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: 3
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Um...


"It's almost twice the size of Jupiter"


But the smallest brown dwarf stars are about 13 MJ (Jupiter masses).
And do you know what kind of hell something that big would be doing to us right now/soon?

And why would aliens (for the nibiur people) live on a gas giant or could they live there?




"Although brown dwarfs haven't enough mass to ignite normal hydrogen fusion in their cores, they glow dully and give off a substantial amount of infrared radiation as a result of slow gravitational contraction and small-scale deuterium fusion."


Link




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by GunzCoty

Um...

But the smallest brown dwarf stars are about 13 MJ (Jupiter masses).

Are they >13MJ or 5-10MJ?


Astronomers Use Spitzer Space Telescope to Challenge Brown Dwarf Formation Models

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A group of astronomers led by Neal Evans of The University of Texas at Austin has used NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope to show that brown dwarfs form like stars — by pulling in matter from a collapsing gas cloud and forming disks of potentially planet-forming material around themselves — and that such disks are common around young brown dwarfs.

...C2d team members Katelyn Allers, Jacqueline Kessler-Silacci, Daniel Jaffe, and Lucas Cieza of The University of Texas at Austin found about a dozen disk-surrounded brown dwarfs in the southern-hemisphere constellations Chamaeleon, Lupus, and Ophiuchus. Some of the brown dwarfs have a mass of five to 10 Jupiters, and are only a few million years old — young, astronomically speaking.

mcdonaldobservatory.org...

Or does anyone really know?

Or will brown dwarfs be redefined, as planets recently were?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



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?

Demonstrating the obvious, that the Washington Post article is a poorly written article is good.

Despite the fact that there were multiple objects in question the reporter chose to write an article which did not match the presentation made by the astronomers.

If you need to learn why the article was so poorly written then go ask the person that wrote the article and ask them why they did not get the story straight.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
This has been done to death here.
Maybe you can add any new information to 20+ page existing thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Maybe, just maybe, it's already closer than we think.



like I say, just maybe. There's also a vid from Devon, and a few from other places, which show something simular, which doesn't seem to be a camera anomoly.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

Despite the fact that there were multiple objects in question the reporter chose to write an article which did not match the presentation made by the astronomers.

Did the NY Times get this "fact" wrong too?


The New York Times 

January 30, 1983 
Clues Get Warm in the Search for Planet X

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.

www.smith-mountain-lakes.com...

Did U.S. News and World Report also get this "fact" wrong?


US News World Report

Planet X - Is It Really Out There?

Sept 10, 1984

Shrouded from the sun's light, mysteriously tugging at the orbits of Uranus and Neptune, is an unseen force that astronomers suspect may be Planet X - a 10th resident of the Earth's celestial neighborhood. Last year, the infrared astronomical satellite (IRAS), circling in a polar orbit 560 miles from the Earth, detected heat from an object about 50 billion miles away that is now the subject of intense speculation.

"All I can say is that we don't know what it is yet," says Gerry Neugesbeuer, director of the Palomar Observatory for the California Institute of Technology. Scientists are hopeful that the one-way journeys of the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes may help to locate the nameless body.

www.rumormillnews.com...

How about Newsweek? Were they wrong too?


Newsweek

Does the Sun Have a Dark Companion?

June 28, 1982

When scientists noticed that Uranus wasn't following its predicted orbit for example, they didn't question their theories. Instead they blamed the anomalies on an as yet unseen planet and, sure enough, Neptune was discovered in 1846. Now astronomers are using the same strategy to explain quirks in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. According to John Anderson of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., this odd behavior suggests that the sun has an unseen companion, a dark star gravitationally bound to it but billions of miles away.

rabbithole2.com...

Isn't it just YOU who constantly misrepresents the facts?

And despite ANOTHER failed attempt at diversion and deception, you STILL can't come up with a name for your mythical "galaxy"?



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


The definition of a brown dwarf is based on its properties. In 2006 the estimate for the mass of a brown dwarf by the IAU is stated here:

Q: When is an object too large to be called a “planet”?

