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

reply to post by stormy01399


What Gomes is saying is that he has found slight perturbations in the outer planets. If this planet were Nibiru it would be much more than slight perturbations as it would be entering the orbits of the known planets every 3600 years.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by stormy01399

 

What Gomes is saying is that he has found slight perturbations in the outer planets. If this planet were Nibiru it would be much more than slight perturbations as it would be entering the orbits of the known planets every 3600 years.

Not that I believe in Nibiru or any of that annunaki crap, but where did sitchin get the 3600 year orbit thing from?

Also, I was under the impression the speculation in the OP's link is old news and has been talked about for years among astronomers? This just seems like a random article about someone saying something that has been said many times over the last decade or more?

reply to post by Xcalibur254

What Gomes is saying is that he has found slight perturbations in the outer planets.

Not exactly.
Gomes has modeled the elongated orbits found in 6 out of 92 Kuiper Belt objects and found that a planet sized object could account for them.

reply to post by signalfire


Well, guess what?? Rodney Gomes was just wiped off of their speakers list:

Invited Speakers
Lia Athanassoula (Observatoire astronomique de Marseille-Provence) Galactic Dynamics (Brouwer Award)
Matija Cuk (SETI Inst.) Dynamics of Multiple Moon Systems
Matthew Hedman (Cornell U.) Dynamics of Dusty Rings
Soko Matsumura (U. Maryland) Dynamics of Exoplanets
Rachel Kuzio de Naray (Royal Military College of Canada) Velocity Fields and Dark Matter Halos

Local Organizing Committee
Alan W. Harris (Space Science Institute, chair)
Kevin Grazier (JPL)
Daniel J. Scheeres (University of Colorado Boulder)

Program Committee
Douglas P. Hamilton, University of Maryland (chair)
Alice Monet, US Naval Observatory (retired)

Wednesday, May 9:
8:00 am-Noon, Galaxies Session
2:00-6:00 pm, Asteroids Session
Free Evening

Last update: 2012-May-09 by Jessica Mink

dda.harvard.edu...

According to National Geographic Gomes spoke at the meeting in May 9. Conveniently in the same day someone updated the list of people invited to speak at the conference and the topics of the day, and his name just vanished.

I hope this Brazilian astronomer is still alive and well.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by stormy01399

 

Also, I was under the impression the speculation in the OP's link is old news and has been talked about for years among astronomers? This just seems like a random article about someone saying something that has been said many times over the last decade or more?

The hypothesis has been around since the 80's in various forms, either as a planet or a companion brown or red dwarf star, so in that sense it's "old news." This is a new study this astronomer is presenting with some new calculations for the rest of the astronomical community to have a look at and try to either confirm or rip apart if they can.

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


He wasn't an invited speaker. For a most people presenting at a conference they have to send in an application and an abstract. If their research fits with the topic of the conference they might be accepted as a presenter. However, there are also invited presenters that tend to be big names in the field. As the name implies these people are specifically invited by the conference to present talks. If you check the actual schedule you will see that these invited speakers are labeled. You will also see that Gomes presented on May 8th from 1:40 PM - 2:00 PM during the symposium on Planet Formation.

This is the same stuff they were saying in the 80s, but then the stories were killed. Nothing new here.

My only thought on this at this point is, if its true, will Rodney Gomes disappear soon? Some mysterious accident? He must've known it was a taboo topic...

reply to post by Phage


O.K. O.K. Phage but...like I said I don't buy into it either. I suppose what I'm saying is just leave a bit of a "what if" in the equation for instance what if it was just a matter of another zero. An orbit of 36,000 years I suppose you or I would have no way to determine if it was or was not a myth if that was the case. One zero could really make someone with such dogma look silly if they were wrong. And I still stand by the fact that you can not just emphatically call it a myth, even though it does feel good to call it a myth based on hard facts that you can see in this present age.

