It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Neptune's Mass Recalculated

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Hi Folks...

I always need "some" logic before I believe something what can't be proven and the question of NIBIRU is a good example.

The reason I have (more or less) believed in all this Nibiru stuff is because Uranus and Neptune were discovered due to perurblations.

Now I read Neptune's mass has been recalculated and the idea a Perturber is out there has been debunked. The problem is though, everytime I do some searching on this subject, I get the same quotation, word for word. As if there is only one source for this new information. And I'm assuming this source is NASA.

Can anyone shed any light on this for me?

Thanks. :-)




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
I noticed this same phenomenon a few years back. All the sources and quotes where identical though there were hundreds of thousands of hits. Lately, we're down to a handful of different sources for info, but increasingly even they are verbatim quotes from a single source.

I noted the steepest decrease in independent sources at about the time the CIA started taking over certain search functions. Youtube went south. Google is floating belly down in the water. Our library is gone.

I guess this doesn't help much, but search just about anything and you will note the same pattern.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
I thought the mass of the planets were very easy to figure out with Newton's calculus? To need to redo them would mean either his math is incorrect (which is unlikely) or there is some unseen/unknown force acting on the planets other than the sun and the planets themselves.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


thats right buddy....



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I thought the mass of the planets were very easy to figure out with Newton's calculus? To need to redo them would mean either his math is incorrect (which is unlikely) or there is some unseen/unknown force acting on the planets other than the sun and the planets themselves.



Hmmm.... ^^ interesting.

Considering how (apparently) Nasa removed the 8" telescope Dr. Harrington used in New Zealand and went on to deny it ever existed (even though someone is quoted as saying it was removed before "the body (Dr. Harrington) had time to go cold"), I can accept Nasa would put out some misinformation to debunk the theory of Nibiru. But if I am going to convince my nephews and nieces to join me and buy a place in the mountains, I'm going to need a convincing argument re: the Mass recalculation thing.

Xtro' can you direct me via a link to a source other than NASA that argues against these "new" (new to me at least lol..) calculations?

Thanks for the replies guys. :-)



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by skem64

Xtro' can you direct me via a link to a source other than NASA that argues against these "new" (new to me at least lol..) calculations?

Thanks for the replies guys. :-)


I can tell you the best place to get your answers on this is here.

Bad Astronomy

I didn't see anything with a quick look, so put forth your questions to these guys.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



Thanks for that...:-)



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by skem64
 


Hi skem64

It’s not the mass but the residuals (the difference between where the planet is calculated to be and where it actually is by observation) that have been re-calculated due to better observations



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by cathedral
reply to post by skem64
 


Hi skem64

It’s not the mass but the residuals (the difference between where the planet is calculated to be and where it actually is by observation) that have been re-calculated due to better observations



Ahh....That explains things a bit better. Because what I couldn't understand was, if an object is perturbed and by that I understand it means it wobbles due to another force pulling on it's gravity, how could (I nearly said how on earth could..), anyway, how could it "stop" wobbling just because more precise instruments were used to measure it's mass.

You've probably guessed by now I'm no astronomer. :-)


Oh and by the way, I registered with Bad Astronomy but I think I upset them when I mentioned Sumarians, Nibiru and asked if NASA are guilty of misinformation.

Actually I'm more confused than ever....The idea of Neptune being Perturbed kinda underpinned my acceptance of Nibiru but now???? well...I guess only time will tell. ('still gonna move to the mountains though!)



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
At the risk of upsetting you guys too....If "science" "proves" there is no Perturber what evidence is there to suggest Nibiru is out there? I mean like, why do (intelligent) people still believe Nibiru exist?



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by skem64
 


Honestly I would sooner believe information is being censored and the new math fudged than the people who originally discovered the outer planets' using math in the first place were doing their calculations wrong. Not only were they able to accurately predict where new planets would be, but this was in an era less dominated by mass media censoring news and information and when engineers and scientists were all more conservative and credible (and unable to use computers so they had to actually know their stuff).

There is a video on YouTube of Sitchin interviewing a guy who worked for the Navy doing nothing but studying "planet X." I don't believe all the stuff Sitchin says but just the fact that the Navy had a guy doing this for a living shows they had some interest and good reason to believe there was more to it. I've personally seen more evidence than just the perturbed orbits too. NASA also published an article in December 1984 if I remember correctly saying they had spotted a large object in deep space when they pointed an orbiting telescope in a new direction, but that article never had a single follow-up. Not even so much as an admission of error or confusion, that it was something else. And there are other bits and pieces like that, that make me more than wonder.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11 NASA also published an article in December 1984 if I remember correctly saying they had spotted a large object in deep space when they pointed an orbiting telescope in a new direction, but that article never had a single follow-up. Not even so much as an admission of error or confusion, that it was something else. And there are other bits and pieces like that, that make me more than wonder.


