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

page: 21
86
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist

You made the claim many times that the anomaly papers supported a point source gravitational object. Now you are backing off of this claim. Thank you.


...and they do... Christ your reading comprehension is really bad....


Such an orbit is unexpected in our current understanding of the solar system but could be the result of scattering by a yet-to-be-discovered planet, perturbation by an anomalously close stellar encounter, or formation of the solar system within a cluster of stars. In all of these cases a significant additional population is likely present, and in the two most likely cases Sedna is best considered a member of the inner Oort Cloud, which then extends to much smaller semimajor axes than previously expected. Continued discovery and orbital characterization of objects in this inner Oort Cloud will verify the genesis of this unexpected population.

iopscience.iop.org...

Even the papers you show say THERE IS A POSSIBILITY of such planets being closer than 320AU, and even a brown darf, or red star yet YOU want to claim differently....


Originally posted by stereologist
I am still waiting for you to show where in all of the anomaly papers there is talk of a point source gravitational object. You posted dozens of times claiming support in those papers and you still haven't shown where you saw the experts say that this was the case. It is possible I missed it - extremely doubtful, but possible. So please show us where that exists.


Keep "denying, denying, denying" all you show is that you can't accept when you are wrong...

Let's see AGAIN the conclusion made in one of the papers YOU so kindly provided....


A Mars-sized body can be found at not less than 70-85 au: such bounds are 147-175 au, 1006-1200 au, 4334-5170 au, 8113-9524 au and 10 222-12 000 au for a body with a mass equal to that of the Earth, Jupiter, a brown dwarf, red dwarf and the Sun, respectively.

www.ingentaconnect.com...

BTW...ENOUGH is enough, you don't want to accept you were wrong...fine, but stop making more and more false assumptions when there are many different THEORIES and many of them destroy YOUR claims...

[edit on 13-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]




posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



Even the papers you show say THERE IS A POSSIBILITY of such planets being closer than 320AU, and even a brown darf, or red star yet YOU want to claim differently....

Again my constraint trumps yours. You lose.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist

Again my constraint trumps yours. You lose.



They aren't my constraints....they are the results from computer models which show YOU wrong... Give it up...


BTW, just because they THINK they should have discovered such objects it doesn't mean they don't exist, when models say there should be such objects closer than your claim of no such object being within 320AU, or brown dwarf or red star being anywhere close to 25,000AU when different research papers put such object much closer than YOUR claims....


[edit on 13-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


The article you cite makes the following statement:

Nonetheless, our current survey has covered at least 80% of the area within 5° of the ecliptic—where such a planet would be most expected—with no planetary detections (Trujillo & Brown 2003). We therefore deem the existence of such a scattering planet unlikely, but we are unable to rule the possibility out completely.


If you continue to make demeaning comments I will start to report your posts. Is that understood? Stick to the material at hand.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Showing a stronger constraint trumps a weaker argument. It is possible for whole sky surveys to see objects that cannot cause measurable gravitational perturbations. The papers you've cited are gravitational arguments.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist

If you continue to make demeaning comments I will start to report your posts. Is that understood? Stick to the material at hand.


wow...so showing that you are wrong is a demeaning comment?.... Nice, so since you can't really make a concise intelligent argument you would resort to send complains when time and again I keep showing you are wrong... Nice...



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist

Showing a stronger constraint trumps a weaker argument. It is possible for whole sky surveys to see objects that cannot cause measurable gravitational perturbations. The papers you've cited are gravitational arguments.


BS, it just shows there are different theories. However if you had 20 or so equal models showing a bigger distance only then COULD you make an argument that the other models are wrong. But even that last paper you gave says, and I quote...


Iorio computes that the minimum possible distances at which a Mars-mass, Earth-mass, Jupiter-mass and Sun-mass object can orbit around the Sun are 62 AU, 430 AU, 886 AU and 8995 AU respectively. To put this into perspective, Pluto orbits the Sun at an average distance of 39 AU.

www.universetoday.com...


Which means the models puts the minimum distance such objects could exist at....


Mars-sized planet - 62AU

Earth-sized planet - 430AU

Jupiter-sized planet - 886AU

Sun-sized stellar object - 8995AU


Which contradicts your claims that a brown dwarf, or red dwarf has to be at 25,000AU...or that there can't be no large undiscovered planet anywhere within 320AU.... THOSE WERE YOUR CLAIMS, among others which are wrong....


BTW, just because some scientists THINK we should have discovered such planets it doesn't mean they don't exist when models say they should exist...



[edit on 14-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


The moderator asked that

Let's leave out the personal sniping , Please.


The next post in which you replied to me you wrote.


I know how to read and comprehend better than you
...
BS, btw we are not in high school anymore. At Least I am not, so stop it with the stupid remarks already.


So let's tone down the rhetoric as asked and move forward.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   
NO. These are not different theories. These are different technologies. Different technologies provide different answers. It seems that scans with a telescope provide a better constraint than gravitational studies. Continuing to repeat the same study by Iorio which I knew about and posted does not make it possible to place an object inside of the exclusion zone established by other research.

