We have our Brown Dwarf, interacting with and Bombarding asteroids of Oort against Pluto and Jupiter

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by stereologist

This is not from an encyclopedia. It has been shown to be in error by Chadwickus.

I am sorry but Chadwickus didn't prove anything at all. All he did was to make assumptions based on almost no information at all.

If the distance between all planets and the Sun is increasing by whatever is causing this secular increase in their distance, then whatever is causing this is strong enough to also pull, alongside with the Sun, the Pioneer craft which has been heading in an oposite direction. This added pull is what scientists can't understand. They can account for the pull from the Sun, but not the added pull.


[edit on 7-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Great job! I see Phage has nothing to say thus far You've presented some very compelling evidence.. Thanks for your effort!

Originally posted by discl0sur3
Great job! I see Phage has nothing to say thus far

You've presented some very compelling evidence.. Thanks for your effort!

Thanks. Phage is just going to do what he always does. He will either dissapear, or say something entirely out of context. Phage NEVER admits to being wrong...EVER...

BTW, there is something I want to reiterate. I don't believe the world is going to end in Dec 21st 2012, and not even the first tribe of the Maya to settle in the U.S. say that 2012 is the end of the world. The Dec 21st 2012 date is just showing the beginning of another cycle.

However the Maya/Hopi do say that there is transformation and tribulation on the way, and they state that this tribulation, and unfortunately suffering will be known to start when a Red Star appears in the skies.

The first sign before the appearance of the Red Star would be the Blue star Katchitna/Kachina, which according to their prophecy would shed it's mask in the sky as it has been represented in their dances throughout millenia.

They announced that this Blue Star was Comet Holmes, which suddenly exploded in October 2007, brightened by more than half a million times than it originally was and it's exterior expanded to be larger than the Sun. It became the largest object in the Solar System in 2007, being even bigger than the Sun, and it shone blue which could be even seen with the naked eye.

A spectacular explosion caused comet 17P/Holmes to increase in size and brightness on October 24. The comet is now a half a million times brighter than before the eruption began. It continues to expand and is now the largest single object in the Solar system, being bigger than the Sun. The eruption continues at a steady 0.5 km/sec (1100 mph) rate. Holmes is still visible to the naked eye as a fuzzy star anytime after dark, high in the northeast sky. It is faintly visible from cities, and from dark country locations is truly remarkable.

This is an astounding story. When an object suddenly, unexpectedly, appears in our solar system THAT IS BIGGER THAN THE SUN, and can be seen with the naked eye, and is BLUE, it could be one of those heavenly events like the Star of Bethlehem that foretell coming events. I would also call your attention to the seven seals in Revelations (I'll write more about that when I have time.)

home.iae.nl...







BTW, comet Holmes survived, for the most part, the explosion which astounded astronomers, and astrophysicists. But it did what the Hopi/Maya said it would do (which are the same people, or a branch of the same people) the comet shed it's mask as their prophecy specified it would do.

That, according to Hopi/Maya prophecy was the first sign before the tribulation stars with the appereance of the Red Star Katchina/Kachina.

The above link includes the Hopi prophecies.

"The return of the Blue Star (also known as Nan ga sohu Katchina) will be the alarm clock that tells us of the new day and new way of life, a new world that is coming. This is where the changes will begin. They will start as fires that burn within us, and we will burn up with desires and conflict if we do not remember the original teachings, and return to the peaceful way of life.

"Not far behind the twins will come the Purifier the Red Katchina, who will bring the Day of Purification. On this day the Earth, her creatures and all life as we know it will change forever. There will be messengers that will precede this coming of the Purifier. They will leave messages to those on Earth who remember the old ways.

" The messages will be found written in the living stone, through the sacred grains, and even the waters. (these could be the crop circles which have been found even in ice) From the Purifier will issue forth a great Red Light. All things will change in their manner of being. Every living thing will be offered the opportunity to change from the largest to the smallest thing."

What follows are two longer expositions of Hopi prophecy. Note that the events listed below were predicted many centuries ago and have been passed down. They were also all carved into Prophecy Rock at Hopi many, many years ago:

The Nine Signs of Hopi Prophecy
From White Feather, Bear Clan, Hopi Tribe

"These are the Signs that great destruction is here: The world shall rock to and fro. The white man will battle people in other lands -- those who possessed the first light of wisdom. There will be many columns of smoke and fire such as the white man has made in the deserts not far from here.

