the moon rocks were of a completely different composition from the soil around them. Since dusty soil is usually produced by the weathering and breakup of surrounding rocks, the lunar rocks must have come from someplace other than where they were found. But where?...


The moon has at least three distinct layers of rocks. Contrary to the idea that heavier objects sink, the heavier rocks are found on the surface. Stated Don Wilson, "The abundance of refractory elements like titanium in the surface areas is so pronounced that several geo-chemists proposed that refractory compounds were brought to the moon's surface in great quantity in some unknown way. They don't know how, but that it was done cannot be questioned. These rich materials that are usually concentrated in the interior of a world are now on the outside." Ubell, a former science editor for CBS television, acknowledged this mystery, saying, "The first [layer], 20 miles deep, consists of lavalike material similar to lava flows on Earth. The second, extending down to 50 miles, is made up of somewhat denser rock. The third, continuing to a depth of at least 80 miles and probably below, appears to be of a heavy material similar to the Earth's mantle. . . ." Ubell asked, "If the Earth and moon were created at the same time, near each other, why has one body got all the iron and the other [the moon] not much? The differences suggest that Earth and moon came into being far from each other, an idea that stumbles over the inability of astrophysicists to explain how exactly the moon became a satellite of the Earth."

I know information gets buried a lot, but this Lunar Conference in 1973 was reported in Harvard's journal, Sky and Telescope. I'm not going to run with the Wiki facts anymore. They're too much to swallow.

Originally posted by mystiq
Here is another reference to the information in 1973:
hiddenmysteries.com...

Harvard's respected astronomy journal, Sky and Telescope, reported that at the Lunar Conference of 1973,

I know information gets buried a lot, but this Lunar Conference in 1973 was reported in Harvard's journal, Sky and Telescope. I'm not going to run with the Wiki facts anymore. They're too much to swallow.

I don't want to diss a novel called Alien Agenda but for future reference if your going to use a third party reference to support you argument you might want to look up the articles yourself.

The "Fourth Lunar Science Conference" in 1973 can be found here:
www.lpi.usra.edu...

These are the only articles in it that mention the age of the specimens retrieved:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

If you'll read them you'll notice that the oldest sample was dated at somewhere around 4.6 Billion years old.