Here's something on the 1984 thing.

astrobiology.nasa.gov...

How can you deny the existence of Nibiru when NASA discovered it in 1983 and the story appeared in leading newspapers? At that time you called it Planet X, and later it was named Xena or Eris.

IRAS (the NASA Infrared Astronomy Satellite, which carried out a sky survey for 10 months in 1983) discovered many infrared sources, but none of them was Nibiru or Planet X or any other objects in the outer solar system. There is a good discussion from Caltech to be found at (spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/tchester/iras/no_tenth_planet_yet.html). Briefly, IRAS cataloged 350,000 infrared sources, and initially many of these sources were unidentified (which was the point, of course, of making such a survey). All of these observations have been followed up by subsequent studies with more powerful instruments both on the ground and in space. The rumor about a "tenth planet" erupted in 1984 after a scientific paper was published in Astrophysical Journal Letters titled "Unidentified point sources in the IRAS minisurvey", which discussed several infrared sources with "no counterparts". But these "mystery objects" were subsequently found to be distant galaxies (except one, which was a wisp of "infrared cirrus"), as published in 1987. No IRAS source has ever turned out to be a planet. A good discussion of this whole issue is to be found on Phil Plait's website (www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/science.html#iras). The bottom line is that Nibiru is a myth, with no basis in fact. To an astronomer, persistent claims about a planet that is "nearby" but "invisible" are just plain silly.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


If there is any cover-up at all (and you know there would be if this information is true), what you are posting is to be expected. If you want to believe everything NASA tells you then be my guest. Like I said, my opinions are based on a number of different things I have seen, of which that 1983 article was one.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 

I noticed this recently when searching about the Norway Spiral. Almost every single article is spun from one source. Space.com


By Clara Moskowitz
Staff Writer
posted: 10 December 2009 11:28 a.m. ET



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by skem64
Oh and by the way, I registered with Bad Astronomy but I think I upset them when I mentioned Sumarians, Nibiru and asked if NASA are guilty of misinformation.



Well as long as you post it in the right section they will not be, but if you post it in the wrong place they might eat your lunch....hehe They are though a bunch of very serious, professional, non-NASA guys.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by skem64
At the risk of upsetting you guys too....If "science" "proves" there is no Perturber what evidence is there to suggest Nibiru is out there? I mean like, why do (intelligent) people still believe Nibiru exist?



One thing to think about, if there was a planet Nibiru making its way back to a 2012 rendezvous it would already be visible to the 10,000s of expert amateur astronomer around the world.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 01:35 AM
link   
There is no such thing as Nibiru.
And, if some new heavenly body shows itself, the "Nibiries" will call THAT Nibiru.
But, it still won't be.

And, the Norway Spiral was not a Dimensional Portal, or a Gravitational ... "thing"
or anything like that.

By the way, does anybody know who actually DECIDED that the Norway Spiral was, indeed, a Dimensional Vortex or Portal?
I mean, I see people calling it that. But, why? Do these people KNOW what a Dimensional Portal/Vortex looks like? Or, did somebody call the Department of Dimensional Vortexes, and have it certified as one?

Ya see, yer not supposed to BELIEVE in something BEFORE there is any evidence of it.

First there is supposed to be EVIDENCE of something.
THEN you take that EVIDENCE and try to figure out what it all means.
THEN once you have a SOUND analysis, you give it a name or a label or a purpose.

What I see all the time, especially in this forum, are people doing the exact opposite.

They have an idea, something they read about, something that is nothing more than a "fiction".
They take the "fiction", and they give it a label or a purpose.
Then, once they have this "fiction", and it has had a label, or a purpose cooked up for it, they may, (or may not) try to dig up some facts, bad science, etc, and wrap it tightly around the "fiction", hoping it will fit and stick.

This is not good.
This form of identifying and passing on bad information, is one of the big reasons REAL scientists won't touch these subjects.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by LASTofTheV8s
There is no such thing as Nibiru.
And, if some new heavenly body shows itself, the "Nibiries" will call THAT Nibiru.
But, it still won't be.

And, the Norway Spiral was not a Dimensional Portal, or a Gravitational ... "thing"
or anything like that.

