Whistleblower: Planet Seen From Antarctica

reply to post by snarky412

And yes, they do say that the Ancients had more knowledge of our Solar System than we do.

Who said this? The Ancients had no knowledge of CME's, Quasars, Pulsars, Black Holes, Galaxies, Nebulae etc...

It stated that our scientists had knowledge of Pluto from earlier recordings through the ancient cultures. They knew where to look for it and were trying to locate it. They finally found it in the 30's if I remember correctly.

In the 1840s, using Newtonian mechanics, Urbain Le Verrier predicted the position of the then-undiscovered planet Neptune after analysing perturbations in the orbit of Uranus.[24] Subsequent observations of Neptune in the late 19th century caused astronomers to speculate that Uranus' orbit was being disturbed by another planet besides Neptune.

In 1906, Percival Lowell, a wealthy Bostonian who had founded the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona in 1894, started an extensive project in search of a possible ninth planet, which he termed "Planet X".[25] By 1909, Lowell and William H. Pickering had suggested several possible celestial coordinates for such a planet.[26] Lowell and his observatory conducted his search until his death in 1916, but to no avail. Unknown to Lowell, on March 19, 1915, his observatory had captured two faint images of Pluto, but did not recognise them for what they were.[26][27] Lowell was not the first to unknowingly photograph Pluto. There are sixteen known pre-discoveries, with the oldest being made by the Yerkes Observatory on August 20, 1909.[28]

The oldest discovery of Pluto was made in 1909 but they did not know they had found Pluto at the time.

In 1992, Myles Standish used data from Voyager 2's 1989 flyby of Neptune, which had revised the planet's total mass downward by 0.5%, to recalculate its gravitational effect on Uranus. With the new figures added in, the discrepancies, and with them the need for a Planet X, vanished.[52] Today, the majority of scientists agree that Planet X, as Lowell defined it, does not exist.[

en.wikipedia.org...

I guess all those Professors, Scholars, Scientists, etc. don't know squat......

They know enough not to buy into the hype of a theory that is no longer active. The planet X theory died with the discovery of Pluto.

Several astronomers have said that there's no evidence for the Planet X theory, and that if the planet did exist, humans would be able to see it even without a telescope.

Q: Is there a planet or brown dwarf called Nibiru or Planet X or Eris that is approaching the Earth and threatening our planet with widespread destruction?

A: Nibiru and other stories about wayward planets are an Internet hoax. There is no factual basis for these claims. If Nibiru or Planet X were real and headed for an encounter with the Earth in 2012, astronomers would have been tracking it for at least the past decade, and it would be visible by now to the naked eye. Obviously, it does not exist. Eris is real, but it is a dwarf planet similar to Pluto that will remain in the outer solar system; the closest it can come to Earth is about 4 billion miles.

www.nasa.gov...

Certainly they did not know about the existence of Uranus, Neptune or Pluto. They also had no understanding that the planets orbited the Sun, an idea that first developed in ancient Greece two millennia after the end of Sumer.

Also the fact that posters are saying that it can only be seen from the South Pole and the SPT was built to track is it baseless. The SPT is a radio telescope that cannot take pictures, and if an object was visable from the South Pole it would be visable to the entire Southern Hemisphere.

astrobiology.nasa.gov... biologist/intro/nibiru-and-doomsday-2012-questions-and-answers

Originally posted by snarky412

Originally posted by AlchemicalBinoculars
reply to post by snarky412

 

Best not use The History Channel for anything that you wish to equate with true astrophysics.

Okay... what about A&E, Science, or NASA channel? No good either?
Please don't make me watch American Idol or Snookie or the Pawn Shop crap!
Throw me in the brier patch but please noooo reality shows........

Just turn off your damn TV. Things of value reside elsewhere.

You might be interested in t his link which discusses claims that paintings show UFOs. This is a great site that shows what frauds claim are UFOs.

www.sprezzatura.it...

Obviously once a Flying Object is identified, it cannot be considered a UFO anymore. These pages deal with a series of Flying Objects which, as some people say, appear into ancient works of art. As a matter of fact many books, and above all many web sites dealing with paleo-astronautic or clipeology, present various works of art as an evidence of UFO sightings in the past. Unfortunately, once seriously considered, these same works of art prove to be much more related to art itself than to any UFO concern.

