Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NIBIRU AT LAST?? Brazilian Astronomer claims have found rogue planet hidden behind Neptune.

page: 3
50
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


So where is everything that was tossed out of our solar system that did not sustain orbit in the cration process? We know these planets and moons exist because we can see them. We are just newborns when it comes to undertanding our solar system. What happened before the planets were in their sustained orbits. No one knows. Its all speculation. We don't know what planets ran into what planets...its a guessing game. Is there proof that 1 billion years ago nothing rogue came through the inner solar system? I don't think so.


Lightmeup04




posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 




The existence of an object anything like Nibiru (which, as Sitchin would have us believe, periodically enters the inner Solar System) is a physical impossibility. It would disrupt the orbits of the planets hopelessly.


I am completely out of my realm here, but I would like to ask a question:

If a rogue planet entering the solar system would disrupt planetary orbits "hopelessly", potentially causing chaos within the solar system, wouldn't a rogue planet theory easily explain the odd orbit of mars and the existence of the asteroid belt....which could be the remains of a 5th planet in the solar system but destroyed by the rogue planet?

The name eludes me, but there is a theory/equation used by planatery scientists to calculate how many planets a star should have, and using that equation means that our solar system should have a planet exactly where the belt is.

Could you elaborate or explain how this all fits together?



edit on 14-5-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


We know the orbital mechanics for how long?? And our solar system is how old?? I don't think we know a whole lot.

Lightmeup04



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by lightmeup04
 


Is there proof that 1 billion years ago nothing rogue came through the inner solar system? I don't think so.

No there isn't.
But that has nothing to do with the notion of Nibiru or with what Gomes is talking about.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by lightmeup04
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


We know the orbital mechanics for how long?? And our solar system is how old?? I don't think we know a whole lot.

Lightmeup04


You need to edit your post to say that: "YOU don't know a whole lot."

It's quite obvious that you don't understand physics or astrophysics. If you can't be bothered to read and learn about how orbital mechanics work, then you should refrain from trying to discuss it.

You can't just move the planets around like marbles on a table. Having another planetary body cruising in to the solar system on a long period orbit will introduce Orbital Eccentricity into the other planets, if it's a very large body (think Neptune or bigger), or would effect the inner planets if smaller (If a earth sized planet were to slam into Jupiter, it would almost yawn at the event).

Having a new body orbiting out in the Kuiper belt would not affect the orbits of all the other planets, unless it was very large in size, and they we would see it's effect on the outer planets.

So far the WISE data has yet to show anything large (we're talking gas giant or bigger), or anything with a orbital period that brings it into the inner solar system. It's even failed to show a proposed "brown dwarf" (aka Tyche) as a companion to the sun that was proposed well over a year ago by John Matese and Daniel Whitmire.

Source



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 

There is nothing odd about the orbit of Mars.

The asteroid belt is not the remnants of a destroyed planet. There is not enough mass in all of the asteroid belt to form our Moon.

I think you are talking the "Titius-Bode Law": a = 4 + n, where a is the distance from the star and n is the number of the planet. It says nothing about how many planets a star "should" have. It sort of works but not really that well. Mars is 5% out of whack. Saturn as well. When you get to Neptune it really falls apart.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
If a rogue planet entering the solar system would disrupt planetary orbits "hopelessly", potentially causing chaos within the solar system


Yes, and all the orbits of all the planets would be upset.
But they arent.








Originally posted by sheepslayer247
wouldn't a rogue planet theory easily explain the odd orbit of mars


There is nothing odd about the orbit of Mars.






Originally posted by sheepslayer247
and the existence of the asteroid belt....which could be the remains of a 5th planet in the solar system but destroyed by the rogue planet?


Destroyed in what way exactly?
Cant be a collision, because then the asteroids wouldnt be in a perfecly normal orbital plane.
Cant be gravitational pull, because the planet wouldnt have been chunked into thousands of bits, and also wouldnt be in a perfecly normal orbital plane.







Originally posted by sheepslayer247
The name eludes me, but there is a theory/equation used by planatery scientists to calculate how many planets a star should have, and using that equation means that our solar system should have a planet exactly where the belt is.


You're thinking of the Titus-Bode law, from 1715, which is more of an old casual observation (that doesnt actually fit very well) rather than any exact science.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



There is nothing odd about the orbit of Mars.


From what I understand, Mars is in a highly-elliptical orbit that is different to the orbit in which it would have been able to form initially. What could have changed the orbit?



The asteroid belt is not the remnants of a destroyed planet. There is not enough mass in all of the asteroid belt to form our Moon.


Couldn't a large rogue planet impact a smaller planet, leaving behind some remnants of the impact, and "pull" the rest with it out into space? One theory suggests that this would be the real explanation of the existence of comets.



I think you are talking the "Titius-Bode Law


Would you call this law "industry standard" for all other solar systems though?



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
S&F

And let me tell you why... though I am not a scientist, I am fully aware that something of this magnitude, even if speculation, can change everything. People (those of us on ATS) come here for the "alternative" stories. When something like this is talked about on the MSM, this then becomes a "BIG" deal.

Speculation, theories, possibilities, etc,. being mentioned on MSM, is always for a reason, even if just a distraction. I will continue to look into this, and as far as I'm concerned, until I can honestly say that if the sources that most are using to debunk this was more accurate, there would be less of a need for places like ATS.

Peace, NRE.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I am not talking about the name nibiru or the 3600 year orbit either. You are saying there is no proof right now of a rogue planet coming into the inner solar system. I am stating the time we do.know about does not compare to the time we don't. How far or long do you think is the limit for something to be able to orbit our sun outside our solar system?

