Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 21
142
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
To try and explain it in simple terms is not easy. Basically the majority of time the orbit of the brown dwarf star comes up from the south putting the Earth between it and the Sun. When this happens we get pulled away from the Sun a little bit each time, thus causing the 80,000 year ice ages. Eventually after 80,000 years of getting pulled away from the Sun a little bit every 3,600 years, things change. The dwarf star now comes up putting the Sun between us and it. The combined gravity of the Sun and the Dwarf then pull Earth back towards the Sun, giving us the 20,000 year warm periods. That's why you see the rapid increase of temperature compared to the slower decrease because the combined gravity of the Sun and the dwarf star pulls us back closer much faster than the dwarf star alone pulls us away.

We actually started our drop into the ice age 3,600 years ago believe it or not. The temp then was 1.5 degrees hotter, the ocean levels were 17 feet higher, and the days that made up the year were only 360. When the dwarf made its pass 3,600 years ago, it changed our days by pulling us away from the Sun. That is why the temp dropped, the ocean levels went down, and now we have a 365 day year.




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Whoever said that an object of this size could not be a stellar object is simply wrong.

In fact, let's look at a real comparison of how small a brown dwarf could be compared to Jupiter, and the Earth.



Even a low mass star is smaller than the theoretical planet or dead star Tyche.

BTW, I do know that a low mass star is much denser than a planet.

As to the claim that there is no evidence for this binary dead star to exist...


Evidence Mounts For Companion Star To Our Sun
by Staff Writers
Newport Beach CA (SPX) Apr 25, 2006
The Binary Research Institute (BRI) has found that orbital characteristics of the recently discovered planetoid, Sedna, demonstrate the possibility that our sun might be part of a binary star system. A binary star system consists of two stars gravitationally bound orbiting a common center of mass.

Once thought to be highly unusual, such systems are now considered to be common in the Milky Way galaxy.

Walter Cruttenden at BRI, Professor Richard Muller at UC Berkeley, Dr. Daniel Whitmire of the University of Louisiana, amongst several others, have long speculated on the possibility that our sun might have an as yet undiscovered companion. Most of the evidence has been statistical rather than physical.

The recent discovery of Sedna, a small planet like object first detected by Cal Tech astronomer Dr. Michael Brown, provides what could be indirect physical evidence of a solar companion. Matching the recent findings by Dr. Brown, showing that Sedna moves in a highly unusual elliptical orbit, Cruttenden has determined that Sedna moves in resonance with previously published orbital data for a hypothetical companion star.

In the May 2006 issue of Discover, Dr. Brown stated: "Sedna shouldnt be there. Theres no way to put Sedna where it is. It never comes close enough to be affected by the sun, but it never goes far enough away from the sun to be affected by other stars... Sedna is stuck, frozen in place; there's no way to move it, basically there's no way to put it there – unless it formed there. But it's in a very elliptical orbit like that. It simply can't be there. There's no possible way - except it is. So how, then?"

"I'm thinking it was placed there in the earliest history of the solar system. I'm thinking it could have gotten there if there used to be stars a lot closer than they are now and those stars affected Sedna on the outer part of its orbit and then later on moved away. So I call Sedna a fossil record of the earliest solar system. Eventually, when other fossil records are found, Sedna will help tell us how the sun formed and the number of stars that were close to the sun when it formed."

www.spacedaily.com...

Apart from the above, I have posted many times other research that seems to indicate this companion star to our Sun does seem to exist.

Another fact that I presented in the forums at the beginning of last year was the following.

Among the other anomalies, the secular increase in AU, or the distance between the Sun, and planets which has increased and cannot be explained.



Anomalies in the Solar System
Dittus, Hansjoerg
37th COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 13-20 July 2008, in Montréal, Canada., p.717
Several observations show unexplained phenomena in our solar system. These observations are e.g. the Pioneer Anomaly, an unexplained constant acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft, the Flyby Anomaly, an unexplained increase of the velocity of a series of spacecraft after Earth gravity assists, the recently reported increase of the Astronomical Unit defined by the distance of the planets from the Sun by approximately 10 m per century, the quadrupole and octupole anomaly which describes the correlation of the low l contributions of the Cosmic Microwave Background to the orientation of the Solar system. Lacking any explanation until now, these phenomena are still investigated intensively. In my talk I will discuss the present status of those investigations and the attempts to find reasonable explantions.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Another source explaining a bit more about the secular increase in AU, and which still states it cannot be explained by our current knowledge.


