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

page: 19
86
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


God you're full of yourself.

I never, ever said that you made that quote, It was in fact a quote from this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread was already linked to by Stereologist when he quoted part of my reply in that thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So I was merely clarifying what he had quoted me saying and explaining my thoughts on the issue.

So how have I lied when I've just given an opinion?

Maybe you should concentrate on the subject instead of petty one upmanship?




[edit on 10/5/10 by Chadwickus]




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
God you're full of yourself.

I never, ever said that you made that quote, It was in fact a quote from this thread:


The only one full of himself is you. You also tried recently to ridicule Maya/Hopi prophesy knowing NOTHING about it. It seems to be your "mondus operati" to make false claims based on wrong assumptions.

You posted this without giving a link to it at first.



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


and then you attributed that claim to me by saying...


Originally posted by Chadwickus

My theory and your theory both included.


Next time do your research instead of lying. Thank you...



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse



Then there is the fact that appart from other anomalies research groups also found that recently comets seem to be accelerated towards the inner Solar System and they arrive days earlier than they are supposed to, and this acceleration is similar to the anomalies found with the Pioneer satellites, which were the first to experience the acceleration.





[edit on 6-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]


this is probably the reason comets were called the lawless ones.

they just do not comform to standard measuring.

they are constantly changing direction and speed.

daz



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 



Wow... I am sorry is it just me or do they CLEARLY specify that they are not sure it is a sunward acceleration when they state, and here we go again.


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...

For crying out loud what is it so hard for people like you to accept the fact that there are many anomalies which can't be explained, and scientists have been postulating the existance of not only a dark companion star to our Sun but at least one more large planet.

In fact let's hear it from an expert in the field and see what he has to say about it.


According to NASA expert Dr Alan Stern, there are forensic evidence for the existence of large numbers of undiscovered planets in the Oort Cloud an immense spherical cloud surrounding the planetary system and extending approximately 3 light years, about 30 trillion kilometers from the Sun.

www.cpedia.com...

[edit on 10-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by daz__
this is probably the reason comets were called the lawless ones.

they just do not comform to standard measuring.

they are constantly changing direction and speed.

daz


It's more than that.

I gave as one of the research papers the following.



...........
..........................
8.2 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.

arxiv.org...

Appart from all of this ancient cultures, and not only Sumerians, talked about this planet. The bible itself calls it Wormwood, and the Hopi/Maya prophecy states that a Red Star would make it's appearance after the Blue Katchina, and the Red Star will bring much tribulation and suffering.

I would rather there was no truth to this but there is too much pointing to this dead star, and at least one more large planet existing in the Solar System.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
The direction of acceleration was stated in the journal articles that you linked to. If you can't read that's not my problem. Now you post to a website and make a poor case of trying to claim that the direction is unknown. How sad.

Again you stoop to straw man arguments and distortions and misrepresentations.


  1. I have never stated whether or not the anomalies are real or not. The only person making such an irrational claim is the person who is distorting the meaning of the anomalies. That is you.
  2. I have not claimed that planets do not exist. What I have shown is that there are strong constraints on where planets can exist in our solar system.

  1. I have shown that the anomalies papers you have linked to do NOT suggest the existence of a planet or other large point like gravity source.
  2. I have shown that any new planet or larger object must be well outside of the orbits of the known planets.
  3. I have shown that over 100 Kuiper belt objects have been located. These are all very small


Mike Brown from CalTech is the leading discoverer of Kuiper belt objects.


Mike Brown: I do think there are sizable bodies left to be found, as long as by "sizable" you mean "approximately the size of Eris or perhaps a bit bigger at best." That's what you meant, right?

Mike Brown: The reason I say this is that (1) We have looked at about half of the Kuiper belt by now, and the biggest thing we found is Eris. Second biggest is a little smaller (Pluto). Third is a little smaller still (Makemake). Fourth is just a little smaller still...

Ian O'Neill: Absolutely. I think a lot of the most crazed conspiracy theorists still think we are going to stumble across Jupiter 2.0 in the Kuiper belt.

Mike Brown: If in 1/2 of the Kuiper belt we find a very smooth distribution of sizes like this, then surveying the other half of the KB it is unlikely we're suddenly going to jump an order of magnitude in size.

