A news bulletin on CNN declares a large hidden object 4 times the size of Jupiter in the outer reac

reply to post by TWILITE22


You might be interested in looking at the website for the American Meteor Society. It discusses the fact that several thousand fireballs hit the Earth each day.

Originally posted by Illustronic
As soon as CNN says U.S. Special Forces killed Bin Laden everyone calls fake, but when they say a planet X is out there everyone takes it as truth, lock, stock, and barrel. One has to really wonder about who choose to believe what from where, and not a single science reference to why they say it is there, but the shepple don't need science because science lies to them and they are smarter than that. So they will latch onto a spliced portion of a MSM they always say is lying to them. What sense does that make?

No sense at all, it's doublethink.

Symptomatic of a society divided and conquered.

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


Omerbashich is not employed by Cornell. The website his paper appears on allows for anyone to submit a paper. Its appearance on there is not support from Cornell that his theories are correct or that he works there. In truth Omerbashich doesn't seem to be employed by any scientific or academic institution and he has not published a peer-reviewed paper since grad school.

Originally posted by JaeBea
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

Has not been seen, however, they are rolling Stereo B to look at it 2 hours a day????

That is dedicated to the sun and they roll to look at a comet????

You, my friend, may want to get in touch with reality.

I was referring to Komodo's remark about "Why are they JUST saying this now when Hubble as been out there SINCE 1990" comet. I know Stereo B is looking at the comet. I think you misunderstood.

reply to post by stereologist

Well, I've been a bit busy lately researching real objects that are known to exist and have entries in databases. I've given some passing reads to the theories on Nibiru/Nemesis/Tyche, but until it's proven, it's fantasy and another theory among hundreds. Obviously, the time I've spent in that direction is limited to about the time it takes to realize an article isn't talking about hard data. So, until late November, I'm too busy with Elenin and the 4 other comets/asteroids that are actually going to become visible to all in a short while (Well, at least 2 should be a real sight to see soon)....It's plenty to keep us all busy for awhile.

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by dilly1

Originally posted by SheopleNation
Somethings coming. The question is what and when.~SheopleNation

edit on 15-8-2011 by SheopleNation because: TypO

Yea ,,something is coming, its a huge piece of kaka from our government and MSM ,,which people like you will eat it as if it were chocolate. Mmmm,,yummy

Very intelligent contribution to this thread. Are you so blind that you actually believe that nothing has ever hit this planet before, or that something large could be in deep space? Hey knock yourself out. Keep your head stuck in the ground if you wish. What's the matter, did Mommy take away your tinker toys again? ~SheopleNation

Lol!!! I love my tinker toys


But seriously , what is pathetic is all you children holding your breath for news about something alien approaching this planet,,,whatever it is...to me you people are no different then evangelicals yapping about jesus returning,,,,lol!!!


You are all on the same boat. Whatever it is you want it so bad to happen. Why its beyond me...And you get what out of this I mite ask?? Nothing ,, oh no sorry ,,you do get something ,, its bragging on ATS.. Enjoy holding your breath.

Originally posted by megabytz
The gravitational perturbations of the other planets would also be detectable. What makes you think there are any more inbound comets than usual?

I don't know about them, but I personally believe that there's less comets than in previous years,just that we have better technology to look for them.

You are never going to get a straight answer from anyone in the scientific field, because they are so afraid of censur for having crazy hypothesis:

arxiv.org...

Even when the only explanation is a Nibiru-style planet, they will dismiss it and look for a more favorable explanation.

In principle, a viable candidate would be a putative trans-Plutonian massive object (PlanetX/Nemesis/Tyche), recently revamped to accommodate certain features of the architecture of the Kuiper belt and of the distribution of the comets in the Oort cloud, since it would cause a non-vanishing long-term variation of the eccentricity.

reply to post by KSprepared

Planet X is not a viable explanation. That's why it was rejected.

Actually, eq. (40) is totally unacceptable since it corresponds to distances of X as
absurdly small as dX = 30 au for a terrestrial body, and dX = 200 au for a Jovian mass (Iorio 2011).

We must conclude that not even the hypothesis of Planet X is a viable one to explain the anomalous increase of the lunar eccentricity of eq.

arxiv.org...

reply to post by KSprepared

You are never going to get a straight answer from anyone in the scientific field, because they are so afraid of censur for having crazy hypothesis

Apparently you are not aware that Iorio has published papers showing that even a small planet, such as a Mars sized planet, could not be any closer than 70AU without being detected by its effects on the known planets.

If you think that scientists are afraid of censor for proposing ideas that are out of the box, then you know nothing about science or the work of scientists.

reply to post by stereologist



Regarding Hale-Bopp orbital period:
You gave me one ephemeris out of a field of many. If that's your fave - ok. Mine is Marsdens' for 3400 years. So what?

Regarding Hercolubus:
It's not of interest to you. That's ok. It is of interest to me because it's in the Ophiuchus sector of sky where the ecliptic now goes.

