Scientific Research on Solar System Brown Dwarf and Planet X.

page: 2
115
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Wow!!! Lots of good stuff in this post, albeit very long. I'm currently working and don't have time to read the entire thread. I have one question. If this star/planet is out there in the very far reaches of space on a very elongated orbit. (forgive my terminology I'm not educated in the ways of astronomy and its terminology) Maybe this is in the post and I missed it... by why haven't we been able to detect this objects gravitational tug. We are hunting for planets around distance stars by detecting gravitional wobbles in the star, this makes me believe we should be able to hunt this object down by the same means.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Of course, there are a good number of astronomers who believe that there isn't a massive object in the outer Solar System, or at least that the available data does not indicate so.

The question is likely to be settled when the data from WISE is gone over with a fine toothed comb. Whitmire and Matese are certainly expecting that it will prove their Tyche hypothesis.
edit on 9/7/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Of course, there are a good number of astronomers who believe that there isn't a massive object in the outer Solar System, or at least that the available data does not indicate so.

The question is likely to be settled when the data from WISE is gone over with a fine toothed comb. Whitmire and Matese are certainly expecting that it will prove their Tyche hypothesis.


it is exciting i think as i am a supporter (optimistic dreamer?) of these ideas.

with all of the objects found in the preliminary results from WISE it has already been worth the effort, cant wait for the full results...

on a different note....just the other day i watched a show on the history channel about the "planet X" theories (cant recall the name as i tuned about halfway through) but i was happy they didnt mention any doom or invasion scenarios, its purely scientific speculating. In the program they did a short bit on the "kuiper cliff" which i hadnt really know much about till i watched the show and did some subsequent reading, pretty interesting though...

Good thread



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Interesting. Didn't some aliens tell the sumerians there was stuff out there? Not that i believe in them, just what i read for zecharia sitchin's works, if he translated the cuneiform correctly that is.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by RadicalRebel
 


To be fair the term Planet X was originally a phrase used by actual astronomers and didn't have a doom and gloom connotation until recent years. It first appeared in the early 20th century when Percivall Lowell used it to refer to the hypothetical planet beyond Neptune. At that time there were perturbations in the orbits of the gas giants that seemed to suggest a large planet lurking somewhere in the solar system. This eventually lead to the discovery of Pluto, but it wasn't massive enough to be the cause of the perturbations. They were finally explained in by the Voyager 2 mission. It was able to get a more accurate figure for the masses of the outer planets and with those new masses the perturbations disappeared. This essentially ended the hunt for Planet X. There are a few astronomers that still use the term, but for the most part it is an anachronistic term. It's doom and gloom connotations come entirely from Nancy Lieder who picked it up after it had been abandoned by the scientific community. There were also a few sci-fi movies from the 50s and 60s that had Planet X in their title, but they are largely forgotten.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
It's mad that all you normally here is the current accepted truth , like in the old days when the earth was flat.
Whats more Mad is when you here it come out of the mouths of people who haven't really even thought about it much themselves yet they'll defend there UN-informed opinion regardless.
Given some of the evidence presented here i think there's definitely more out there and close enough to effect the earth.
In England where i live the winters have been getting gradually colder the snow that we've been getting is the most in 30 years.
Winter 2011-12 Update



As we head towards winter, I expect to see the first signs of some moderate to heavy snowfalls as early as October or November in certain parts of the UK. In terms of the meteorological winter, I expect December, January, and February to experience below average temperatures, with the heaviest snowfalls occurring within the time frame of November to January across many parts of the UK.


www.exactaweather.com...

There's quite clearly more to it than "Global Warming" I'm sure we'll be seeing more evidence to support other things occurring in our spacial neighborhood soon enough.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by LimitedHorizons
 


All of the proposed theories regarding solar companions and distant planets never have them coming in the inner solar system. At what time Nemesis was projected to have an elliptical orbit, but further research showed that it would not be able to maintain such eccentric orbit for long. So any object proposed would be far from Earth and never really have an effect on the known planets in any way. This is one of the reasons why these theories are widely disputed. There simply isn't any physical evidence that points exclusively to their existence. Now, the Oort Cloud is a large area, so it's probably pretty likely that there are at least some dwarf planets lurking out there. However, when they are discovered I think they will be treated more like Makemake's discovery that the average lay person doesn't really care about, as opposed to the discovery of Uranus that changed everyone's perception of the solar system.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Thanks everyone for all the kinds words, the stars and flags.

Another thing I wanted to post here, and show you guys, or show again those who already have heard about it, is about a diagram which appeared in the 1987 Science and Invention Encyclopedia.

Although this is not definite proof, it is kind of strange that something like this would appear in an encyclopedia back in 1987.

The following appeared in the section for "Space Probes".

In the image you can find the drawing of what is called a tenth planet, which is situated in the drawing at about 4.7 Billion miles away, and it also shows a Dark Star situated at around 50 Billion miles away.

Here is a scan of the page, and the drawing.

The diagram in specific is the one on the top left.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

No one knows exactly who, or why they printed that diagram in that encyclopedia, but it is real. We even had a couple of members verify with their own copies that this diagram is for real.

edit on 7-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Isn't this when the editors in 1984 come in and replace the picture and claim that there has never been a dead star? Then when it shows up claim we have always been able to see the dead star? Come to think of it wouldn't Winston work for wiki now?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 

Thank you and great job on bringing a very important subject up in a way that is backed by possible evidence and scientific basis. The last time I mentioned the name Nemesis on a post here, I got dog piled and slammed so badly, I've avoided so much as saying the word since.

