New Sign Of NIBIRU

page: 26
27
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Fact is, its getting harder to believe what anyone tells us anymore.

We are lied to so much by our elected leaders and other goverment bodies that it is impossible to seperate the lies from the truth...

I'm not saying NASA is lying on this, I'm saying I dont know.....




posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


I'm laughing out loud at what you write even though I know that you are serious. It's just too many.

You claim that most of what we are told is lies. So why do you stand with the crazies in your claims? How do you know that the crazies aren't lying to you and that you are one of the most gullible people on this Earth? How do you know that? Oh I get it you are going to claim some innate ability to distinguish between the truth and not. BTW, I interpret that as being sloth and a refusal to open the mind and learn about the world.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by ngchunter
 


hahaha

you forgot to check your links son.

They don't work.


I didn't forget to check anything. I'm fully aware that they don't work; skyview only holds images temporarily (I would have thought the word "tempspace" in the link would have tipped you off to that, guess I should have put up a disclaimer). If you want me to pull them up again for you I can, but I don't think you'll agree with my evidence anyway; you'll simply state that the coordinates for Saturn in 1983 and CW Leonis are a lie and part of a massive conspiracy. On the off chance that you decide to prove me wrong and accept that these images show Saturn and CW Leonis, here they are again. These links are only good for about 24 hours:
skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov...
skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov...

[edit on 5-8-2010 by ngchunter]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by ngchunter
 

I'm not saying NASA is lying on this, I'm saying I dont know.....

All I'm saying is you don't necessarily have to trust NASA implicitly. Just look at the facts of the situation; a brown dwarf would be visible in infrared light, a brown dwarf in our solar system would be in an orbit of some kind and would show a measurable amount of apparent motion year to year and a large amount decade to decade, even if it were far off and orbiting slowly. The starviewer team claims to have determined it to be a solar system object, yet that claim is in direct contradiction with the never changing coordinates for the object, and likewise they can produce no orbital elements for it.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
It doesnt take a brown dwarf in our solar system to cause anything. Our star and our nemesis are connected, as are all stars. This universe is not the way they think it is. Also planetary allignments cause climate change according some scientists. The gravity doesnt center around the sun when the planets are more grouped on one side, but Juptier and that could create some very large cmes, heading that way, and if we're in that allignment, well anyway.

Things are not what is being reported, and that enough should be very alarming, in addition, science is not what we're being told either.

www.canada.com...
Not all scientists think alike.

Its best to take all the possibilities very seriously.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Unity_99]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
It doesnt take a brown dwarf in our solar system to cause anything. Our star and our nemesis are connected, as are all stars.

If Nemesis isn't a brown dwarf, then what do you claim it is? Anything else would be even more obvious.

Also planetary allignments cause climate change according some scientists.

So you're saying Nemesis is influencing us in a similar fashion? You're saying Nemesis is tugging on our orbit the way Jupiter and Saturn do?


Its best to take all the possibilities very seriously.

Not when you can rule them out as not happening.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Your claim that "gravity doesn't center around the sun when the planets are more grouped on one side" makes it clear that you have a basic misunderstanding of gravity. I think it is possible that you mean the center of mass. If that is the case, then the center of gravity is still inside of the sun at all times.

Please show us an example of "Things are not what is being reported". Can you do that for us?

As far as the article is concerned did you think we wouldn't read it?

Dr. Fairbridge's broader climate change claims -- that celestial changes control Earth's temperatures -- remain controversial, but less so than they were decades ago, when his was a relatively lone voice.


So someone makes a claim and it is in a newspaper is not the same as being in a peer reviewed journal. That's an old article. Are there follow ups or is that a dead end?


science is not what we're being told either


You say this yet post an article about a scientist. That's rather two-faced. You want us to believe what the scientist says or not?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Please look at my first post on page 1 before you comment like that.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
"a brown dwarf would be visible in infrared light, a brown dwarf in our solar system would be in an orbit of some kind and would show a measurable amount of apparent motion year to year and a large amount decade to decade, even if it were far off and orbiting slowly"

