It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Best 2012 theory based on science yet.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 03:27 PM
Hey come on now guys.

Can't we all just... get along?

I was really interested in this thread until I started seeing names being thrown around.

The way you guys go throwing accusations of 'ignorance' around makes me feel like the inquisition has you on trial here and both sides are calling each other 'heretic' and 'blasphemers' to avoid the punishment.

To 2012 researchers: Be as courteous as possible, so as to bring more constructive discussion to the field. If every 2012 researcher was humble and nice, then how does that make hasty debunkers look? Like asses.

To 2012 debunkers: Be as courteous as possible, so as to bring more constructive discussion to the field. If every 2012 debunker was humble and nice, then how does that make die-hard bandwagon 2012 'researchers' look? well, possibly a little embarassed...

Those are the extremes...but you get the point. I am sure you all know this in the back of your minds anyways. For some reason I just felt like typing it up. Had ambition for posts lately.

To get to the truth of this 2012 mess it will take cooperation and discussion. This will only happen with courtesy from both sides. If something is going to happen, well we better figure it out and work together, huh? And if something isn't going to happen, well then great haha.

Kind of an akward post now that I am looking back, but it's typed now...

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by Resinveins

You don't get it, you say you are being attacked for disagreeing. but you disagree with people in a nasty way, name calling, and calling what you disagree with as silly and laughable. It is one thing to disagree and to say so but you do it in a way that puts other people's opinion down. Mature thoughtful adults do not handle situations that way. I admit to loosing my cool over your approach for there is just so much of that here at ATS. A whole lot of opinions and few facts come from so many that at times it is a pain wading through the BS to get to those with real understanding, experience, and knowledge that some bring to the table. Look how much space your presence has taken up in this thread, wasted space. Frankly, this old man thinks Nassim Haramein is brilliant and his theories are exciting. His latest paper up for peer review is co-written by two other Physicist. If what they were presenting was laughable, it wouldn't even be in the process of peer review. Sure they are theories and as yet to be proved, but they are beautifully put together theories and they do have supporting data for much of it. We are all free to have our own opinions But for someone to call our appreciation of Haramein's theories or our appreciation of this story by Dan Edenand as "laughable" is not only disrespectful, it is rude and immature. I've said my piece, lets get back to the subject at hand.

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 06:56 PM
reply to post by Pappie54

Oh you mean I shouldn't be insulting like you and Inthefelt.. .I see... hypocrite much?

But whatever dude.. you espouse the goofball theories of a man who is generally scoffed at by mainstream science... a man with no real credentials... and little in the way of common sense as far as I can see... my advice to you is get used to people disagreeing with you.. and learn to take it better.

You asked someone else in this thread (in a very disagreeable and uncalled for way in my opinion)" who the hell he was to be taken seriously".

I'd ask you the same question.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by Pappie54

You express your opinion

That I find the article you posted untrustworthy upon initial glance is opinion. More like speculation really, a guess - but an educated one based on the type of language used, the mentioning of Mayans and 2012 (when in fact, if the data actually supported the proposition, then the Mayan connection would be pointless or a side note. The data would speak for itself, and wouldn't need "appeals to authority" or the corroboration "of magic". Either divined through "spirits" or Astronomy.

Further, the links on the page are to other stories or sites exploring other well known pseudoscience. This indicates to me that the site author more concerned with maintaining an illusion, than facing reality. Falsus in Uno, Falsus in omnibus. It indicates to me that the author actively seeks out crackpot theories and promotes them as "alternatives" without full and due time given to fact checking.

However, the Earth being roughly 30 parsecs from the Galactic Central Plane and will not intersect it on 2012 is NOT opinion, and I did post a link to a peer-review paper supporting such. A poster below suggested I google the term, and sure enough, the top five links (one of which was the paper I linked to) supported my claim. Even at the most conservative estimate of only 5 parsec from GCP puts us too far away for a 2012 deadline. Unless you suggest that the Earth is traveling through the Galaxy faster than the speed of light.