Do you see the stark difference between that type of THINKING and just spewing dogma no offense intended I'm just desperately trying to wake up a part of your grey matter that from all appearances that your not willing to engage. I have seen a few things with my own eyes phage that if someone about 15 years ago would have told me I would have laughed and said they were a kook! A complete NUTCASE! Then I seen some things as I said with my own eyes and I had to repent for being so closed minded and sure of myself. You can trash-bin my comments straight away or you could consider a simple..........WHAT IF!

Thanks for responding though,
-FG

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard

According to National Geographic Gomes spoke at the meeting in May 9

According to National Geographic Gomes spoke on Tuesday. Tuesday was the 8th, not the 9th.

The objects' unexpected orbits have a few possible explanations, said Gomes, who presented his findings Tuesday at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Timberline Lodge, Oregon.

news.nationalgeographic.com...


Tuesday, May 8

1:40PM - 2:00PM 05.01: Signatures Of A Putative Planetary Mass Solar Companion On The Orbital Distribution Of Tno's And Centaurs
- Rodney S. Gomes, Observatorio Nacional, Brazil.

dda.harvard.edu...

There are a lot of speakers not listed as invited. Were they all bumped off?

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


Maybe its the monolith from space oddeyssey. I WANNA BE THE GIGANTIC BABY AT THE END!!! ou ou me first!

reply to post by eriktheawful


True that is the way we have interpreted gravity and these other laws to 'work' based on evidence we can see and measure; but wouldnt technology that could distort, manipulate, and rearrange gravitiational pulls, not leave evidence because it corrects what it changes? I have no proof of this but let us wrap our 'you must prove it for truth' minds around our own moon's direction, rotation, and distance from 'Earth'. Illogical for natural event? #theyaresmarterthanwecanthinkatthispointinTIME...

Originally posted by Phage
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?

I never said what I believed one way or another, proving you are just a trolling dick.
Fact is, there is a widely accepted theory that the Earth was once slammed into by another planet which created the moon and the asteroid belt. If this is true, then who is to say if the remains of said planet is now in an elliptical orbit called Nibiru by an ancient civilization. By the way, the Sumerians aren't the only culture that describes the same celestial event.

reply to post by Willease

"Trolling dick". I'm a fisherman so that presents an amusing mental image.

The Giant Impact theory is quite specific in that there were not really any "remains" of the collider. It was completely destroyed and it's "remains" formed much of the Moon (some also became reincorporated with the Earth which became a molten mass).

If this is true, then who is to say if the remains of said planet is now in an elliptical orbit called Nibiru by an ancient civilization.

It is impossible that any large body enters the inner Solar System on a regular basis. The orbits of the planets would be hopelessly disrupted.

By the way, the Sumerians aren't the only culture that describes the same celestial event.

The Sumerians do not describe such an event (except in Sitchin's fantasy) but please elaborate.

Originally posted by Somethingintheclouds

Nibiru the FACTS

Originally posted by Phage
It is impossible that any large body enters the inner Solar System on a regular basis. The orbits of the planets would be hopelessly disrupted.

It must be nice to make broad sweeping statements like that. No, it isn't impossiible.
It's 'unlikely' based on your own obviously biased observations of facts provided to you by corporate dominated science agencies and history books, both of which are quite notorious through the ages for their own biased observations, arrogance, secrecy, and dogma.

Hopelessly disrupted... what's the official criteria for 'hopelessly disrupted'? You mean like, flipped over on their sides, belts of debris, wobbles in their axis,, periods of cometary and asteroid bombardments, Our own geology,
and anomolous differences in orbits and rotation?
Not to mention archaeology, stuff like the sudden surge of meterotic iron suddenly comming available while civilizations collapsed coinciding with reports in places like burma where rivers changed directions or the sun standing still in the sky, or the commonalities in worldwide mythologies that revolve around the cyclic death and rebirth of our civilization and the deluvian mythologies, our ancestors obsession with astronomy and the incredible masonry involved in preserving their konwledge (any fool can plant can count days and plant crops, it doesn't take 1500 ton stones), genetic bottlenecks suggesting sudden depopulations, overwhelming and exponentially expanding evidence of prior advanced civilizations, quick frozen fruit trees, coal deposits...