A: The new definitions proposed by the IAU seek only to define the lower boundary between an object that is a “planet” or a “small Solar System body.” At this time there is no official IAU definition in place or proposed that defines the upper limit for when an object is, for example a “planet” or a “brown dwarf.” This limit is generally thought to be about 13 times more massive than Jupiter, but is subject to discussion.

Q & A about planets

Allers chose to use a definition for a brown dwarf that it was a body that did not orbit a star and emitted IR that was detectable by the instrument she used in the study.

From the article you linked to we learn that:

The group also found these objects are less massive than the smallest stars. “You can’t weigh these brown dwarfs directly,” Allers says. “We used theoretical models to figure out that they may have masses as low as five to 10 Jupiter masses.”


The same was stated in the PhD dissertation, but the lower limit in the dissertation was given as 6Jm.

The issue of what is and is not a brown dwarf is still being discussed. The criteria used by Allers to identify an object as a brown dwarf is not shared by all astronomers and that is fine, as long as the reasons for inclusion were clearly stated and they were.
Brown Dwarf



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Constant trolling and misrepresentation haven't changed.

Let's see. You've been told this about 1000 times but you continue to troll. Here we go again pretending that articles written before 1989 should be mixed with information after 1989, after the Voyager 2 flyby.

And your information source is that well known fraud Lucus.



And despite ANOTHER failed attempt at diversion and deception, you STILL can't come up with a name for your mythical "galaxy"?

You've been provided with the names of all of the galaxies.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


Another stupid video where someone shows us that glass can refract sunlight. Whoopeee doo.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:09 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?


You seem obsessed by names. For future reference, the infra-red galaxies are called 0358+223. 0404+101, 0413+122, 1703+049, 1712+100, 1732+239. (But feel free to call them "Sleepy," "Sneezy," "Dopey" and so forth if you must.) This is what they look like:


Read the paper!



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



Because you'd have to be really dopey to think that SIX "galaxies" could be the ONE object described in the articles above.


No, the six galaxies are obviously not the hypothetical companion that is referred to in the articles above; they are six of the infra-red objects that IRAS discovered that have no visible counterpart. The US News report was an attempt to make this discovery more interesting:



Title:
Unidentified point sources in the IRAS minisurvey
Authors:
Houck, J. R.; Soifer, B. T.; Neugebauer, G.; Beichman, C. A.; Aumann, H. H.; Clegg, P. E.; Gillett, F. C.; Habing, H. J.; Hauser, M. G.; Low, F. J.; Miley, G.; Rowan-Robinson, M.; Walker, R. G.
Affiliation:
AA(Cornell University, Ithaca, NY), AB(California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA), AC(California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA), AD(California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA), AE(California Institute of Technology, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA), AF(Queen Mary College, London, England), AG(Kitt Peak National Observatory, Tucson, AZ), AH(Leiden, Rijksuniversiteit, Sterrewacht, Leiden, Netherlands), AI(NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD), AJ(Steward Observatory, Tucson, AZ)
Publication:
Astrophysical Journal, Part 2 - Letters to the Editor (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 278, March 1, 1984, p. L63-L66. (ApJL Homepage)
Publication Date:
03/1984
Abstract

Nine bright pointlike 60 μm sources have been selected from the sample of 8709 sources in the IRAS minisurvey. These sources have no counterparts in a variety of catalogs of nonstellar objects. Four objects have no visible counterparts, while five have faint stellar objects visible in the error ellipse. These sources do not resemble objects previously known to be bright infrared sources.

Harvard Abstracts On-line.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

No, the six galaxies are obviously not the hypothetical companion that is referred to in the articles above;

No, OBVIOUSLY NOT!

So why do you keep rushing to Stereologist's aid with this silliness?

I'm sorry DJW001, but you've used this absolutely ridiculous "six galaxy" explanation so many times recently that your credibility is now on par with Stereologist and Phage.