As for my statements concerning mass extinction, I thought those were common knowledge. It's taught in high school biology and science classes in most industrialized nations. The suggestion that I did not fully read the article is accurate, however. If the very lynchpin the supposition relies upon is false - then doesn't it follow that the rest of the theory will be false? This isn't like a typo or a small error within tolerances that can be corrected and revised.

Further, there is absolutely no demonstrable evidence I could find that suggest that our Galactic Center emitted Gamma Ray Bursts along it's equator. While the center of the galaxy certainly is more rich in Gamma Ray activity than, say, the outer spiral arms, this isn't the same as GRBs. It's caused by positrons colliding with electrons - and each occurrence only emits a few Gamma Rays. ... and they certainly aren't focused or directed.

Now. While it has been proposed that a GRB may have initiated the Late Ordovician extinction, it's admitted by the authors of the paper that it's only a "working hypothesis". Meaning, they don't have any evidence to positively support such a claim - but that it fits circumstantial evidence and isn't outright falsified by what evidence we do have.

Such a mechanism certainly hasn't been seriously proposed as a cause for the cycle of extinction on a regular basis, at least, not outside of the realm of workable hypothesis even less tenuously clinging to circumstantial evidence than the proposed O-S burst.

So really, that response wasn't in regard to what I'd read in the article you posted - but to your reaction to that article. Note that I quoted YOUR OWN words.

then this is an event that unless your a chosen one for some underground complex that exist, your fried.

Again. The fossil record supports no such event ever happening. If the GRB is powerful enough to "fry" an unsheltered human - it will kill pretty much everything. The fossil record does not support such a claim in ANY way.

Yet you also admonish me for thinking that such a GRB strike was "insta-fry" of all life rather than a stress or a shock leading to the extinction. Your own interpretation suggests that either the author is misunderstanding the data, the data and article are faulty, or that you are speculating impossibilities because YOUR not understanding what the article actually claims.

I'm prone to believe it's a combination of all three factors to varying degrees. In any case, i posit: If the article or data is bunk - why admonish me for not reading it. If it's correct (it's not), then why admonish me for not reading it when YOU didn't even read - or fully understand it.

reply to post by OnTheFelt

You are obviously so "left brain" programmed that you shamefully dismiss all things and notions to the right because it does not fit into your deeply embedded ideologies.

Programmed? Perhaps you missed the memo, but the blank slate has been scrapped. Evolutionary Psychology and the Cognitive revolution has drastically changed our understanding of Psychology and studies of human behavior. I don't think your concept of "programming" fits with today's current understanding of how the brain works.

Even suppose I was, though, Left brainers are traditionally known for being objective, reasonable, analytical, logical, etc. Those are traits that I cherish, and they are the best tools for deciphering and understanding reality. As evident by the proven track record of science. Right brainers (which I assume you're referring to yourself, or in greater proportion, in comparison to me) on the other hand are said to be more intuitive, random, favor holistic synthesize, and subjective. This might be good for artists, storytellers, entertainers, and political pundits - but they don't have a very good track record of discovery comparatively.

It's the difference between deductive and inductive logic. Deductive logic looks at the big picture (right brain) and assumes certain pre-set truths and axioms to explain reality. Inductive logic looks at the components of a system (left brain) and figures out what they are, what causes them, how they interact - and then build those small pieces of knowledge together like assembling a puzzle.

This is why science didn't really take off until Galileo adopted the scientific method outlined by the Persians and shrugged off Aristotle's Deductive Axioms.

So to call me left-brained, I find a great compliment.

For a biologist, whom you claim to be

I never said I was a biologist. Never even hinted at it. I merely said that I'm more knowledgeable in biology than I am in astronomy and astrophysics. In fact, to quote, I merely said;

Maybe I'll take a crack at debunking if someone else doesn't. Biology is more my realm anyhow.

