Lucus And The Return Of Planet X!

reply to post by rajaten


I'm not lazy. I am going to check these dates which I notice are 3600 to 3700 years ago.

Since something is always happening in history, what do these dates suggest? I mean what is different about this collection of dates and say dates from 1800BC to 1700BC? What is different about these dates than dates from 1600BC to 1500BC?

Im not going to go into conjecture and explain things for you. If you are too dim to see the connections then its sadly your problem.

I would lay off of the snide remarks because I will report you.

reply to post by luxordelphi

I think the Lucus Destroyer videos which I watched gave some links to substantiate the claim for a 3600 year cycle.

I believe it was in this thread that I pointed out how Lucus fudged his dates. For example he includes the dates of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah although no one knows where these cities are or when any of the events happened.

I'm not sure what you are referring to about the orbits of the planets. It is true that the movements are complex. Adjustments are made all of the time. Mercury's orbit changes due to relativistic issues. Another issue is that measurements are constantly being refined. As measurements become more precise then the model begins to show us interactions that could not be observed before. What we do know now is that the orbits of the planets can be explained well enough to exclude any new planets from existing close to orbits of the known planets. An Earth sized object must be out at least 70AU or its presence would be detected in the motions of the known planets.

Here is an article which mentions both the gravitational and visual studies that heavily constrain the proximity of a new planet.
Where Are You Hiding Planet X, Dr. Brown?

If a planet sized object were to come close to earth by 2012, A TON of hobby astronomers would see it by now. Given that they're all silent, there's either no planet X, or all those thousands of astronomers are part of a conspiracy.

My gut tells me the first option is the rational one

The whole Planet X and 2012 stuff is one of the largest hoaxes ever. Most of the theories can easily be debunked and are nothing but hogwash.

reply to post by rajaten


Looks like you didn't check the data which I see is material which you did not put into quotes to indicate that you had block copied the material from another site. You really should do that to avoid the plagiarism label.

I looked through those dates and they do not appear to indicate any sort of calamity. Here is some information from the wikipedia.

List of Presidents of the United States
Does this mean that there is a global calamity every 4 to 8 years? Of course not.

A list of events does not make for much of a connection. Can you explain why the list of dates you provided indicates a calamity?

reply to post by stereologist

Thankyou, Stereo, for the link. I was surprised to read an interview with Mike Brown. It's been a long time since I heard that name. Was rather put-off in the beginning of the interview when the interviewer states something like that we all know now that the orbit of Neptune is not perturbed as much as we thought and so the last 150 years of looking for a planet that could do this is dust in the wind. I, personally, don't count myself in with the "we all know" and other blatant manipulative "get you nodding your head" phrases. I clearly remember the days when Mike Brown focused our attention on wondering whether Pluto should be reclassified as a planetoid and like a magician, created tunnel vision, excluding serious scientific inquiry for a time.

The study group (the name will come to me) that I was referring to based their calculations in some part on a Pioneer spacecraft (I think it was II) which arrived at some point (the edge of the solar system or the edge of the Kuyper belt or something) at a far different point in time then it was supposed to. The study group took this data and other data I'm not going to pretend to understand and recalculated presupposing a binary system and came up with calculations for precession far simpler and needing far fewer corrections than the existing model. This is precisely the way that Uranus and Neptune and Pluto were postulated before their rediscovery in our times.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Mike Brown did not create tunnel vision. He did the opposite. He made people realize that Pluto was just one of a large class of objects. He showed through data that Pluto was not alone and that the solar system was as rich and complex as any system could be.

His survey of the Kuiper belt is over half done now. It has discovered a large number of objects.

You are referring to the Pioneer anomaly. The satellites did not arrive there "at a far different point in time then it was supposed to". The satellites did not behave as expected. I believe that the motion of the satellites is as if there was more gravity in the solar system than expected. This is expressed as a sunward acceleration. It's small, but measurable. I believe the Pioneer anomaly was also seen in the Voyager data.