Lightmeup04



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 



Couldn't a large rogue planet impact a smaller planet, leaving behind some remnants of the impact, and "pull" the rest with it out into space? One theory suggests that this would be the real explanation of the existence of comets.


The existence of the asteroid belt actually isn't much of a mystery if you understand how the solar system formed. While I'm generally not a fan of linking to Wikipedia they do a good job of summarizing this topic.


Planetesimals within the region which would become the asteroid belt were too strongly perturbed by Jupiter's gravity to form a planet. Instead they continued to orbit the Sun as before, while occasionally colliding.[26] In regions where the average velocity of the collisions was too high, the shattering of planetesimals tended to dominate over accretion,[27] preventing the formation of planet-sized bodies. Orbital resonances occurred where the orbital period of an object in the belt formed an integer fraction of the orbital period of Jupiter, perturbing the object into a different orbit; the region lying between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter contains many such orbital resonances. As Jupiter migrated inward following its formation, these resonances would have swept across the asteroid belt, dynamically exciting the region's population and increasing their velocities relative to each other.[28]

Source



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
for background - his astronomy doctorate was on this exact theme.

Here is the latest work published by him as coauthor.


www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103512001182

Icarus

Available online 3 April 2012

In Press, Corrected Proof

Explaining why the uranian satellites have equatorial prograde orbits despite the large planetary obliquity

* A. Morbidelli a,
* K. Tsiganis b,
* K. Batygin c,
* A. Crida a,
* R. Gomes d,

* a Laboratoire Lagrange, UMR7293, Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, CNRS, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, Boulevard de l’Observatoire, 06304 Nice Cedex 4, France

* b Department of Physics, Section Astrophysics, Astronomy and Mechanics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece

* c California Institute of Technology, Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences, MC 170-25 1200 E. California Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91125, United States

* d Observatório Nacional José Cristino, Rua General José Cristino 77, CEP 20921-400 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

* Received 16 November 2011. Revised 23 March 2012. Accepted 27 March 2012. Available online 3 April 2012.

Abstract

We show that the existence of prograde equatorial satellites is consistent with a collisional tilting scenario for Uranus. In fact, if the planet was surrounded by a proto-satellite disk at the time of the tilting and a massive ring of material was temporarily placed inside the Roche radius of the planet by the collision, the proto-satellite disk would have started to precess incoherently around the equator of the planet, up to a distance greater than that of Oberon. Collisional damping would then have collapsed it into a thin equatorial disk, from which the satellites eventually formed. The fact that the orbits of the satellites are prograde requires Uranus to have had a non-negligible initial obliquity (comparable to that of Neptune) before it was finally tilted to 98°.

Keywords

* Uranus;
* Uranus, Satellites;
* Satellites, Formation;
* Satellites, Dynamics



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I just love the "floated over from another solar system" origin of this new planet.
After laughing your ass off, what credibility is left in this diatribe that could possibly keep your attention?

Some people are so upset that "Nibiru" is not here, they are willing to accept a theory that it is playing peek-aboo with our other planets. Sad, so very sad.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 

Mars's orbital eccentricity is 0.09. That is not really considered highly elliptical. Why could Mars have not formed with in the orbit which it now has? It did form under the influence of Jupiter after all. I'm not sure a collision would cause eccentricity.

I've never heard the theory that comets are the result of a collision. That would seem unlikely since they seem to originate from such varied directions relative to the ecliptic.

It's known that the early Solar System was a chaotic place, it's thought that our Moon formed from a collision. It's thought that Venus and Uranus were knocked on their "sides" by collisions early in the history of the Solar System.



Would you call this law "industry standard" for all other solar systems though?

No. Unless you can provide a number of examples which fit it (much less "all").
edit on 5/14/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avalessa
Nibiru does not exist. I'm sorry to say, but it doesn't. Other planets exist, but Nibiru doesn't. There is no such thing as a winged planet hat will save humans from disaster. You can't steer a planet.


You have no way to prove it does not exist any more than I can prove it does.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Willease
 

And that's good enough for you?
Can't prove unicorns don't exist either. Do you believe in them?



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Well according to Sitchin Nibiru is not due yet anyhow:


Sitchin published a book, The End of Days, which set the time for the last passing of Nibiru by Earth at 556 BC, which would mean, given the object's supposed 3,600-year orbit, that it would return sometime around AD 2900.[17]



en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 14-5-2012 by azureskys because: changed some words



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
My question is can it travel at the exact same speed as Neptune all the time? How can it be hidden unless it's traveling at the exact speed in the same orbital path? Wouldn't the Suns pull on it be stronger than that of Neptune? I'm asking this with very limited knowledge of how the solar system works lol



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jheated5
 




My question is can it travel at the exact same speed as Neptune all the time?

It cannot. The headline is sensationalistic.
It should more properly read "Possible planet beyond Neptune."
edit on 5/14/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avalessa
Nibiru does not exist. I'm sorry to say, but it doesn't. Other planets exist, but Nibiru doesn't. There is no such thing as a winged planet hat will save humans from disaster. You can't steer a planet.


Hate to play devil's advocate with a fellow friend from MI, but I disagree. Many ancient cultures described the planet but I don't recall it ever being said that it would save humans from a disaster. Causing the disasters maybe but not saving the humans. How do you know you can't steer a planet? Theoretically if you have advanced technology why couldn't you build a planet ship? Prove it doesn't exist.





new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join