Saturn rocking back and forth?? What if CW Leonis were really Nibiru? Link inside.

reply to post by 9Nania

Let it be clear: it is NOT Nibiru, it's Elenin. Nibiru is largely irrelevant. The latter, however, is deadly, and the main cause of the increase in natural disasters, including EQ, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

What is basis for this wacky claim?

reply to post by stereologist


You keep saying we can't see it when the OP obviously says we can, it is CW Leonis he is talking about. Can you see CW Leonis, yes. Then you can see the object he is calling Nibiru. Take measurements on CW Leonis and compare them to the ones made from Google Sky. It will show whether or not it is closer. If it is not, then obviously the paper is wrong about CW Leonis being Nibiru. There is your argument and your solution.

reply to post by KSprepared

You keep saying we can't see it when the OP obviously says we can, it is CW Leonis he is talking about. Can you see CW Leonis, yes. Then you can see the object he is calling Nibiru. Take measurements on CW Leonis and compare them to the ones made from Google Sky. It will show whether or not it is closer. If it is not, then obviously the paper is wrong about CW Leonis being Nibiru. There is your argument and your solution.

Did you read the writeup?

Nibiru is the name of a fictional planet made up by Sitchin. Sitchin claims his fictional planet won't be here for decades.

The write up claims that Nibiru is here and that it is large. Where is this large object? You did read the claims of it being significantly larger than Jupiter didn't you? And it is supposed to be inside of the orbit of the Earth.

So where is it? The physical description given in the write up cannot be comet Elenin. Elenin is small.

PS You can't use Google sky since it is not real time. It is a collection of images taken from the Sloan DSS.

reply to post by stereologist

What is basis for this wacky claim?

A man came to her in a vision and bent a stick. Seriously; if she's really 9nania, that's her story.

reply to post by stereologist


You asked that again, I told you. CW Leonis is what the write up is claiming to affect our solar system, not a fictional planet made up by Stitchen. He is just calling it Nibiru for reference. Nibiru has been an amorphous idea for a large celestial body coming to do doom to our solar system. This is why he used the name in my opinion. You can use Google Sky, because CW Leonis is right there for you to take measurements from, and the plate is dated so that when you get an older or newer photo of CW Leonis, you can mathematically figure whether it is getting bigger or not. Simple as that. Don't try to complicate the issue by taking it off in tangents.

reply to post by KSprepared

CW Leonis is what the write up is claiming to affect our solar system, not a fictional planet made up by Stitchen.

CW Leonis (aka IRC +10216) is a red dwarf star over 400 light years away. The author of this document is the one who is confusing it with the fabled lost planet Nibiru. Every single aspect of this document has been proven to be completely bogus. Why do you keep trying to defend it? I hope you are not the anonymous author. I would be ashamed at cobbling together such a poorly written piece of plagiarism.

CW Leonis

No, I am not the author, and I am not defending it. Have you once seen me type that I believe it is true? Or did I type that I would like to discuss the information and it's merits/shortfalls? I am simply relating what the author claimed and proposing a simple test to prove/disprove his logic.

If indeed it has been followed since 1969, then obviously there are two different size measurements from 2 different time periods that can be put side by side for comparison.

And here is another write up showing how surprising new data about redshift may actually put CW Leonis much closer than we thought.

endgametime.wordpress.com...

reply to post by KSprepared

And here is another write up showing how surprising new data about redshift may actually put CW Leonis much closer than we thought.

The red shift is used to determine the distance of extra-galactic objects. It has nothing to do with CW Leonis' distance, which was determined by the parallax method. If it were within the solar system, it would be moving very rapidly in relation to the background stars. The author of the blog you just linked to is just as astronomically illiterate as the author of the Nibiru article in the OP. CW Leonis is one of the most prominent infra-red objects in the sky. It has been studied constantly since 1969. It is a distant star notable for having water emission lines, suggesting that the cloud around it contains water.

Edit to add: Look, rather than post random things you pluck from the internet here, why don't you go down to the library and check out a basic astronomy book. Within pages, you will understand why that silly document you found is gibberish. More importantly, you will come to understand how we find out things about the universe. Armed with this knowledge, you will be prepared to evaluate whether someone is presenting genuine research... or just making things up.

Quite a few more inconsistencies when it come to the Famous CW Leonis:

Search it on Sky Map - here is the link:

www.sky-map.org... const_names=0&show_galaxies=1&img_source=SDSS
Here's the data on that point found searching CW Leonis:
server5.sky-map.org...

