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.

 

Back to Nibiru?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OneLife
 


If there were actually chemtrails blocking the view of the night sky, then every pro and amateur astronomer would be complaining bitterly about the blocked view. Not happening because chemtrails are a phony claim.




posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Then explain the weird tilts of uranus and neptune? Scientific evidence suggest there is something pulling them, someone big, beyond pluto.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by xxshadowfaxx
 



Then explain the weird tilts of uranus and neptune? Scientific evidence suggest there is something pulling them, someone big, beyond pluto.

Tilts are not due to gravitational attraction. What happens with gravity is that there are actual motions of the planets and there are predicted motions of the planets. When these 2 do not coincide we say that there is a perturbation. Up to the 1980s there were observations of perturbations that suggested a planet X. Neptune and Pluto were found in this search for planet X. When Voyager flew by Neptune the data showed that Voyager did not take the anticipated path. Calculations showed that the mass of Neptune was wrong, wrong by around 0.5%. When the mass of Neptune was corrected using the flyby data, the issue of perturbations went away. The search for planet X was over. There was no missing mass in the solar system.

This of course does not mean that there is no unknown planet. What this means is that any new planet must be far, far away and not have an orbit that enters the orbits of the known planets.

Hoaxers that pretend NASA is doing a cover up try to pretend that old observations are current. They lie by mixing data that is old with current issues. Or they try to lie by suggesting that a tilt is indicative of a gravitational pull. There are many ways for the liars to lie. The facts are simple. Gravitational studies exclude any new planet sized objects out to at least 70AU and whole sky surveys exclude any new planet sized objects to 320AU. A Jupiter sized object must be out at least 2100 AU.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
What about all the articles of a new heavenly body found in the mid 1980's? It even made encyclopedias. There were lots of news articles about it, but then they just shut up about it. It disappeared. No one ever talked about it again. That' seems pretty weird to me. I was around back then, and I remember getting a book all about planet X, I wish I still had that book it was really interesting.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by xxshadowfaxx
 



What about all the articles of a new heavenly body found in the mid 1980's? It even made encyclopedias. There were lots of news articles about it, but then they just shut up about it. It disappeared. No one ever talked about it again. That' seems pretty weird to me. I was around back then, and I remember getting a book all about planet X, I wish I still had that book it was really interesting.


As I pointed out, the issue was that there was a difference between the calculations and the observations. Science is about predictions. There were predictions and the planets were not following the predictions. That's bad. When Voyager went by Neptune a discrepancy was observed. The data suggested that the estimated mass for Neptune was wrong. When the mass was corrected by the Voyager flyby data the perturbation issue went away.
Neptune

When the new estimate of the mass of Neptune was used in the calculations all of the perturbation issues went away. That's amazing, but it does not mean that there are no new planets. If I were one of these wackos who claim planet X I'd have to lie and say the evidence is clear no new planets. That's not the case. All this means is that any new planets are far away and never enter the orbits of the known planets.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


You didnt even acknowledge let alone address the question from shadow regarding NASAs claim of finally locating planet X in 1983-84 then mysteriously retracted it. And what of Robert S Harrington?



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by lestweforget
 


OK. So I didn't acknowledge a stupid lie. Wow. Who would have though it?

So what part of the stupid lie are you interested in knowing about?

Harrington was an astronomer looking for a new planet X. He died before the Voyager data was available. Had he not died he probably would have acknowledged that his search was based on bad data.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by stereologist
 


You didnt even acknowledge let alone address the question from shadow regarding NASAs claim of finally locating planet X in 1983-84 then mysteriously retracted it. And what of Robert S Harrington?


Are you talking about the IRAS data?

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 Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
There is also one other slightly off topic subject I'd like to talk about.

Buzz Aldrin. Why would a man who walked on the moon, destroy his reputation, by talking about a monolith on phobos, the mars moon? Why would he even mention it? It doesn't make any sense. But he does, he says humanity will be shocked when they discover the monolith on phobos..... wtf? If a monolith on phobos is possible, then planet X is possible too.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by xxshadowfaxx
 


What do you mean?


Then explain the weird tilts of uranus and neptune?


Uranus is "on its side" relative to its orbital plane....97 degrees, roughly. But, Neptune's tilt is only 29 degrees...the Earth's is 23.5 degrees.

Uranus likely suffered some major confrontation, near miss even a collison, long long ago, and early in the Solar System's formation. Gravitational "pull" won't alter a planet's rotational axis to that degree...if at all. Except, as noted, an extremely close call possibly --- that is going to be a theoritical notion, for now.

But, IF such a thing cold occur at any great distance, then the Sun might have done something like that to Mercury, Venus... maybe even Earth too...the Sun is so massive, it contains roughly 98 % of ALL of the Solar Sysytem's mass.....so, even at a great distance, has influence of sorts.

Uranus facts: www.nasm.si.edu...

Neptune facts: solarsystem.nasa.gov...


edit on 23 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   
No, I'm talking about all the articles that made the news. Here is one, but there are several others.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

I don't know where the real articles are, but they did make national news papers.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Let me get this right are you accusing NASA of lying?

Cant wait till your employers hear of this insubordinance1



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Are you telling me there was no news articles? Are you saying that's a lie?



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Star48Gazer
Niburu or planet X might be a star-companion circling around Sun with some period related to precession Earth
movement and if it is a brown dwarf or star closer to neutron star stage so it would be dimly visible to the naked
eyes. Intensive volcanic activity is just indirect symptom of that. Yellowstone caldera bulging, Afar triangle in
Africa splitting slowly and its two volcanos are showing red lava like Mt. Etna in Sicily. Those things are difficult
to deny.


I don't think anyone is going to try to deny volcanoes and the African rift. Earth is still very much a geologically active planet. These things have happened, are happening now and will continue to happen. There is no Niburu.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by xxshadowfaxx
 


Hey shadow, i think we scared him off!
Or he may be getting a dressing down for poor shillmanship.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by xxshadowfaxx
 


The mystical planet x mentioned in the article turned out to be a group of distant galaxies and intergalactic cirrus.

Source 1
Source 2



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
STEREOLOGIST,

i guess you would have been one of those who accused and sentenced Giordano Bruno for saying that the Stars that we see are Suns like our own.

NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE HOW THE CANYONS ARE FORMED...and to me it a scratch mark from a planetary collision


Mars' great canyon complex, Valles Marineris, dwarfs the size and splendor of Earth's own Grand Canyon. But while geologists have a formed a fairly complete picture of how the Grand Canyon formed, the mechanisms that carved out Valles Marineris and its component canyons have been a longstanding mystery, with explanations ranging from massive floods to tectonic processes like those that cause earthquakes and build mountains on Earth.


"How did these gigantic canyons really form? Were they all formed by floods, or were other things going on?" asks John Adams of the University of Washington in Seattle

"These have been controversial questions going back to the very first Mariner pictures of Mars. And they're still controversial questions, which means we don't really fully understand what's going on yet."

the rest is all IF, MAYBE, IT SEEMS

so lemme think outside of the box will ya?

Mechanisms that carved canyons have been a longstanding mystery

or shall we tell them that stereologist know it all?


edit on 24-1-2011 by heineken because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Gab1159
 

Think about it: What space Officials would tell us, "Yeah your planet x is coming in, and me and mine have a home waiting underground. Cheers, and good luck to ya."
edit on 24-1-2011 by simone50m because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join