Those who stay and live in the places of the Hopi shall be safe. Then there will be much to rebuild. And soon, very soon afterward, Pahana will return. He shall bring with him the dawn of the Fifth World. He shall plant the seeds of his wisdom in our hearts. Even now the seeds are being planted. These shall smooth the way to the Emergence into the Fifth World."

The Fourth World shall end soon, and the Fifth World will begin. This the elders everywhere know. The Signs over many years have been fulfilled,
and so few are left.

First Sign: We were told of the coming of the white-skinned men, like Pahana, but not living like Pahana -- men who took the land that was not
theirs and who struck their enemies with thunder. (Guns)

Second Sign: Our lands will see the coming of spinning wheels filled with voices. (Covered wagons)

Third Sign: A strange beast like a buffalo but with great long horns, will overrun the land in large numbers. (Longhorn cattle)

Fourth Sign: The land will be crossed by snakes of iron. (Railroad tracks)

Fifth Sign: The land shall be cris-crossed by a giant spider's web. (Power and telephone lines)

Sixth Sign: The land shall be cris-crossed with rivers of stone that make pictures in the sun. (Concrete roads and their mirage-producing
effects.)

Seventh Sign: You will hear of the sea turning black, and many living things dying because of it. (Oil spills)

Eighth Sign: You will see many youth, who wear their hair long like our people, come and join the tribal nations, to learn our ways and
wisdom. (Hippies)

Ninth and Last Sign: You will hear of a dwelling-place in the heavens, above the earth, that shall fall with a great crash. It will appear
as a blue star. Very soon after this, the ceremonies of the Hopi people will cease.

The following is an excerpt from LAST CRY Native American Prophecies & Tales of the End Times, by Dr. Robert Ghost Wolf © 1994-2004:

"The story of the Blue Kachina is a very old story, very old. I have been aware of the story of the Blue Kachina since I was very young.
Frank Waters also wrote about Saquasohuh, the Blue Star Kachina in The Book of the Hopi, The story came from Grandfather Dan, Oldest Hopi.

"It was told to me that first the Blue Kachina would start to be seen at the dances, and would make his appearance known to the children in the plaza during the night dance. This event would tell us that the end times are very near. Then the Blue Star Kachina would physically appear in our heavens which would mean that we were in the end times.

"In the Final days we will look up in our heavens and we will witness the return of the two brothers who helped create this world in the birthing time. Poganghoya is the guardian of our North Pole and his Brother Palongawhoya is the guardian of the South pole. In the final days the Blue Star Katchina will come to be with his nephews and they will return the Earth to its natural rotation which is counter clock wise.

"This fact is evidenced in many petraglyphs that speak of the Zodiac, and within the Mayan and Egyptian pyramids. The rotation of the Earth has been manipulated by not so benevolent Star beings. The twins will be seen in our North Western skies. They will come and visit to see who still remembered the original teachings flying in their Patuwvotas, or flying shields. They will bring many of their star family with them in the final days.

"The return of the Blue Star Katchina who is also known as Nan ga sohu will be the alarm clock that tells us of the new day and new way of life, a new world that is coming. This is where the changes will begin. They will start as fires that burn within us, and we will burn up with desires and conflict if we do not remember the original teachings, and return to the peaceful way of life.

" Not far behind the twins will come the Purifier The Red Katchina, who will bring the Day of Purification. On this day the Earth, her creatures and all life as we know it will change forever. There will be messengers that will precede this coming of the Purifier. They will leave messages
to those on Earth who remember the old ways.

home.iae.nl...

The claim that the world will end in 2012 has no basis at all. The end times for the Hopi simply means the purification of the age we are living in, and according to their prophecies yes, unfortunately many people will suffer and die, but it does not mean the end of the world.

There are other Maya calendars which continue after 2012. December 21st 2012 is the winter Solstice, and it marks the beginning of another cycle.


[edited to add pictures of comet Holmes explosion]

[edit on 7-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

No?... and pray tell us what is pulling all planets away from the Sun? What is causing the other anomalies including the very elliptical orbits of Pluto, and other dwarf planets, as well as the elliptical orbit of Uranus, Neptune, and to a lesser degree Jupiter? What is making comets accelerate starting at 20 AU? or any of the other anomalies NO MODEL can account for?