The important thing that these satellite paths showed was that the mass of Neptune was off by a small amount. When the more accurate mass of Neptune was used in calculations, the suggestion of a new planet evaporated. The difference between the actual paths and the computed paths disappeared.

This is why checking dates is so important. Notice that the new planet people quote articles from the early 80s and before. That is because they are using older research that did not have the corrected mass of Neptune. The claim that evidence of a new planet was suppressed is either knowingly stating a falsehood or more likely not understanding that science moves forward.

reply to post by stereologist

Thankyou for your detailed post. Found the link re the Pioneer anomaly and it is the Binary Research Institute. A poster named greendwarf had offerred it in my early days on ATS. I found it to be an amazing site.

I appreciate your views on Mike Brown, however, just as you feel the Spanish scientists earlier quoted are not credible for you in some way, I feel that Mike Brown through sleight of hand in the guise of science made the elephant in the room disappear.

Your explanation of the Pioneer anomaly is not clear and I wonder if we are just arguing semantics. You state "...they did not behave as expected..." and "...there was more gravity than expected..." and "...experienced a sunward acceleration..." All of these events are well and good but did they not provide the same result as the observation I stated wherein Pioneer did not arrive at a certain point at the time anticipated? What is a sunward acceleration if not faster motion?

In defense of the "new planet people" as you call them and their quoting of articles of the early 80's and before I have to say that many feel as I do that there is a B.C. and an A.D. to the quality and truthfullness of scientific disclosure finding its' way to the public. This would be before the disinformation police and after. Statements like "the mass of Neptune was off by a small amount" fuel this distrust because in my research, for instance, small amounts of mass do not perturb orbits. Just like cute discussions of Pluto now being a planetoid do not answer the questions of what was actually found and, instead, fuel rumor to fill the vast empty spaces.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Regarding the "Spanish scientists". After their big announcement they promised more evidence to "prove" that they had discovered a nearby brown dwarf (which they had declared is the proposed "Nemesis"). That evidence has still not surfaced but let's have a look at their claims.

This document:
docs.google.com...

Is purported to be theirs. In it they run through the Nemesis hypothesis and claim that the supernova remnant G1.9 is actually a brown dwarf about 60AU from the Sun. They base claim on two pieces of evidence.

First they say that between 1984 and 2008, G1.9 displayed too much angular movement to be a very distant object.

Así pues tenemos dos posiciones estelares de G1.9+0.3 perfectamente diferenciadas en el transcurso de 24 años:
a. 1984 - RA 17h 45m 37s, Dec. -27:09
b. 2008 - RA 17h 48m 45s, Dec. -27:10

They are right, a change in right ascension of slightly more than 3 arcminutes in 24 years is far too great for an object 24,000 light years away. But there is a problem. The "astronomers" got their 1984 data from The MOST Galactic Centre Survey - II. New results on published supernova remnants and G2.4 + 1.4. The description of the table they used:

Table 1. This table lists (1) The Galactic cooridinates, (2) and (3) the right ascension and declination for epoch and equinox B1950.0

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...
I cannot find the source in the "astronomers'" document for the 2008 location but if you look for yourself you will see that "Figura 7" shows that Epoch J2000 coordinates are used. So what's the problem? Two different coordinate systems are used. The difference between the coordinates amounts to slightly more than 3 arcminutes of right ascension. G1.9 is in the same place it was in 1984. Quite an obvious thing for the "Spanish astronomers" to miss.


Next, they present evidence from an article titled "A 20 Year Radio Light Curve for the Young Supernova Remnant G1.9+0.3". They present radio telescope observations and claim that the fluctuations in the size of G.19 demonstrate that it cannot possibly be a supernova remnant. It gets smaller, then larger, then smaller. The problem? The MOST radio telescope is not capable of determining the size of G1.9.

The MOST observations are not at high enough resolution to detect significant changes in the size or mophology of G1.9+0.3 with time.

