Nibiru?? New planet to be discovered. Four times the size of Jupiter!

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Nice post.

2012 is the end of the current Mayan Baktun cycle, and a Katun cycle ends around 2040 which according to Samael Aun Weor is the beginning of the end of this present Root Race.

The "red star" mentioned by the Hopis sounds like a reference to the Planet Hercolubus of the Tylo Solar system, which should pass by our Planet Earth between the years 2040 and 2500, causing the final catastrophe of our present Root Race.

Even though I haven't listened to it yet, I've been wanting to hear the following Gnostic lecture:

A New Heaven and Earth

"We have all heard the buzz about the Mayan prophecies for the year 2012, the Apocalypse of Revelation and perhaps fewer about the Purification Day of the Hopi prophecies. All religions have prophesies of great changes for humanity, but few know what to do about it. Learn about the future of our planet Earth, and how to prepare yourself today."

my wife believes we are all dead in 2012.


she has never lied to me yet.



why she thinks that? no clue,

unless she took out a million $ insurance policy on me.

i'll go out on the deck with bbc on the radio and maybe the laptop here.

reply to post by Tamahu


are u willing to appear to these beliefs or are they just perportioned ideas of myanism. Theres many undiscovered planets amongst our solice system but the solar plex has been overly denied year after year. The officials in order must protect the information about the earth similars fetched far of pluto. This being the reason for dishonesty in prospect of the last 2012 theory playing into the destruction of our home space sphere. Its a rock with a core but the oceans reach is the same overlay at the end of the destination. Yes this could be Nibaru, but the humans have detected they will call it something other especially with the broadcast of NASA.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

There sure are a lot of posts and calculations based on the assumption that this object is orbiting our sun.

Since the majority of stars are binary or even trinary, these are premature and risky assumptions and IMO, you guys sound way too definitive.

Do you really believe that the contributors to this thread took the time to learn the math needed to describe orbital mechanics but don't have the common sense to use solid data?

Once again all of this has been understood for literally hundreds of years now. In orbital mechanics you are referring to the barycenter...

Here is a nifty graphic from NASA that explains the definition in the simplest terms anyone is going to get..

Whats a Barycenter?

You do understand that the guy who started all the Nemesis business in the 80's is the same person quoted in the OP who predicts the mass of the hypothetical object a 4 Jupiter masses? If your going to embrace the theory you also have to accept the data used to make the prediction which in this case is 4MJ.

4MJ is not anywhere close to being any kind of sub stellar object. It is a planet, physics say so. The point is inarguable.

Even if it were a stellar mass object the means of predicting orbital behavior has been well understood for a long time now...

In classical mechanics, the two-body problem is to determine the motion of two point particles that interact only with each other. Common examples include a satellite orbiting a planet, a planet orbiting a star, two stars orbiting each other (a binary star), and a classical electron orbiting an atomic nucleus (although to solve this system correctly a quantum mechanical approach must be used).

Two-body problem

I think we can agree that a second mass would require discovery before we start worrying about a trinary companion but just to humor you, if a third stellar mass were discovered Sir Isaac Newton had it covered in the Principia, first published in.....1687.

The n-body problem is the problem of predicting the motion of a group of celestial objects that interact with each other gravitationally. Solving this problem has been motivated by the need to understand the motion of the sun, planets and the visible stars. Its first complete mathematical formulation appeared in Isaac Newton's Principia (the n-body problem in general relativity is considerably more difficult).[citation needed] Since gravity was responsible for the motion of planets and stars, Newton had to express gravitational interactions in terms of differential equations. Newton proved in the Principia that a spherically-symmetric body can be modeled as a point mass.

n-body problem

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

If anyone wants to place blind trust in a profession and government agency that doesn't even agree on the definition of a planet and can't find a massive object 4X the size of Jupiter in our own solar system, that's up to you, but I won't be joining you.

Your kidding right? NASA hasn't been any part of the conversation but if I had to guess I'd say your one of the folks still upset by pluto's demotion. Out of curiosity what do you suggest be the criteria for what constitutes a planet?