Originally posted by caf1550
reply to post by snarky412

 

And yes, they do say that the Ancients had more knowledge of our Solar System than we do.

Who said this? The Ancients had no knowledge of CME's, Quasars, Pulsars, Black Holes, Galaxies, Nebulae etc...

It stated that our scientists had knowledge of Pluto from earlier recordings through the ancient cultures. They knew where to look for it and were trying to locate it. They finally found it in the 30's if I remember correctly.

In the 1840s, using Newtonian mechanics, Urbain Le Verrier predicted the position of the then-undiscovered planet Neptune after analysing perturbations in the orbit of Uranus.[24] Subsequent observations of Neptune in the late 19th century caused astronomers to speculate that Uranus' orbit was being disturbed by another planet besides Neptune.

In 1906, Percival Lowell, a wealthy Bostonian who had founded the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona in 1894, started an extensive project in search of a possible ninth planet, which he termed "Planet X".[25] By 1909, Lowell and William H. Pickering had suggested several possible celestial coordinates for such a planet.[26] Lowell and his observatory conducted his search until his death in 1916, but to no avail. Unknown to Lowell, on March 19, 1915, his observatory had captured two faint images of Pluto, but did not recognise them for what they were.[26][27] Lowell was not the first to unknowingly photograph Pluto. There are sixteen known pre-discoveries, with the oldest being made by the Yerkes Observatory on August 20, 1909.[28]

The oldest discovery of Pluto was made in 1909 but they did not know they had found Pluto at the time.

In 1992, Myles Standish used data from Voyager 2's 1989 flyby of Neptune, which had revised the planet's total mass downward by 0.5%, to recalculate its gravitational effect on Uranus. With the new figures added in, the discrepancies, and with them the need for a Planet X, vanished.[52] Today, the majority of scientists agree that Planet X, as Lowell defined it, does not exist.[

en.wikipedia.org...

I

Several astronomers have said that there's no evidence for the Planet X theory, and that if the planet did exist, humans would be able to see it even without a telescope.

Q: Is there a planet or brown dwarf called Nibiru or Planet X or Eris that is approaching the Earth and threatening our planet with widespread destruction?

A: Nibiru and other stories about wayward planets are an Internet hoax. There is no factual basis for these claims. If Nibiru or Planet X were real and headed for an encounter with the Earth in 2012, astronomers would have been tracking it for at least the past decade, and it would be visible by now to the naked eye. Obviously, it does not exist. Eris is real, but it is a dwarf planet similar to Pluto that will remain in the outer solar system; the closest it can come to Earth is about 4 billion miles.

www.nasa.gov...



Also the fact that posters are saying that it can only be seen from the South Pole and the SPT was built to track is it baseless. The SPT is a radio telescope that cannot take pictures, and if an object was visable from the South Pole it would be visable to the entire Southern Hemisphere.

astrobiology.nasa.gov... biologist/intro/nibiru-and-doomsday-2012-questions-and-answers

My problem I have is WHICH expert/scientist is right and which is wrong. That's what I love about this field is it's varying and always changing theories. I'm no professor nor scholar so trying to condemn or scold me is not going to work.

I never said any thing about Planet X although I have heard of it. And in your own quote it states "several" astronomers stated there is no evidence. True, but what about the "other" scientists that may think it possible. What about them? There were 2 Astrophysicists in Lafayette, La. that just spent 10-12 years gathering data on a possible planet (Tyche) . I haven't the foggiest clue on that subject, but the scientists themselves can not agree.
THAT is what I mean by which scientist is right. You obviously have made up your mind. I'm glad for you.

And I never said any thing can be seen from the sun. That must have come from some where else.
Personally, I thought the video was phony as a three dollar bill.

I'm new here and haven't quite learned the ropes on how to post links or articles but I'll be glad when I do.
Thanks for your input any how....

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by snarky412

 

You have to apply a bit of skepticism to shows that make odd claims. For example, if a show claims that Nazca was an ancient landing site for spacecraft then you have to ask yourself why there are no landing marks - none at all. A little research tells us that the lines are formed by exposing the brighter subsoil. If the lines still exist then any landing marks should exist as well, but they do not.

