NASA finds Tyche, the 'good sister' of Nemesis/Nibiru/Planet X/Wormwood/Hercolubus

reply to post by bekod

well i can not believe how many names one planet can have !!! they changed it again

But it's not one planet! Each of the hypothetical planets has a different orbit, and only one of them is actually known to exist: Eris. Eris is a dwarf planet, not a brown dwarf.

so if they have that pic, why not others?

Exactly! Why not release photos of these new planets? Because there are no photos of them, possibly because they don't exist. If Tyche is confirmed, the data will be published. Why wouldn't it be?

reply to post by GoldenFleece

Yeah, they said they've have an answer by, what was it, mid-2013?

It's understandable that detecting the existence of a Jupiter-sized object in our solar system who's precise orbit and position have been calculated for the last 30 years could take another 2-3 years to locate.

By then, you'll hopefully be rewarded for all your hard work by being able to sit back in an underground bunker.

The object being searched for does not have a precise orbit and definitely not a precise position. If there were known then the search would not take years. It might take minutes as was the case with Neptune.

Tyche has only been hypothesized for a year. The journal publication was last year. No idea why you think it was published 30 years ago.

reply to post by truthbringsfreedom777


There is a difference between not knowing and refusing to know or even telling lies.

The average Nibiru believer is a smart person that is able to learn and wants to learn. That's pretty clear. Just because someone does not know a piece of information is rather meaningless. When the information is presented and is discarded because it fails to meet some preconceived notion or is purposely altered into a falsehood it makes you wonder.

For the Nibiru believers let's review some of the issues. I believe they want to know.

1. No planet was discovered in 1983. The article in the Washington Post mentions the possibility of a Jupiter sized object and even a distance as a possibility. It mentions a lot of other possibilities as well
   
2. Before 1989 there was a search for a planet X. That was dropped in 1989 because new measurements of the mass of Neptune were obtained from the Voyager 2 flyby of the planet. The corrected data made the reason for the search disappear.
   
3. In 1984 it looked like extinctions on Earth had a regularity to them - every 26My. Not so. Other scientists looked at the data and saw other patterns. Nemesis was given as a reason for the 26My regularity.
   
4. In 2004 the Pan-STARRS survey was doing high resolution whole sky surveys. Making it possible to resolve Earth sized planets out 8X the distance to Pluto and 50X the distance to Pluto for Jupiter sized objects.
   
5. In 2006 Brown was working on his Kuiper belt survey. He found a lot of interesting objects out there but no new planets. He found a number of objects similar to Pluto and Pluto was reclassified as one of these new types of objects in the solar system.
   
6. In 2010 Brown finished all but a small piece of the Kuiper belt survey. No new planet was found.
   
7. Also in 2010 another planet was hypothesized. This one was Tyche. It was predicted to be far away.
   
8. In 2011 WISE ran out of coolant and thus finished its infrared scans.
   

What has been established is that any new planet must be very far away. It might be out there, but it cannot have an orbit that enters the orbits of the known planets.

reply to post by DJW001

see the problem with that is it is from an open source where any one can throw in there 2 cents and call it fact, put up JPL NASA or WISE then you would have a creditable rebuttal.

reply to post by bekod

see the problem with that is it is from an open source where any one can throw in there 2 cents and call it fact, put up JPL NASA or WISE then you would have a creditable rebuttal.

I'm not sure what you mean. Would you prefer to hear it from Caltech, where the scientists who actually discovered it are? Or do they not count because they are scientists, and know what they're talking about?

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by SpreadLoveNotHate

 

Thanks, but credit should actually go to ATS member randyvs for finding this story, which I've yet to see anywhere in the American MSM.

I mean, it's not as big as Lady Gaga, but still...

Star and a Flag for you OP.

Just now noticed.

reply to post by DJW001

yes much better source, now that is the one that got pluto rejected as a planet or something like that.

reply to post by DJW001

Eris, what an interesting name:

ERIS was the goddess or spirit (daimona) of strife, discord, contention and rivalry. She was often represented specifically as the daimon of the strife of war, who haunted the battlefield and delighted in human bloodshed.

ERIS. According to the Iliad, she wanders about, at first small and insignificant, but she soon raises her head up to heaven (iv. 441). She is the friend and sister of Ares, and with him she delights in the tumult of war, increasing the moaning of men. (iv. 445, v. 518, xx. 48.)

www.theoi.com...

Hmmm, sounds just like the recently discarded Nemesis.

