Getting Our "Facts" About Nibiru Straight

Originally posted by NWOnoworldorder
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

nibiru is still the same that brown dwarf planet that is very difficult to locate seeing as its a dark planet.

Ok someone help me with this one... brown dwarf planet??? i have never got this, am i being stupid or are the people that put the above.... how can you have a brown dwarf planet...... is a brown dwarf not a star?

In fact ill answer my own question cus lets be honest wiki is a click away...

en.wikipedia.org...

Brown dwarfs are sub-stellar objects which are too low in mass to sustain stable hydrogen fusion. Their mass is below that necessary to maintain hydrogen-fueled nuclear fusion reactions in their cores, which is characteristic of stars on the main sequence. Brown dwarfs have fully convective surfaces and interiors, with no chemical differentiation by depth. Brown dwarfs occupy the mass range between that of large gas giant planets and the lowest-mass stars; this upper limit is between 75[1] and 80 Jupiter masses (MJ). Currently there is some debate as to what criterion to use to define the separation between a brown dwarf and a giant planet at very low brown dwarf masses (~13 MJ ), and whether brown dwarfs are required to have experienced fusion at some point in their history. In any event, brown dwarfs heavier than 13 MJ do fuse deuterium and those above ~65 MJ also fuse lithium. Some planets are known to orbit brown dwarfs: 2M1207b, MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb, and 2MASS J044144‎

So its a star that has a no MOJO??? .....


As for Niburu.... its one of them aint it... no proof for,,,, little to no proof against... and due to the nature of these "dark" objects hard to find....

Everyone see there there is a new planet on the outskirts of our system thats MEGA big, but the real amazing thing here is what was missed by many.... not that it could be Niburu but this.....

www.independent.co.uk...

Whether it would become the new ninth planet would be decided by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). The main argument against is that Tyche probably formed around another star and was later captured by the Sun's gravitational field. The IAU may choose to create a whole new category for Tyche, Professor Matese said.

The IAU would also have the final say about the gas giant's name. To the Greeks, Tyche was the goddess responsible for the destiny of cities. Her name was provisionally chosen in reference to an earlier hypothesis, now largely abandoned, that the Sun might be part of a binary star system with a dim companion

I would be more interested in being part of a binary system and this would make me think alot more about what was around before us.....

reply to post by NWOnoworldorder

the latest thing that nasa has found on the outskirts of our solar system thats 4 times the size of venus...IS NOT nibiru....just sayin

That's not what has happened. Nothing has been found out there.

reply to post by loagun


Great a timeline of hoax dates. How NOT useful.

reply to post by loagun


Do you have any real information or properties of Nibiru and not hoaxes posted on youtube?

...

reply to post by Opspeculate


Thanks for the long and detailed post Opspeculate because it shows the numerous problems with Sitchin's claims.

Ancient Sumerian texts have been mangled by Sitchin to make a number of dubious claims. The claims of planets colliding and forming the asteroid belt and Moon are really bad. There isn't sufficient material between the 2 sets of material to make a planet. The "hand waving" of Earth's moons dispersing happens how? How does gravity disperse these moons?

A planet with an orbit of 3600 years would be detected by project Pan-STARRS. Such a planet would not exceed the limits of detection which are 320AU for an Earth sized object.

When you get around to placing dates and events for recent history we get to see that the claims are obvious confabulations.

1999 - The proposal that a Mars-sized object collided with Earth to form the Moon only matches Sitchin because he copied it from such a proposal.
Pointing out that high eccentricity orbits exist is known because some of the objects in our solar system have such orbits.
1994 - Ida does not suggest that a collision occurred. Impact craters suggest collisions.
There is no "strange gravitational "pull" on Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, which indicates there is another body of significant size beyond it... " The issues with Uranus and Neptune were figured out in the 1989 Voyager 2 flyby of Neptune.

Based on mathematical evidence, astronomers have been so sure of the reality of this planet that they named it Planet X. The name stands for the tenth planet, as well as the mathematical symbol for an unknown quantity.

That statement is wrong. The search for planet X began when nothing beyond Neptune had been detected. The X does not mean ten. The search was over when Neptune's mass was corrected in 1989.

Notice how in the next paragraph the search for a new planet has articles that all predate 1989 and the Voyager 2 flyby. Let's see there is 1982, 1981, 1982, 1982.