Secular increase of the astronomical unit and perihelion precessions as tests of the Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati multi-dimensional braneworld scenario
Lorenzo Iorio JCAP09(2005)006 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2005/09/006


PDF (313 KB) | HTML | References | Articles citing this article



Lorenzo Iorio
Viale Unità di Italia 68, 70125, Bari, Italy
E-mail: lorenzo.iorio@libero.it
Abstract. An unexpected secular increase of the astronomical unit, the length scale of the Solar System, has recently been reported by three different research groups (Krasinsky and Brumberg, Pitjeva, Standish). The latest JPL measurements amount to 7 ± 2 m cy−1. At present, there are no explanations able to accommodate such an observed phenomenon, either in the realm of classical physics or in the usual four-dimensional framework of the Einsteinian general relativity. The Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati braneworld scenario, which is a multi-dimensional model of gravity aimed at providing an explanation of the observed cosmic acceleration without dark energy, predicts, among other things, a perihelion secular shift, due to Lue and Starkman, of 5 × 10−4 arcsec cy−1 for all the planets of the Solar System. It yields a variation of about 6 m cy−1 for the Earth–Sun distance which is compatible with the observed rate of change for the astronomical unit. The recently measured corrections to the secular motions of the perihelia of the inner planets of the Solar System are in agreement with the predicted value of the Lue–Starkman effect for Mercury, Mars and, at a slightly worse level, the Earth.

www.iop.org...

There has been an increase in the AU, the distance between the planets and our Sun that cannot be explained either in "the realm of classical physics or in the usual four-dimensional framework of the Einsteinian general relativity."

Evidence that whatever this is seems to also be affecting comets, and they are arriving earlier than they are supposed to.


6 The increase of the Astronomical Unit

6.1 The observation

From the analysis of radiometric measurements of distances between the Earth and the major planets including observations from Martian orbiters and landers from 1961 to 2003 a secular increase of the Astronomical Unit of approximately 10 m/cy has been reported (36) (see also the article (37) and the discussion therein).

6.2 Search for explanation

Time–dependent gravitational constant and velocity of light This increase cannot be explained by a time–dependent gravitational constant G because the ˙ G/G needed is larger than the restrictions obtained from LLR.

It has also been speculated that a time–dependent change in the velocity of light can be responsible for this effect. Indeed, if the speed of light becomes smaller, than ranging will simulate a drift of distances. However, a inspection of Kepler’s third law
T2 4π2
a3 = GM⊙

(17)
12

shows that, if one replaces the distance a by a ranging time a = ct, then effectively the quotient G/c3 appears. Only this combination of the gravitational constant and the speed of light governs the ratio between the orbit time, in our case the orbit time of the Earth. Consequently, a time–dependent speed of light is equivalent to a time–dependent gravitational constant. Since the latter has been ruled out to be possibly responsible for an increase of the Astronomical Unit, also a time–dependent speed of light has to be ruled out.

Cosmic expansion The influence of cosmic expansion by many orders of magnitude too small, see Sec.9.2. Neither the modification of the gravitational field of the Sun nor the drag of the planetary orbits due to the expansion is big enough to explain this drift.

Clock drift An increase of ranged distances might also be due to a drift of the time scale of the form t → t + αt2 for α > 0. This is of the same form as the time drift needed to account for the Pioneer anomaly. From Kepler’s third law one may ask which α is suitable in order to simulate the increase of the Astronomical Unit. One obtains α ≈ 3 · 10−20 s−1 what is astonishing close to the clock drift needed for a clock drift simulation of the pioneer anomaly, see Eq.(16) and below.
7 The quadrupole and octupule anomaly Recently an anomalous behavior of the low–l contributions to the cosmic microwave background has been reported. It has been shown that (i) there exists an alignment between the quadrupole and octupole with > 99.87% C.L. [38], and (ii) that the quadrupole and octupole are aligned to Solar system ecliptic to > 99% C.L. [39]. No correlation with the galactic plane has been found.