(2) There was supposed to be a (2). But I forgot.

Yeah, so Jupiter 2.0 CAN'T live in the Kuiper belt. We've known that for decades simply from watching what the other planets are doing.


So now we know that from 30AU to 55AU it is unlikely anything much larger than 1/2 the size of the moon exists. The moon is 1/4 the size of the Earth. We know no new planets can be within 320AU. This just tells us that anything large out there, if it exists, is far away.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by stereologist]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I dont know about how far out the nemesis would be but what it can send in is of more concern.

I found this:
www.h33t.com...



OP as I understand it two things are occurring. First, something external is affecting our solar system, potentially starting up the sun's solar capacitor and secondly the sun is entering a solar cycle maximum, part of its natural cycle. These two factors could cause EMP type effects, especially when you consider that the earth's magnetosphere has been exhibiting "holes" or breaches in the shield.

A lot of this has been summarized by several scientists and researchers, some from the University of Colorado. That is publicly available information, however the first factor of an external influence affecting our solar system is not. But when you look at circumstantial evidence, like a ban on information on asteroids and objects entering earth's atmosphere and .gov agencies re-locating offices to higher elevations (CIA moving branches to Denver Colorado) one can get an overall "picture".

Have you seen any mitigation efforts by .gov agencies regarding older satellites that may be affecting by large solar radiation storms?

There IS public speculation out there about something which has a timeline and affects our solar system. But - NASA has not confirmed that they see it. Did I say that right ??? They also don't really know how it 'could' affect our system cause things 'could' happen which would change 'its' timeline - if it exists.

Old birds aren't saveable. Even shutting them down won't help.

The ban on near earth objects caught many by surprise... many.


The ban on reporting near earth objects tells us the biggest story there is!



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 

Can you tell us more about this ban on information about near Earth objects?
It sounds interesting.


[edit on 5/10/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sailor1
Is this Brown Dwarf staying out beyond the Ort Cloud or is it going to enter the core of our system? Could this be "Nibiru"? If this is real and it is headed our way watch our folks its going to be a bumpy ride. If it isn't headed toward us we will still have to watch for Asteriods from the Ort Cloud.. look out 2012 here we come.


That's what I am getting after looking it over. It seems like they are trying to tell us that Nibiru, is not a planet, and is actually a brown dwarf star.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


When did this ban go into effect?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist

Again you stoop to straw man arguments and distortions and misrepresentations.


I am not the one "stooping" to straw man arguments just because you are too close minded...

BTW, let's actually see what else does Dr Alan Stern have to say about it...


'Forensic evidence' of undiscovered planets

By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent, in Boston
Published: 5:00PM GMT 18 Feb 2008

Astronomers believe there are large numbers of both rocky planets and gas giants in the Oort Cloud, a vast cloud of comets approximately five trillion miles away - some 50,000 times the distance from Earth to the Sun.
............
Computer modelling and other astronomical clues suggest it may contain around 1,000 small planetary bodies, some of which may be the size of the Earth and Mars or larger.

Dr Alan Stern, a Nasa expert on the outer solar system described "forensic evidence" for the existence of large numbers of undiscovered planets in the Oort Cloud at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference in Boston.

Dr Stern said the angle of Uranuss rotation suggested it had been struck by an object three to five times the mass of Earth at some time in its history.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Very different from your claims that if such planets exist they must be small...

So again, it is obvious who is making straw-man arguments, and making false assumptions is you...





[edit on 10-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 

Oh... Judging from your link I think I know what you think you are talking about. There was never any ban on reporting NEOs. The DOD had been providing data on meteors which were observed by their satellites which were looking at Earth. These were meteors which had already entered the atmosphere, it had nothing to do with reporting NEOs.

There was a policy change in how the data sharing was administered but the data is still provided.

As for a message to the scientific community, Brigadier General Rego emphasized that there was no intent, and in fact, no change to the data sharing policy. Now underway is a fresh look at ways to improve the relationship and data flow to make it more valuable to scientists.

"I would encourage you to keep your eye out or your ear to the ground with the scientific community...to see if we haven't done some improvements here over the next few months," Rego concluded.

www.space.com...

[edit on 5/10/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



Very different from your claims that if such planets exist they must be small...

You sure are bad at misrepresenting what I said. I'll just be impolite and say you are a liar.