Are you guise aware that when you say stuff like this that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about? Who came up with this law and why do you beleive it? Have you done independant research or are you just repeating information that you've heard from "scientist"? I hate the whole "scientist say" debate. Truth is you don't know what the hell is going on outside of the Earth's atmosphere becasue you've never left it and most likely never will. All you're doing is repeating information nothing more nothing less. Nobody knows the laws of the Universe it's all just a huge assumption. Could there be a planet that could enter our solar system in a short period of time and disrupt everything causing the end of life as we know it? Yes. Could there not be. Yes. People need to wake up and stop using science to explain everything. Science is man made we make up words and meanings as we go along. "a brown dwarf would be visible in infrared light" It just sounds so ridiculous, nobody knows anything but we all want to know everything so we make up stuff that fits what we want to believe and pass it off as fact when in reality it's not. But I'm just wasting my time because people who are delusional will be deluded for the rest of their life. I just can't stand reading stuff like that when I know people are just repeating information that can't or won't be proven.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Bithpo
 


Actually most of what you say is lacking in reason.

Can you do simple arithmetic? Did you devise it yourself or did you learn this from some else?
Did you construct the English language or did you learn this from someone else?

Everyone including scientists rely on other people for knowledge in basic ways and in more complex situations.

You claimed the following:

Nobody knows the laws of the Universe it's all just a huge assumption.

This reeks of a novice that does not understand what science knows and does not know.


Could there be a planet that could enter our solar system in a short period of time and disrupt everything causing the end of life as we know it?

There are huge constraints on this. If it is a planet from our solar system, then no. If it is an object that is planet sized and entering our solar system, then it must be still far away otherwise we'd detect it visually and also gravitationally.


People need to wake up and stop using science to explain everything. Science is man made we make up words and meanings as we go along.

Again, this reeks of a novice with little understanding of science and the world about us. This sort of vacuous statement might resonate with you, but it is rather meaningless. It speaks more about the person trying to pawn off this claim than anything else.


... but we all want to know everything so we make up stuff that fits what we want to believe and pass it off as fact when in reality it's not.

You should read this and maybe write this on your hand. This is all about you. This sums up your post quite well. Your claims here are poppycock.


when I know people are just repeating information that can't or won't be proven.

Again, you are telling all of us that you have not learn much in the way of science, or how it works, or much about anything.

What you need to do is to take a really basic course in science and learn how science works.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bithpo
Are you guise aware that when you say stuff like this that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about?

No, I have plenty of knowledge about this subject.

Who came up with this law and why do you beleive it?

The laws of orbital motion? Kepler. Why do I believe it? Because it works 100% of the time.

Have you done independant research or are you just repeating information that you've heard from "scientist"?

I've confirmed for myself that these laws work, what research have you done to prove that I don't know what I'm talking about?

Truth is you don't know what the hell is going on outside of the Earth's atmosphere becasue you've never left it and most likely never will.

You only wish I were that ignorant. It's called a telescope and it's this neat thing that lets us see objects far beyond the earth's atmosphere and measure their motion.

All you're doing is repeating information nothing more nothing less.

All you're doing is claiming I don't know what I'm talking about.

Nobody knows the laws of the Universe it's all just a huge assumption.

That's a wild-eyed claim from someone who's never actually studied the universe.

People need to wake up and stop using science to explain everything.

LOL


"a brown dwarf would be visible in infrared light" It just sounds so ridiculous, nobody knows anything but we all want to know everything so we make up stuff that fits what we want to believe and pass it off as fact when in reality it's not.

You can confirm my statement for yourself, but you won't because you don't want people to do that kind of research, otherwise known as "science." There's nothing ridiculous sounding about it, even the vast majority of Nibiru believers believe that statement is true.


I just can't stand reading stuff like that when I know people are just repeating information that can't or won't be proven.

At the center of this IR image is brown dwarf 2MASS J16452211-1319516. This image was taken in near infrared light from earth which is over 39 light years away from the actual brown dwarf star:
archive.stsci.edu...
It can still be seen, but it's much dimmer, in this red visible light image:
archive.stsci.edu...
There, it's proven.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by ngchunter]



posted on Aug, 10 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   
If a brown dwarf was close enough, it'd be quite visible to the naked eye, let alone infra red. Whilst I'm remaining skeptical about planet x, I'm remaining open minded to the possibility that we're being lied to. It's possible that something as large as a brown dwarf could come our way, causing loads of damamge and an exinction level event. This is a violent universe after all, anything's possible. But I don't really think anything like that could sneak up on us, with our technology and shizzle.