There's quite a list of weird crap in our own history that, seperately considered, might merely be intrguing footnotes to the various scientific discplines, but when added together could certainly be indicitive of a cyclic cataclysmic event. But that would mean that you and me and the billions of others in the 'profane masses' might get the wild idea that we don't have to go to work tommorow if the world's just gonna end in a generation or two.

Sitchin didn't really 'invent' anything, he translated a lost language to the best of his ability. Funny, he got all the names and other stuff right, except for the inconvienent parts about man not being the top of the ladder anymore.
Guys like Sitchin and John Allegro will never receive the credit due them.

reply to post by twitchy

Hopelessly disrupted... what's the official criteria for 'hopelessly disrupted'? You mean like, flipped over on their sides, belts of debris, wobbles in their axis,, periods of cometary and asteroid bombardments

No. I said orbits. None of those involve the orbits of the planets, which are quite circular. A large object entering the inner Solar System on a periodic basis would cause the orbits of the planets to be highly eccentric at best and result in ejection from the Solar system at worse.

Here's what happens with a single pass through the Solar System.

Sitchin didn't really 'invent' anything, he translated a lost language to the best of his ability.

His ability was dismal and he invented Nibiru.

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by Phage
It is impossible that any large body enters the inner Solar System on a regular basis. The orbits of the planets would be hopelessly disrupted.

It must be nice to make broad sweeping statements like that. No, it isn't impossiible.
It's 'unlikely' based on your own obviously biased observations of facts provided to you by corporate dominated science agencies and history books, both of which are quite notorious through the ages for their own biased observations, arrogance, secrecy, and dogma.

So what qualifications do YOU have lets see your proof that what Phage says is wrong, lets see what you have, I take it you must be self taught or is it just the usual conspiracy cliches that many people like you on here roll out when required.

Does it not occur that if the science you claim is a fraud YOU wouldn't be on a computer on the net

Originally posted by wmd_2008
So what qualifications do YOU have lets see your proof that what Phage says is wrong, lets see what you have, I take it you must be self taught or is it just the usual conspiracy cliches that many people like you on here roll out when required.

Does it not occur that if the science you claim is a fraud YOU wouldn't be on a computer on the net

So, I claimed science was a fraud? Funny, I have a pretty decent memory and yet fail to recall that at all, I think I used words like corporate and dogma. I'm very curious as to what qualifications, self-teachings, or cliches you seem to think I would need to disagree with Phage though.
As to what I have, well, let's see...



Alan Parsons good enough source for you?

reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard


1AnunnakiBastard just a Reminder !

they are 3 other Dwarf Galaxies wrapping around Our Milky Way Galaxy

and when we see stars they may not be from OUR Milky Way !!

What Is the Nearest Galaxy to the Milky Way?


Now Folks listen to what she says at the 1:50 mark... only 25 thousand light years from earth ... Canis Major Dwarf.. and We are Closer to the ( Center ) of the Canis Dwarf Galaxy then Our Own Galaxy




Whos to Say that Rouge Planets from another star system or Dwarf Galaxy that can get Caught and Merged around a Star like Our Own Sun !

Closest Galaxy to the Milky Way The Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy ( Claimed 3 to 4 Wrap )
www.universetoday.com...

Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy ( Claimed to be 2 Wrap )
(SagDEG)
www.solstation.com...

The Universe within 500000 Light Years
The Satellite Galaxies
www.atlasoftheuniverse.com...

So I Say There must be plenty of Rouge planets from these Galaxy's
that are being ripped apart and Merging within our Own Galaxy Solar Systems from the milky way

So I would assume more then Likely its Possible ...