What was observed? The brightness of G1.9. And what did it find?

Twenty years of observations with the Molonglo Observatory Synthesis Telescope show that the young supernova remnant G1.9+0.3 has increased in brightness by 1.22 ± 0.24 0.16 per cent yr−1 between 1998 and 2007

It found that G1.9 fits the profile of a young supernova remnant.
arxiv.org...


The "Spanish astronomers" are not astronomers.

[edit on 8/24/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by luxordelphi


The Spanish scientists are not credible at least in this claim because they made a mistake. They have not corroborated their claims. I've seen this before. Their claim was wrong and that's ok.

What is a sunward acceleration if not faster motion?

A force such as gravity is indistinguishable from an acceleration. An acceleration towards the sun means that there is a force acting towards the sun. It's as if gravity turned up a bit. Objects beyond a certain distance act as if the sun's gravity were slightly stronger. The cause is unknown and therefore is labeled an anomaly.

because in my research, for instance, small amounts of mass do not perturb orbits.

The corrected mass of Neptune was 0.5% less. For a planet that is 17.2 times larger than the earth, that's a lot of mass.

Planets Beyond Pluto

Myles Standish had used data from Voyager 2's 1989 flyby of Neptune, which had revised the planet's total mass downward by 0.5%—an amount comparable to the mass of Mars

Remember that all objects have mass and affect the orbits of all other bodies. Just because we cannot measure the affect does not mean it is not there. It is simply below the threshold of the instruments being used.

Just like cute discussions of Pluto now being a planetoid

The status of Pluto is not a cute discussion. It is an important discussion about the structure of the solar system. It is an important discussion about the origins of the solar system. The recognition that Pluto was the first discovered object of its type is certainly fascinating. It demonstrates that science is a self correcting procedure as more information is collected.

reply to post by Phage

Do you play volleyball? because I do...it's called a set.

reply to post by luxordelphi

It's been a while.
Are you going to spike it?

reply to post by stereologist

Earlier in this thread there was discussion about the extreme costs of locating objects in the infra red spectrum. Any discussion we have about possible brown dwarfs, nearby black holes or other unknown yet to be discovered manifestations of creation is going to rely very heavily on data supplied by wealth. Everyone else, regardless of intention and brains, is going to have a hard time competing. That's why I like the conclusions of the Binary Research Institute because it deals in perturbed orbits, in this case of the solar system, and this has been a proven and time honored way of discovering new planets.

If sunward acceleration is described as "...the cause is unknown and therefore is labeled an anomaly..." I fail to see how that rules out a binary or anything else.

I'm not going to pretend to know the ratios of mass to orbital perturbations and I don't think a lot of scientists are calculating this on a scratch pad either. These are the wonders and perils of our times - we are enslaved by numbers and computations that cannot be verified in long hand. The situation was ripe for 2 sets of books and, I believe, that's what we got.

Is Pluto then that rare planetoid that serves 2 masters: alternatively our sun and its' binary?

reply to post by Phage

lol...

reply to post by luxordelphi

I fail to see how that rules out a binary or anything else.

If the force is sunward, then what does that have to do with another object out there? It doesn't.

The claim that finding things is reduced to money is a red herring. There are other ways of detecting objects besides infrared. Do you think black holes are found by infrared signatures? Are amateurs rolling wealth?

I think it might be wise to point out what a perturbation is. It is simply the difference between actual motion and expected motion. The problem with using perturbations to find new planets or other objects in orbit about our sun is that it can be shown that anything must be far away or small. The known objects do not exhibit motions indicating an unknown mass. Therefore, the constraint is that anything must be small enough or far enough away to fall below the current limits of measurement. This limits a new planet out to at least 70AU.

Check out the following paper and look at table III on page 474.
PROJECT PAN-STARRS AND THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM
This table shows that an Earth sized object could be out 50AU or farther without being detected by perturbations of the known planets. A Jupiter mass could be out 340AU without being detected. The column on the left shows how visual studies are a stronger constraint.