Now it's off to that infamous and poorly written article in the Washington Post from 1983.
Here is a new twist on misrepresenting the article.

This story reported that the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) detected heat from an object about fifty billion miles away.

Nowhere does it say that there was a known distance for this object. In fact the object being discussed turned out to be a distant and new type of galaxy.

Here is the second paragraph from the article.

So mysterious is the object that astronomers do not know if it is a planet, a giant comet, a nearby "protostar" that never got hot enough to become a star, a distant galaxy so young that it is still in the process of forming its first stars or a galaxy so shrouded in dust that none of the light cast by its stars ever gets through.

Possibly as Large as Jupiter; Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered

We could all go over and over how this article was so poorly written. Instead we could go find out what the object turned out to be. It was a new type of galaxy.

No 10th Planet Yet

Then the discussion continues with Harrington and the predictions of the location of a possible planet X. Notice the dates: 1988 and 1987, both dates precede the mass of Neptune correction.

After a brief comment on Sitchin's mistranslations of Sumerian texts we read this:

mum was the word on the issue of Planet X during the 1990s

That's reasonable seeing that in 1989 the Neptune mass correction led to the realization that the perturbations had been due to a bad mass value for Neptune.

Then there is a discussion of the find of planets outside of the solar system. These planets are in general not imaged, but inferred from the movements of the stars about which they rotate. What is not mentioned is that as technology improved for the detection of extra solar objects so did the ability to detect objects orbiting the sun. As interest in NEOs increased a number of whole sky survey projects was built that found all sorts of asteroids and comets. These devices were used to scan the Kuiper belt. It is now complete except for a small part in the southern skies. Dwarf planets were found, but nothing large.

What we do know is that if a new planet exists in our solar system it cannot have an orbit that enters the orbits of the known planets. That eliminates the claims of Sitchin, which had been eliminated long ago due to a host of reasons. Any new planet must be at least 320AU away if it is Earth sized, or 2100AU if it is Jupiter sized.
PROJECT PAN-STARRS AND THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM

reply to post by stereologist


i didn't say every point was factual. did you care to read about the points stating astrologers throughout history have mathematically calculated the existence of a 'large' body beyond Pluto? or did you read about NASA's press release in 1983/84 and again in 1992 concerning the discovery of a massive body in the outer reaches of our solar system. perhaps you read about the Sumerian tablets documenting the 'planet'? maybe you skipped over ancient Egyptian, Mayan, or Greek documentation of the existence of a 10th planet? did you read about the magnetism of the Earth being disrupted as seen in the Earths sedimentation dating back in rotation ever 3,400-3,600 years? no i don't think your lazy *** did.

OMG people, disinformation/too lazy to google much?? A brown dwarf and a dwarf planet are two different things MUCH like Nibiru and 'planet X'. As you all know(or most) NASA announced the discovery of 'a' planet 'X' in 2005 which was then named Eris. It was later downgraded like Pluto to a 'Dwarf Planet'( Earth is over 15x larger).

Planet 'X' refers to any unknown planet. The planet 'X' that NASA announced they had tracked in 1983 and 1992, as well as the planet 'X'/mystery planet that astrologers have mathematically predicted throughout history IS NOT ERIS the DWARF PLANET.

On a side note, my personal belief is that NASA announced the 'discovery' of 'Planet X' in 2005(Eris) with the intention of confusing, and directing attention away from the planet 'X' they found in 1983. By looking at the information released in 1983 about that particular planet 'X' anyone can see that it is a completely different body then the planet 'X'(Eris) that was discovered in 2005. One is over 15x smaller then the planet Earth, and the other body is predicted to by up to 4x larger then Jupiter, and was actually viewed on a NASA satellite so it is in fact real.

Eris, formal designation 136199 Eris, is the most massive known dwarf planet


This is a lie and disinformation being spread from NASA which is another reason why I believe the 'discovery' of Eris was to confuse/distract people from the massive body found in 1983. 'Dwarf Planet' Eris only has an approximately diameter of 2300–2400 km as compared to Jupiter's largest Moon Ganymede which has a diameter of 5262 km. 'Dwarf Planet' Eris is more then 2x smaller then Ganymede which points to the reality that it should have never been 'discovered' and labeled as a 'Planet' and then later a 'Dwarf Planet' at all. I believe that point itself proves NASA's intention of covering up their 1983 confirmation of the massive object looming in our solar system by labeling Eris planet 'X' to lead the public into believing these two objects were the same bodies.