I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that I was a biologist from that. Is your right brain just going off it's intuition and subjectively speculating on what I said, or do you mean to infer that unless you're an active researcher or expert on the matter - you have no business knowing about it?

Most likely the former, I think, but the latter may betray a glimmer of truth on how you perceptual the world - even if you may not consciously believe it.

I refer you to an amazing astro-physicist named, Nassim Haramein.

The same Nassim Haramein who suggested that a comet twice the size of Jupiter passed through our solar system completely unnoticed? lol. You're going to try to combat my critique of pseudoscience with even MORE OUTRAGEOUS pseudoscience?

... yeah... that'll work.

The video I was going to link to was removed due to TOS violations, but I found an ATS thread with the defunct video link, claim, and posters talking about Mr. Haramein.

First off, any comet twice the size of Jupiter passing through our Solar system would completely bork the orbits of the planets. Even small perturbations at the time he made the claim, by now would be extremely noticeable... if not had dire effects for Earth's climate. Secondly, any comet twice the size of Jupiter would NOT BE A COMET. It'd be a PLANET. It wouldn't even have the customary cometary tail as the gravity well of such a massive object would trap it close to the surface and turn it into ATMOSPHERE. Regardless of the IAU's new definition of what constitutes a planet - on an object that large it wouldn't matter so long as it orbited the sun.

Further... if such an object was a part of our solarsystem, and it's orbit extremely elliptical - even beyond that of Sedena's (roughly 12,000 year orbit), I have to ask, WHY do we still have the Oort cloud? Something that large would have cleared a significant (if not all) amount of it away. At the VERY least we'd notice the planet's tracks where it cut through the debris.

Lastly, even supposing some silly impossible conspiracy of science to keep it under wraps - how the hell did it hide from the thousands upon thousands of amateur astronomers who DO have some pretty impressive telescopes. An object in our solar system twice the size of Jupiter would have lit the internet of fire with postings. But apparently, these amateur astronomers can help discover and catalog new objects in space, NEOs, PHA's, and even be the first to spot an earth-sized impact scar on Jupiter... but fail to see an object twice as big as Jupiter?

If THAT dude is your idea of the truth, then I seriously wonder just what the hell it was that sent you off the deep end.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:43 PM
reply to post by Pappie54

Nassim Haramein may be correct, he has published his work for peer review.

Now who's shooting from the hip.

Link it. And I want them to be actual Peer-Review Journals, not those bogus journals like the Discovery Institute had set up to give the illusion of legitimate research being published to the academic arena. And I want them to be in line with his spectacular and outrageous claims. I don't want to see something like the slight orbital variance of Europa slowing by .0005ms/yr due it's slight perturbation by the Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact. I want to see the peer-review literature where he claims a comet twice the size of Jupiter passed us by completely unnoticed.

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by Lasheic]

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:20 PM
What happened here, somebody blew a front tire and we are so far of the read.....

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:26 PM
reply to post by Lasheic

Well that was a response that I can respect! When you call something "laughable" when others feel it has merit, then you are calling them laughable for believing it. It is like calling someone stupid. With this reply, you lay out your case with merit and without being personal or putting others opinion down.
All these guys theories cannot be proven yet but they are routed in truth, and as for the large object that was photographed by NASA entering the sun, it happened, and the video exist. Make of it want you will but you in effect call him dishonest in putting together his theories, and that is a little over the line. You have not proved him wrong, you only show he could be wrong which of course is true with most of these leading edge theories, that is why they call them theories. What is a laughable idea in one century or one decade, can be fact and correct in another.

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 07:40 PM

If you have not watched Haramein's full 4 hour video, this is part two and if you go to 1:36 in the video, you see the object that enters the sun and it does not have a tail like a comet. I assume this is what you were talking about.

I found viewing the full 4 hours was the way to find out where this guy is coming from and he lays it out in a progression that makes sense. Of course there is much speculation but it is a beautiful, well thought out theory in my view.