Number 1 your claim about planets being pulled away fromt he sun is false.
Number 2 all planets have elliptical orbits.
Number 3 the comet anomaly you post does not suggest a massive object approaching us.

I am sorry but that is not true. in reality studies shows that there is somehting very massive, and at least one large planet size object which hasn't been seen yet. Just because it hasn't been seen, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I'm sorry you are wrong. There is no planet sized object within 320AU of the sun. In reality studies of the orbits of the known planets and sky surveys have shown this to be the case.

PROJECT PAN-STARRS AND THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM

They state that starting at 20AU, and not 25,000AU as you claim, there is an acceleration of comets similar to that experienced by the Pioneer spacecraft, which makes comets arrive days earlier than they are supposed to. So whatever it is is much closer than 25,000 AU.

Reading is essential here. Go back to the article hypothesizing the brown dwarf and read where the 25000AU comes from. The 20AU value is not in reference to a planet. So again read.

Riiight thermal lag of a dwarf planet, with barely any atmosphere as it moved away from the Sun for years?....

All objects exhibit a thermal lag. The Pluto thermal lag may go on for another decade.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


A change in distance does not mean a pull.

If something that big brushed by Pluto, Pluto would become it's newest Moon.

These Planet X theories get weirder by the day.

I do not know if this has been quoted before but it is a translation from Spanish on the starviewer site:

A circular puedria invisible star the Sun and have been responsible for deadly bombings of comets into the Earth, scientists said yesterday.

The brown dwarf - up to five times the size of Jupiter - could be to blame for the mass extinctions that occur here every 26 million years.

The star - nicknamed Nemesis by NASA scientists - would be invisible, since it only emits infrared light and is incredibly remote.

Nemesis is believed that our solar system orbit at 25,000 times the distance from Earth to the sun.

By rotating through the galaxy, its gravitational force pulls the ice bodies of the Oort cloud - a vast area of rock and dust than twice as far as Nemesis.
These "snowballs", are launched toward Earth like a comet, causing similar devastation to that of the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years.

Several NASA researchers now believe that Nemesis will be found by a new heat-seeking telescope that began scanning the sky in January.
The Wide-Field Infrared Explorer survey - expected to find thousands of brown dwarfs within 25 light years from our Sun - has already sent a picture of a comet, possibly dislodged from the Oort Cloud.

The first track of the scientists of the existence of Nemesis was the strange orbit of a dwarf planet called Sedna.

Several researchers believe that their unusual oval orbit 12,000 years of time could be explained by a massive celestial body.

Mike Brown, who discovered Sedna in 2003, said: "Sedna is a very strange object - should not be there.

"The only way to get into an eccentric orbit is to have a giant's body with a kick - So what is there?"

Professor John Matese of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, said that most comets come from the same part of the Oort Cloud. See Article in "The Sun"

We recall that all documentation and scientific monitoring of the Oort disturbance can be reviewed here:

As you can see. The truth can not be hidden any longer.

reply to post by expat2368


That is a reference to this article which has been mentioned in this thread.
Persistent Evidence of a Jovian Mass Solar Companion in the Oort Cloud

Originally posted by stereologist

Number 1 your claim about planets being pulled away fromt he sun is false.

So tell us what is causing the secular increase in the distance between the planets and the Sun?...among other anomalies.

Do you even understand what it means that no model can account for this secular increase in the distance between the Sun, and the planets?... Maybe by magic heh?...

Originally posted by stereologist

Number 2 all planets have elliptical orbits.

They have elliptical orbits, but the inner planets orbit is a bit more rounded than the outer planet orbits, and Pluto in specific has a highly elliptical orbit which moves it closer to the Sun than Neptune. Something very similar is happening to the other dwarf planets.

This is what we can observe is happening in other Solar Systems.

The presence of a distant companion can cause significant secular perturbations in the orbit of a planet. At high relative inclinations, large-amplitude, periodic eccentricity perturbations can occur.

www.springerlink.com...

But you want to claim that the secular increase in the distance between the planets in our Solar System, and the Sun, plus the more elliptical orbit of the 4 outer planets, plus the highly elliptical orbits of the dwarf planets are just being caused by some magic instead of what is more probable a dwarf star, or at least very large undiscovered planet?....

Originally posted by stereologistNumber 3 the comet anomaly you post does not suggest a massive object approaching us.