Another thing to watch out for in the shows is a long list of what ifs at the start. Then see if any of the what ifs are ever substantiated. These shows often make all of the assumptions at the start that define the conclusion which they pretend is worked out over the course of the show.

See, that's one of my problems. I personally have a hard time with the simple and easy theory, and that's all they are, are theories. I don't know if I believe the space craft theory,yet I don't believe the basic explanation either. That's why I keep an open mind and yeah, I'm guilty of the "what if". All we can do is guess and speculate, that's it. I've read and watched different aspects from various people, so called "experts",but once again , it's which line of reasoning a person wants to go with.

As for there being no landing marks, there are some that say that's what that long strip is for and no, they wouldn't have flashing lights and lines like modern day.

I'm not arguing just saying why it's a very complex and delicate field.
Needless to say, I find it all very interesting. Thanks.

reply to post by snarky412

My problem I have is WHICH expert/scientist is right and which is wrong. That's what I love about this field is it's varying and always changing theories. I'm no professor nor scholar so trying to condemn or scold me is not going to work.

I never said any thing about Planet X although I have heard of it. And in your own quote it states "several" astronomers stated there is no evidence. True, but what about the "other" scientists that may think it possible. What about them? There were 2 Astrophysicists in Lafayette, La. that just spent 10-12 years gathering data on a possible planet (Tyche) . I haven't the foggiest clue on that subject, but the scientists themselves can not agree.
THAT is what I mean by which scientist is right. You obviously have made up your mind. I'm glad for you.

Science works through consensus. The idea is that there are some knowns and lots of unknowns. Someone and it doesn't matter who does this collects facts. They develop a hypothesis and test it. This may be part of an existing theory or not. They get the idea well enough worked out so that they can publish it. It gets through peer review and is published in a journal. Other people see it. Some of the initial work might have been presented at a conference where other provide insight into how to proceed. At this point the idea can be heavily bashed around if it conflicts with someone else's ideas. Eventually the idea passes muster and is accepted or it is dropped. If the idea is accepted it is further tested and new questions are asked. Maybe a later test shows the idea was no good or later tests continue to validate the idea.

Notice that the process is independent of an authoritarian figure. There is no "pope" of science.

So who do I trust? I trust the ideas and not the person. In some cases I know they are charlatans. People like Von Daniken do not try to past scientific muster because they can't. He lies about medieval paintings and just about everything else. He claims ancient people are helpless fools. He says they were unfit to do what they did. He claims even modern people could not do what they did. He might claim modern cranes could not life the megaliths. That is something you could check out yourself.

As far as Tyche is concerned you could read the article proposing Tyche. You would learn that the chance of Tyche existing is low. You'd learn that it never comes close to Earth. Recent statements would tell you that they fully expect to detect Tyche in the WISE data. I' m not so sure they spent 10 to 12 years collecting data on Tyche. The claim is that Tyche might exist due to the trajectories of some comets. The consensus is that their claim is probably not right. That's ok. The idea was formulate. It went through peer review. it was discussed. Now the WISE data is being studied. Should it not be detected there, then Tyche will end up in the huge pile of ideas that were tested and found to be lacking. That does not mean that the 2 researchers are bad researchers.

Back to Ancient Aliens now. Those clowns would try to cover up their failures with even wackier stories. That is the way those shows operate.

reply to post by snarky412

All we can do is guess and speculate, that's it.

In science a fact is something we are fairly sure is correct. It might not be. Sometimes facts are found to be wrong. To avoid mistakes facts are checked and rechecked.

In science facts are explained by theories. Theories in science are not guesses or speculations. They are well worked out ideas that are used to explain facts.

In a mockumentary there are no scientific theories. There are no scientific facts. There is no scientific consensus. There are pretty much lies. That's about it. A few grains of truth are thrown in to muddy the waters and then its a free for all of baloney and cow chip tossing.

When Nova asked Von Daniken why he lied about the gold he claimed to have seen and about a number of lies in his books he told them he was using literary license to make his books more interesting.

The marks at Nazca are shallow scratches on the landscape. No large heavy objects were there that would have disturbed the soil leaving tell tale marks.

If any of us do get to see a sight like that, then time to get out the credit card and have free fun while you can.
If your an alchoholic, a good time to start drinking again, and if you don't smoke.... get a pack of camels.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by snarky412

 

All we can do is guess and speculate, that's it.