PROJECT PAN-STARRS AND THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM



Detectability of distant planets.
Planet V(1,1,0)1 R24(AU)2 Rgrav(AU)3
Earth −3.9 620 50
Jupiter −9.3 2140 340
Neptune −6.9 1230 130
Pluto −1.0 320 N/A
1 Absolute magnitude of the planet, equal to the V magnitude at unit heliocentric and geocentric distance and zero phase angle.
2 The distance at which the planet would have apparent magnitude mV = 24.
3 The distance at which the gravitational perturbation by the planet would just be detectable, as computed using Equation (4), Pluto is undetectable by this method at any distance for which Equation (4) is valid: See Hogg et al.
(1991).


Examining this table shows us that an Earth sized object cannot be closer than 50AU gravitationally and 620AU out visually. Does that mean that this allows the object to be 50AU out when Iorio calculated 430AU out? NO. It means that 430AU trumps the 50AU. It means that the 620AU also trumps the 430AU. The Iorio work from 2009 is seen to be an improvement over the 2004 work reported in Jewett's paper. Jewett did not do gravitational work he reported 1991 work. So we see a substantial improvement over time.

Again I never said that a dwarf had to be at 25000AU. Let's see where this number came from.

This is what I wrote. Notice this is not presented as a constraint. It simply states that someone thinks something is at that distance.

Not only must the objects be currently far away, but their orbits must keep the objects far away. A recent paper postulates a possible object around 25000AU or about 1/3 of a light year away.


Then you posted the following:

Nemesis is predicted to lie at a distance equal to 25,000 times that of the Earth from the Sun, or a third of a light-year.


That sounds like the same information doesn't it? That was a direct quotation from the following source.
Search on for Death Star that throws out deadly comets

Then I agree that there is a predicted out there

That object is suggested to be 25,000 AU away.


The next post makes no sense because there is confusion that I agreed that a prediction is made for an object out 25000AU.

They state that starting at 20AU, and not 25,000AU as you claim

You are referring to the comet distance in one of your anomaly papers and I was clearly referring to a predicted object distance. I have no idea why these two distances were confused.

Again here I am agreeing that the 25000AU is in reference to a predicted object.

Go back to the article hypothesizing the brown dwarf and read where the 25000AU comes from.


Expat2368 arrives to agree that the report states that there is a prediction for an object at a distance of 25000AU.

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


So now you appear to agree that this is a prediction and not a constraint.

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.


The next post though has this confusion over the 25000 predicted distance and the comets. No idea why there is any confusion over this.

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


Then I am back to trying to get on course here and identifying the source and meaning of the 25000AU distance.


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.


For unknown reason the confusion continues when you post the following.

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.


Again I have to post the reason behind the 25000AU remark.

Go back to the article hypothesizing the brown dwarf and read where the 25000AU comes from.


Now things seem that they are getting back to normal when you post the following:

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.


Then you write the following which is untrue.

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


Right before the moderator asks for us to stop the personal sniping I posted the following in which I refute your claim that I denied the existence of an object as far out as 25000AU.

There are well known constraints. Misrepresenting articles, misrepresenting posts, and using outdated information is quite unbecoming.


Then you switch tactics and claim that the 25000AU is a constraint.

So there is no proof that no large Mars/Earth size planet can be anywhere close to 320 AU? and a bronw dwarf or red dwarf would have to be at 25,000AU?...


I don't see any place where I have posted any reference to 25000AU other than it is a distance mentioned in a paper.

My response to your statement is

Also, the constraint for a brown dwarf is not out to 25,000AU. That is a prediction of a possible object.


Then I have to address another error. This time you claim that I said that the OP is incorrect. Nowhere do I say that.


The OP was about one such paper you claim don't exist...


This paper suggests an object 25,000AU away.


No now we see that I have always accepted that the OP claims of an object at 25000AU is possible. I have always stated that this was a reference to a 1-4 Jovian mass sized object that was predicted. It should also be clear that you are the only person in this thread that has attempted to make a claim that 25000AU refers to anything other than the object mentioned in the OP.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Did you ever mention this paper as part of your anomaly papers? I don't believe that you did. So getting back to the main question,


I am still waiting for you to show where in all of the anomaly papers there is talk of a point source gravitational object. You posted dozens of times claiming support in those papers and you still haven't shown where you saw the experts say that this was the case. It is possible I missed it - extremely doubtful, but possible. So please show us where that exists.


Please be truthful the next time and post where in your anomaly papers that there is evidence for a point gravitation source.



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


You are arguing things back and forth and not proving a thing, for there are tons of questions and I'm very sure that many in the know have asked them.

I believe switching channels from 3D can be very traumatic in the 3D, but intend to hold the light over shifts being sudden and wonderful for us all.

Nwo order, or cosmic disasters or both, are not my cup of tea really, but I am probably one of the few people who, if we're going to go through this would rather the curtain was coming up on all, than just the masses, and really like that crop circle showing an expanded sun/consciousness.