....Alone no...put together with the other anomalies which were not as pronounced before yes.

Plus some more recent research..

Persistent Evidence of a Jovian Mass Solar Companion in the Oort Cloud

Authors: John J. Matese, Daniel P. Whitmire
(Submitted on 26 Apr 2010)

Abstract: We present an updated dynamical and statistical analysis of outer Oort cloud cometary evidence suggesting the sun has a wide-binary Jovian mass companion. The results support a conjecture that there exists a companion of mass ~ 1-4 M_Jup orbiting in the innermost region of the outer Oort cloud. Our most restrictive prediction is that the orientation angles of the orbit normal in galactic coordinates are centered on the galactic longitude of the ascending node Omega = 319 degree and the galactic inclination i = 103 degree (or the opposite direction) with an uncertainty in the normal direction subtending ~ 2% of the sky. A Bayesian statistical analysis suggests that the probability of the companion hypothesis is comparable to or greater than the probability of the null hypothesis of a statistical fluke. Such a companion could also have produced the detached Kuiper Belt object Sedna. The putative companion could be easily detected by the recently launched Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE).

xxx.lanl.gov...

BTW, yes I know the Oort cloud is THEORIZED to be at about from 10,000 to 50,000 AU, but anything that far out would have to be a brown dwarf, and as such it probably has at least one large body orbiting around it which would put this planet much closer.

Originally posted by stereologist
I'm sorry you are wrong. There is no planet sized object within 320AU of the sun. In reality studies of the orbits of the known planets and sky surveys have shown this to be the case.

Riiiight...so claim you but research shows differently...sorry...

Originally posted by stereologist
Reading is essential here. Go back to the article hypothesizing the brown dwarf and read where the 25000AU comes from. The 20AU value is not in reference to a planet. So again read.

Oh yes it is and one or two research papers which THEORIZE such a planet/brown dwarf at 25,000 AU doesn't make it so, more so when other research points to this planet, or brown dwarf being much closer.... I agree with you, you need to read a bit more.



[edit on 7-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Rockpuck
If something that big brushed by Pluto, Pluto would become it's newest Moon.

These Planet X theories get weirder by the day.

Who said anything about it brushing with Pluto?....

I swear the excuses made by those who don't want to even be open to the possibility of such large planet and or dead star get wierder every day....

Originally posted by stereologist


Reading is essential here. Go back to the article hypothesizing the brown dwarf and read where the 25000AU comes from. The 20AU value is not in reference to a planet. So again read.
.

I read it well, the 20 AU mention is to an observed increase in speed in comets, which at first was found only on the pioneer satellites.

For anything to cause the increase in the distance between the Sun and the planets it must be closer to the Sun than 25,000 AU, much closer, and anything even at 350 AU or so is still very close.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

So tell us what is causing the secular increase in the distance between the planets and the Sun?...among other anomalies.

The observed anomaly does not mean that that something is pulling. That is your conclusion concerning the anomaly. Read the article it does not supposed that a point gravitation source such as a planet exists.

Do you understand that the model you propose cannot be responsible for the anomaly?

They have elliptical orbits, but the inner planets orbit is a bit more rounded than the outer planet orbits, and Pluto in specific has a highly elliptical orbit which moves it closer to the Sun than Neptune. Something very similar is happening to the other dwarf planets.

The eccentricity of the orbits does not imply a large gravitatyional source. Even your quote does not support your claim. You do understand that don't you? And you are wrong about the eccentricity of the 4 inner planets. You know that right?

Your claim of elliptical orbits being a clue is wrong. The eccentricity orbits of the planets does not imply a large gravitation source. The orbits of the dwarf planets does suggest something is out there and it is very far out there.

Alone no...put together with the other anomalies which were not as pronounced before yes.

Again, read the article. It does not suggest a point source gravitational feature as a possible cause.

These concepts together or separate do not support the notion of a point source.

Persistent Evidence of a Jovian Mass Solar Companion in the Oort Cloud
Finally you mention this article which clearly states that the object is out 25,000AU or about 1/3 of a light year and is an object smaller than what would be called a brown dwarf.

The introduction says

Such an object would be incapable of creating comet “storms”. To help mitigate popular confusion with the Nemesis model (Whitmire and Jackson ( 1984), Davis et al. ( 1984)) we use the name recently suggested by Kirkpatrick and Wright (2010), Tyche, (the good sister of Nemesis) for the putative companion.