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:16 AM
reply to post by Pappie54

I'll watch the video after while and respond with my thoughts. The audio on this PC is disabled, and I don't have my laptop on me.

Of course there is much speculation but it is a beautiful, well thought out theory in my view.

The great tragedy of Science; The slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. ~ Thomas H. Huxley.

In a way I sympathize, because I've long been an admirer of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. I think it makes a lot of sense, can explain certain unique features of bodies, and isn't really that far fetched. I have a strong intuition that at some point in the future, the AAH will be vindicated - at least in part.

I can't accept it though.

The evidence, while compelling, is largely just circumstantial "just-so" evidence which doesn't truly make the case. Most all of the unique adaptations we acquired according to the AAH are perfectly well (or better) explained by the Savannah theory. We share similar morphological traits with other African animals who we now know had semi-aquatic ancestors (such as the Elephant and Rhino) - but these traits are not diagnostic to aquatic and semi-aquatic creatures. Elephants, Whales, and Humans lost their hair... but what of Sea Otters and Sea Lions? It's just too flimsy, makes too many unsubstantiated speculations, confuses correlation with causation, and in the end - the preponderance of evidence is still in favor of Savannah Theory.

No matter how much I prefer AAH over ST, I am compelled to follow the evidence to it's inevitable conclusion. Even if it means rejecting a beautiful hypothesis I really admire.

that is why they call them theories.

Also, no... that's not quite correct. The word theory has different definitions depending upon the circumstances of it's use. The scientific and colloquial definitions of "Theory" are not synonymous. The common use of the word theory is more equivalent to "Hypothesis" in science. In science, Theories are structured and analytical explanations for a collection of empirical observations. It is the highest status a hypothesis can achieve. However, science can never prove anything. Once something is proven, it's unfalsifiable. If it's unfalsifiable, it's not science. Science deals in varying degrees of probability based on empirical evidence, reproducibility, etc.

So I could never "prove" that a super-Jupiter sized planet didn't pass through unnoticed. However, based on the apparent lack of evidence we should expect to see from such an event, I'd say the weight of evidence is STRONGLY in favor of it's non-existence. I mean, consider that we have discovered 90377 Sedna, a dwarf planet/TNO which has an orbit so elliptical that it takes about 12,000 years to go around the sun at 1km/s mean orbital velocity. It's total size is only about 1,400km in diameter. Jupiter is over 100 times as large as Sedna, sizing in at about 143,000km equatorial diameter. That means that if this object which passed us really existed, it would be over 200 times the size of Sedna.

If this thing came anywhere near even the OUTER Solar system - it would have been detected. Period.

For a visual representation of Sedna's orbit, check this site.

Adding to this, you have to consider that if this thing was a "comet", in that it was composed of the same materials that comets are, it would contain substantial quantities of frozen water. (Comets are generally referred to as "dirty snowballs") Even if there was no tail to it due to gravitational forces - the frozen water would have given it a very high Albedo compared to Sedna and Jupiter which do not have substantial frozen water deposits. Albedo is a measure of how reflective an object is... and water, especially frozen water, is extremely reflective.

Essentially, this thing wouldn't just be like not noticing a 600lb gorilla in the room. It'd be like not noticing a 600lb Gorilla aiming a spotlight on you. And a very slow Gorilla at that. If this thing is in orbit around our sun, such as Sedna, then even at it's perigee when slinging around the Sun it would be extremely slow moving. Objects with highly elliptical orbits cannot have high orbital velocities. In fact... the further you move out away from the sun, the slower you generally tend to have to go depending on your mass and momentum. Too high of an orbital velocity, and the Sun's gravity well simply wouldn't be able to retain it at the apogee of it's orbit.

Brief overview of orbital velocity and a graph charting the orbital velocities of the planets. Note that Sedna has an orbital velocity of only about 1km/s.

So. Where is it now?