We should be getting our houses in order. Truly, and for anyone who truly knows information, but is withholding due to the pyramid mafia over their heads, step forward and know how important Love, Equality and Awareness/Light is, for its how we pass this test.

I envision, more and more coming forward and joining our side, humanities side, getting their houses in order too.

[edit on 14-5-2010 by Unity_99]



posted on May, 14 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Welcome to the discussion Unity_99. As you can see the discussion has pushed the position of any possible planet back beyond the back side of the Kuiper belt. Any thoughts on that?

[edit on 14-5-2010 by stereologist]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist

Welcome to the discussion Unity_99. As you can see the discussion has pushed the position of any possible planet back beyond the back side of the Kuiper belt. Any thoughts on that?


Wow...obviously you want to push YOUR conclusions which are WRONG, despite the fact that I showed you WRONG time and again...

Go ahead and live your life thinking you are never wrong....



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You have failed miserably to support your notions. You have never shown that any of your posted anomaly papers supported the notion of a point source gravitational object in the solar system. Instead of showing where in any of those papers there was support you tried to deceitfully use another line of evidence. You failed miserably to understand the meaning of constraints. You failed miserably to understand the difference between theories and technologies.

So please spare me that failed claims of being wrong. You have been wrong in your claims.

ElectricUniverse and his 25000AU deceitful tactics
This post goes through the thread and shows how you attempted to misrepresent and were deceitful.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Welcome to the discussion Unity_99. As you can see the discussion has pushed the position of any possible planet back beyond the back side of the Kuiper belt. Any thoughts on that?

[edit on 14-5-2010 by stereologist]


If you read my thread on the Holographic Universe under my profile, you'd see why I don't think we would see this coming until the last minute and if it is coming, the negative would be promoting it, they want to reset us.

But in short, using the DVD model metaphorically to explain this, the Universe is like a giant DVD player, digital (its more than that too, but its run as a school in a certain way), with Infinite channels and sysetms, moons and planets, and each system is its own DVD, but also, each planet/moon is its own pocket of space-time as well, so almost mini dvds. The system is playing a collage of a vareity of space-time dvds. We dont' see the universe, for we only see in earth time 3d. And thats like a bottom level system.

Anything out of our solar system is not going to show up if its on a different channel.

So I don't concur with your conclusions, though don't think that all the anomalies can only be answered via nemisis. But the fact is evidence that things are coming to a conclusion that puts earth in jeopardy, bases are built and the solar system is undergoing change.

We're also in the hands of madmen, insane negative oriented beings that are among the worst to walk on any planet in the cosmos. I could tell you alot that I know about them, that are controversial facts, but will leave them out of this thread. And that is very connected to this, cycle or event.

Whatever is happening was given an extention to wake up more people and especially to get them to understand that there are billions of people starving and we have the power to give. Giving unblocks energy, transformations. The gift of giving, even a little, blesses the one giving enormously. It unblocks us, and releases the karma and negative harvest TPTB and whoever is holding their strings is attempting.

Electric Universe is showing the annomalies and they are not errors in interpretation.

I myself feel Saturn is connected to this event and to TPTB. But I also showed David Wilcock's video regarding a crop circle that was made so fast, and had a signature put on it, that only HAARP and therefore a crop circle made as disnifo by TPTB would make it non-ET.

Also, it showed an expanded consciousness shift and a larger sun. If that image is not just a possiblity but comes true, then I'm probably one of the few online leaping for joy at seeing the sun extend to Venus. In a Holographic Model, stars are the lasers erecting the hologram, the projector (thus sungazing is a good way to connect to your Higher Self!, and by experience I can tell you it truly is). The center of the galaxy is probably more like a giant star too. They probably have white and black hole technology in them. Stars also reflect our collective consciousness. Naturally Beleguese and the Orion Priesthood have a much bigger, more expanded consciousness.

If anyhting is coming we have to see it as a SHFT, and hold shifts over everyone, rapid, miraculous shifts, positive ones. And wake ppl up to love, sharing and equality.

Its pretty obvious something is coming, the question is what?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Do you have any evidence for these claims? You have a lot of what appears to be 'made up stuff'. Any observations that support this?


Electric Universe is showing the annomalies and they are not errors in interpretation.

I never said that the anomalies were real or not. I strongly dispute the misrepresentation of the anomalies.


In a Holographic Model, stars are the lasers erecting the hologram

If that were the case then it would be detectable.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Your pluto story link is on an infinite redirect loop. You should edit.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
A bunch of info here on the topic:

Binary Research Institute



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Hey EU, advice from a friend, Never argue with fools as the bystanders may not be able to tell who is the real fool. It is wasted effort arguing with those who think there is no arguing with their assumptions. I have to fight with myself all the time to not do it also, its bad for our health.

You are being baited with spoiled teenager type logic, I think it has become a game for some here.



posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by I_am_Spartacus
 


Do you have anything to add to this thread other than a message you should have sent U2U? Apparently not.





new topics
top topics
 
86
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join