slight flaw in stichins theory

Ive been reading stichins work and a slight flaw in it has occurred to me. If planet X has such a long orbit and goes so far out away from the sun then it lacks a heat source for litterally a couple of thousand years. Any form of life on a planet with such an orbit would go beyond an ice age without the heat of the sun wouldnt it? Granted its concievable a form of life could go dormant in a sort of hibernation state and possibly survive but i would find it hard to beleive that any form of life would devlop in an atmosphere that has such a drastic change. When planet X approaches and leaves our orbit it would have a similiar enviroment. However once it decends out of our orbit it would grow colder and colder until it was completely frozen also it would be pitch black. It would be the equivilent of going from the desert to an iceberg. What am i missing or has no one questioned this?


On a side note i will admit i havent followed the whole reptilian race theories but they too if trully reptilian in nature would require heat in order not be in a dormant state. If you spend a few thousand years hibernating it would be a tad difficult to advance technologically since your hibernating all the time.

Originally posted by minniescar
Ive been reading stichins work and a slight flaw in it has occurred to me. If planet X has such a long orbit and goes so far out away from the sun then it lacks a heat source for litterally a couple of thousand years. Any form of life on a planet with such an orbit would go beyond an ice age without the heat of the sun wouldnt it? Granted its concievable a form of life could go dormant in a sort of hibernation state and possibly survive but i would find it hard to beleive that any form of life would devlop in an atmosphere that has such a drastic change. When planet X approaches and leaves our orbit it would have a similiar enviroment. However once it decends out of our orbit it would grow colder and colder until it was completely frozen also it would be pitch black. It would be the equivilent of going from the desert to an iceberg. What am i missing or has no one questioned this?


On a side note i will admit i havent followed the whole reptilian race theories but they too if trully reptilian in nature would require heat in order not be in a dormant state. If you spend a few thousand years hibernating it would be a tad difficult to advance technologically since your hibernating all the time.

well....i've seen a few theorys...one being that planet x is actually a spaceship that the reptilians built
thats kinda hard to fathom though

If a planet had that kind of orbit inside our solar system, we'd have seen it by now, I'm sure. So I think Stichin's theory is fatally flawed there alone. Now, assuming that there was a planet X: That kind of orbit would make it difficult, to say the least, for any type of higher life to arise. Even with a sentient lifeform arising on such a world, I'd think that rather than going into hibernation for a vastly extended period of time, they would have a lifespan that fits into the time period that planet X is in a "habitable" zone.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Der Kapitan]

Originally posted by minniescar
It would be the equivilent of going from the desert to an iceberg.

It would be drastically more extreme than any extreme in temperature on earth.

But according to his theory wasn't planet x just a piece of a bigger planet that the earth also belonged to?

Wasn't this planet said to be cover completely with water?

If that's the case couldn't they survive under the water when the surface freezes and then maintain warmth by staying near a molten core if said planet had one?



[edit on 15-9-2004 by UnlmtdPotential]

Originally posted by UnlmtdPotential
If that's the case couldn't they survive under the water when the surface freezes and the maintain warmth by staying near a molten core if said planet had one?

A planet with an orbit so eccentric as to make it undetectable would basically not be warmed by the sun at all. if it had oceans, they'd be frozed solid.

Unlimitedpotential was speaking to the core of the planet maintaining enough of a liquid state as to still support life. I think that the core temp. would not be high enough to keep the water from freezing solid and we get back to what i stated above. Europa is thought to keep a creamy liquid center because of a hot core and gravitation friction of Jupiter. A rogue planet with a highly eccentric orbit would still likely to hostile for life to take hold. Not impossiblr, but not likely.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Der Kapitan]

even if they hibernated they would just freeze

planet X is nonsense

planet X is nonsense

Well, yeah... but we all seem to discuss a lot of what ifs here. That's my approach.

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Der Kapitan]

If a planet had that kind of orbit inside our solar system, we'd have seen it by now, I'm sure

If it had a 3600 year orbit then its entirely possible that it hasnt been viewable within recorded history ( credibel history that is ) However i do remember reading in my scholastic reader as a child in the late 80's how nasa had announced they had found a new planet and they where calling it planet X ( for the time being ) and i have yet to see any articles or any information on it since i was little , other then stichens theory.