By the way, does anybody know who actually DECIDED that the Norway Spiral was, indeed, a Dimensional Vortex or Portal?
I mean, I see people calling it that. But, why? Do these people KNOW what a Dimensional Portal/Vortex looks like? Or, did somebody call the Department of Dimensional Vortexes, and have it certified as one?

Ya see, yer not supposed to BELIEVE in something BEFORE there is any evidence of it.

First there is supposed to be EVIDENCE of something.
THEN you take that EVIDENCE and try to figure out what it all means.
THEN once you have a SOUND analysis, you give it a name or a label or a purpose.

What I see all the time, especially in this forum, are people doing the exact opposite.

They have an idea, something they read about, something that is nothing more than a "fiction".
They take the "fiction", and they give it a label or a purpose.
Then, once they have this "fiction", and it has had a label, or a purpose cooked up for it, they may, (or may not) try to dig up some facts, bad science, etc, and wrap it tightly around the "fiction", hoping it will fit and stick.

This is not good.
This form of identifying and passing on bad information, is one of the big reasons REAL scientists won't touch these subjects.


I am not one to believe in "Niburu." In fact I think as someone stated before many people with telescopes would have seen it already.

I on the other hand disagree with the statement about evidence. I agree a guess can be made with evidence, agreed, but some guesses use none at all. There cannot be evidence, for some things, including "God" but many people believe in that.

Evidence is a good thing to have but a lot of the best scientists do use "hunches" as well. Einstein used his imagination to figurer out most of what he did.

Also, a lot of scientists do not even use evidence. Hence, UFO's and Bigfoot. When you learn about the evidence for Bigfoot it is amazing that we don't have more educated people in the field. Again, UFO's not to "evidence" because there is no concrete proof, but some of the things that are seen are unexplainable. I think we should have scientists investigating that as well.

So well I agree evidence helps I also think hunches and imagination helps just as much.

Happy new year!!



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by skem64
At the risk of upsetting you guys too....If "science" "proves" there is no Perturber what evidence is there to suggest Nibiru is out there? I mean like, why do (intelligent) people still believe Nibiru exist?



One thing to think about, if there was a planet Nibiru making its way back to a 2012 rendezvous it would already be visible to the 10,000s of expert amateur astronomer around the world.


Xtro'....I'm not sure the question of Nibiru and 2012 are directly related. As far as I know the winter solstice of 2012 is when our solar system aligns with the plain of the Milky Way (re: the Mayan long count calander). Whereas Nibiru "joins" the "discussion" from a different angle/source.

I suspect Noahs' Flood was a result of Nibiru passing and also the Parting Of The Seas when Moses done a runner from Egypt. Now if we could know what year these events happened we would have a better idea when Nibiru is due to pass again.

This would also explain why the planet has not been seen by amature astronomers as of yet.

I've heard of something called The Venus Calander and apparently major events can be tracked using it but alas, I'm still in the dark ages when it comes to stuff like this....



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by skem64

Xtro'....I'm not sure the question of Nibiru and 2012 are directly related. As far as I know the winter solstice of 2012 is when our solar system aligns with the plain of the Milky Way (re: the Mayan long count calander). Whereas Nibiru "joins" the "discussion" from a different angle/source.

I suspect Noahs' Flood was a result of Nibiru passing and also the Parting Of The Seas when Moses done a runner from Egypt. Now if we could know what year these events happened we would have a better idea when Nibiru is due to pass again.

This would also explain why the planet has not been seen by amature astronomers as of yet.


Alignments really mean little. There are no mysterious forces that are created from them, and so there is no real significance with them other than we humans just think it might be special. Though the planets are on the same plain of rotation they are still slightly off from each other and so any alignment should be more correctly called loose grouping of the planets. For a true alignment it would happen once every 180 trillion years, and so any alignment we indulge on is really just the planets loosely grouped. We get this about every 20 years with a tighter grouping every 200 and that is about the best grouping we can ever get with nothing ever happened or will. 2012 is just a common grouping of the planets.

A close asteroid could also cause the parting of the seas, and would seem more logical since the seas parted quickly and then quickly came back together to kill the army after them. This would mean a very strong, but short lived gravitational pull would have done this. A fast moving asteroid would have this effect where a planet passing by would have a longer effect.

Also, even if another planet had some kind of orbit that sent it out so far as to not be detected why would it come back through the solar system close to earth again? If it was close the last time it came though then we could just as easily be 180 degrees away from it in our orbit around the sun, a long way away.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by Xtrozero]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join