The reason for this is totally unclear. One may speculate that an unknown gravitational field within the Solar system slightly redirects the incoming cosmic microwave radiation (in the similar way as a motion with a certain velocity with respect to the rest frame of the cosmological background redirects the cosmic background radiation and leads to modifications of the dipole and quadrupole parts). Such a redirection should be more pronounced for low–l components of the radiation. It should be possible to calculate the gravitational field needed for such a redirection and then to compare that with the observational data of the Solar system and the other observed anomalies.

..........................
8.2 Other anomalies?
There is one further observation which status is rather unclear bit which perhaps may fit into the other observations. This is the observation of the return time of comets: Comets usually come back a few days before they are expected when applying ordinary equations of motion. The delay usually is assigned to the outgassing of these objects. In fact, the delay is used for an estimate of the strength of this outgassing. On the other hand, it has been calculated in (44) that the assumption that starting with 20 AU there is an additional acceleration of the order of the Pioneer anomaly also leads to the effect that comets come back a few days earlier. It is not clear whether this is a serious indications but a further study of the trajectories of comets certainly is worthwhile.

arxiv.org...


Now, note what it says in the last excerpt above.


On the other hand, it has been calculated in (44) that the assumption that starting with 20 AU there is an additional acceleration of the order of the Pioneer anomaly also leads to the effect that comets come back a few days earlier.

arxiv.org...

Comets are arriving earlier than they are supposed to, and calculations are assuming that starting at about 20 AU there is an additional acceleration in the order of the Pioneer anomaly.

Satellites are not the only ones being affect by whatever is causing this anomaly.

edit on 17-2-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: errors and to add comments.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Let me add some more wood to the fire.


Large 'Planet X' May Lurk Beyond Pluto
By Ker Than,LiveScience
Posted: 2008-06-19 17:56:30
Filed Under: Science News

(June 19) - An icy, unknown world might lurk in the distant reaches of our solar system beyond the orbit of Pluto, according to a new computer model.


The hidden world -- thought to be much bigger than Pluto based on the model -- could explain unusual features of the Kuiper Belt, a region of space beyond Neptune littered with icy and rocky bodies. Its existence would satisfy the long-held hopes and hypotheses for a "Planet X" envisioned by scientists and sci-fi buffs alike.

"Although the search for a distant planet in the solar system is old, it is far from over," said study team member Patryk Lykawka of Kobe University in Japan.

The model, created by Lykawka and Kobe University colleague Tadashi Mukai, is detailed in a recent issue of Astrophysical Journal.

If the new world is confirmed, it would not be technically a planet. Under a controversial new definition adopted by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) last week, it would instead be the largest known "plutoid."

The Kuiper Belt contains many peculiar features that cant be explained by standard solar system models. One is the highly irregular orbits of some of the belts members.

The most famous is Sedna, a rocky object located three times farther from the sun than Pluto. Sedna takes 12,000 years to travel once around the Sun, and its orbit ranges from 80 to 100 astronomical units (AU). One AU is equal to the distance between the Earth and the Sun.

Possible Planet X

And here is another source that shows whoever said that an object of this size cannot be a stellar object is wrong.


The stars, described as "ultracool subdwarfs" follow very unusual paths around our galaxy, the Milky Way.

They have low temperatures and are small enough to be close to planet-like objects.

Only a few dozen ultracool subdwarfs, which are up to 10,000 times fainter than the Sun, have been identified.

One of the oddest aspects of the stars is the rapid speed at which they travel. They have been clocked at more than a million miles per hour.


www.telegraph.co.uk...


Now take a look at the speed these subdwarfs can take...


One of the oddest aspects of the stars is the rapid speed at which they travel. They have been clocked at more than a million miles per hour.

www.telegraph.co.uk...




Projected orbits of ultracool subdwarfs. Credit: MIT

www.universetoday.com...

These ultracool subdwarfs were only discovered in 2003...and there is much more we need to learn about our Universe, and what can be found within it. Heck scientists have been wrong about what happens for example to the magnetic field of our own planet Earth, yet some people want to claim that we know everything there is to be known about our Universe and how it works?...


edit on 17-2-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Just to show some people other of the unexplained phenomenon in our Solar System which scientists can't explain, here are some other articles and research papers.

I am not saying they are all related, but rather that there is much we still need to learn about our own Solar System, and our Universe. Heck we are still learning new things about our own planet which were once thought to be wrong.