And what do we have here? Eris reminds me of Nibiru, the "winged disk".

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/499c45728cb4.jpg[/atsimg]
Probably just a coincidence...

reply to post by GoldenFleece


So now Eris is Nibiru? I thought it was Tyche? No, wait, the planet that The Washington Post said might exist, but doesn't. The name Eris is appropriate considering that it threw the astronomical community into discord over the definition of a planet.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

You're finally catching on. Did you notice the title of this thread? There's many more names I didn't mention: Vulcan, Dark Star, Destroyer, etc.

Just like the Babylonians, Greeks and Romans called the 12 Planetary Gods different names.

In an attempt to confuse people, Nibiru's name keeps changing, but the little brown "dwarf" that was first mentioned in Sumer and Babylon remains the same.

Coming soon to a planet near you...

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Vulcan was a hypothesized planet between Mercury and the Sun in the 19th century. It was never found. Nemesis was a proposed binary star 50,000 AUs out. Tyche is a proposed planet 25,000 AUs out. Planet X was a proposed planet past Neptune that explains perturbations in the orbits of the gas giants. These perturbations were explained and a planet was never found. Eris is a dwarf planet along with Sedna, Ceres, Haumea, and Makemake. Other proposed trans-Neptunian objects that have been proposed include Hyperion, Brahma and Vishnu. These objects all have an astronomical value and are completely different. Any other names you come up have been proposed by New Age authors based on their own beliefs and dubious translations of agent texts. So, stop trying to tie all of these names to one object that has been called Nibiru.

EDIT: The reason many ancient religions had twelve gods is due to the signs of the Zodiac not the planets. The naming convention of planets is a modern one. In fact, there is an article on Tyche that mentions how it goes against the modern convention to name planets after Roman gods.

reply to post by bekod


Pluto was not rejected as a planet. It was reclassified along with other similar objects in the solar system. From the outset it was recognized as being very different from the other planets. It was lumped together with other objects that have similar properties.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Other than musings on mythology Eris has no properties that were assigned to the hoax Nibiru. Sitchin made a number of statements such as Nibiru entering the orbits of the known planets. Eris never does that. Eris is small. The hoax Nibiru is supposed to be massive.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

In an attempt to confuse people, Nibiru's name keeps changing, but the little brown "dwarf" that was first mentioned in Sumer and Babylon remains the same.

Coming soon to a planet near you...

That's another falsehood. Nibiru's name has not changed. When Sitchin made up the hoax he kept the name the same.

Another blatant falsehood is suggesting that the object never mentioned by Sumer or Babylon is a brown dwarf. Sitchin never made that claim when he pushed his hoax called Nibiru.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

Hmmm, sounds just like the recently discarded Nemesis.

Please explain yourself; at this point you are making sense to no-one but yourself.

Congratulations Golden Fleece, in one thread you have managed to expose the three biggest disinfo artists on this site, they are habitual thread derailers and when someone uses data to expose them as you have they gang up.

reply to post by lestweforget

Congratulations Golden Fleece, in one thread you have managed to expose the three biggest disinfo artists on this site, they are habitual thread derailers and when someone uses data to expose them as you have they gang up.

Where does Golden Fleece use data? S/he can't even keep the chronology straight, and doesn't understand the difference between an hypothesis and a discovery. The title alone is a complete jumble of confusion.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by lestweforget

 

Where does Golden Fleece use data?

Well, as soon as I posted data from Matese and Whitmire's paper that proved they were searching for a brown dwarf -- which contradicted Phage's claim that the "hypothetical" Tyche wasn't massive enough to be a brown dwarf -- Phage suddenly disappeared and you replaced him. Six pages into the thread.

Tag team debunkers!

reply to post by GoldenFleece


I posted a quote from their paper showing that Tyche is too small to be a brown dwarf by a factor of 3.

Your misrepresentations are trivial to pick out.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

Well, as soon as I posted data from Matese and Whitmire's paper that proved they were searching for a brown dwarf -- which contradicted Phage's claim that the "hypothetical" Tyche wasn't massive enough to be a brown dwarf -- Phage suddenly disappeared and you replaced him. Six pages into the thread.

Tag team debunkers!

My objection isn't that Matese and Whitmire chose to characterize the hypothetical body as a "brown dwarf;" my objection is that you have conflated a diverse collection of hypothetical and imaginary celestial bodies into a portmanteau planet and claim that it's been "discovered." Where is your data to support that goulash?