ATS member Acidtastic had it right. Here's the REAL explanation to the articles above:



edit on 3/4/2011 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


The video that you are spamming across threads at ATS was characterized by you as an atmospheric event. The you balked that your words were being twisted. In fact anyone can look outside and see that there are no new suns. To associate the old newspaper article with a video of unknown origins is ludicrous at best.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 

Well, what do we have here?

China's 'Two Suns' Video Unexplained By Science

Even though atmospheric optics experts are stumped, one astronomer has an explanation -- it's actually "optical refraction", in other words a "mirage."

Get that Stereologist? From now on, the many videos like this are all just a mirage...



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Obviously there is no new sun in the sky. Therefore the video captures an atmospheric event IF the video is not a fake. I've seen a mock sun rise and it was not as bright as the video.

There is no new sun. Anyone can look up and verify for themselves.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by RandalFlagg
 


There is a remote chance that it has a moon or moons, and that its moon will intersect our solar system at a precise point, so not really an elliptical orbit, but something more like this:



There is a theory that our solar system is actually apart of a different Galaxy to the Milky Way, that it was a part of a galaxy called the "Saggitarius Dwarf Galaxy" - and it could be that our solar system collided with a solar system from the Milky Way Galaxy. Again, its all speculation, but an interesting possibility nonetheless.

There is also a chance that is is a lone star, and has its own orbit around the Milky Way, and it intersects our entire solar system at a particular point... Who knows... Anyway, im going to burn out all the possibilities until either something happens or nothing happens, I won't totally disregard any theories, however, I will make every attempt to validate them until the last possible moment.

The most far-out theories I have read:

1) Its a time-travelling, dimension-jumping spaceship planet that temporarily warps our timespace.
2) Its a small star that is in another dimension and appears as an illusion.

However, really, it could be a reflection of the sheer boredom that we all experience, people could actually want something catastrophic to happen, so they can pretend to be in one of those "end of days" movies or something...

edit on 5-3-2011 by SystemResistor because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SystemResistor
 


The orbit shown in the image is not possible. Planets are not magically tied to a particular orbit by a particular star. The path of the planet is dependent on all of the gravitational attractions. The orbit you've drawn is not stable. The planet would not be able to follow the path you've drawn.

The planet would:
1. End up being ejected
2. End up in orbit around the Sun
3. End up in a stable orbit around the other star



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SystemResistor
There is a remote chance that it has a moon or moons, and that its moon will intersect our solar system at a precise point, so not really an elliptical orbit, but something more like this:


A dwarf star wouldn't have moons (it might have a planet, but not moons) -- and if it got anywhere inside our solar system, the orbits of the planets would have been seriously disturbed. In addition, these stars are very bright; so bright that it's impossible to hide. An object in our sky that was as bright or brighter than the full moon is going to attract the attention of the whole world and every person on the planet with a telescope would be reporting on it.


There is a theory that our solar system is actually apart of a different Galaxy to the Milky Way, that it was a part of a galaxy called the "Saggitarius Dwarf Galaxy" - and it could be that our solar system collided with a solar system from the Milky Way Galaxy. Again, its all speculation, but an interesting possibility nonetheless.


That was from a science article which misunderstood the original paper that the scientists presented. They published a rebuttal and contacted news organizations but the damage had been done.

...and our solar system IS the Milky Way Galaxy.


There is also a chance that is is a lone star, and has its own orbit around the Milky Way, and it intersects our entire solar system at a particular point.


All the stars are essentially "lone stars" that have their own orbits around the Milky Way. The nearest star is about 4 light years away, so even if we could boost its speed to "warp 1" (from Star Trek) and aim it at the sun, it'd take 4 years to get here. And we'd see it getting bigger and bigger all the time. By the time it was half a light year out, we'd see it starting to disrupt our solar system.



The most far-out theories I have read:

1) Its a time-travelling, dimension-jumping spaceship planet that temporarily warps our timespace.
2) Its a small star that is in another dimension and appears as an illusion.

However, really, it could be a reflection of the sheer boredom that we all experience, people could actually want something catastrophic to happen, so they can pretend to be in one of those "end of days" movies or something...


I think this is very close to the truth.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join