So again your lesson was, a Brown Dwarf and a Dwarf Planet are two different things. Eris is a Dwarf Planet that was recently discovered(really just a Moon, that or Jupiter's Moon's should all be reclassified as Dwarf Planets), and the planet 'X' of 1983, or 'Nibiru' if you prefer, is theorized as being a Brown Dwarf because of it's extremely cold temperature(40 degrees above absolute zero). This is however is just that, a theory. I believe another reason for the massive object's extremely cold temperature may also be because of it's great distance from our sun which was estimated to be 50 trillion miles away(in 1983). This leads to the possibility that it would receive little to no warmth at all.

If it is a brown dwarf out there, is it crazy to think that something could be orbiting it, and the orbit intersects our own? Could this hypothetical planet be the one ancient's talked about?

Just a theory I felt like drawing out.

reply to post by loagun

i didn't say every point was factual. did you care to read about the points stating astrologers throughout history have mathematically calculated the existence of a 'large' body beyond Pluto?

First of all no astrologers calculate anything. Pluto was not known throughout history. It was discovered rather recently.

or did you read about NASA's press release in 1983/84 and again in 1992 concerning the discovery of a massive body in the outer reaches of our solar system.

Are you talking about the 1983 press release where NASA did NOT announce the discovery of a new planet? I'm sure you are. Is this what you are referring to?
Possibly as Large as Jupiter; Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered
NASA does not announce a new planet at this press conference.

Please provide a link to the 1992 claim. I'd like to read it.

perhaps you read about the Sumerian tablets documenting the 'planet'? maybe you skipped over ancient Egyptian, Mayan, or Greek documentation of the existence of a 10th planet?

The ancient Sumerians did not know about any planets other than Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Where do you get the mistaken notion that they knew about more planets than those visible to the naked eye?

did you read about the magnetism of the Earth being disrupted as seen in the Earths sedimentation dating back in rotation ever 3,400-3,600 years? no i don't think your lazy *** did.

First of all it doesn't happen every 3,400-3,600 years. Please get off your lazy star-star-star and do a little research. Earth's magnetism is due to convection current in the outer core. The changes in the field are due to changes inside of the Earth.

reply to post by loagun


Do you know that Eris was found as part of the Kuiper belt survey. Do you know how small Eris is compared to our Moon? Do you know that the idea of a dwarf planet was based on finding that there were more objects like Pluto. Eris was not downgraded. Eris led to a reclassification because it was discovered.

was actually viewed on a NASA satellite so it is in fact real.

You're almost right. It is real, but not a planet. It was a number of distant objects, an interstellar cirrus cloud and a number of new galaxies with no optical counterpart.

This is a lie and disinformation being spread from NASA which is another reason why I believe the 'discovery' of Eris was to confuse/distract people from the massive body found in 1983.

Clearly, you are very,very,very,very confused.
Confusion 1 - In 1983 NASA announced the discovery of a new planet. Did not happen.
Confusion 2 - A planet and moon are different because of orbit, not diameter.
Confusion 3 - The reassignment of Eris from planet was due to its discovery. There was no dwarf planet class before Eris was discovered.
Confusion 4 - An object 50 trillion miles away would be part of our solar system. That's 8 light years away.

reply to post by jessejamesxx


Can you tell us what the drawing represents. What is the yellow dot? What is the blue dot? What do the ellipses represent? I'd rather not guess.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by jessejamesxx

 

Can you tell us what the drawing represents. What is the yellow dot? What is the blue dot? What do the ellipses represent? I'd rather not guess.

Our Sun and Earth to the left.
Red - Brown dwarf (if that is what it is)
Purple - the hypothetical planet orbiting it, Nibiru?
Ellipses - The orbits of said objects.

The drawing shows a brown dwarf orbiting the sun, at about the distance of the Oort. I'm suggesting that if that object could have planet sized bodies orbiting around it, the angle of the orbit wouldn't be parallel to our own, but be cutting through the plane of the orbiting planets, such as our own. This could explain why it shows up once every few thousand years, and why we never see it.

But then again, I don't know if a brown dwarf has enough mass/gravitational pull to support something like that.