[edit on 13-8-2009 by Lasheic]

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:50 AM
reply to post by Pappie54

The Milankovitch Cycles are Well Known. Worry more about Cosmic Radiation and a Weakened EMF, along with the Earth Activity that goes with that, Volcanoes, EarthQuakes. You know the Stuff your Seeing now. That is all... No Giant Solar Flare, No Total Wipe Out. We have been through this Before and will be able to do it again. Geez.
There has not been a Physical Pole Shift for 800,000,000 Years BTW.
There is a perturbation of the Earth's Geomagnetic Field every 25,625 years with a Complete Magnetic Pole Reversal every 230,000 Years or so. We are over do.

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:11 PM
Now we're cookin with gas! I have come to approach these ideas and theories with a view that what one man's fact is in this decade may be a fairy tale in a future decade. I'm 60 years old and have seen enough ideas that were accepted as fact in my younger days that were later disproved and new "facts" come to replace them. This is why I look at it with a skeptical mind, even the fact of evolution. All things evolve but that does mean there could not have been intervention by higher powers or other entities. Wild thoughts for sure but .......

This idea that we are or are not in the galactic plane is a question for we see so many say yes and others say no. You can't even put 100% faith in the different scientific ways of deciding our position. We've seen to many fact based ideas evolve and change over time so what we feel is a proven fact today may well be discovered to be wrong in the future. So for me, I look for what "feels" probable, what picks up issues that other ideas or theories do not include. Then I just set back and see what the future unveils to us.

May I also say that you have brought good material and thoughts now that you put your mind and research into laying out your case. It is thoughtful and enlightened and I don't consider it laughable in the least. Good work!

posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 11:37 AM

Originally posted by spy66
I also think i found a different fault in his theory about center of gravity.

He tried to explain to us how we will find center of gravity by using a ruler/stick.

But that is not how it would work between to bodies in space.

Because if you take a stick in our atmosphere and you stand on the ground holding it 1.5 m above ground. The stick will be attracted to the ground first of all. Because of the atmosphere between the stick and the ground.
And for the stick not falling to one of the sides you would have to hold your finger in the middle. But if you let go the stick will fall no matter what.

But would that happen if you did the same thing in space close to a vacuum? No it wouldn't.

Two bodies in space are not even connected to each other like each end of solid stick is. Space is like a pool of water. Not a blanket in mid air.

There are only three ways two bodies in space would attract and that is by their orbit, magnetic force or by the atmospheric pressure between them.
Where the body that gives of most energy or atmosphere would attract the other body.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

The the solar system moves about the common center of mass. The sun contains 99% of the mass the solar system so the center of mass for system is near the center of the sun. The atmosphere has nothing to do with the interaction of two or bodies/masses. Space is not like a pool of water. Water is a physical medium like air. Space is a vaccum; this is why sound travels in air and water (but at a different speed) but not in space (which is a vaccum). There is no atmosphere in space. Gravity is not dependent upon a medium; it is a force. Also, Gravitational force is not the same as the maganetic (electro-magnetic) force.

Here is the link to a website (from Georgia State Univeristy) that gives a good and brief explanation of the center of mass. This site also covers various topics in physics.

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 03:58 AM
I have given my oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. I intend to fulfill that oath.. 2012.. as most people I laughed it off as only another possible y2k scare...even the planetary alignment scare.. Well.. Sumerians wrote of Nibiru... Mayan ... the Red star and the 7 mountains.. The Kolbrin Bible the Rosetta Stone of Planet X!" . These prescient accounts of the Egyptian and Celtic authors clearly describe a brown dwarf. Well is it really out there....Where is the evidence..

