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.

 

Behind the NASA Iron Curtain: Spanish Astronomers Claim Dwarf Sun Beyond Pluto

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Here is the document from the Spanish "astronomers":
docs.google.com...

In it they run through the Nemesis hypothesis and claim that the supernova remnant G1.9 is actually a brown dwarf about 60AU from the Sun. They base the claim on two pieces of evidence.

First they say that between 1984 and 2008, G1.9 displayed too much angular movement to be a very distant object.

Así pues tenemos dos posiciones estelares de G1.9+0.3 perfectamente diferenciadas en el transcurso de 24 años:
a. 1984 - RA 17h 45m 37s, Dec. -27:09
b. 2008 - RA 17h 48m 45s, Dec. -27:10
They are right, a change in right ascension of slightly more than 3 arcminutes in 24 years is far too great for an object 24,000 light years away. But there is a problem. The "astronomers" got their 1984 data from The MOST Galactic Centre Survey - II. New results on published supernova remnants and G2.4 + 1.4. The description of the table they used:


Table 1. This table lists (1) The Galactic cooridinates, (2) and (3) the right ascension and declination for epoch and equinox B1950.0
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

I cannot find the source in the "astronomers'" document for the 2008 location but if you look for yourself you will see that "Figura 7" shows that Epoch J2000 coordinates are used. So what's the problem? Two different coordinate systems are used. The difference between the coordinates amounts to slightly more than 3 arcminutes of right ascension. G1.9 is in the same place it was in 1984. What "moved" was Earth's axis, it's called precession and it has nothing to do with Nibiru or Nemesis. Quite an obvious thing for the "Spanish astronomers" to miss.


Next, they present evidence from an article titled "A 20 Year Radio Light Curve for the Young Supernova Remnant G1.9+0.3". They present radio telescope observations and claim that the fluctuations in the size of G.19 demonstrate that it cannot possibly be a supernova remnant. It gets smaller, then larger, then smaller. The problem? The MOST radio telescope is not capable of determining the size of G1.9.


The MOST observations are not at high enough resolution to detect significant changes in the size or mophology of G1.9+0.3 with time.

What was observed? The brightness of G1.9. And what did it find?


Twenty years of observations with the Molonglo Observatory Synthesis Telescope show that the young supernova remnant G1.9+0.3 has increased in brightness by 1.22 ± 0.24 0.16 per cent yr−1 between 1998 and 2007
arxiv.org...

It found that G1.9 fits the profile of a young supernova remnant.


The "Spanish astronomers" are not astronomers or, if they are, they are very bad ones.




posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
This was discussed here, and determined to be baloney months ago if I remember correctly.
Sorry, no link though. Just memory.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I read in another treath that according to the current orbit, the "object" would be entering in around september of this year between earth and venus, causing a mayor eclipse that could last days (like the profecy of the end of times that suggest 3 days of darkness..).

Intresting indeed.. but then what happens with all that stuff about 2012....



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
To me , it looks like the earth HAS BEEN PLACED IN A VERY SAFE ZONE OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM!
Really!
Just look at it :
Oort cloud , Kuiper belt , Asteroid belt ...
It's the safest place to be





posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by SunnyDee
I feel like this starviewer team has been covered here before and found to be lacking.
Here is a link

www.abovetopsecret.com...

My question is, found lacking by who? There's not a single topic on this board that's not found lacking by someone.

So this is your conclusion after reading all 22 pages?


Look at your OP link. On the first page, they post the article and some info.

Then they post some more.

So then, they contact the Star Team:


When we previewed this article to the Starviewer Team, we asked them to send us a rebuttal. We think we have focused on the Achillies Heel of their assertions. We waited for an answer and received the following statement, which was translated for us:


1.-Some self-motivated International committee of astronomers, by their own innitiative, are presently calculating the exact orbit for the Brown Dwarf Sagitarius-Oort-Kuiper perturbation, using the StarViewerTeam's work sheets based on Lissauer, Murray and Matese's original drafts. A final report, will be published by Feb 2010.
2.-There are huge scientific evidences concerning to the fact that Cosmic causes and Brown Dwarf are the real causes of Climate change. On July the 10th, Dr.Paul Clark, published on Science.com an article concerning to this matter, and almost 700 scientists signed the minority Report on climate change.