Nibiru is a planet that has a 3,600 Earth year orbit of the sun. This orbit is eliptical and brings the planet close to or within the orbit of Earth. It is inhabited by aliens who in all respects look like humans but live 3,600 times longer than us. In order to protect the atmosphere of Nibiru the inhabitants (called Nibblers) need gold. Hundreds of thousand of years ago they came to Earth to find gold for this purpose. But because they were rather stupid and didn't know how to build drills and excavators they genetically modified early man and got them digging for gold using stone tools and antler picks instead. They were also unable to navigate other than by visual sight, so had to build the Giza pyramids to show them where their space port was. They then fell out with one another. Something to do we the twin brother shagging the wife of his daughter's aunt or summut. See any cheap daytime soap for more details.

In 2003 Nibiru returned, cause a massive earth crust displacement and most of us died.

Anything else is nonsense.

reply to post by jessejamesxx


The reason I wanted to check is that the 1 light year scale has the orbit of the Earth out way too far. The Earth is light minutes form the Sun. The main problem here is that object rotating around the brown dwarf is also going to be pulled by the Sun. That object would take a path defined by the forces working on it. When the object moves towards the sun, the effect of the Sun's gravity increases. If the object were to get halfway between the Sun and the other star, then the Sun's great mass would exert more force than the other star and the object would be lost to the smaller star. To hold onto the object the other planet would have to orbit where the gravity of the other star is the dominant force.

reply to post by stereologist


It wasn't drawn to scale. Can you imagine how wide the image would've been otherwise?

You're probably correct about the sun obstructing the orbit of it though. I wonder if it would be possible if the object had enough speed.

I like thinking outside the box if you hadn't noticed

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by loagun

 

Do you know that Eris was found as part of the Kuiper belt survey. Do you know how small Eris is compared to our Moon? Do you know that the idea of a dwarf planet was based on finding that there were more objects like Pluto. Eris was not downgraded. Eris led to a reclassification because it was discovered.

Yes I do, the Moon is 3474 km in diameter, and Dwarf Planet Eris is 2300–2400 km in diameter. Did you ask me this just so I could look it up for you? Or to point out in my favor how small indeed and irrelevant the 'discovery' of 'dwarf planet' Eris is?

Wrong. and NASA initially described it as the Solar System’s tenth planet. click here to actually read about the history of Eris....

this is right from NASA's website...
A planet larger than Pluto has been discovered in the outlying regions of the solar system. read the rest of the story before you start lying.....
So I was right. Thank you.

You're almost right. It is real, but not a planet. It was a number of distant objects, an interstellar cirrus cloud and a number of new galaxies with no optical counterpart.

The most fascinating explanation of this mystery body, which is so cold it casts no light and has never been seen by optical telescopes on Earth or in space, is that it is a giant gaseous planet, as large as Jupiter and as close to Earth as 50 billion miles. this is taken right from the Washington Post article of 1983.... thank you....

Confusion 3 - The reassignment of Eris from planet was due to its discovery. There was no dwarf planet class before Eris was discovered.
Confusion 4 - An object 50 trillion miles away would be part of our solar system. That's 8 light years away.

Now why did you even mention these 'confusions'? I don't care if there was no 'dwarf planet' classification before the discovery of Eris because NOT ONCE DID I MENTION THAT THERE WASN'T THIS CLASSIFICATION! You Sir are offering information to facts that have never been questioned. THEREFOR YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE EXACT WORKINGS OF A DISINFORMATIONALIST. I have already proven your rebuttles wrong here using actual EVIDENCE. Why would you even mention this "An object 50 trillion miles away would be part of our solar system. That's 8 light years away" where on Earth(yes Earth!) did I ever challenge this piece of information? I clearly and point blankly wrote that this object WAS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM. Why on EARTH would I be 'confused' about this when I NEVER, NOT ONCE, NOWHERE said the object that was seen by NASA telescopes was OUT of OUR solar system. I would love for you to cite where I wrote that. God you must be schizophrenic....

P.S. prior to 2006 when the term 'Dwarf Planet' was decided upon, objects fitting into this category were referred to as minor planets, subplanets, planetoids, or plutinos. and FYI minor planets/subplanets/planetoids/plutinos Ceres and Haumea were discovered BEFORE 'dwarf planet' Eris, it was not the first one!

reply to post by Chadwickus


well thanks very much for your correction good sir.
but i wasnt exactly being technical in my comment.

if u want to get technical then a brown dwarf is a star that is smaller than a planet and has a mass equivalent to less than one-tenth of the Sun's mass.

i hope this appeases you.