THE RECENTLY DETERMINED ANOMALOUS PERIHELION PRECESSION OF SATURN
Lorenzo Iorio 2009 The Astronomical Journal 137 3615-3618 doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/137/3/3615

Lorenzo Iorio1
INFN-Sezione di Pisa, Pisa, Italy
1 Permanent address for correspondence: Viale Unità di Italia 68, 70125, Bari (BA), Italy.
E-mail: lorenzo.iorio@libero.it

ABSTRACT. The astronomer E. V. Pitjeva, by analyzing with the EPM2008 ephemerides a large number of planetary observations including also two years (2004-2006) of normal points from the Cassini spacecraft, phenomenologically estimated a statistically significant nonzero correction to the usual Newtonian/Einsteinian secular precession of the longitude of the perihelion of Saturn, i.e., ; the formal, statistical error is 00007. It can be explained neither by any of the standard classical and general relativistic dynamical effects mismodeled/unmodeled in the force models of the EPM2008 ephemerides nor by several exotic modifications of gravity recently put forth to accommodate certain cosmological/astrophysical observations without resorting to dark energy/dark matter. Both independent analyses by other teams of astronomers and further processing of larger data sets from Cassini will be helpful in clarifying the nature and the true existence of the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Saturn.

Key words: celestial mechanics; ephemerides; gravitation; planets and satellites: individual (Saturn); relativity

Print publication: Issue 3 (2009 March)
Received 2008 November 4, accepted for publication 2008 December 24
Published 2009 February 23

www.iop.org...


Here is another article about the evidence which seems to show our Sun has a companion star.


Evidence mounts for sun's companion star
April 24th, 2006

The Binary Research Institute (BRI) has found that orbital characteristics of the recently discovered planetoid, Sedna, demonstrate the possibility that our sun might be part of a binary star system. A binary star system consists of two stars gravitationally bound orbiting a common center of mass. Once thought to be highly unusual, such systems are now considered to be common in the Milky Way galaxy.

Walter Cruttenden at BRI, Professor Richard Muller at UC Berkeley, Dr. Daniel Whitmire of the University of Louisiana, amongst several others, have long speculated on the possibility that our sun might have an as yet undiscovered companion. Most of the evidence has been statistical rather than physical. The recent discovery of Sedna, a small planet like object first detected by Cal Tech astronomer Dr. Michael Brown, provides what could be indirect physical evidence of a solar companion. Matching the recent findings by Dr. Brown, showing that Sedna moves in a highly unusual elliptical orbit, Cruttenden has determined that Sedna moves in resonance with previously published orbital data for a hypothetical companion star.
............

www.physorg.com...



Mysterious Twist Found in Saturn's Electric Ring
By Dave Mosher
Staff Writer
posted: 22 August 2007
08:45 pm ET

An invisible donut of trapped, hot particles surrounding Saturn is all bent out of shape--a finding that astronomers cant yet explain.

A similar "ring current" phenomenon occurs around Earth as a relatively stable donut when present, but new Cassini spacecraft images show Saturn's loop is a lopsided mess.

"It's curious that Saturn's ring current isn't symmetric," said Don Mitchell, an astrophysicist at Johns Hopkins University who helped examine the images beamed back to Earth. "We think the solar wind is squishing the sunward side of the ring current, kind of like a wind sock."

Planets with magnetic fields can trap hot particles within their clutches to form giant electrified clouds—the ring currents—that are invisible to the naked eye.
............

www.space.com...


Solar System Passing Through Interstellar Cloud
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 December 2009, 13:41 CST

The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist. In the Dec. 24th issue of Nature, a team of scientists reveal how NASAs Voyager spacecraft have solved the mystery.

"Using data from Voyager, we have discovered a strong magnetic field just outside the solar system," explains lead author Merav Opher, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University. "This magnetic field holds the interstellar cloud together and solves the long-standing puzzle of how it can exist at all."

The discovery has implications for the future when the solar system will eventually bump into other, similar clouds in our arm of the Milky Way galaxy.

Astronomers call the cloud we're running into now the Local Interstellar Cloud or "Local Fluff" for short. It's about 30 light years wide and contains a wispy mixture of hydrogen and helium atoms at a temperature of 6000 C. The existential mystery of the Fluff has to do with its surroundings. About 10 million years ago, a cluster of supernovas exploded nearby, creating a giant bubble of million-degree gas. The Fluff is completely surrounded by this high-pressure supernova exhaust and should be crushed or dispersed by it.

