It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Possibly as Large as Jupiter: Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Being the article is dated 1983, it's hardly a "newly discovered" body .. surely there is more information out there by now ..



Friday, December 30, 1983 ; Page A1




posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


This thread will do little to dissuade true believers but hopefully it will make a difference to those still on the fence


Nibiru belief is like so many other pseudoscientific subjects, the conclusion comes first and then people hunt down evidence to support it... which is not the way real science works obviously. Star and Flag for denying ignorance.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


That's the point of this topic. Many people have used this article as proof of Nibiru without looking at the scientific article or the follow-up articles. The conclusion is that no planet was discovered. What was discovered were nine ultra-luminous young galaxies and an infrared cirrus.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
My take on it is this. How can you tell a planets mass by a flyby? Scientists dont even know for sure whats in the center of the earth, let alone a planet they havent been on. They speculate and they have theories, and hypothesis but they are not cold hard facts. They have no idea of what elements make up a planets mass. How can they? What instrument can detect it?

We dont know whats out there let alone the bottom of our own oceans or under our own crust so to debate the issue with such hardcore stances serves no purpose. Theory is not fact. Nothing is off the table. How do we know the laws that govern our planet are the same that govern another. The answer is we don't know.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Nice find I have actually looked for that article in the past and have been unable to find it. So S&F for you sir, and great job thanks for the info.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrStyx
My take on it is this. How can you tell a planets mass by a flyby? Scientists dont even know for sure whats in the center of the earth, let alone a planet they havent been on. They speculate and they have theories, and hypothesis but they are not cold hard facts. They have no idea of what elements make up a planets mass. How can they? What instrument can detect it?

We dont know whats out there let alone the bottom of our own oceans or under our own crust so to debate the issue with such hardcore stances serves no purpose. Theory is not fact. Nothing is off the table. How do we know the laws that govern our planet are the same that govern another. The answer is we don't know.


Star for you sir, very good point well made.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Well...I don't believe in Nibiru at all. But every time I get some sort of "proof", every-time I think something is "true", and every-time someone posts evidence of caliber such as this, I ask myself one question. That question is : How do I know this isn't a lie?



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vandettas
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Well...I don't believe in Nibiru at all. But every time I get some sort of "proof", every-time I think something is "true", and every-time someone posts evidence of caliber such as this, I ask myself one question. That question is : How do I know this isn't a lie?


And there's the kicker.

Stuff I learned at the age of 8 about Egypt was either a misconstrued piece of info or we've learned more about that since and as a people, as a society, although the term "lie" is bandied around, especially on ATS, we don't know and won't ever know everything.

People make mistakes, science can be inaccurate, the thing is to sit tight and keep observing and researching to expand knowledge. Not everything in the world is a conspiracy but at the same time, not everything is set in stone and the pinnacle of our understanding.

I'll star you for being open minded but hope that you also question the pro-Nibiru info too. I do believe in it and the Annunaki but I want more information and proven research before I even make up my mind one way or the other.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Vandettas
 

If the answer really concerns you, you could do some study. In this case look at the original sources. They are, after all, what the MSM says claimed there is a large planet out there. Do the original sources say that? So, if the MSM is saying something different from the original source, do you think the MSM screwed it up or do you think the original source got it wrong and the MSM knows more about it and got it right? Which makes more sense? The MSM usually gets it wrong when it comes to science.

If the original sources are a little too technical (and if the answer really concerns you) you can do some study about the subject. In this case, though there is some technical information in the original articles, there is plenty of straight English which makes it clear what the technical aspects are talking about.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MrStyx
 

The mass of an object in space can be determined by how it affects the motion of other objects in space. The orbit of a satellite passing a planet is changed. How that orbit is changed tells us the mass of the planet.

The composition of the planet is irrelevant. A given mass will have a given effect on the speed and direction of an object moving past it. It is not a theory, it is a fact. If it were not a fact, the various probes which have been sent to various planets would not have gotten there.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MrStyx
 

The mass of an object in space can be determined by how it affects the motion of other objects in space. The orbit of a satellite passing a planet is changed. How that orbit is changed tells us the mass of the planet.

The composition of the planet is irrelevant. A given mass will have a given effect on the speed and direction of an object moving past it. It is not a theory, it is a fact. If it were not a fact, the various probes which have been sent to various planets would not have gotten there.