Regarding the reliability of data:
Data is only as good as the source is agenda and vested interest-free. Loopy statements by government entities do not inspire confidence in the data. In fact, it makes it all suspect because there appears to be an underlying agenda.

reply to post by KSprepared


Just wanted to thank you for the link to arxiv.org you presented. Fascinating. Still haven't really been able to get past 'dissipative phenomena' as far as a true understanding but what a great read anyway!

reply to post by luxordelphi


You did write

How soon we forget Hale-Bopp which BTB still doesn't have an orbital period.

It does have an orbital period. The orbital period I referenced was based on thousands of observations over a 14 year period of time.

You now ask "So what?". You apparently knew Marsden had calculated an orbital period.

It's not of interest to you. That's ok. It is of interest to me because it's in the Ophiuchus sector of sky where the ecliptic now goes.

Hercolubus is not there or anywhere. It does not exist.

Regarding the reliability of data:
Data is only as good as the source is agenda and vested interest-free. Loopy statements by government entities do not inspire confidence in the data. In fact, it makes it all suspect because there appears to be an underlying agenda.

That's not true. Data can be checked and is checked by others in the scientific community.

I would say that charlatans spreading tall tales about Nibiru or Hercolubus are the loopy statements.

reply to post by luxordelphi


I don't see how anyone can put credence in Hercolubus. It was invented by a New Age writer named V.M. Rabolu who claimed that Barnard's star was actually a planet that destroyed Atlantis. Now we have directly measured the distance of Barnard's star. It is 5.98 LY away. At its present speed it will it closest approach to the Sun in 11,700 with a distance of 3.8 LY. This is not much closer Proxima Centauri.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Hercolubus is just a name in what's getting to be a crowded field of names. Taking the name aside and looking just at Barnard's Star here are the things I find interesting:

"Barnard's Star, also known occasionally as Barnard's 'Runaway' Star, is a very low-mass red dwarf star approximately six light-years away from Earth in the constellation Ophiuchus (the Snake-holder)." Its' "proper motion of 10.3 arcseconds per year" - "the largest-known proper motion of any star relative to the Sun." It's "the nearest known star in Ophiuchus" and it's dim and you can't see it with the naked eye and it can be seen in infrared. It's observationally near the celestial equator. It may "be one of the oldest stars in the Milky Way galaxy." Its' mass is "180 times the mass of Jupiter, its radius is only 1.5 to 2.0 times larger, reflecting the tendency of objects in the brown dwarf range to be about the same size."

Peter van de Kamp showed and published as late as 1982 the existence of 2 large planets around Barnard's Star. He studied from 1938 with 10 colleagues until publishing in 1969. His results were subsequently discredited claiming an artifact from maintenance but this artifact was claimed 25 years into the study. He never backed down and died in 1995, the same year that a paper came out showing that giant planets were not possible around Barnard's Star.

In 1998 a stellar flare was observed and later data evaluation showed temperatures more than twice the normal temperature for this very old and very slowly revolving star. An unusual quote at the time, "...the star would be fantastic for amateurs to observe."

...quotes above taken from absoluteastronomy.com 'Barnard's Star'

reply to post by luxordelphi


I found a link to the paper Peter van de Kamp wrote.
adsabs.harvard.edu...

Here is another comment on the exoplanets claimed by van de Kamp
en.wikibooks.org...

In the 1960’s Peter Van de Kamp claimed that Barnard's Star had an exoplanet. He based this claim on an apparent wobble in the star’s motion. [5] Kemp spent 40 years studying the Barnard star. Observations made by other telescopes were never able to replicate the date of the wobble. It is believed that the wobble was an anomaly of equipment at Sproul Observatory.

Here is an interesting paper from 2001 that discusses how van de Kamp published various results about the exoplanets he thought revolved around the star.
www.public.asu.edu...

reply to post by stereologist


I really enjoyed those links, particularly the detail on van de Kamp in 1985 and the interview with the reporter from Utrecht. Did you know that this star is one that almost got visited. There was even a new propulsion system proposed that would have put the voyage at 50 years and later honed to 47 years. I think they were hoping to travel at 12% of the speed of light to do it. I think it was only very recently that alot of that was quashed. Kind of amazing when you think about traveling almost 6 light years in 47 years.

that was taken live during the Temple1 , photo op ,,at mission control,,,
I wish i had taken a desktop picture of the
Virtual Astronaught,, that piloted the mission,,
remember their craft landed on a platform,,
yup,
he was a real person piloting a mini drone,,
it was only a camera,, reciever,, but someone had to pilot it there,,
(ever here of model planes in space with web cams and little jets,, like mini drones,,,???)

wanna fly one in deep space,,,
wanna join the Space Command at NASA?

The pilots are more or less strapped into the chair, and operate the control joystick,, blahhblahh
very same as any game out there, only its real,, and your piloting re-mote-con-trolled, drones?
, helps too reduce fuel cost and its almost miniture,, the camera needed,, sooooo,,,

geee wake up people,,
wish i took a picture ,, ohh well,,

reply to post by luxordelphi


The second link provides a number of references to many of the papers van de Kamp published. Interesting that his work was likely compromised by faulty equipment. That's a lot of time to have invested.

reply to post by BobAthome


It's interesting - the whole been there, done that idea of remote control and nanotech. Basically today something the size of a flea could by remote control traverse the solar system. Lots of savings on fuel - a drop to get to Pluto?