In science a fact is something we are fairly sure is correct. It might not be. Sometimes facts are found to be wrong. To avoid mistakes facts are checked and rechecked.

In science facts are explained by theories. Theories in science are not guesses or speculations. They are well worked out ideas that are used to explain facts.

In a mockumentary there are no scientific theories. There are no scientific facts. There is no scientific consensus. There are pretty much lies. That's about it. A few grains of truth are thrown in to muddy the waters and then its a free for all of baloney and cow chip tossing.

When Nova asked Von Daniken why he lied about the gold he claimed to have seen and about a number of lies in his books he told them he was using literary license to make his books more interesting.

The marks at Nazca are shallow scratches on the landscape. No large heavy objects were there that would have disturbed the soil leaving tell tale marks.

Thanks for your input, much respect.

I was sitting here a while ago thinking , damn this is sorta like politics. Some say republican, then some say democrats. Except I hate politics!!!! That was a joke, please don't be offended. I have a warped sense of humor.

There have been a couple of posters that have brought up good facts, including yourself. I take those facts, research them more, tweak my thoughts some, and research more. I'm getting the hang of the copy/paste thing and all so next time I will be better prepared. I love science/history that's why these threads intrigue me. Sometimes when I try to translate what I'm saying it comes out all garbled and screwy sounding. Sorry.

reply to post by caf1550


Okay, here we go, challenge of the experts:

NASA WISE Telescope shows a Giant Planet next to the Solar System. February 13, 2011. NASA confirms that is tracking Hercolubus, at the moment scientists call it as Tyche. The NASA Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) telescope is showing a giant planet next to the Solar System. Tyche (Hercolubus) is 4 times bigger than Jupiter and orbit at the outer edge of the Solar System.Scientists are just analyzing the data gathered by a NASA space telescope WISE, it shows a giant planet up to four times the mass of Jupiter lurking in the outer Oort Cloud, the most remote region of the solar system. The orbit of Tyche (Hercolubus) would be 15000 times farther from the Sun than the Earth’s, and 375 times farther than Pluto’s. The first tranche of data is to be released in April, and astrophysicists John Matese and Daniel Whitmire from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette think it will reveal Tyche (Hercolubus) within two years. This means that NASA considers impossible to cover-up the Hercolubus approaching in two years. Once Tyche (Hercolubus) has been located, other telescopes could be pointed at it to confirm it. The International Astronomical Union (IAU) may create a whole new category for Tyche, Professor Matese said. The IAU would also have the final say about the giant planet name. To the Greeks, Tyche was the goddess responsible for the destiny of cities. Her name was provisionally chosen in reference to an earlier hypothesis, now largely abandoned, that the Sun …

Now, I never claimed this planet existed, you're the one that brought it up. Also:

Evidence is mounting that either a brown dwarf star or a gas giant planet is lurking at the outermost reaches of our solar system, far beyond Pluto. The theoretical object, dubbed Tyche, is estimated to be four times the size of Jupiter and 15,000 times farther from the sun than Earth, according to a story in the British paper The Independent. Astrophysicists John Matese and Daniel Whitmire from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette think data from NASA's infrared space telescope WISE will confirm Tyche's existence and location within two years. The presence of such a massive object in the solar system's far-flung Oort Cloud could explain a barrage of comets from an unexpected direction, according to a December article at Space.com. Its 27 million-year orbit could also explain a pattern of mass extinctions on Earth, scientists say.

The point I was trying to make earlier before I got slammed by every one was the difference in opinions in all these experts. They're not all on the same page. Yet I try to remain open minded to listen to all sides, not just one theory.

Whew, thank goodness I finally learned how to bring quotes from other sources!!!
[thanks to Xcalibur254 for the help]

Well, did you guys read the last sentence of the last quote? Kinda makes you go hmmm, now why did they bring up the statement about the pattern of mass extinction? Uh oh, it says scientists say.
And I thought it was from the fireworks!! [ joke ]

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by snarky412

 

While this search continued throughout the 19th century it picked up steam with Percival Lowell and the construction of Lowell Observatory. Pluto was finally discovered in 1930 by a 22 year old Kansas farm boy named Clyde Tombaugh. The locations where he found Pluto was only six degrees off from two areas hypothesized by Lowell. It's discovery wasn't due to ancient writings. It was due to good old Newtonian physics. In fact Pluto is named Pluto because of Lowell. The first two letters in Pluto are Lowell's initials.