It appears the evidence is inferential and based on mathematics. So we must wait until February. I give this a validity rating (from 1 to 10) of 4.


So he waits for February to post an update, which he did:


UPDATE FEBRUARY 19, 2010: -- We patiently waited and monitored the StarViewer Team's web site for the "proof" that claimed would be forthcoming. Needless to say, it never materialized. Also, the initial popularity of their claim appears to have been nothing more than a way to attract a large viewership. The web site now is full of ridiculous claims, including some satirical stories taken from "the onion" (a very funny site) which the SV Team promoted as "real." There is no mention of the mathematical validation that was expected with regards to the G1.9 object. Perhaps the validation disproved their theory... perhaps it was never going to be validated by anyone... I think it is safe to take this theory of object G1.9 being a brown dwarf down to ZERO possibility!


The source for your OP debunked them!



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
It found that G1.9 fits the profile of a young supernova remnant.

Perhaps, but I don't think it can be declared conclusive when the guy who led the Chandra study is quoted as saying:


"No other object in the galaxy has properties like this," Reynolds said. "This find is extremely important for learning more about how some stars explode and what happens in the aftermath."

www.nasa.gov...

Seems no matter what the alternative claim is, there's always a brown dwarf in the picture...



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
So should I assume that this is going to crash into the earth on December 21st 2012 OR Is it a battle ship mining gold? New things will be found in the reaches of our galaxies more and more, must they all be Nibiru or 2012 related? How would you even know when you actually find your savior planet?!

tick tick tick.. You won't.

Therefore this fantasy remains alive until we make contact with the alleged planet and they send a message saying, "Hi earthlings, like our planet? We call it NIbiru."

Whaaaat, you heard of us"?
"Small universe aint it"?!



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Here is the full context of that quote.

Besides being the record holder for youngest supernova, the object is of considerable interest for other reasons. The high expansion velocities and extreme particle energies that have been generated are unprecedented and should stimulate deeper studies of the object with Chandra and the Very Large Array.

"No other object in the galaxy has properties like this," Reynolds said. "This find is extremely important for learning more about how some stars explode and what happens in the aftermath."

www.nasa.gov...

Yes it is very interesting. It is certainly not a brown dwarf.
edit on 2/28/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by SunnyDee
I feel like this starviewer team has been covered here before and found to be lacking.
Here is a link

www.abovetopsecret.com...

My question is, found lacking by who? There's not a single topic on this board that's not found lacking by someone.

So this is your conclusion after reading all 22 pages?


Ok, sorry, didn't mean to stop a conversation that might still have much steam left in it. I just remember this "starviewer team" being talked about, but no one could find any information on them to back up who they were. It was a problem for me too, considering I love these conversations on heavenly bodies just outside our solar system.
edit on 28-2-2011 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SunnyDee
 

Well, here's their website, but unfortunately it's only in Spanish:

starviewerteam.org...



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by SunnyDee
 

Well, here's their website, but unfortunately it's only in Spanish:

starviewerteam.org...




Ok, correct myself here, other than that site. I recall it did not convince many of their credibility. Do a search on them.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SunnyDee
 

Their website appears legit, but you and Libertygal could well be right, especially if they haven't responded to questions or requests for additional data. But that in itself doesn't mean their original claim was false or unprovable.

I'm just intrigued how there always seems to be a brown dwarf in the equation.

reply to post by Phage
 

Phage, excuse the O/T reply, but I'd have more respect for your conclusions and knowledge if you didn't do things like repeatedly insist that what appeared be an obvious missile plume off the coast of CA was actually a "jet contrail". I believe there's incontrovertible evidence that the plume was indeed a Chinese sub-launched missile test of an experimental EMP weapon that crippled the Carnival Splendor cruise ship. Not only did both events occur on the same date at the same time, the cruise ship spent 3 months in dry dock being retrofitted with a new engine, generators and internal wiring.

