It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And yet I have clearly, and several times now showed you that it was downgraded in 2006 after it's original January title of being the 10th planet in our solar system.
And as I clearly stated several times now this classification already existed with these bodies being referred to as minor planets, subplanets, planetoids, and plutinos.
Just because you said Eris was never categorized as a planet
In closing I know Eris lead to the new addition of the term 'dwarf planet' to the category of "bodies too small to be labeled 'planets'" that already existed before the discovery of Eris(I already previously stated the discovery of 2 minor planets before Eris was even thought of)./quote]
You are starting to get it. A series of objects is discovered which shows that there is a type of object in the solar system which deserves its own class.
You however, in review stated Eris was discovered, never labeled a planet, and was discovered to bring forth the new 'dwarf planet' category.
There you go with the lie about me saying that Eris was not classified after its discovery. Shame on you.
While elements of what you are saying may be true, things did not happen the way you are trying to make them appear to have.
This applies to you, but we'll have to agree to disagree. As you get more into the process of understanding the sequence of events you'll figure out what happened.
WTF I am a liar????? Oh please, please, pretty please point out where I lied.
You claimed that NASA confirmed the discovery of new planets in 1983 and 1992. Please show us this fact.
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?
These are the outright lies you posted.
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.
You continued to embellish this lie by claiming that NASA was tracking the object.
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.
For someone that shows that they can find articles about Eris why can't you show us that these claims about planet discoveries in 1983 and 1992 are true? My take on it is that you are using Eris as a means of avoiding the real issue which is that you fabricated stories about discoveries of planets in 1983 and 1992 and tracking the planets. I think you are purposely misrepresenting the Eris issue and how classification works to avoid admitting that you lied about planet discoveries.
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.
You say Eris is a cover up. Really? NOT.
So please show us that you did not make up wild tales, ie falsehoods, about the 1983 and 1992 planet discoveries you claimed happened.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by loagun
right from the Washington Post article of 1983.... thank you....
Thanks for pointing out what a pathetic article that was. The suggestion that it was possibly a planet was one of many possible explanations and the one that was correct was the galaxy explanation.
At least the article does not state that it is a planet. It says that a planet is a possible explanation. There are many liars that think people are so stupid that the article says it was a planetary discovery, but who would so foolish as to fall for that?
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.
That's a bit off. A brown dwarf would be a little larger than Jupiter.
A brown dwarf runs 10 to 90 Jm. The sun is roughly 1000 Jm so a large brown dwarf is roughly 1 to 9% of the Sun.
really? oh right well tell that to the encarta world dictionary.
also i think thats complete nit-pickery on your part.
the sun is ALMOST ten times the size of jupiter, a brown dwarf is the around the size of jupiter so i think saying a brown dwarf is one tenth the size is pretty darn acurate.
got what wrong exactly? i can provide links from nasa confirming what i sed if that is at all usefull?
Uhhh... anyone who's not foolish enough to believe that astronomers couldn't tell the difference between "a heavenly body possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter" and your fictional "galaxy" or perhaps anyone who actually believes astronomers couldn't calculate the distance of an object that's "so close to Earth that it would be part of this solar system" and your fairy tale "galaxy?"
I love how you constantly bash this article -- even though it's little more than direct quotes from IRAS, JPL and Cornell astronomers -- while never failing to defend the most ridiculous part of it.
So tell us again, which galaxy is the size of Jupiter and so close that it's part of our solar system?
Just tell us which "galaxy" was being referenced in the 1983 Washington Post article.
Is that request too difficult?
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.
or perhaps anyone who actually believes astronomers couldn't calculate the distance of an object that's "so close to Earth that it would be part of this solar system" and your fairy tale "galaxy?"
Originally posted by stereologist
I asked specifically where in the article does it say that the galaxy is the size of Jupiter and so close that it's part of the solar system?
Originally posted by NWOnoworldorder
reply to post by Xcalibur254
um from whence does this rant come? have i missed something? nibiru is still the same that brown dwarf planet that is very difficult to locate seeing as its a dark planet.
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
YOU'RE the one who claims it was a galaxy.
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.
Do you actually believe you can obfuscate, misdirect and counter-attack your way out of the simplest question?
See, this is how names work. I believe it was most likely a brown dwarf named NIBIRU (aka Planet X, Hercolubus, Wormwood, Eris, Nemesis, Tyche, etc.)
So what's the NAME of your GALAXY? Or is it one of those generic galaxies 50 billion miles from Earth? Maybe Galaxy X?
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by GoldenFleece
There are no galaxies 50 billion light years from Earth!
Once again, (after 3 requests), you are unable to provide a name or any corroborating information about your mythical "galaxy", which is smoking gun proof that this article is referring to an object that could only be seen by IRAS, most likely a brown dwarf.
Show me anywhere that the article claims it was a brown dwarf. Show me anywhere that it shows that the object was seen to be displaced between images indicating that the object was nearby. Show me anywhere that the object in question had a spectral signature of a brown dwarf. Show me something other than ludicrous trolling behavior.
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
I'm getting sick and tired of every new celestial object being deemed Nibiru. It seems like the descriptions of Nibiru change every day to fit into every new discovery, then when something new comes along the description changes once again. So, here's the challenge to all you Nibiru believers, come up with a set description based on your research so we can stop devoting thread after thread to objects that don't fit the description. It's time for you to get your story straight instead of shoehorning every object in space into your beliefs.
Let's see, an object the size of Jupiter, 50 billion miles from Earth , first detected by the infrared IRAS telescope in 1983. You tell me.
Don't you feel foolish for those dozens of posts and thousands of words flatly declaring that this was a "galaxy?"
How can you expect to have any credibility after making such ridiculous and obviously false assertions?
Unlike you, I'm not gonna spend my life on this forum, but I hope other honest posters will see this and realize the lengths you'll go to deceive them. Sad.