Or could the name Pluto come from here:

After a year of observations, Tombaugh finally discovered an object in the right orbit, and declared that he had discovered Planet X. Because they had discovered it, the Lowell team were allowed to name it. They settled on Pluto, a name suggested by an 11-year old school girl in Oxford, England (no, it wasn’t named after the Disney character, but the Roman god of the underworld).

So, according to this source it was named after a Roman god....

Over the last few decades, powerful new ground and space-based observatories have completely changed previous understanding of the outer Solar System. Instead of being the only planet in its region, like the rest of the Solar System, Pluto and its moons are now known to be just a large example of a collection of objects called the Kuiper Belt. This region extends from the orbit of Neptune out to 55 astronomical units (55 times the distance of the Earth to the Sun).

And this is what I meant about we don't know every thing just yet, things are still being studied and re-worded and reanalyzed such as this following piece:

And in 2005, Mike Brown and his team dropped the bombshell. They had discovered an object, further out than the orbit of Pluto that was probably the same size, or even larger. Officially named 2003 UB313, the object was later designated as Eris. Since its discovery, astronomers have determined that Eris’ size is approximately 2,600 km (1,600 miles) across. It also has approximately 25% more mass than Pluto. With Eris being larger, made of the same ice/rock mixture, and more massive than Pluto, the concept that we have nine planets in the Solar System began to fall apart. What is Eris, planet or Kuiper Belt Object; what is Pluto, for that matter? Astronomers decided they would make a final decision about the definition of a planet at the XXVIth General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union, which was held from August 14 to August 25, 2006 in Prague, Czech Republic.

Hells bells, Astronomers never decided what the definition of a planet was until 2006... better late than never I guess.

And finally, we were both correct I see in the usage of these terms (demoted/reclassification):

Astronomers from the association were given the opportunity to vote on the definition of planets. One version of the definition would have actually boosted the number of planets to 12; Pluto was still a planet, and so were Eris and even Ceres, which had been thought of as the largest asteroid. A different proposal kept the total at 9, defining the planets as just the familiar ones we know without any scientific rationale, and a third would drop the number of planets down to 8, and Pluto would be out of the planet club. But, then… what is Pluto? In the end, astronomers voted for the controversial decision of demoting Pluto (and Eris) down to the newly created classification of “dwarf planet

So I keep going back to the fact that as new discoveries are made, theories change and historians have a hell of a time re-writing the history books.....

Sorry but I left off part of the story and controversy on Pluto, thought it was interesting:

The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague. "I'm embarassed for astornomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted." "This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com. He expects the astronomy community to overturn the decision. Other astronomers criticized the definition as ambiguous

Wow, only 5% of the Astronomers voted and others thought it left it open for more than one interpretation.
This sounds like a one-sided decision to me.... who knows, it could change again when the next person has a whim say in another 20-30 years or so.

The decision establishes three main categories of objects in our solar system

Planets: The eight worlds from Mercury to Neptune. Dwarf Planets: Pluto and any other round object that "has not cleared the neighborhood around its orbit, and is not a satellite." Small Solar System Bodies: All other objects orbiting the Sun. Pluto and its moon Charon, which would both have been planets under the initial definition proposed Aug. 16, now get demoted because they are part of a sea of other objects that occupy the same region of space. Earth and the other eight large planets have, on the other hand, cleared broad swaths of space of any other large objects.

Don't worry Pluto, we still love you......

Let's just suppose there is a type II civilization out there who has built something like what we would call a Dyson Sphere. Wikipedia

Finding such a thing, prior to Hubble would be difficult if not impossible.

Now imagine, that rather than building what we would think of as this type of solution, these dudes instead either captured or managed to ignite a small star. Large enough to supply a great deal of power but small enough to be "manageable" in terms of being able to work close enough to it without being vaporized.