Named PGC1427054 - here is the catalog listing for that object (Look at object type: G for galaxy):
leda.univ-lyon1.fr...

Principal Galaxy Catalog
PGC1427054 is a dim galaxy northwest of Regulus, well-known and cataloged - not CW Leonis, someone has their data wrong on this site

Another CW Leonis representation: IRC +10216
Here is the wiki: en.wikipedia.org...

We know it is moving through the Interstellar Medium:
arxiv.org...

1968 observation of IRC +10216: articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...
290 parsecs - 945.4 light years away this was the commonly used figure for about 10 years or so

In the 80's most research used a figure of ~200 parsecs
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

and this continued into the 90's

This Article from 1999 puts the distance to IRC +10216 at around 200 parsecs or 652 light years:
www.cfa.harvard.edu...

Then in the late 90's to 2000's it was 100-150 parsecs (note, in the transition both new lower and higher older number might be used)
This article from 2000 put it at 130 parsecs - 423 light years:
www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de...

This article : science.nasa.gov...
from 2001 put's CW Leonis at 500 light years away

www.asiaa.sinica.edu.tw...
130 pc - 423

www.nasa-academy.org...
150 parsecs - 1998

In early 2000's lower numbers became the norm for pc distance.

I, looking through many papers researching CW Leonis, have noticed that distance numbers have steadily decreased over the last 2 decades from 300 parsecs to closer to 100 parsecs. I don't know how big the shell is on this thing, but if it truly was at 120 parsecs in 2000 and moving 100 parsecs a decade, where would that put it now? At our front door. If you don't believe me, go do a google search on 'distance to IRC +10216'. You also will see the creep towards us.

reply to post by DJW001


Thank you for clarifying how distances are calculated for me and that now we will not have anyone on here trying to use redshift as a debunk for the 200 parsec variation of distance to CW Leonis over the last 30 years.

Then explain to me why research papers keep using lower and lower projected distance figures for CW leonis when studying it's emissions and water data?

Was that data genuine enough for you this time?
If not there are many, many more research papers out there, and they all show the same inevitable creep of CW Leonis closer and closer.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Known as “Great White Spots”, these huge storms aren’t new to Saturn – they are common each Saturnian year.

Here's the entire quote about Saturn's storm from your link:
"Known as 'Great White Spots,' these huge storms aren't new to Saturn - they are common each Saturnian year. While they are common to the ringed planet's northern summer, right now it's northern spring. This makes the Saturn Super Storm an early - and unexpected - arrival."

Some more quotes about this unusual storm:
from space.com 'Storm as Wide as Earth Rages on Saturn'
"The storm began forming in the ringed planet's northern hemisphere in December. This is about 10 years early for Great White Spots, which usually recur about every 30 Earth years, when Saturn's northern hemisphere tilts most toward the sun."

from NASA Science 'Super Storm on Saturn'
"The rare storm has been wreaking havoc for months...A storm like this is rare. ...storm had a major effect on the atmosphere...---and disrupting Saturn's seasonal (weather patterns)...The violence of the storm---the strongest ever detected in Saturn's stratosphere---took researchers by surprise."

from NASA 'Spotting Saturn's Northern Storm'
"Saturn is now experiencing early northern spring, so this storm, if it is a Great White Spot, is happening earlier than usual."

from European Southern Observatory 'Looking Deep into a Huge Storm on Saturn'
"This is only the sixth of these huge storms to be spotted since 1876. We are continuing to observe this once-in-a-generation event."

from Science Daily 'NASA Spacecraft Tracks Raging Saturn Storm'
"We saw similar storms in 2004 and 2006 that each lasted for nearly a month, but this storm is longer-lived by far. And it appeared after nearly two years during which we did not detect any electrical storm activity from Saturn."

from space.com 'Freak One-Eyed Monster Storm Spotted on Saturn.'


To recap: it's out of season, it's in the wrong hemisphere, it's still on.