I'm still keeping look out at the videos on youtube, if we're being lied to, that's where the news'll come from. Nothing but people filming the sun and getting normal flares/sun dogs. Though one guy did get a nice shot of "nibiru" which was the sun spot from the other day.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
sorry this is by definition of topic as you have all missed
the point of this thread after all the original premise was as i understood it simply that if this 8x planet can exist contary to the known then why not nibiru? is it a fact of science that there are no more planets in the solar system? big or small of course not in the words of sir patrick moore "we just dont know?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by shemalealy
 


Actually, we can know that there are no new planets in the solar system that can have orbits entering the orbits of the known planets. Why do we know that? If these planets did have an orbit entering the orbits of the known planets then we'd see unexplained motions of the planets. Measurements of the planets get more and more exact as time goes on. We are finding more and more objects in the solar system. In a few years the entire Kuiper belt will be scanned. At least half of the belt has already been scanned. The claim that anything is possible is not true at all. There are many things we know that cannot happen. There are also many things we can accurately predict to happen.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Come Clean
 


Clearly you have missed the point and continue to miss the point.

Suppose we are in a binary system. The other companion has to be small and a brown dwarf. Were it emitting in the visible spectrum it would have been seen ages ago. A brown dwarf has a limited mass. It might be around 60Jm. Such an object must be at least 2100AU from Earth. It might be further ad much smaller, say 10AU. Regardless, a Jupiter sized object would be at least 2100AU away. Not only is it that far away, but it CANNOT have an orbit entering the orbits of the known planets. Even if it has an orbiting planet, that planet cannot enter the orbits of the known planets.

Celestial mechanics and whole sky surveys says that the orbits must be at least 2100AU out. This does not mean it is really far out now and can orbit closer later. NO. it means that it stays out that far.


Looks like my theory is taking root in the scientific community. Wouldn't surprise me that someone on here stole my research.
Come Clean Strikes Gold Again

Binary Star Evolution


"If this is the case, it suggests that binary systems might play a key role in stellar evolution," said Simon Clark, who led the team, using the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope in Paranal, Chile, to make the observations.


Check mate!




[edit on 18-8-2010 by Come Clean]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 


Checkmate?


The article has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Below is the title of the article and a part of the article leading up to your quote.

Magnetic mega-star challenges black hole theory

How did this happen?

The answer, says the paper, could lie in a binary system: the star that became the magnetar was born with a stellar companion.

As the stars evolved, they began to interact, and the companion star, like a demonic twin, began to steal mass from the progenitor star.

Eventually the progenitor exploded, becoming a supernova. The binary connection was sundered by the blast and both stars were ejected from the cluster, leaving just glowing remnants which are the magnetar, according to this theory.


Who were you trying to fool, yourself or others?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by masonicon
 


This is actually a possibility.

The Dyson sphere could have been built from that particular systems planetary mass.

Mind you, it would take a pretty advanced species to accomplish the feat.

Possible though.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by masonicon
 


This is actually a possibility.

The Dyson sphere could have been built from that particular systems planetary mass.

Mind you, it would take a pretty advanced species to accomplish the feat.

Possible though.


The Dyson sphere? Are you serious? So you use a hypothetical structure as evidence of a hypothetical planet/star (seems to be some confussion, is it star or a planet?)? Original for sure, but nevertheless equally stupid as all the other "theories".

"Possible though"? Yes, and so is the scenario were I hook up with Megan Fox. But, feasible? No, not in a million years.

Funny thing about that statement ("not in a million years"), if you rely on Drakes equation that would be the estimated maximum lifetime of a high-tech species going through several stages of evolution and adapting exponentially.

No but seriously, can't we just let this thread go peacefully into its final rest? All possible/impossible scenarios has been dealt with and yet no proof of Nibiru/Nemesis/Planet X/Red star Katchina/Teletubbie no 6.... What conclussion can we draw from that?

For sure, you could trust people like Rajten or whatever his name is and believe that ALL government are in on this gigantic conspiracy, but it isn't going to get you closer to the truth, quite the opposite really.

But honestly, aren't we all quite fed up with all this nonsense by now?=)



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by masonicon
 


This is actually a possibility.

The Dyson sphere could have been built from that particular systems planetary mass.

Mind you, it would take a pretty advanced species to accomplish the feat.

Possible though.

Such a thing, by definition, must be surrounding a star giving off energy for use by the sphere. The mass of such an object would be such that it would reveal itself if it were nearby. It would also have to shed enormous amounts of waste heat in infrared.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 04:22 AM
link   
wth is that thing next to the sun??!!





top topics
 
27
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join