Here is what I said:

This just tells us that anything large out there, if it exists, is far away.


Guess what that's what Alan Stern said.

So you lied about what I said. No surprise there.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
............
So you lied about what I said. No surprise there.


So I am the one who lied?....

Let me quote you again.


Originally posted by stereologist

  • I have not claimed that planets do not exist. What I have shown is that there are strong constraints on where planets can exist in our solar system.
    I have shown that the anomalies papers you have linked to do NOT suggest the existence of a planet or other large point like gravity source.


  • First of all, apart from the many false claims you made you claimed that none of the anomalies suggest the existance of a planet or other large point of gravity...yet that is not what Dr. Stern says, and he is one of the experts.


    Computer modelling and other astronomical clues suggest it may contain around 1,000 small planetary bodies, some of which may be the size of the Earth and Mars or larger.

    Dr Alan Stern, a Nasa expert on the outer solar system described "forensic evidence" for the existence of large numbers of undiscovered planets in the Oort Cloud at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference in Boston.

    Dr Stern said the angle of Uranuss rotation suggested it had been struck by an object three to five times the mass of Earth at some time in its history.


    Second of all, I have already mentioned that the Oort cloud is very big indeed and it could put such large planet or even dead star less than 25,000 AU for all we know.



    [edit on 11-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



    posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:33 AM
    link   
    reply to post by ElectricUniverse
     


    Sorry mate, but you're either incredibly stupid or have selective sight when it comes to reading stuff..which would make YOU a liar.

    Also, I don't like being called a liar when I haven't lied.

    Let me try to point out to you and those watching at home how I am not a liar and that you are actually the liar...or stupid..take your pick.

    Now I've had absolutely nothing to do with this thread since December, but I have been reading it.

    Back on page 17, Stereologist wrote this in reply to one of your posts regarding the diagram of the 10th planet and the dead star:



    reply to post by ElectricUniverse
     


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

    www.abovetopsecret.com...



    Firstly Pioneer 10 and 11 are heading in opposite directions, so there is no triangulation.
    Secondly the diagram is based on the hypothetical location of the tenth planet, no mention of planet x.
    Thirdly The dead star is at the same distance as the supposed mystery heavenly body mentioned in the 1983 news article discussed above. Again it was speculated to be an object but later discovered to be several objects.
    Fourthly This diagram came from the New Science and Invention Encyclopedia, published in 1987, not Encyclopedia Britannica 1983.



    That exact post can be found HERE

    You then replied to Stereologist with:


    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.

    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....

    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.


    That exact post can be found HERE

    So far I haven't even joined in on this conversation, I have been quoted from another thread, addressing another member who presented the same diagram as you.

    If you had clicked the link that Stereologist supplied, !!THIS ONE!! you would have seen that.

    You obviously did not read it at all, since you were wondering why I was talking about encyclopedia Britannica, did you also not wonder where this quote came from??

    This is when I finally make an appearance, to do two things.

    1. To clarify where the quote came from and the context of the quote.
    2. To address your claims of what the supposed gravitational pull is, as per the diagram.

    That is this post:


    Originally posted by Chadwickus

    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]


    Found HERE

    So please tell me oh wise one, WTF did I lie?!?

    You can't because I didn't.



    FAIL




    posted on May, 11 2010 @ 05:49 AM
    link   
    Notice he set the website up to show only the IP address. Here is the actually info on that IP address:


    samspade.org...


    It's a cheap Yahoo website. ANYONE can make a site like this.
    Just because it sounds professional and complicated doesn't mean it's correct.

    If a brown dwarf was actually found in our solar system, CNN, New Scientist and every other news and science site would be screaming it from the rooftops!



    posted on May, 11 2010 @ 06:38 AM
    link   
    reply to post by ElectricUniverse
     


    Again you appear to have not a clue about the articles. You are purposely lying about what I wrote.

    Show me where any of the article suggest a point gravity source such as a planet or larger object. I have challenged you on this before and you did not show anything.

    None of the material you quote suggests a planet within 320AU of the sun. None of what you quote supports the claim that the anomalies suggest a planet. All you've done is support my statement that any new planet must be far, far away.


    Second of all, I have already mentioned that the Oort cloud is very big indeed and it could put such large planet or even dead star less than 25,000 AU for all we know.