What is your definition of blind trust? The math doesn't lie and is a tool freely available to anyone willing to make the effort so you don't have to rely on anyone's trust, you can easily check for yourself.

That last dig is actually smearing egg on your own face. It might be wise to familiarize yourself with the basics like conceptualizing the distances involved before taking on classical physics. If you don't understand the difficulties of making a direct observation of our mystery planet your not understanding the monumental distances involved for a gas giant planet with a low libido to stay lost.

Lets put it like this, if the earth were the size of a classroom globe pluto would be the size of a baseball 180 km away.

Wow, that's a long way at that scale (remember at this scale the earth is only 16 inches in diameter)

The inner edge of the oort cloud would start approximately 22,000 km away from the 16 "globe, over half way around the equator.

That's just a start. The outer oort cloud where our mystery planet is predicted to reside would be a quarter million km away, over halfway the distance to the moon.

At this scale Jupiter would be roughly 15 ft. in diameter.

Are you still having trouble understanding the difficulty involved finding something impossibly far away that possibly doesn't exist? Make sure to check out the links, wiki had some neat GIF's describing a lot of this.

From earlier in this thread..

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
If some of you truly interested in the subject spent a fraction of the time learning some of the science (and the physics supporting that science) rather than taking fantastical guesses based on internet rumors your returns would be many fold. You could not only help others understand the workings of the cosmos, you would also have the tools to more easily discern fact from fiction and could reach your own conclusions independent of the rhetoric and hyperbole that always surrounds these type of claims.

I cant help but chuckle at the irony, I haven't seen one of the scientific naysayers produce anything other than wild guesses that "sound right".

Originally posted by plutoice
reply to post by Tamahu

 

are u willing to appear to these beliefs or are they just perportioned ideas of myanism. Theres many undiscovered planets amongst our solice system but the solar plex has been overly denied year after year. The officials in order must protect the information about the earth similars fetched far of pluto. This being the reason for dishonesty in prospect of the last 2012 theory playing into the destruction of our home space sphere. Its a rock with a core but the oceans reach is the same overlay at the end of the destination. Yes this could be Nibaru, but the humans have detected they will call it something other especially with the broadcast of NASA.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Maybe you could clarify what you are trying to say here. What is the " solar plex" that is being denied?
I find much confusion in this whole post.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


LOL I couldnt help but giggle to me self when I read you measurements. The hence of your calcuations are way off of the line of 90Degrees, which infacet is the standard number of the right angle. You must recalculate to see that the basic indeeds of prospecting these distances is possible if done properly. Learn about the sciences of these realities before you type down useless propoganda-math tactors basic messaging board infinates. Did you realize the prosperities of the planet being that distance on its equater is enough for the axis estimate to be incorrect. AND YOUR observations are alot worsened my friend, especially when u consider the amplitude of the unkown planet. Could the myans be true or is nephelim something but giants to davids goliath practicing the Nibiru if this is planet X for certain!

reply to post by ELahrairah


Perhaps I can willingness this enforcement clearer. They have endured enough maximizing to speculate the earh isn't part of the majority solar plex biography. Inwards the attachment of solar-plex. The system positives the statment to dispute earthlings via human bodies and souls. Projecting my internet typing reaches the square rectangle of the typing base. Given these reasons my platform may be slightly different than yours but the question I am answering is birthed from the wondering asked upon it. Solar-plex
plexus /plex·us/ (plek´sus) pl. plex´us, plexuses [L.] a network or tangle, chiefly of vessels or nerves.plex´al
solar = emanating from or pertaining to the sun's rays.
To determine the solar-plex
The hyphen ( ‐ ) is a punctuation mark used to join words and to separate syllables of a single word.

Therefore in the majority of the universe. When you associate planet-x with Earth in the conversation will conclude the area of possibilty. Whereas it is, proven or not.

May I ask if English is your first language?