It would be drastically more extreme than any extreme in temperature on earth.

it was just an example not to be taken for exactness

But according to his theory wasn't planet x just a piece of a bigger planet that the earth also belonged to?

Actually i beleive it was one of planet x's moons that collided to form earth and i find this to be a very good posibility. The theory of the continetal plates moving adds credibility to earth being half a planet at one point in time. If you look at a drawing of what they believe earth looked like 250 million years ago all of the continents where joined into one land mass all on one side. Having a big chuck of the planet missing on the other side would cause the large continent to rip apart over time and fill this missing hole , just like dirt settles over a period of time the continents would settle as well in order to fill the missing portion of the planet ( if it was a large enough chunk )


Part of the reason stichens theory inrested me is that when i was little i was facinated with space and even as a young child i beleived the asteroid belt was likely a planet at one point in time. On the same note i beleived thier was water on mars at some point in time if not still there , the canals and the geaographical terrain of mars is extremely similiar to earth and on earth these types of formations have been made by water. Combining this in my little young mind i began to wonder if the human race hadnt previously inhabited these places and we blew up the planet that is now the asteroid belt , then somehow managed to dry up mars then we made it to earth. And of course survival was the first thing we worked on and in doing so our previously learned technology was lost and we began anew. So the stichin theory kinda caught my attention.

even if they hibernated they would just freeze

Even hear on earth we have animals capable of being frozen and then reanimated, do a search on google for frozen goldfish.

planet X is nonsense

There is a thread just a few down from this one labeled the "UK royal family are reptilians? " And you think this one is rediculious? Your kidding me right?

I've had the same thoughts about Planet X's orbit, too. There's really no way to get around it. With its eccentric orbit, it leaves a great big hole in Sitchin's theory.

his theory having holes doesn't make it false

possibilities should be questioned and explored

And if you're going to believe that a reptillian race exsists why would you ignore possibility of adaptability

I'm not discounting his theory. I've read quite a bit of his work and think it's great, but I think there may be some misinterpretation some place about planet x. The described nature of it's orbit makes it hard to imagine anything being able to survive. Especially, if the beings are similar to ourselves. However, it's possilbe that they don't live on the surface of the planet.

If you can't live on the surface of a planet, then the best place to go is underground. Just like Earth, there are theories that Earth is filled with vast underground caverns, and some of these theories deal with Alien life forms.

Originally posted by Der Kapitan
Unlimitedpotential was speaking to the core of the planet maintaining enough of a liquid state as to still support life.

Well, if its supposed to be an earth like planet, then the oceans are going to be frozen solid. Europa is thought to have crust of ice over a liquid 'ocean', but the liquid is made liquid by gravity tides from jupiter. I think that a different explanation would be needed to explain why planet X would be habitable. Remember, its in deep space, its not warmed by the sun at all, it'd be absolutely frigid. Perhaps one could talk about life deep in the mantle, but life doesn't appear to be in the earth mantle, and we're certainly not talking about anything more than bacteria grade organisms here.

minniescar
If it had a 3600 year orbit then its entirely possible that it hasnt been viewable within recorded history

3600 years ago is 1600 bc, so it should've been noted. Plus, i think sitchin says the ancients knew about, so they''ve had to have seen it, but why can't any telescopes, including big ones like hubble, find it?

Having a big chuck of the planet missing on the other side would cause the large continent to rip apart over time and fill this missing hole , just like dirt settles over a period of time the continents would settle as well in order to fill the missing portion of the planet

Interesting, but thats not quite how plate tectonics work.

the asteroid belt

I used to think so too. Infact, I thought it was generally agreed that it might very well have been?

google for frozen goldfish.

Think of it this way. On other planets in the solar system that we know of, some are so far out, and thus so cold, that gases have condensed, planetwide, into bizzare liquid oceans. Planet X would be so far out that there is nowhere anywhere on Earth, or even in the rest of the known solar system, that would be nearly as cold.

unlimitedpotential
his theory having holes doesn't make it false

Definitely doesn't help to make it true. And since there isn't any evidence that actually supports it anyway (at least the parts I have seen)....

why would you ignore possibility of adaptability

Adapting to what? The prohibitively frigid tempuratures on this postulated planet x? How could anything adapt to it, this planet is frozen solid, how can life form on it in the first place, forget about adapting to it.

immortal
theories that Earth is filled with vast underground caverns

Are you talking about a hollow earth or just caves? We know caves exist. Caves on planet X would also be wildly frozen, unless (assuming planet x has a molten core/radionuclides in its mantle etc) these caves extend thru the crust and deep into the mantle itself, which is unreasonable.