Thats exactly the incorrect thinking I am speaking of. It is not a fact. These are theories of relativity. Based on science as we know it. There are too many variables in space both known and unknown. The universe is constantly in motions with bodies in space.

What makes up an object is important. Take two magnets with the same charge they repel. Opposite charges will attract. If you got a planet thats made of heavy metal as opposed to a planet of ice and rock. They will react differently to others object in space. An object may have a stronger magnetic field that pulls on that probe and we make a deduction based on that probes movement How do you know a black hole light years away isnt pulling on one object that pulls on another. Maybe in 1984 it was that mass. An object like an asteroid or comet hits that planet changes its orbit. I know sometime in my lifetime such an event took place one of the big planets out there it got pelted a few times

From your logic I would deduce every probe we sent out was succesful and always returned ,but they dont many times we succeed sometimes we fail. Its not always a miscalucaltion or malf#ion. We still can't predict the weather on our planet athlough we have all the variables in front of us.
edit on 25-2-2011 by MrStyx because: none



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Is there not a "Tenth" planet named Eris, or formally, 136199 Eris, a solid body 2300–2400 km in diameter. and 96 au's away from the Sun. At the time, (2005) of discovery it was thought other large objects would be found/had been found. So there IS at least one tenth planet
albeit termed Dwarf planet.

en.wikipedia.org...(dwarf_planet)


edit on 25-2-2011 by smurfy because: Add link.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



It is not a theory, it is a fact. If it were not a fact, the various probes which have been sent to various planets would not have gotten there.


It's a theory.....Plain and simple....

We do not trully know the mass of the earth, let alone some planet lightyears away..



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrStyx
 

There is not really such a thing as a magnetic "charge" but I understand what you a trying to say. A planet made of iron will have the same gravitational influence as a planet of the same mass which is made of ice. I don't know of many satellites which are composed of ferrous materials; aluminum and various composites are more usual. Non ferrous materials are not affected by magnetism.

No, not every probe was successful but they all obeyed the laws of gravitation. Laws which have been well understood for a very long time.

Weather is much more complex than gravitation. Your logic is flawed, there is no comparison.


edit on 2/25/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

Yes.
Yes we do.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I thought that it was an approximation, like most things.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
I thought that it was an approximation, like most things.


Well they have admited they were wrong prior to the flyby so yes, it's just a guess IMO..
Yet we are to believe they are accurate with bodies lightyears away..



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Last time I checked Neptune was not lightyears away. It's only about 29 AU away. The problem we had in determining Neptune's mass is that we did not know about six of its moons. It was during the Voyager 2 mission that these moons were discovered and thus able to give us more accurate figures to use in our calculations. Clearly these new figures were pretty accurate since they explained away issues that were found in the orbits of the other gas giants.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by smurfy
I thought that it was an approximation, like most things.


Well they have admited they were wrong prior to the flyby so yes, it's just a guess IMO..
Yet we are to believe they are accurate with bodies lightyears away..


That's what I think Styx is getting at, the science is very good and also imperfect....like most things. Things do go wrong when there is no known scientific mechanical error.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MrStyx
 



My take on it is this. How can you tell a planets mass by a flyby? Scientists dont even know for sure whats in the center of the earth, let alone a planet they haven't been on. They speculate and they have theories, and hypothesis but they are not cold hard facts. They have no idea of what elements make up a planets mass. How can they? What instrument can detect it?

We dont know whats out there let alone the bottom of our own oceans or under our own crust so to debate the issue with such hardcore stances serves no purpose. Theory is not fact. Nothing is off the table. How do we know the laws that govern our planet are the same that govern another. The answer is we don't know. /quote]

The law of gravity is well known and well established. Back as far as Newton it was well worked out. There are hundreds of years of testing to know that it works. Astronomers know things so well that they can even plot the paths of asteroids and determine when they will occult stars and which towns will be able to view the event.

I notice that you do not understand theory as used in science. It is not used in science as it is used in ATS by many people to mean some wild eyed speculation. A theory in science is based on facts and a means of explaining those facts. A theory in science is based on facts it is not a fact.

It's a good question that you ask about the way the universe works. Does a law on one planet apply to other places? In the case of gravity it does. We know by the observations that have been made of planetary motions.




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join