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
Elemental composition has nothing to do with it, mass is everything. Gravity doesn't care if it is a Jupiter mass worth of hydrogen or solid iron, it will be the same.

Now sure how you come up with that. To know the mass of any object in space, you need to know the composition of the object.

reply to post by Tamahu


English is one of the many complexities I believe in. But the languages despair masses. You asked if I've had an account on here before, I come prepared for asking of questions from thee. Must of first I believe to have asked can you back these claims as an appearance mentally or is this just relayed information from learning or watching. Programs give us media essays but it's highly doubtful that one can claim the same extiorior of the topic. We came amongst the farthest planet but is it coated. Obvious malfunction, been available since centuries ago but denied along the chains of family trees. Lies? not exactly the planet-x, nephelim farther than pluto is farther then the rest of the planets off beginning and will prove beyond.

Yes, we can back the claims related to the Mayan Baktuns, Katuns, etc.

And the Hopi prophecies are well known of, even if some people might exaggerate and embellish them.

As for the Planet Hercolubus (not to be confused with "Nibiru"), well I couldn't say that I know for 100% sure that it is going to pass by Earth between 2040 and 2500. But I'm still learning about and investigating it.

Final Catastrophe

"The Kabbalistic analysis demonstrates that in the numbers two (2), five (5), zero (0), and zero (0), the secret of the great catastrophe is enclosed. Whosoever has understanding, let him understand for there is wisdom therein.

"Unfortunately, people do not know how to comprehend the profound meaning of certain Kabbalistic numbers. Lamentably, they interpret everything literally." - Samael Aun Weor

reply to post by Tamahu


but im not able to guarantee that as synthetic nor genuine. These false claiments have been traditionally imposed as for literature and religion. You my sir, are just another messenger of the clouders who have no authenticity in there acceptings. Does that knowledge the universities of the bio or is it just another lettering of the words for mammals. The smartes ones are of the ape species evoluters. Garnishing your opinions, I can convey the mistake of the majority. Minority opinions besides, we still have to promise your terribles. Please don't respond if one isn't that of multitude planetarianism visuals.

Okay so English is "one of the many complexities you believe in"; but it isn't your primary language? Because honestly, your postings are overall incoherent.

Although I *think* that what you're asking of me, as a prerequisite for me responding to you again, is the posting of multiple images related to the Planet Hercolubus?

Hercolubus (the correct spelling)


Hercolobus (an incorrect spelling, but brings up different images)

reply to post by plutoice


I have no idea what you are talking about.

Can you explain your point or can we just take the safe bet that judging by the incoherence of your post that you have no idea what you are talking about either?

Originally posted by Draken

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
Elemental composition has nothing to do with it, mass is everything. Gravity doesn't care if it is a Jupiter mass worth of hydrogen or solid iron, it will be the same.

Now sure how you come up with that. To know the mass of any object in space, you need to know the composition of the object.

I believe you are mistaken...

Planetary mass is a measure of the mass of a planet. Within the Solar System, planets are usually measured in the astronomical system of units, where the unit of mass is the solar mass, the mass of the Sun. In the study of extrasolar planets, the unit of measure is typically the mass of Jupiter for large gas giant planets, and the mass of Earth for smaller rocky terrestrial planets.

The mass of a planet within the Solar System is an adjusted parameter in the preparation of ephemerides. There are two basic procedures for measurement:

If the planet has natural satellites, its mass can be calculated from Kepler's third law. The same procedure can be used for data from space probes such as the Voyager probes to the outer planets and the MESSENGER spacecraft to Mercury.
The mass of a planet can also be inferred from its effect on the orbits of other planets.
In practice, both methods are used. The ephemeris is a model of the Solar System, and the planetary masses within that model are adjusted so as to give the best fit between the model and the observed positions of the planets

Planetary mass

The only way we can measure a planet's mass is through its gravity. This has been the way Earth's mass was measured, too (we can't directly probe what's in Earth's interior, but we can measure the gravity on the surface). Since nobody ever visited other planets and was able to measure gravity on the spot, we usually have to resort to other methods. The most commonly used technique is to observe a body orbiting or passing close to the planet and see how its path is affected by the planet's gravity.