By Thomas O'Toole, Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 30, 1983 ; Page A1
Possibly as Large as Jupiter;
Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered
The correct figure is 50 billion miles. It also might be a Jupiter-like star that started out to become a star eons ago but never got hot enough like the sun to become a star. which is so cold it casts no light so close to the sun it would be part of the solar system....there was some speculation that it might be moving toward Earth Cal Tech's Neugebauer said. "I want to douse that idea with as much cold water as I can." ...."All I can tell you is that we don't know what it is," Dr. Gerry Neugebauer, IRAS chief scientist for California's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and director of the Palomar Observatory for the California Institute of Technology, said in an interview.


The New York Times
Sunday, January 30, 1983
Clues Get Warm in the Search for Planet X
John Noble Wilford
Something out there beyond the farthest reaches of the known solar system seems to be tugging at Uranus and Neptune. Some gravitational force keeps perturbing the two giant planets, causing irregularities in their orbits. The force suggests a presence far away and unseen, a large object that may be the long-sought Planet X.
Evidence assembled in recent years has led several groups of astronomers to renew the search for the 10th planet. They are devoting more time to visual observations with the 200-inch telescope at Mount Palomar in California. They are tracking two Pioneer spacecraft, now approaching the orbit of distant Pluto, to see if variations in their trajectories provide clues to the source of the mysterious force. And they are hoping that a satellite-borne telescope launched last week will detect heat “signatures” from the planet, or whatever it is out there. The Infrared Astronomical Satellite was boosted into a 560-mile-high polar orbit Tuesday night from Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. It represents an $80-million venture by the United States, Britain and the Netherlands. In the next six or seven months, the telescope is expected to conduct a wide-ranging survey of nearly all the sky, detecting sources not of ordinary light, but of infrared radiation, which is invisible to the human eye and largely absorbed by the atmosphere. Scientists thus hope that the new telescope will chart thousands or infrared-emitting objects that have gone undetected – stars, interstellar clouds, asteroids and, with any luck, the object that pulls at Uranus and Neptune.