    Again, I have not said anything about the existence of objects in the Oort cloud.



    posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:56 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Chadwickus
     


    Ohh, so i am stupid because I am calling you AGAIN on your misquote that another member made and you claim it was mine?....


    Stop trying to derail the thread, and admit you were wrong. I never said that diagram came from encyclopedia Britannica...

    BTW, the 1987 new Science and Invention encyclopedia" does exist even if it is rare.

    This is not the first time you tried to attribute what another member said to me, and that's where you are lying.

    If you are going to quote someone, make sure you do it right.



    posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:06 PM
    link   
    reply to post by ElectricUniverse
     


    Thank you so much for bringing out tons of evidence for something very real occurring and surprisingly, or not all surprisingly, related to the mayan calendar.

    Obviously, the drawing conclusions or using our minds to think with, is what is bothering these skeptics the most. They like facts just to float around and everyone to be so placid they can't connect dots enough to investigate saving their own families lives.

    Good work with your posts. Really appreciate them.

    [edit on 12-5-2010 by Unity_99]



    posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:09 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by stereologist
    Again you appear to have not a clue about the articles. You are purposely lying about what I wrote.


    Really? You claimed among many things that we know for certain the pioneer anomalies were because of the Sun, as in a sunward direction, and I showed that they THINK it is a sunward direction but they are not sure about the origin...


    Originally posted by stereologist

    Show me where any of the article suggest a point gravity source such as a planet or larger object. I have challenged you on this before and you did not show anything.


    For crying out loud.. I already showed you and even increased the size of the quotes from one of the experts...


    'Forensic evidence' of undiscovered planets

    By Nic Fleming, Science Correspondent, in Boston
    Published: 5:00PM GMT 18 Feb 2008

    Astronomers believe there are large numbers of both rocky planets and gas giants in the Oort Cloud, a vast cloud of comets approximately five trillion miles away - some 50,000 times the distance from Earth to the Sun.
    ............
    Computer modelling and other astronomical clues suggest it may contain around 1,000 small planetary bodies, some of which may be the size of the Earth and Mars or larger.

    Dr Alan Stern, a Nasa expert on the outer solar system described "forensic evidence" for the existence of large numbers of undiscovered planets in the Oort Cloud at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conference in Boston.

    Dr Stern said the angle of Uranuss rotation suggested it had been struck by an object three to five times the mass of Earth at some time in its history.

    www.telegraph.co.uk...



    Originally posted by stereologist
    None of the material you quote suggests a planet within 320AU of the sun. None of what you quote supports the claim that the anomalies suggest a planet. All you've done is support my statement that any new planet must be far, far away.


    I already mentioned that there are many THEORIES... Some astronomers even say it is possible that an Earth size planet, and even bigger could be within 70 AU. You obviously haven't been keeping up with this topic.

    Let me quote another astronomer, and note that I even post them saying they THINK they should have discovered it by now...


    Distant Sedna Raises Possibility of Another Earth-Sized Planet in Our Solar System
    By Robert Roy Britt
    Senior Science Writer
    posted: 04:20 pm ET
    16 March 2004
    .........
    "Perhaps there's more than one planet out there," Marsden said. "Who knows? But lets suppose it is something of an Earth mass, maybe even a few Earth masses. A close approach could throw this object [Sedna] from something more circular into something more eccentric."

    Marsden says such a scenario leaves open the question of how an Earth-sized planet could have formed so far from the Sun, where raw material should have been sparse, according to current theory.

    Brown said an Earth-sized planet is indeed a possibility. But his teams calculations put it at about 70 AU.

    "We think it's unlikely, because we think we would have found it by now," Brown said in a telephone interview.
    .....

    www.space.com...

    So you are claiming there is no possibility of such large planet being within 320AU when experts think otherwise and calculations put such a planet at a distance of 70 AU?....



    Originally posted by stereologist
    Again, I have not said anything about the existence of objects in the Oort cloud.


    You denied the existance of any such large planet existing anywhere close to 320AU...or the existance of a brown dwarf anywhere close to 25,000AU... Yet there are MANY THEORIES of where such Solar System objects could be.




    [edit on 12-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]





    new topics
    top topics
     
    86
    << 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

    log in

    join