This object cannot be Nemesis. It states that very clearly in the introduction.

The conclusion provides this information. Again, it is far out. It stays far out. It is not the hypothesized Nemesis.

The extent of the enhanced arc is inconsistent with a weak stellar impulse, but is consistent with a Jovian mass solar companion orbiting in the OOC. A putative companion with these properties may also be capable of producing detached Kuiper Belt objects such as Sedna and has been given the name Tyche. Tyche could have significantly depleted the inner Oort cloud over the solar system lifetime requiring a corresponding increase in the inferred primordial Oort cloud population.

Riiiight...so claim you but research shows differently...sorry...

Again you are wrong. Reasearch supports this case. Time to read.
PROJECT PAN-STARRS AND THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM

Read and learn this material.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You are very clearly trying to misrepresent the papers you reference.

Is the physics within the Solar system really understood?
In this paper is the discussion of the 20AU anomaly and other anomalies.

There is one further observation which status is rather unclear bit which perhaps may fit into the other observations. This is the observation of the return time of comets: Comets usually come back a few days before they are expected when applying ordinary equations of motion. The delay usually is assigned to the outgassing of these objects. In fact, the delay is used for an estimate of the strength of this outgassing. On the other hand, it has been calculated in [44] that the assumption that starting with 20 AU there is an additional acceleration of the order of the Pioneer anomaly also leads to the effect that comets come back a few days earlier. It is not clear whether this is a serious indications but a further study of the trajectories of comets certainly is worthwhile.

Reference 44 is the following:

G.L. Page, D.S. Dixon, and J.F. Wallin. Can minor planets be used to assess gravity in the outer solar system?, 2005. astro-ph/0504367, to appear in Astrophys. J.

The twin Pioneer spacecraft have been tracked for over 30 years as they headed out of the solar system. After passing 20 AU from the Sun, both exhibited a systematic error in their trajectories that can be interpreted as a constant acceleration toward the Sun. This Pioneer effect is most likely explained by spacecraft systematics, but there have been no convincing arguments that that is the case. The alternative is that the Pioneer effect represents a real phenomenon and perhaps new physics. What is lacking is a means of measuring the effect, its variation, its potential anisotropies, and its region of influence. We show that minor planets provide an observational vehicle for investigating the gravitational field in the outer solar system and that a sustained observation campaign against properly chosen minor planets could confirm or refute the existence of the Pioneer effect. In addition, even if the Pioneer effect does not represent a new physical phenomenon, minor planets can be used to probe the gravitational field in the outer solar system, and since there are very few intermediate-range tests of gravity at the multiple-AU distance scale, this is a worthwhile endeavor in its own right.

The abstract makes certain issues clear:

1. The Pioneer anomaly is an acceleration towards the sun - you did know that I'm sure
   
2. No mention of a new gravitational object
   

In the introduction, the background statement on the problem says

Anderson et al. (2002a) discusses a large number of potential causes of the anomalous acceleration, ranging from measurement methodology errors and gas leaks to modeling deficiencies and electromagnetic forces. The paper reviews a number of attempts to explain the anomalous acceleration in terms of known physics and continues by reviewing a large number of potential explanations for the anomalous acceleration in terms of new physics. These include considering whether the effect is due to dark matter or a modification of gravity, whether it is a measure of spacetime curvature and cosmological expansion, and whether it is due to a number of more radical variants on the relativistic gravity theme.

In the end, Anderson et al. (2002a) find ‘‘no mechanism or theory that explains the anomalous acceleration.’’ Thus, in the minds of those authors, the possibility of new physics should not be ruled out.

Again, no mention of a new object in the solar system.

The acceleration is towards the sun not in a different direction.

Originally posted by stereologist

The observed anomaly does not mean that that something is pulling. That is your conclusion concerning the anomaly. Read the article it does not supposed that a point gravitation source such as a planet exists.

Do you understand that the model you propose cannot be responsible for the anomaly?

Do you understand that something must be the cause of it, and not just magic like you seem to think?

Do you understand that there are many anomalies which cannot be explained unless something with lot of mass is causing them? As in a planet bigger than Jupiter or a dead star/brown/red dwarf and even possibly both.

I didn't just make this up which is why there are many theories about a companion dead star to our Sun, and there are many distances which are THEORIZED for this companion star, and at least another mayor planet in our Solar System.