"The observed temperature and density of the local cloud do not provide enough pressure to resist the 'crushing action' of the hot gas around it," says Opher.

So how does the Fluff survive? The Voyagers have found an answer.
....

www.redorbit.com...

BTW, here is an article from 1983 about the theoretical planet X.




January 30, 1983
The New York Times
By John Noble Wilford

Something out there beyond the farthest reaches of the known solar system seems to be tugging at Uranus and Neptune. Some gravitational force keeps perturbing the two giant planets, causing irregularities in their orbits. The force suggests a presence far away and unseen, a large object that may be the long-sought Planet X.
..............
Recent calculations by the United States Naval Observatory have confirmed the orbital perturbation exhibited by Uranus and Neptune, which Dr. Thomas C. Van Flandern, an astronomer at the observatory, says could be explained by “a single undiscovered planet.” He and a colleague, Dr. Robert Harrington, calculate that the 10th planet should be two to five times more massive than Earth and have a highly elliptical orbit that takes it some 5 billion miles beyond that of Pluto – hardly next-door but still within the gravitational influence of the Sun.

Some astronomers have reacted cautiously to the 10th-planet predictions. They remember the long, futile quest for the planet Vulcan inside the orbit of Mercury; Vulcan, it turned out, did not exist. They wonder why such a large object as a 10th planet escaped the exhaustive survey by Mr. Tombaugh, who is sure it is not in the two-thirds of the sky he examined. But according to Dr. Ray T. Reynolds of the Ames Research Center in Mountain View, CA, other astronomers “are so sure of the 10th planet, they think there’s nothing left but to name it.”

At a scientific meeting last summer, 10th-planet partisans tended to prevail. Alternative explanations for the outer-planet perturbations were offered. The something out there, some scientists said, might be an unseen black hole or neutron star passing through the Sun’s vicinity. Defenders of the 10th planet parried the suggestions. Material falling into the gravitational field of a black hole, the remains of a very massive star after its complete gravitational collapse, should give off detectable x-rays, they noted; no X-rays have been detected. A neutron star, a less massive star that has collapsed to a highly dense state, should affect the courses of comets, they said, yet no such changes have been observed.

More credence was given to the hypothesis that a “brown dwarf” star accounts for the mysterious force. This is the informal name astronomers give to celestial bodies that were not massive enough for their thermonuclear furnaces to ignite; perhaps like the huge planet Jupiter, they just missed being self-illuminating stars.

Most stars are paired, so it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Sun has a dim companion. Moreover, a brown dwarf in the neighborhood might not reflect enough light to be seen far away, said Dr. John Anderson of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA. Its gravitational forces, however, should produce energy detectable by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite.

Whatever the mysterious force, be it a brown dwarf or a large planet, Dr. Anderson said he was “quite optimistic” that the infrared telescope might find it and that the Pioneer spacecraft could supply an estimate of the object’s mass. Of course, no one can be sure that even this discovery would define the outermost boundary of the solar system.
www.nytimes.com...

standeyo.com...



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Reading your post I had a thought. If there is a dead companion star out there, it could very well have it's own planets as well. What if there is a planet, a Large planet, that has a long orbit around that dead star. When it gets to perihelion, Our Sun has a greater influence on it causing it to be drawn toward our sun. This gives it a 8 or infinity orbit around two stars, the dead dwarf star and our sun. This would give a reason for a highly elongated structure AND a reason for it to accelerate as it approaches the sun.The gravity fluctuations that scientists are detecting aren't from the planet but are from the companion star.

Just throwing out some possibilities.

Jaden



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You seem to be confusing "size", "diameter", and "mass". The diagram you led off with compares diameter, not mass. Density will greatly affect diameter for a given mass. The object in the OP is said to have a MASS of 4X Jupiter, which is not enough to ignite as a star. Brown Dwarves start at around 13 Jovian masses - around 3 times the mass of this object.

Low mass stars are "low mass" compared to other stars, not planets. SOME low mass stars may be denser than SOME planets, but it's not a hard and fast rule. The densest planet in the solar system is Earth, at about 5.5 gm/cm^3, and the least is Saturn, at about 0,8 gm/cm^3. That's a pretty wide range to generalize about. Some small diameter stars are quite a lot denser than planets. Neutron stars come to mind.Those are not low mass stars, however.