Well Well How Ironic just a Month Ago !

Some Stars Capture Rogue Planets (Apr. 17, 2012)
www.sciencedaily.com...

ScienceDaily (Apr. 17, 2012) — New research suggests that billions of stars in our galaxy have captured rogue planets that once roamed interstellar space. The nomad worlds, which were kicked out of the star systems in which they formed, occasionally find a new home with a different sun. This finding could explain the existence of some planets that orbit surprisingly far from their stars, and even the existence of a double-planet system.

Now its more Sounding like Nibiru the Closer we are to December !

Rouge Planets But Rouge Stars!!


Rogue Star Dangers Thought Slight

The latest discovery brings the total number of known exiles to five.
by Staff Writers
Washington DC (SPX) Jan 31, 200
www.spacedaily.com...


Science News
Study: Stars may capture 'rogue' planets Published: April 17, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Read more: www.upi.com...

www.upi.com...

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., April 17 (UPI) -- Billions of stars in our galaxy may have captured rogue planets that once roamed interstellar space, adding them to their stellar families, U.S. scientists say.

The finding could explain the existence of planets that orbit surprisingly far from their stars, and even account for strange double-planet systems, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics reported Tuesday.

"Stars trade planets just like baseball teams trade players," astrophysicist Hagai Perets said.

Rogue planets are a natural consequence of star formation, the researchers said, as newborn star systems often contain multiple planets.

If two planets interact, one can be ejected and become an interstellar traveler, and if it encounters a different star moving in the same direction at the same speed, it can hitch a ride.

Read more: www.upi.com...



Now Im thinking of the Movie Called When Worlds Collide !!



When Worlds Collide (1933 Novel)
en.wikipedia.org...

When Worlds Collide (1951 film)
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by thetruetruth719
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

True that is the way we have interpreted gravity and these other laws to 'work' based on evidence we can see and measure; but wouldnt technology that could distort, manipulate, and rearrange gravitiational pulls, not leave evidence because it corrects what it changes? I have no proof of this but let us wrap our 'you must prove it for truth' minds around our own moon's direction, rotation, and distance from 'Earth'. Illogical for natural event? #theyaresmarterthanwecanthinkatthispointinTIME...

Well sure! I mean any one of us could sit here and say: "Blah Blah is possible, because a) The universe is SO big that it's chances of happening are great, or b) There could be technology that we know nothing of that would seem like magic to us, making something like planet Booboo possible."

You are absolutely correct in that I could sit here and say that there are beings that are so advanced, they are like gods to us, able to move planets on a whim, and control the orbits of other planets around a star.

But siting here thinking that, I have let my feet leave the ground, and am floating around in Fantasy Land. There is nothing wrong with Fantasy Land, it's good for us humans to use our imaginations, and many things that we have now came about from us having imaginations an dreaming of "What If?"

However, there is a very BIG difference between having a "What If?" attitude, or taking that "What If?" and presenting it as FACT.

I could sit here and say: "over 4 billion years ago, the reason the moon was made with the collision of a Mars sized planet, was because aliens were terraforming the Earth, so they made sure that the collision happened because Earth needed a moon. But a ensuing huge galactic war took them out, as both sides achieved mutual distruction, and is why they are not here today. They were using very advanced technology."

No one here could prove me wrong. At the same time though, this is pure fantasy on my part.

The reason many of us are against the Planet Booboo theory is because it violates what we know of physics, and so far what we actually know of both physics and planetary movement. We are trying to debate using an objective attitude and what we know of science.

On the other hand, using the "it's aliens with technology that makes them look like gods to us." is not a objective debate. It's a subjective one, based on pure fantasy and speculation.

So if you all WANT to believe in it, fine. Just keep in mind that you're believing in it is very subjective. It's not based upon observable science and facts that we know today. Instead, you are all believing it because of your "faith" in something. Just like most religions and cults do.