Dead stars are known to have planetary bodies orbiting around them.

Again, I have asked you several times, explain to us why is it that the planets are being pulled away form the Sun and it can't be explained by any models we know.

Why do asteroids arrive days earlier than they are supposed to, alongside the other anomalies?

Originally posted by stereologist

The eccentricity of the orbits does not imply a large gravitatyional source. Even your quote does not support your claim. You do understand that don't you? And you are wrong about the eccentricity of the 4 inner planets. You know that right?

As i said, it isn't just one thing, but the many anomalies can't be explained unless by a brown/red dwarf, and or at the least another very large planet.

Originally posted by stereologist
Your claim of elliptical orbits being a clue is wrong. The eccentricity orbits of the planets does not imply a large gravitation source. The orbits of the dwarf planets does suggest something is out there and it is very far out there.

Really? So Uranus and Neptune among some others do not have eccentric orbits which point out to at least there being another large planet?... Pluto, nor the other dwarf planets cannot account for the perturbations which have been noted for a long time.

And, so you know with 100% certainty that it has to be very far out there? If it was that "very far out there" then what is causing the anomalies I mentioned?

Anything that "far out there" causing so many anomalies would be another star, and another star would be easy to spot.

Originally posted by stereologist

Again, read the article. It does not suggest a point source gravitational feature as a possible cause.

These concepts together or separate do not support the notion of a point source.

I wonder why do you want to concentrate just on ONE article? And yes, whatever is causing the anomalies, which includes the secular increase in the distance between the Sun and the planets reported recently by several research groups does point to something with large mass because there is nothing else out there that could account for these anomalies.


The introduction says

Such an object would be incapable of creating comet “storms”. To help mitigate popular confusion with the Nemesis model (Whitmire and Jackson ( 1984), Davis et al. ( 1984)) we use the name recently suggested by Kirkpatrick and Wright (2010), Tyche, (the good sister of Nemesis) for the putative companion.

This object cannot be Nemesis. It states that very clearly in the introduction.

The conclusion provides this information. Again, it is far out. It stays far out. It is not the hypothesized Nemesis.

The extent of the enhanced arc is inconsistent with a weak stellar impulse, but is consistent with a Jovian mass solar companion orbiting in the OOC. A putative companion with these properties may also be capable of producing detached Kuiper Belt objects such as Sedna and has been given the name Tyche. Tyche could have significantly depleted the inner Oort cloud over the solar system lifetime requiring a corresponding increase in the inferred primordial Oort cloud population.

Originally posted by stereologist
Again you are wrong. Reasearch supports this case. Time to read.
PROJECT PAN-STARRS AND THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM

Read and learn this material.

First of all, I even doubt you read it since it says it is forbidden. So either you have to pay to read that, or you must have a password and screename to read it, and since you didn't say anything about it you probably didn't read it.

Second of all, i gave more than a couple of links.

I know, and we can all see that you love getting stucked in one link, but the fact of the matter is something is causing all the anomalies i mentioned, and that something MUST have mass in order to cause them. There is no way out of it, and for whatever this is to be causing the secular increase in the distance between the planets and the Sun it must be a lot closer than 25,000 AU.

It simply can't be a black hole because we would be able to see it's event horizon, or at least all the matter, and light being sucked away, as in itself an event horizon can't be truly seen.

It can't be another star because we would have seen it a long time ago. the only other possible explanations are a brown or red star. Not even a large planet alone could account for the anomalies.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by stereologist

You are very clearly trying to misrepresent the papers you reference.

...."Perhaps might fit" and "perhaps can" explain the anomalies doesn't mean that it does... so who is clearly trying to misrepresent the papers being referenced?...


[edit on 9-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse


I am sorry but Chadwickus didn't prove anything at all. All he did was to make assumptions based on almost no information at all.

BTW IT IS an encyclopedia...what Charwickus said is that it wasn't encyclopedia BRITTANICA.... There is a difference, and I am not sure why he even mentioned encyclopedia Brittanica....

The snippet alone doesn't help, to understand you would need to read the thread it came from.

But in short it was in reply to this:

The 1983 encyclopedia Britannica included a diagram that shows the path of pioneer 10 and 11 space probes. Per the diagram, they were sent to get a triangulated fix on planet x Incredibly, the diagram shows planet x as the "tenth planet" at 4.7 billion miles It also shows the sun's binary twin "dead star" at 50 billion miles

The diagram has virtually no context whatsoever, so whatever is stated about it is based on assumptions.