Imagine our surprise then, if we were able to see this unexpected variant of a Civ II solution, because they built a very large space craft, harnessed it to this star and were moving around the Universe with it like a Winnebago towing a large generator behind it on a trailer. Just imagine the surprise at seeing such a thing or the larger surprise of doing the math and figuring out this object had been in our neighborhood in the far past and should it stay on its present course, would be here again.

Imagine you know a lot more about ancient history than the public is privy to, enough to know that origins of certain biblical stories are based on real events that were much worse for the Earthlings involved than even the legends manage to relate.

There's no way NASA would go on TV and tell the public about this. We're talking major issues here - confirmation of ET, ancient alien theory and Mayan doomsday all wrapped up in one shiny box.

That's all I ask is that you pretend, for just a few minutes that what I'm telling you is the absolute truth, confirmed by sources with no reason to tell a story in a situation where someone wanted to share their darkest secret / biggest fear due to the implications on humanity and the possible end of our civilization as we know it.

The Universe - Season 6, Episode 2: The Sun's Evil Twin - Nemesis

Breaking!!!!!!

Russian news finally reveals the truth about Planet X!

www.youtube.com...

Well, I just looked at the date, it was last summer, but I just saw it for the first time today.

For great info on how to survive it, visit:

poleshift.ning.com...

By the way, Planet X is not the sun's twin.

The sun's twin, a dim brown dwarf, is I tink something like 17x the sun-pluto distance from the sun.

Earth has a dark twin that is usually on the opposite side of the sun from earth, thus we never see it, we were not told about it as the elite wanted to use it as a getaway during the passage of planet X. The earth's dark twin is not crowding earth, and is what is seen in the pictures at Neumayer Station which started this thread.

Planet X revolves around the Sun and its dark twin in a sling orbit, and it is trailed by many moons, is 4x the diameter and 23x the mass of earth, and is coming at us from the sun so extremely hard to see. Think about it, you can see millions of stars at night when the sun isn't around, how many of them do you see during the day?

For tons of science info see this:

www.zetatalk.com...

I'm going to have to start using the preview function, sorry!

I meant to say above that the earth's dark twin is NOW crowding earth, not "not" crowding earth. Before Planet X entered our solar system in 2003, our dark twin was in the same orbit as earth, but on the opposite side of our orbit, hence tough to see until now.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
I'm going to have to start using the preview function, sorry!

I meant to say above that the earth's dark twin is NOW crowding earth, not "not" crowding earth. Before Planet X entered our solar system in 2003, our dark twin was in the same orbit as earth, but on the opposite side of our orbit, hence tough to see until now.

Sorry but that is total and utter BS!!!

reply to post by snarky412


No problem.

These mockumentaries as I call them are beguiling. They set out pretty visuals and make very broad claims. Often a narrator makes a wild claim followed by an interviewee saying something like, "Exactly. That is what happened."

I remember seeing Chariots of the Gods with my dad years ago. I was smitten with the show and he slowly asked me questions. It took me quite a while to realize that things were not as Von Daniken claimed. Since then I have seen the pyramids and been to Zimbabwe and read about the artwork and learned more science.

reply to post by snarky412


You have fallen for a fake news release. Mentioned int he following link. Be sure to provide the link when you quote something so that more of the material can be checked out. Fake news releases are common the internet.
www.universetoday.com...

The claim that evidence is mounting comes from a 2011 news report on the original proposal. The original paper describes an object that stays something like 1/4 of a light year away.

The point I was trying to make earlier before I got slammed by every one was the difference in opinions in all these experts. They're not all on the same page. Yet I try to remain open minded to listen to all sides, not just one theory.

Disregarding the fake news release, the issue is with Tyche. It is not like other claims in which the object is close such as the claim in the opening post. Tyche stays so far away it would be hard to detect. Whitmire and Matese say WISE should detect it. So far nothing reported. Even if it does it can't have anything to do with the OP claims.

The problem here is that the doofus that wrote the article got mixed up with Nemesis. The Whitmire Matese paper explicitly states that Tyche is NOT associated with mass extinctions.
news.blogs.cnn.com...

Check the following wikipedia page.

The name was chosen to avoid confusion with an earlier similar hypothesis that the Sun has a dim companion named Nemesis, whose gravity triggers influxes of comets into the inner Solar System, leading to mass-extinctions on Earth.

en.wikipedia.org...