Why do you invoke a companion to the sun to explain the motions of Pluto?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

It's been a while.
Are you going to spike it?

So what do you want poured into the koolaid? vodka? Tequila? Jack Daniels?

reply to post by stereologist

Thankyou for directing me to that amazing article/paper. I confess it was my first reading of Jupiters' Trojans and comets and Neptunes' twotinos and Pluto as the largest known Kuiper Belt object. What a fascinating project! I was also startled to read on page 473, section 2.6 that there seems to be a very engaged search for a companion sun in the Oort Cloud and that this search includes a dwarf star, brown or otherwise.

I don't believe we actually have an argument that goes much beyond semantics and interpretation of astronomical measurements. My argument is not really even with NASA but with a completely unrelated branch of government service that has contaminated everything it has touched.

To the point - I can't believe that you really believe that money is a red herring. Are you on the same planet as me? NASA funded the aforementioned project which would seem to say that this project will be under similar constraints as to what can be released to the public and what is a state secret. The location is Hawaii and I haven't even been able to get accurate rainfall figures from there for years. I know that in 2004 or so Dole relocated to Florida because...who knows?

As far as the sunward motion goes, I'm not qualified to discuss it but I'm going to anyway. For generations, the orbits of the outer planets required another planet to explain their eccentricities. Now, all of a sudden, "the known objects do not exhibit motion indicating an unknown mass." Is this because that mass has been found or is this because the calculations have been fudged or is this just because the force is now sunward, unknown how or why, but that's just how it is and so there. This force, from the sun, increases with distance. I know it's tempting to immediately run to the spokes but, for my money, the hub hasn't been cleared yet.

Cute Pluto is a marker in time and made its' entrance around the same time as Xena and the Easter Bunny. I wasn't able to quite grasp from the table you directed me to what the mass of something to 300AU for a regular reflecting Pluto or only 170AU for a dark Pluto...what the mass at that distance would have to be to perturb orbits including the orbit of the solar system itself. But with sunward accelerration why not attribute this accelerration exponentially from the nearest star and make that responsible for this as well? That would be where this reasoning would go.

reply to post by luxordelphi


The issue about the Pioneer anomaly has not been figured out. There are lots of tentative explanations. I'll see if I can find one for you. OK. Below is an article. Section 4 is on the anomaly.

Is the physics within the Solar system really understood?

The article provides information on the magnitude of the acceleration, how it was determined, and the issues involved in making such a measurement. It's a very complicated process. The long list of issues that had to be considered is fairly impressive.

The issues they considered for the anomaly include: dust, additional masses, cosmic expansion, and what they refer to as the accelerated sun. What is interesting in the additional mass considered is that none is a point source such as a new planet. That won't work. They consider various distributions of dust and larger particle size formed into discs, wedges, and so forth.

As I explained previously the perturbations issue went away when the mass of Neptune was corrected. That correction seems small when thinking just of Neptune, but it is large when compared to other planets in the solar system.

The reason that another star isn't the source of the problem is that then the direction of the acceleration would be away from the sun. The direction of the acceleration is towards the sun.

BTW, Pluto is not the largest Kuiper Belt object, Eris is. Eris is 25% larger than Pluto.

reply to post by stereologist

Thankyou again for this fascinating discussion of the many recent anomalies. Had no idea about the AU. Had read about the speed of light back in 2001 or so but hadn't followed up to see if the original research, I think also from German researchers, had been corroborated.

reply to post by stereologist

My system went ahead and posted for me before I was finished. Oh well. Seems like a lot rests on this reconfigured mass of Neptune. Seems almost like without that, the problem would have been solved by an outside gravitational force working in tandem and also agitating our sun. Thankyou again for the thought provoking read and you're forgiven for directing a lay person to a site with so many equations.

NIBIRU PLANET-X 2012 005.MOD from yt user BADASSELVIS