My theory and your theory both included.

To clarify, what I think it represents is a theory based on the large celestial body* found in 1983 and the theoretical planet X.

I don't think even back then they thought both existed, but were theorizing that this large object far from the sun must have had the same gravitational pull as planet x, which is much smaller and closer...hence the gravitational lines.

This is just my interpretation, based on what limited knowledge we have on it.

If the distance between all planets and the Sun is increasing by whatever is causing this secular increase in their distance, then whatever is causing this is strong enough to also pull, alongside with the Sun, the Pioneer craft which has been heading in an oposite direction. This added pull is what scientists can't understand. They can account for the pull from the Sun, but not the added pull.

Aren't these assumptions based off old theories, back when they did not calculate the mass of Neptune correctly?

With the new figures calculated in 1993 thanks to Voyager 2, the discrepancies in Uranus' orbit was explained.

adsbit.harvard.edu...



[edit on 9/5/10 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Do you understand that I've never suggested magic?
Do you understand that is a straw man argument you have concocted to support your failed claim of a point gravitational source?

Do you understand that there are many anomalies which cannot be explained unless something with lot of mass is causing them? As in a planet bigger than Jupiter or a dead star/brown/red dwarf and even possibly both.

Do you understand that none of the anomalies justify a large point gravitation source? None of the material you posted suggests a point source and for a very good reason - it would not explain any of the anomalies.

You do understand that the existence of a possible companion to the sun, or another planet has not been ruled out. You do know that if it exists would be quite far away or quite small or both.

Again, I have asked you several times, explain to us why is it that the planets are being pulled away form the Sun and it can't be explained by any models we know.

Again you say somethingis pulling the planets away from the sun. The papers you posted do not suggest anything is pulling the planets away from the sun. That is your incorrect conclusion.

As i said, it isn't just one thing, but the many anomalies can't be explained unless by a brown/red dwarf, and or at the least another very large planet.

Again none of the papers suggest such a possibility since a point gravitation source would not explain any of the anomalies, not one.

So Uranus and Neptune among some others do not have eccentric orbits which point out to at least there being another large planet?

Do some basic reading. Mercury has the highest eccentric orbit of all of the planets.

The pertubations of the orbits have been shown to be measurement error. Orbital measurements put limits on the closest a planet can be. Read the article:
PROJECT PAN-STARRS AND THE OUTER SOLAR

SYSTEM

And, so you know with 100% certainty that it has to be very far out there? If it was that "very far out there" then what is causing the anomalies I mentioned?

Read the papers you posted and they provide a list of ideas. Then check the articles in the references. The one thing you do not see is an article suggesting a gravitational point source to explain any of the anomalies.

First of all, I even doubt you read it since it says it is forbidden. So either you have to pay to read that, or you must have a password and screename to read it, and since you didn't say anything about it you probably didn't read it.

If you want to fake it at least click on the link. I did and I don't have special access.

I know, and we can all see that you love getting stucked in one link, but the fact of the matter is something is causing all the anomalies i mentioned, and that something MUST have mass in order to cause them.

Show me one place in any of the links you provided that suggests the existence of a possible new point mass in the solar system that explains any of the anomalies.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You made no effort to defend your position. You misrepresented the paper on purpose.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
......
The snippet alone doesn't help, to understand you would need to read the thread it came from.

But in short it was in reply to this:

The 1983 encyclopedia Britannica included a diagram that shows the path of pioneer 10 and 11 space probes. Per the diagram, they were sent to get a triangulated fix on planet x Incredibly, the diagram shows planet x as the "tenth planet" at 4.7 billion miles It also shows the sun's binary twin "dead star" at 50 billion miles

The diagram has virtually no context whatsoever, so whatever is stated about it is based on assumptions.

My theory and your theory both included.
.....

Hey Chad...how about you stop being disengenous and post the link to that excerpt you gave which you claimed I made but I didn't...

In fact let me post my real thread about this, and not what you posted which was said by someone else and not me....

I told you the first time you tried to stick that out of context quote MADE BY ANOTHER MEMBER AND NOT ME, yet you continue trying to stick that quote to me when I didn't write that...

Here is the thread I made, and not that lie you keep spreading about me..