John P. Bagby has now introduced a new piece to the puzzle of solar-system cyclic behavior. While searching for possible perturbations of the planets due to a tenth major planet or a dark massive solar companion (MSC), he discovered that the perihelia of the outer planets (orbital points closest to the sun) were being disturbed with an average period of 11.2 years. This is almost exactly the sunspot period of about 11 years ( or half the period of solar magnetic field reversals of about 22 years). He suggests two possibilities:
(1) Mutual resonance effects between the planets
(2) The effects of a massive solar companion.
...If this Dwarf Star is coming .. reports on the net say it will be as close as Mars in June 2012 .. and will be south of the sun .. moving toward north as it finishes its orbit in December 21 2012 .. to then again continue it’s roughly 4970 year orbit around the sun... its gravitational force could reach as far as Jupiter.. and when it is as close as Mars or possibly In 2011 we will see it and know it is there. Would make since it being a star would also align with the galactic center of the galaxy. The Chandler wobble is a small motion in the Earth's axis of rotation coincided with the galactic alignment with the galaxy roughly every 26 thousand years. Our Solar System orbit’s the black hole of our galaxy roughly every 26000 years as well ends in 2012. The Dark Plane a line running more or less through the center of the Milky Way Galaxy the Densest Portion of the spiral arm. Our solar system moves through this region periodically over a great time span. This region is heavily packed with stars, especially those that go supernova, Type II. Type I Supernova are observed in all galaxies. But type II are limited to the very "dense or star-packed regions of the arms of the spiral galaxies, such as our Milky Way. Because type II supernovae are so violently explosive, they present a grave and severe threat to every star system close to them. This motion has brought us into one of the most dangerous supernova-producing regions of our entire galaxy." We are now approaching this area. The gravitation field of the Galactic Plane can cause solar-like winds to behave like steering currents on comets and other objects . The Earth has been pounded in the past, The very sparse, hot gas of the Local Bubble is the result of supernovae that exploded within the past two to four million years Thirty-four thousand years ago (34,000), the second part of a supernova explosion, the shock wave portion, hit the earth. The first shock wave comparatively did not disturb the Earth– It was rather unnoticed. Nothing happened, such that the inhabitants of the Earth would have become alarmed. Nothing heavy plummeted to the planet. They may have noticed a large array of ‘shooting' stars coming into the high, rarefied air. This cosmic castoff from the supernova with cosmic substances in the cosmos were pushed onto Earth. Evidence of remains of dust left behind from event was picked up 1992 by Eleusis space craft interstellar origin Micro meteorites coming from outside solar system They were caused by ions and small particles, all heavily laced with near to microscopic iron. Signs of evidence inside ice sheets over 35 thousand to 72 thousand years old Zodiacal belt shows Evidence of remains of dust left behind from event These toxic radioactive particles would later cause havoc. Man, animals, and plants suffered with radiation sickness. Mutations occurred. Tests of archeological finds show that man then had one blood type: O, some 100,000 to 40,000 years hence. After the supernova influence, humans started showing up with blood types A and B; and O continue to express itself also. Blood types A or B did not exist thousands of years ago. According to some scientists, if we possess those blood types, we are "blood brothers/sisters" to a supernova in the not too distant past. God moves in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform. . Some have even claimed to find evidence of periodic mass extinctions that might be explained by a single (as-yet-unidentified) star in an elliptical orbit around the sun. A diagram appeared in the 1987 edition of the "New Science and Invention Encyclopedia", published by H.S. Stuttman, Westport, Connecticut, USA. The article was discussing the purpose of the Pioneer 10 & 11 space probes. Clearly shown is "Nemesis", a popular name for our sun's binary companion, a dead star. (Binary solar systems are apparently the rule in our galaxy, not the exception.) The solar system may not be a nice round shape, but rather a bit squashed and oblong, according to data from the Voyager 2 spacecraft exploring the solar system's outer limits, scientists said. Walter Cruttenden of the Binary Research Institute is that local gases are fairly uniform and the shape derives from the trajectory of the solar system through local space -- possibly in its orbit around a companion star. This binary companion would cause the sun's orbit to curve, and would explain the Precession of the Equinox by the way in which the Earth's rotation was affected by not one, but two stars. Yes, that’s right, if the data is correct our solar system is curving through space (carrying the earth and spacecraft with it of course) so rapidly that the only way to explain it is if our sun is gravitationally bound to another nearby star. Every Myth .. has a hidden truth behind it....It was recently reported by NewScientist that Gravity Probe B received an “F” from the U.S. Government and the project would receive no more funding. But after netting out the spacecraft and earth orbit motions the remaining signal was far larger than anyone expected. In fact, it is so large it either means there is some unforeseen problem with the gyros or that our sun is part of a binary star system. The Rich like Bill Gates .. seems to believe there is something to worry about when it comes to.. his building of the Dooms Day Seed Vault “ Norway's ark-Doomsday CNN- 2012 Planet X ?”
The biggest problem is life is full of surprises like the Web Bot Project computer oracle program predicts a major event in 2012. As you read this, several planets are experiencing global warming. Saturn, for instance, has changed 30 percent. If this had occurred on the Earth, all life as we know it would be gone.
Seems allot is to unfold in the next few years for mankind...the Spiritual enlightenment to come is to begin at the end of 2011... in the Maya Calendar very good subject...DNA activation .. All these events are to take place in the coming years seems to be all connected in some way... .. "COME and SEE"

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:27 AM
I have to say that I didn't find the article very credible.

He says he simplified it to the point where some would be able to quibble, and I'd have to agree.

He doesn't really explain why the barycentres manifest their affects in a cylindrical form, for a start: but for me the real weakness is the precision of the solar system of the galaxy precisely on December 21, 2012. How the devil can you say that with such precision? And I find it hard to believe that the effect can be so spectacularly different on the sun.

Think seriously about what would be required to calculate the plane of the exact centre of mass of the entire galaxy (and the exact date of our intersection with it) and you will see a real problem with this theory.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in