While this is not place to discuss it, I'll never understand how you can post so much scientific and astronomical "proof" while making such obviously false claims. I also have trouble with your assertions that an unnamed distant galaxy or galaxies were discovered in our solar system and that Matese and Whitmire weren't searching for a brown dwarf. Just my opinion, but if credibility is the real issue here...

[edit] And not to sound too conspiratorial, but if a global event of this magnitude really was being covered-up by TPTB, I don't think they'd have too much trouble convincing a couple of Spanish astronomers that it was in their best interests to remain silent.


edit on 2/28/2011 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



'm sorry, but any astronomer who couldn't tell the difference between a "mystery heavenly body" that's as close as 50 billion miles from Earth and a galaxy should be drummed out of the business.

Can ANYONE give me the names of these "newly discovered galaxies" that were originally thought to be in our solar system?

Anyone?

I see you are back to being a fraud. Phage already showed you this information in another thread.

Anyone that makes such outlandish misrepresentations of an article should be drummed out of ATS. Nowhere does the article state would you have claimed.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Don't you consider it strange that this "hypothetical" mystery object has MANY names while the newly-discovered "distant galaxies" have NONE?

It's easy to post snippets of articles that support your beliefs, but does anyone think for themselves?

Not only do you misrepresent once, but now do it again by suggesting that your obfuscation of the issue of names is done by others. Completely untrue.

Only trolls do this.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



But it still doesn't answer my question: how is it that "hypothetical" objects in our solar system are named, but newly-discovered "distant galaxies" aren't?

Wow. A third time that this fraudulent claim is being posted. Did you forget that the names were shown to you by Phage only a few days ago?

Unidentified Point Sources in the IRAS Survey
The names are all in Table 1 as you were shown by Phage.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by leaualorin
 


That's a nice hoax diagram. A brown dwarf could be detect well out over 2100U from Earth yet this diagram claims a near distance of only 60AU.

What a bad diagram. If the brown dwarf does not orbit the sun, what is it orbiting to keep it away from our sun?

How uninformed about the universe was the fraud that created that diagram?


Thanks for the laugh.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Before rehashing all of these hoaxes you should check to see that these have been discussed long ago.

Your repeated false assertions about articles and posting falsehoods is troll behavior.

Regardless of what the articles state you see brown dwarfs everywhere. It's getting to be a joke. You read protostar and say brown dwarf. You see an x-ray object and say brown dwarf. You see Nibiru and say brown dwarf. It's like the kiddie song Old McDonald's farm, " ... and on this farm he had a brown dwarf, ee-i-ee-i-oh."



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Ok.

"It's easy to post snippets of articles that support your beliefs, but does anyone think for themselves?"

Isn't it what you just did? The end of the article states there has never been a single confirmation, and that the StarViewer's website was infested of Onion articles (which really is not reliable). They never confirmed what they proposed, and it was right in front of your eyes.

Did you decide to ignore it, or did you simply not seen it? I've read the article 2 times, and the first time, I did not see the "continued" link, so I missed half of the article. Could be an error, I hope it's not a deliberate ignore.

Can't help you on this one. Seems like this heavenly body is not a brown dwarf after all. I'm not brushing it off yet. However, I can't buy the supernova remnant theory. How could a supernova go undetected? Wouldn't it make a big explosion that would have been noticed here on Earth? We were actively watching the sky back then, we would have seen it! I'm not so sure about this, but if Betelgeuse is said to be able to cast so much light that it would look like a second sun, I think a supernova THAT close to Earth would be even greater in terms of light casting...(even if it's not in the top 10 biggest star).



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

I see you are back to being a fraud. Phage already showed you this information in another thread.

So can YOU please give me the names of these newly-discovered distant galaxies that astronomers somehow confused with a massive object in our solar system?

Not links to research about "nine bright pointlike sources", just the ONE "mystery heavenly body" mentioned in the Washington Post, NY Times, US News and World Report, etc. All of these articles were referring to ONE object approximately the size of Jupiter and 50 billion miles from Earth.

It does have a name, doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join