How do you measure a planet's mass?

Weighing planets is a tricky business. We can't even see the vast majority of extrasolar planets! For most of them, all we can do is watch how their gravity makes their star wobble. But astronomers can decipher that information and use it to estimate the orbit. The problem is, we can't tell whether the orbit of the planet is face-on or edge on in the sky, so there is always some uncertainty.

Every once in a while, though, we get lucky and discover a planet that passes in front of its star, so it blocks a little of the light. This is called a "transit", and tells us a lot more about the planet. For one, we know its orbit exactly, since we know that we are seeing it exactly edge on (otherwise we wouldn't see the planet go in front of the star). If we know the orbit exactly, then we can figure out what the planet's mass is compared to the star. We can get a good estimate of the star's mass based on its brightness and color, which lets us figure out the planet's mass too.

How do we know the density of some extrasolar planets?

I could keep going but I'm sure you see the point.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


I will add to that a basic observation... that to calculate the mass based on density, you need to have the volume. This means that, for all of those extrasolar planets out there, some of which are thousands of light-years away, scientists would need to know their volumes. To know this, they would need a way to measure their radii. Now, I dare anyone to find an astrophysicist or an astronomer and ask them how they measure the radius of a planet thousands of light-years away. Chances are, you'll get laughed at. Either that or you'll be told to "wait right here" while he or she goes to call the nice men in the white suits. In reality, most extrasolar planets aren't even visible (we only know they exist because they tug on the stars they orbit), let alone observable with enough resolution that their radii can be calculated.
Observationally, mass has nothing to do with density.

Have you guys seen the yahoo front page? They have an article about the "9th" planet and i find it interesting that it made the front page. here is the link.

buzz.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

 

I will add to that a basic observation... that to calculate the mass based on density, you need to have the volume...

You are correct. However, the original point still stands that you don't need to know the composition of an object to know its mass, and mass is all you need to know when calculating that object's gravity.

Granted, if you want to know the force of gravity acting upon an object at the planet's surface (i.e., the weight of the object at the surface), you will need to know the diameter of that planet as well as the mass -- which would indirectly get you the overall general density of the planet...

...HOWEVER, "the force of gravity acting on an object at the surface of a planet" and "the total force of gravity exerted by a planet" are two different (but related) things. In orbital mechanics, neither the density nor diameter of the planet matters when calculating orbits or measuring the total force a planet's gravity will have on a distant object.

For example, if the Sun suddenly became a black hole (but kept its current mass), the planets would still go on about their normal orbits, because the size and density of the Sun makes no difference to the orbits of the planets -- only the mass matters. It makes no difference whether the Sun's mass is a gaseous blob of hydrogen and helium, or a densely compressed batch of particles/energy.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Exactly. This is the basis of the whole "Which falls faster, a rock or a feather?" issue, which sometimes still confounds people. Ignorance may be bliss, but it gets you nowhere, either in life or in the search for truth.

In this case, the truth is that physics and orbital mechanics do not allow for a planet sweeping through the outer Oort cloud sending comets our way periodically OR a planet that, for 3599 years, sits so distant as to be hidden, only to show up the next year to wipe us out. It made sense (and still makes sense) to people who don't understand physics, but, to people like you and me, it's just silly.

Also, I added what I did to back up what was said with something more basic. It's elementary (or it should be) that we can calculate mass without knowing density.

I'm just happy there's a couple people here who can back me up. Usually, I'm left to talk all scientifical all by myself.

Originally posted by AtruthGuy
reply to post by this_is_who_we_are

 

Yay that was cute, you learned how to use google image search!
Obama got everyone using the net now.

...sigh net is slowly going down hill

edit on 15-2-2011 by AtruthGuy because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2011 by AtruthGuy because: (no reason given)

What's Google Image Search?
Whose net? I don't have a net.


Are those words coming out of your mouth?