Saturn is so "light" density-wise, that it would float on water. mass-wise, however, it's not "light" at all.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say regarding the "AU anomaly".



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I know the difference, however for some reason I thought the op was talking about size and not mass, but now that I read it again I see that indeed they said 4 times the mas of Jupiter.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
You make the assumption that mass has anything to do with Star formation.
In a gravity only universe relying on Nuclear Fussion to fuel stars it does.

In an Electric Universe it does not.
I dont want to derail the thread into an EU discussion just pointing out that our current assumptions about Star formation are most likely wrong and as such this object could be a small "cold" star.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
...
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say regarding the "AU anomaly".


Simply that the distance between the Solar System planets and the Sun is increasing in a manner that has baffled scientists. They don't know what is causing this increase in the AU between the Sun and the planets, including Earth.

There must be something causing this, as to what it is we could speculate all day about it, but it shows that there is much we do not know about our own Solar System, and our own planet Earth.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by nenothtu
...
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say regarding the "AU anomaly".


Simply that the distance between the Solar System planets and the Sun is increasing in a manner that has baffled scientists. They don't know what is causing this increase in the AU between the Sun and the planets, including Earth.

There must be something causing this, as to what it is we could speculate all day about it, but it shows that there is much we do not know about our own Solar System, and our own planet Earth.


I was thinking, this measured increase in distance of the planets of about 15 metres per century could be explained, maybe, by the Oort cloud, itself. Granted, a massive cloud/shell leads to no net gravitational force within it, but if there is a significantly uneven distribution of mass in the Oort cloud, that might account for the extra slight "tug" on the planets.

Of course, I don't know any better than you or anyone else, but it's a thought, and it would be much harder to detect than a binary star (and a planet would never have enough mass to produce the effect).



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth3r
 


just not possible but a fun dream.

there are no planets capable of showing themselves in our lifetime they would be quite visible no matter what the orbit unfortunately biburu the reason i came here has been an impossibility long before any atser was born the nmbers and distance can never add up

sorry for the pee n cherios i wish for more syf fy in my daily life too



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Jeebus H Crisps! Another Nibiru theory. Come on get some serious scientific analysis of the evidence before you slap a name on the thing!!! Yes I have followed your story and links and further investigated the gravitational phenomena surrounding the behaviour of comets in the Oort Cloud and this DOES support the POSSIBILTY of a potentially very large body beyond Pluto and Neptune (and I include both because Pluotos orbit is very elliptical). HOWEVER it requires further analysis and evidence before anything concrete can be confirmed AND before its worth getting your panties in a twist about!!! GOODNESS!!!



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

I was thinking, this measured increase in distance of the planets of about 15 metres per century could be explained, maybe, by the Oort cloud, itself. Granted, a massive cloud/shell leads to no net gravitational force within it, but if there is a significantly uneven distribution of mass in the Oort cloud, that might account for the extra slight "tug" on the planets.

Of course, I don't know any better than you or anyone else, but it's a thought, and it would be much harder to detect than a binary star (and a planet would never have enough mass to produce the effect).


Not possible, a planet, not even ten together, and much less asteroids even if they number in the millions can account for this increased tug, only something with more gravitational pull than the Sun could account for this, but I could be mistaken.

However, whatever it is it must be able to counteract the gravitational pull of the Sun, and as far as I know there are only a few phenomenon that could account for this. One is an event horizon/singularity, or what people more commonly know as a black hole, but there would be more destruction apparent if this was caused by an event horizon, and it would be more easily detected.

IMO the only thing that can account for this is a brown dwarf, or even a red dwarf that is dense enough that it would counteract Sol.

It could also be a hypthetical black dwarf, although it is though that the formation of one takes much longer than the age of the universe, and none has yet been found.

There is of course the possibility that something else is causing this, but as to this date there is no explanation for it.

edit on 19-2-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
I welcome you to watch this little documentary about Nibiru: www.youtube.com...
It's in several part, please watch all of them.

Looking forward to your thoughts.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


It's been wonderful to read such positive and forward-thinking research amidst the usual public flaying of the planet x theories.

I only wish I could devote more time to researching the matter - the information you've posted in this thread, and doubtless your ATS post history, would reveal some excellent starting points for anyone with a serious and non-flippant interest in the subject.