Originally posted by minniescar

planet X is nonsense

There is a thread just a few down from this one labeled the "UK royal family are reptilians? " And you think this one is rediculious? Your kidding me right?

Planet X is not nonsense. It has been proven mathmatically. It exists, plain and simple, no room for debate.

Now, since we know it exists via mathmatical proof, how do we find it, what is it, and does it support life.

How do we find it: Simply scan the sky where we expect it to be and wait.

What is it: based on the last article I read, scientists think it is gaseous and smaller than Jupiter (if I recall correctly)

Can it support life: No.

In support of the above, I reference an article I read in the newpaper probably around '97. It stated what I just paraphrased above and that astronomers were looking for it. This was in a local paper with a large distribution BTW, not the Weekly World News

I wish I saved the artical but I didn't. Doesn't matter, just do a Google search and I'm sure you'll find something similar.

Now, as for Sitchin...that guy is onto something. I have read all of his books (not counting his latest Enki book) at least once but it has been a while since I have (10 years or so). I have great respect for his work but feel it is flawed in some places. Life on 'Planet X', Nibiru, or whatever you want to call it is one of those places. So, I don't see the need to debate life coming from this planet unless it is simply a way station...which, if I recall correctly, was one of my thoughts when I first read his work.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater just because he isn't 100% dead on.

i read theories that said it was a brown dwarf and had a planet. the brown dwarf maybe makes just enough heat? also stichin said that the annunaki mined gold from earth to act as a heat insulator in niburian atmosphere.

Originally posted by Enlil
X is not nonsense. It has been proven mathmatically. It exists, plain and simple, no room for debate.

Why? Because of the gravitational anomolies? But they don't have to be caused by a planet. And if it exists, where the heck is it?

Now, since we know it exists via mathmatical proof, how do we find it, what is it, and does it support life.

If its so far away that it can't be seen and is on such an eccentric orbit that its that far away then even if it does exist it simply can't rationally be thought to support life of any kind. Life need liquids, life needs chemical reactions, metabolism and other things to start off with and a hyper frozen immpossibly cold planet in deep space can't reasonably be supposed to have life. One could pretend that it has life, but any speculation in that area would be, well, pretending.

How do we find it: Simply scan the sky where we expect it to be and wait.
Astronomers, professional and amateur, along with astrophysicists and cosmologists would be very interested in finding it, its been looked for, its never been found, it simply can't be said to exist.

What is it: based on the last article I read, scientists think it is gaseous and smaller than Jupiter (if I recall correctly)

To be this hard to find it has to be dramatically smaller than jupiter, and probably so small that it can't be any kind of gasesous planet.

In support of the above, I reference an article I read in the newpaper probably around '97. It stated what I just paraphrased above and that astronomers were looking for it. This was in a local paper with a large distribution BTW, not the Weekly World News

And since then not a single scrap of evidence or photograph has ever come up suggesting that there is another whole planet in the solar system. Sedna would probably be the closest thing.

Now, as for Sitchin...that guy is onto something.

Why? I am moderately unfamiliar with his work, I have only heard some stuff, and all of it was lunacy, but I assume that thats because its not direct.

fattytheking
i read theories that said it was a brown dwarf and had a planet

What? Now there is an entire star orbiting Sol and another planet but no one except the sumerians have ever seen it?

the annunaki mined gold from earth to act as a heat insulator in niburian atmosphere.

The can travel between planets, heck between stars, and they use gold as an insulator? Why would they even need an insulator if they are from the planet? Why have they stopped looking for gold?

Nygdan, hubble is owned by NASA as far as i know, and you can't seriously tell me that NASA are the most honest organisation on Earth. First of all they would have to be pointing it in the direction, they may have other things to do as well. And even if they did find a planet there, do you think they would come out to the world and say "a big planet is going to hit us". no i dont think so, use logic man, far out.