Binary systems are common. Your link to a blog is interesting but vested and self-serving. Here are some quotes about binarys from Astrobiology Magazine 'Getting WISE about Nemesis'
"Binary star systems are common in the galaxy. It is estimated that one-third of the stars in the Milky Way are either binary or part of a multiple-star system.
Red dwarfs are also common - in fact astronomers say they are the most common type of star in the galaxy. Brown dwarfs are also thought to be common, but there are only a few hundred known at this time because they are so difficult to see. Red and brown dwarfs are smaller and cooler than our sun, and do not shine brightly. If red dwarfs can be compared to the red embers of a dying fire, then brown dwarfs would be the smolering ash. Because they are so dim, it is plausible that the Sun could have a secret companion even though we've searched the sky for many years with a variety of instruments."

To recap: binary systems are common, red dwarfs are common, brown dwarfs are also thought to be common.

It seems that even though this paper may overstate the facts that we have come up with some interesting correlating facts showing this scenario may actually be happening, although not as dramatically as the OP suggests.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
To recap: it's out of season, it's in the wrong hemisphere, it's still on.

It's early but it's not in the wrong hemisphere. I said this before though, it's clear that whatever I say is going to be completely ignored.

Binary systems are common. Your link to a blog is interesting but vested and self-serving.

Brown dwarf stars in sun-like systems are extremely rare. Are you suggesting the blog is lying? It's not.
hubblesite.org...

To recap: binary systems are common, red dwarfs are common, brown dwarfs are also thought to be common.

A red dwarf would be easily detected at intra-solar system distances. A dim red dwarf would be about absolute magnitude 16. That translates to an apparent magnitude of about 8 at a distance of 1 light year, easily detected. Brown dwarfs are common, but they are rare in orbits around sun-like stars. If one were in our solar system it would necessarily be at Oort cloud distances as it would be detected due to reflected sunlight no matter its temperature if it were close by. That said, the odds are not great even for that scenario. The vast majority of sun-like stars do not have a brown dwarf companion (approximately 95%). Most do have a stellar mass companion of some sort, but we clearly do not.

reply to post by KSprepared

I, looking through many papers researching CW Leonis, have noticed that distance numbers have steadily decreased over the last 2 decades from 300 parsecs to closer to 100 parsecs. I don't know how big the shell is on this thing, but if it truly was at 120 parsecs in 2000 and moving 100 parsecs a decade, where would that put it now? At our front door. If you don't believe me, go do a google search on 'distance to IRC +10216'. You also will see the creep towards us.

My bad. I had assumed that its distance was determined by parallax. Upon researching further, it turns out that it is too dim in the visible region and to "fuzzy" in the infrared for this technique. The 1970 paper, which places the distance at 290 parsecs was written after only a year of observations. In it, they place CW Leonis' speed at 16 km/sec, based on broadening of its emission bands.
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

A 2008 paper gives the 100-150 pc figure based on measurements of its bolometric flux. It assumes that its brightness is comparable to other bodies in its class. It makes no mention of its radial velocity.
adsabs.harvard.edu...

The short answer is probably: refined measurements and models. Astronomers aren't really certain how far away it really is, and have been estimating its distance by comparing its spectra and brightness to similar objects. If the 1970 paper is correct and CW Leonis is travelling at 16km/sec, it would take 37,655,378 years to travel 190 parsecs. Clearly, the earlier estimates were off. Even travelling at the speed of light, it would take 58 years for CW Leonis to travel 190 parsecs!

I'm going to open this portion of the discussion in a new thread for more clarity. Thanks for your insight.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by luxordelphi
To recap: it's out of season, it's in the wrong hemisphere, it's still on.

It's early but it's not in the wrong hemisphere. I said this before though, it's clear that whatever I say is going to be completely ignored.

Binary systems are common. Your link to a blog is interesting but vested and self-serving.

Brown dwarf stars in sun-like systems are extremely rare. Are you suggesting the blog is lying? It's not.
hubblesite.org...

To recap: binary systems are common, red dwarfs are common, brown dwarfs are also thought to be common.

A red dwarf would be easily detected at intra-solar system distances. A dim red dwarf would be about absolute magnitude 16. That translates to an apparent magnitude of about 8 at a distance of 1 light year, easily detected. Brown dwarfs are common, but they are rare in orbits around sun-like stars. If one were in our solar system it would necessarily be at Oort cloud distances as it would be detected due to reflected sunlight no matter its temperature if it were close by. That said, the odds are not great even for that scenario. The vast majority of sun-like stars do not have a brown dwarf companion (approximately 95%). Most do have a stellar mass companion of some sort, but we clearly do not.

edit on 30-7-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)

A blog is a blog is a blog and remains a blog BECAUSE it is an opinion. I was able to independently verify that what you were telling me about the photos showing the tilt of Saturn in the beginning OP piece was correct. Your information was spot on. You know your stuff when it comes to shooting pictures with an amateur or amateur plus telescope. In the latest Hubble link you referenced, the researchers expressed dismay in not finding more exoplanets. They concluded that they're hard to see unless they are of a certain size. I found a reputable blog that told me I could view HD189733, an exoplanet 6 to 8 light years away, with binoculars. I'm not going to run with this information and start shouting that Hubble is hiding exoplanets. I'm going to start with the blogger.