My blase comments about the Oort cloud seem ridiculous in comparison to your well-rounded and detailed reporting. Many thanks, and a hundred stars if I could.

Now let's watch for the tumbleweeds, as the pseudoskeptics determine the best way to dismantle your comments.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by CLPrime

I was thinking, this measured increase in distance of the planets of about 15 metres per century could be explained, maybe, by the Oort cloud, itself. Granted, a massive cloud/shell leads to no net gravitational force within it, but if there is a significantly uneven distribution of mass in the Oort cloud, that might account for the extra slight "tug" on the planets.

Of course, I don't know any better than you or anyone else, but it's a thought, and it would be much harder to detect than a binary star (and a planet would never have enough mass to produce the effect).


Not possible, a planet, not even ten together, and much less asteroids even if they number in the millions can account for this increased tug, only something with more gravitational pull than the Sun could account for this, but I could be mistaken.
edit on 19-2-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.


You're right, after tracking down the hypothetical total mass of the Oort cloud, it's not possible for an uneven distribution of mass in the cloud to account for the outward movement of the inner planets.

However, there are also complications with the theory that it's caused by a brown dwarf or similar object. Where is it hiding? Is it also affecting the outer planets? If it is, it should be affecting them more than the inner planets. Is it affecting Mercury less than Mars? Is it tugging on the sun as well (as it should be)?
A mass large enough to pull on the inner planets should be either 1) too close to remain hidden, or 2) too large to not have visible affects on the outer planets/Kuiper Belt.
Personally, I'd be more inclined to say the answer is in the sun, itself.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by lostanima
 

Thank you VERY MUCH! This is the biggest, and most OBVOUS piece of the conversation that I rarely hear said. I am no mathematician, so I don't have the ability to just spout the numbers out at the drop of a hat, but I know enough to say with confidence that if something THAT BIG were hurtling towards us at a rate that would get it here by 2012, it'd be THE BIGGEST THING IN THE SKY, right?
I wonder if you could steer me towards somewhere that I could find as simple an explanation as possible? Even just the basic, unfilled equations. I imagine I could find the relevant numbers myself, but I wouldn't know where to start looking for the actual equations involved.

Yes or no, thanks for posting that. It's always irked me, because it just seemed so OBVIOUS... Take care.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 
I think that perhaps you're assuming that "Planet X" and "Nibiru" are the same thing. Is that right?

Even if that ISN'T the case, the basic problem is this: although there have been a number of different things pointing towards the existence of another body way out in the solar system, no one has been able to SEE IT. I know there is of course the belief that it HAS been seen, but covered up for whatever reason, but for multiple reasons, I just don't think that's the case.
Of course, that is just what my experience tells me. But even if it IS out there, and it IS "Nibiru," and it HAS been covered up, there's an even BIGGER problem: if it was on a crash course with Earth, we'd see it by now. And I don't just mean those at large, professional observatories. It'd be big enough for anyone with a telescope to see it every clear night.
Understand that I am not in any way discounting the existence of aliens, or a NASA cover up of ufos, or even the possibility that Nibiru and the Annunaki do exist. Only that it's on it's way here on a schedule that will correspond with 2012. I just can't see how they could POSSIBLY cover that up. It'd be like if South America just started careening headlong towards North America. Sooner or later it'd get close enough that no matter what kind of TV/radio/internet censorship they put in place, all you'd have to do is look out the back door. See what I mean?



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Nibiru, or any other planet will not hit Earth on December 2012... Who the heck is coming up with these claims?...

These sort of claims, the same with the claims that the Mayans predicted the end of the world for Dec 21st 2012 damages the real information about this very possible dead star in our Solar System, plus at least one large planet, and the real Mayan prophecies...

No planet is going to hit Earth on 2012.
edit on 19-2-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Well, the heliosphere is shrinking in concert with the slight increase in distance from sun.

Of coarse, we still have alot to learn about the helisophere in general though.

Plus the fact that our computer models fail to accurately represent the formation of the solar system and we aren't sure why exactly. Gravitational accretion alone doesn't expain it.

Like I said previously, parts of the equation seem to be missing. If we discover one or more planets orbiting the sun it would inevitably shed more light on how our solar system was created.

-ChriS





new topics

top topics



 
142
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join