Perhaps your material here can open a few minds beyond the tin foil hat insanity of Nibiru and 2012 to the idea that there is far more to our Galaxy than Humans have even begun to imagine yet. What lies in the Universe beyond is truly something to wonder about with excitement.

edit on 7-9-2011 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254

All of the proposed theories regarding solar companions and distant planets never have them coming in the inner solar system. At what time Nemesis was projected to have an elliptical orbit, but further research showed that it would not be able to maintain such eccentric orbit for long. So any object proposed would be far from Earth and never really have an effect on the known planets in any way. This is one of the reasons why these theories are widely disputed. There simply isn't any physical evidence that points exclusively to their existence. Now, the Oort Cloud is a large area, so it's probably pretty likely that there are at least some dwarf planets lurking out there. However, when they are discovered I think they will be treated more like Makemake's discovery that the average lay person doesn't really care about, as opposed to the discovery of Uranus that changed everyone's perception of the solar system.


That's not completely true.

I will show it soon with a diagram why it is very possible that the dead star would get closer, although not all the way to the inner Solar System, although a planet circling the death star would get even closer and pass several times.

Let's see if this works.

The following is a simulated example of how binary stars orbit around each other.




A simulated example of a binary star, where two bodies with similar mass orbit around a common barycenter in elliptic orbits

en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see at two points the binary stars do get closer to each other, and if each star has planets orbiting around them then those planets will get even closer to each other. As to how close, at that point we would only be speculating.

edit on 7-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


The point that they're orbiting about is called the barycentre. It is the center of all mass in a solar system. We know that the center of the Sun is not the barycentre for our solar system. This is due to the mass of Jupiter and the other gas giants. We know our measurement for the barycentre is correct because it plays a key role in plotting the orbits of things like long-period comets. So, since the only effects that are affecting the location of the barycentre is the gas giants we know that if a solar companion exists it must be significantly less massive than the Sun and very far away as it has no gravitational effect on the Sun. This means that it would have to orbit the Sun like the planets as opposed to having both objects orbit around the barycentre as your diagram illustrates.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I can at least answer why it depicts the star. This would have been released shortly after the Nemesis hypothesis was first proposed, which was estimated to be 50,000 AU away or roughly 50 billion miles. So, the editors of the book are kind of doing what Matese and Whitmire did with Tyche and WISE. If Tyche exists WISE might see it. If Nemesis exists Pioneer might see it. As for the planet depicted, it's probably one of the many proposed Planet X's.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


But if you read the research I posted you can see that the Sun, and the entire Solar System seems to be affected by the brown dwarf.

From the secular increase in the AU, distance, between the Sun and the planets in the Solar System, the fact that even the moon seems to be affected by this possible brown dwarf, it is affecting comets, and asteroids as they are arriving much earlier than they are supposed to, and it is redirecting incoming cosmic microwave radiation.

Not only that, if you look at the elliptical orbit of Sedna something powerful enough is keeping Sedna in it's unusual long elliptical orbit. If there wasn't anything, like a brown dwarf, out there, eventually Sedna would have joined the rest of the planets in the Solar System into having a more circular orbit.

The only thing that would differ between the orbits of our Sun, and the brown dwarf is that the Sun would have a more circular orbit and the brown dwarf would have a more elliptical, and longer orbit, but they both would still have a barycenter.

It would be similar to this.




edit on 7-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
If Nemesis exists Pioneer might see it.
...


But it might also not see it because it could be a "Y" type brown dwarf, which can have the same infrared signature as a human body, and being so close to our Sun, anywhere within 200 AU to 50,000 AU would make it even harder to see.
edit on 7-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
One of the best threads on ATS ive seen for a while, S&F, great read.

On one of the posts it mentions about the postulated interstellar cloud entering the solar system within the next 10,000 years, could this mean it could happen from like 100years from now to the next 10,000 years? or more directed at nearer the 10,000 year mark. Just interesting because of the changes happening on other planets in our solar system currently and to think how different they will be in a few thousand years from now
edit on 7-9-2011 by daveyboy1991 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I was just trying to explain the thought process of including the solar companion in the diagram. Remember at that point astronomers didn't even know of the existence of Y-dwarfs. In fact they hadn't even proven the existence of brown dwarfs. Personally, I'm not a fan of the solar companion hypothesis. I don't rule it out, but I feel most of these anomalies are better explained by a star that passed close to the solar system within the last could hundred thousand to a couple million years.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I doubt they even said it was planet X, planet X is a conspiracy theory about 2012



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by scapers2u
 

The term Planet X predates the 2012 nonsense by a long time.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


In your rough diagram of the orbit of binary stars, if you were to assume the Oort cloud is at approximately 2,000 AU (the traditionally accepted and maximum distance) and the binary star is at 50,000 AU (the minimum bound for this figure) you will see that the boundary of the Oort cloud is only 1/25th of the distance between the stars at closest pass. This would be entirely within one of the dots on the diagram and would explain how the gravitational effect on the solar system may be very small.

You could also hardly describe such a gravitationally bound binary star as being within our solar system.

We do know that the Sun is part of a galaxy and is swimming through the gravitational fields of many adjacent stars. That's a given but we could hardly say that they were necessarily binary/trinary (or other groupings) of stars.





top topics
 
115
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join