The Hubbleiers from your most recent link have coined the name 'brown dwarf desert.' Why? Because in their survey of 233 nearby multiple star systems they haven't found a brown dwarf system. Well, that's not entirely true - they did find a trinary of 3 brown dwarfs. They counted on the same thing to show them exoplanets but these were not found in adequate numbers but still they 'feel' that they're there. The Hubbleiers go on to say that they hope to "solve the puzzle of the 'brown dwarf desert.'" What puzzle is that? I mean 233 star systems is a lot - don't you think? What percentage is that of all star systems? That's like sending the jury away to deliberate before the judge has even entered the courtroom. It's a reckless statement based on nothing - that's all I'm saying. It's coining a name meant to evoke a certain response just like me saying Hubbleieres. It's drama.

Even though it may seem like I'm vested in brown dwarfs, I'm not. I'm interested in what has precipitated so many unprecedented events in our solar system etc. whatever that may be. I'm interested in the anomalous tilt of Saturn and the other events taking place there and elsewhere coincidental with what change?

Me also, our whole solar system heated up while our sun cooled??? Makes no sense whatsoever. When there is smoke there is fire, sometimes you just have to dig it up.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
A blog is a blog is a blog and remains a blog BECAUSE it is an opinion.

Sorry, the link I gave stated facts, not opinion.

I was able to independently verify that what you were telling me about the photos showing the tilt of Saturn in the beginning OP piece was correct. Your information was spot on. You know your stuff when it comes to shooting pictures with an amateur or amateur plus telescope.

Perhaps you should at least consider the possibility that I know far more than just that when it comes to astronomy.

In the latest Hubble link you referenced, the researchers expressed dismay in not finding more exoplanets. They concluded that they're hard to see unless they are of a certain size.

exoplanet != brown dwarf
Just thought I'd point that out.

I found a reputable blog that told me I could view HD189733, an exoplanet 6 to 8 light years away, with binoculars.

You are mistaken. HD189733 is a star, not an exoplanet. The system contains a transiting jupiter orbiting very close to the primary star, but you cannot see the planet with binoculars, only the star it orbits.

I'm not going to run with this information and start shouting that Hubble is hiding exoplanets. I'm going to start with the blogger.

Wow, you're still leaping to conclusions.

The Hubbleiers from your most recent link have coined the name 'brown dwarf desert.'

See what I mean about leaping to conclusions? No, they did not coin that term, it existed before then.

Why? Because in their survey of 233 nearby multiple star systems they haven't found a brown dwarf system. Well, that's not entirely true - they did find a trinary of 3 brown dwarfs.

So not only do you not understand who coined the term (it started in the late 80s), you do not understand what it means. That would be fine if you at least realized that you don't understand it, but instead you draw inferences and leap to conclusions thinking that you do know. The brown dwarf desert is a region around sun-like stars where brown dwarfs are virtually non-existent. It is very rare to find a brown dwarf star orbiting a sun-like star at less than 5 AUs because any such brown dwarf would most likely end up combining with the parent star during the solar system's formation. You almost can't find any of them in that range. The frequency of brown dwarf stars at larger distances is higher, but still extremely low.
iopscience.iop.org...

What percentage is that of all star systems?

Not even close to the question at hand. We want to know what percentage of sun-like stars has a brown dwarf companion, with regards to the brown dwarf desert, a brown dwarf companion at close distances. To do that we sample a couple hundred sun-like stars and perform statistical analysis.

It's a reckless statement based on nothing - that's all I'm saying.

Then you do not understand the subject.

It's coining a name meant to evoke a certain response just like me saying Hubbleieres.

No, that would disrespect on your part.

I'm interested in the anomalous tilt of Saturn

There is none.

reply to post by ngchunter


I'm tired of arguing with you so I have just one last question:

What brand/type of telescope can I go out and buy that will give me a picture of the moon upside down or reversed?