1987 New Science and Invention Encyclopedia Truth or Hoax?

I became aware of the following several years ago and although I brought it up years ago i didn't post it as a thread, and I am not sure it has been posted before.

The 1987 New Science and Invention Encyclopedia has an interesting image in the section for "Space Probes".

In that image you can find the drawing of what is called a tenth planet, which is situated in the drawing at about 4.7 Billion miles away, and it also shows a Dark Star situated at around 50 Billion miles away.

Here is a scan of the page, and the drawing.


.......

www.abovetopsecret.com...

BTW...about there being no context for the diagram showing both a dead star and a tenth planet... Obviously you didn't take much time to look at the diagram because it shows both...

Are you going to continue spreading the lie that I claimed this came from encyclopedia Britannica when I didn't do such a thing? or are you going to stick to the truth heh?....


[edit on 10-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by stereologist


First of all I never said the papers about the anomalies specifically state that there must be an object or large size causing these anomalies, but since there is no explanation it is what I and some other people THINK it must be...

Second of all, let's actually post what is being thought has been happening to the pioneer craft... You claim they know for sure it is a sunward acceleration right?... Let's see if that is true...

Focus: the Pioneer anomaly


To date, the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft are the most precisely navigated deep-space vehicles. However, as indicated by their radio-metric data, the Pioneers’ orbit reconstructions were limited by a small, anomalous, constant, blue-shifted, Doppler frequency drift of approximately 6 x 10^-9 Hz/s. The drift can be interpreted as due to a constant sunward acceleration of a_P = (8.74 ± 1.33) 10^-10 m/s^2. This interpretation has become known as the Pioneer anomaly.



Although the most obvious explanation would be that there is a systematic origin to the effect, the limited set of the analyzed data does not support any of the suggested mechanisms. We assert that analysis of the entire existing Pioneer data is vital to understanding the anomaly and, hopefully, to finding its origin. Indeed, analysis of the entire existing Pioneer data record is critical in attacking the anomaly on two fronts: (i) an analysis of the early, not rigorously analyzed, data could yield a more accurate direction of the anomaly and hence might help to determine its origin; (ii) by using the entire data set, from 1972 to 2002, one could study the temporal evolution of the anomaly and determine if it is due to on-board nuclear fuel inventory and related heat radiation or other mechanism.

www.issi.unibe.ch...

If they are SO SURE it is a sunward acceleration why do they state and I quote again....

an analysis of the early, not rigorously analyzed, data could yield a more accurate direction of the anomaly and hence might help to determine its origin

www.issi.unibe.ch...


I wonder who is being disengenious....


[edit on 10-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

I see you want to misrepresent yet again. Fine.

From the original article you referenced:

The Pioneer anomaly is an anomalous unexplained acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft
of
aPioneer = (8.74 ± 1.33) · 10−10 m/s2 (1)
toward the Sun.

The article also points out that even when the additional masses are placed in the solar system things do not work out for the comet anomaly. And notice that point sources are not used.

Additional masses in the Solar system Additional masses may not only be present in the form of dust but also in form of larger particles. Irrespective of being dust and of the size of these particles, any additional mass will act as an additional gravitational field which may decelerate the spacecraft when leaving the Solar system. Nieto [24] has calculated analytically the gravitational effect of various configurations, that is, shells, thin rings and wedges of various density profiles. He obtained that for rings with a density falling off with 1/r as well as a wedge with a density falling off like 1/r2 yields a nearly constant acceleration (neglecting discontinuities at the sharp boundaries of the matter distributions which are, of course, just results of the mathematical model). However, in order the constant acceleration to be of the order of the observed Pioneer acceleration, the mass of the thin ring or the wedge has to be of about 100 time the mass of the Earth which is, by far, not compatible with the observations of, e.g., comets.

The drift can be interpreted as due to a constant sunward acceleration of a_P = (8.74 ± 1.33) 10^-10 m/s^2. This interpretation has become known as the Pioneer anomaly.

That means that if this is interpreted as an acceleration, a gravity source causes an acceleration, then the gravity source is where the sun is. Pretty simple right. If it is interpreted as an acceleration, then the source of the acceleration is at the sun.

Again, none of the articles suppose a mass such as a planet because they know that is not a possibility. The article supposes that adding a total mass of 1/3 a Jupiter mass is not possible.

Who is being disingenuous?