Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Nebula or Nibiru (May 28 2012)

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



A 10th planet has been widely accepted.
What is the BIG deal that a 10th planet may exist? Why is that so out of the question???

A tenth planet has not been ruled out. What we do know is that if it exists it must be way, way, way out there and never comes close to the orbits of the known planets.


10th Planet Discovered

Time to that timeline thing I have told you about several times. This was found and named a planet before Pluto and the objects in the article were reclassified. Why were these objects reclassified? Because a new class of objects such as the one in the article were discovered.


NASA-Funded Scientists Discover Tenth Planet

Notice that both articles are from 2005 which predates the discovery of more smaller than planet objects and the subsequent vote to reclassify them.


Again why is that so hard to accept? How is that moronic?

Let's not misrepresent what happened by presenting things out of order or through omission.




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



I have no idea where it is. That's what my frustration is about. You see, I know it's real. I don't know how I know that perhaps it's hard-wired into my 'soul' I guess.

It is clear that despite the overwhelming evidence against Nibiru you continue to take this as a religious belief.

You have faith that a fictional planet made up by Sitchin is real. How odd.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



I trust the ancients who supposedly had no electricity, no car, no heat, no toilet and YET....knew 5000+ years in advance when Venus would transit the Sun.
Now THOSE are the 'scientists' I trust.

That is not true. Where did you get the idea that ancient astronomers knew about a Venus transit?


..umm, Maya?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



Well I'm with you then. We can hardly predict the weather and yet there's hope of predicting the arrival of a planet/star?

Weather is much more difficult to predict than the movement of objects in the solar system where there are fewer variables. Look at how accurately eclipses can be determined years in advance. When asteroids occult stars it can be done well in advance and with great accuracy. When objects pass close to the Earth the path is worked out with great accuracy years in advance.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 



Your eyes can't see IR regardless of what color film you look through. Modern digital cams have IR blocking filters on the lens or the CCD. Maybe the photographers here will correct me or explain in better detail.

It doesn't matter what the planet or other object emits. It reflects lights and can be seen. The Moonis a poor reflector of sunlight and yet it is bright in the sky.

Can you see a light bulb when it is turned off?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 



They wouldn't be conjecturing unless there was something to conjecture.

Wrong. Astronomers looking over data see something they wonder about and then come up with a hypothesis as to its cause. Sometimes that hypothesis includes a new larger mass in the solar system. In one case they thought extinctions happened on a regular basis here on Earth. Another time it was about comet paths. In these two cases there is no evidence for a planet, but there is a phenomenon they are investigating. The proposed solution is a mass far out in the solar system. That may not be the cause, but it might be they think.


They're 'conjecturing' about something very possible and extremely likely to be out there.

Tyche is an example of an object that was conjectured. I think the paper mentions a probability of 65% that Tyche exists. A little better than a flip of a coin. Is that what you think is "very possible", or "extremely likely?" I certainly don't.


I happen to think they happen to know too. But that's MY conjecturing.

We have all seen that despite the overwhelming evidence against Nibiru you continue to believe in it.


A tenth (ninth) planet is not a conspiracy so not sure why many take on a rejection-able attitude.

There have been a lot of 10th planet proposals. What we do know is that any new planet must be very far out there and never enter the orbits of the known planets. Sure it might exist. Then again it will be very far out there.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 




It doesn't matter what the planet or other object emits. It reflects lights and can be seen.

I know this as do most people, I would think. PX does not seem to get this.

Statements like this can be found in almost every thread PX comments on


Planet X emits most of it's light in the IR spectrum, hence invisible to the naked eye unlike Elenin, and only able to be viewed with special IR filters, some say old floppy disks work.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


This whole things is actually starting to worry me... at first I thought is was all BS but recently things are getting interesting!

This sphere that seems to come and go from near the surface of the Sun is very odd to say the least!

Up until now I have basically ignored anything with the title of "Nibiru"... Simply because we labelled it that name and to be honest the majority of us have no actual idea what is going on.

The name "Nibiru" has become a stigma in conspiracy terms and has come to the point where the majority don't even pay attention when a topic contains that name...


Dwarf, brown or dark stars...

whatever this object is, I am starting to believe in it... mostly because of the recent footage of spherical object in close proximity to the Sun that seems to come and go as it pleases...

I have heard the term "DeathStar" and that is thrown around loosely due to the whole star wars issue but maybe Lucas was onto something with that whole concept or premise... Maybe he knew something all those years ago that we didn't...

Who knows!!


But this object that has been imaged near the sun has certainly made me sit up and start paying attention!!


It has been imaged and seen my many different people that watch the Stereo Sats closely...

This sphere is the most recent ATS post but there has been many different ones in the past 2 months... This one seems to be the most clear to date and you can see the "filament" or coronal ejection interact with the object in question...



The ATS thread is here thanks to the OP "Onehuman"


There was also the article from NASA about brown dwarfs over 1 year ago... I have always been skeptical when it comes to "Nibiru" I hate that name to be honest but something is up and the video and Sat feed images are strange... I cannot deny that!!


The NASA Article in regard to WISE -




Can WISE find the Hypothetical 'Tyche'?



WISE completed an extended mission, allowing it to finish a complete scan of the asteroid belt, and two complete scans of the more distant universe, in two infrared bands. So far, the mission's discoveries of previously unknown objects include an ultra-cold star or brown dwarf, 20 comets, 134 near-Earth objects (NEOs), and more than 33,000 asteroids in the main belt between Mars and Jupiter.




I know that article is old news but I found it very interesting that the mentioned the brown dwarf in the same paragraph as near earth objects and other objects of study in our solar system...

Everything else in that paragraph relates to the solar system... except the brown dwarf (as far as we know) was that a subtle hint??



edit on 28-5-2012 by Havick007 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Havick007
 


Yes I am replying to my own post... only to add another point to the above post


I also found this interesting -

The article from the NASA website is about the "hypothetical Tyche"

In the same article the mention finding an ultra cold brown dwarf and then further down in the Q&A part they say this;


Q: If Tyche does exist, why would it have taken so long to find another planet in our solar system?

A: Tyche would be too cold and faint for a visible light telescope to identify. Sensitive infrared telescopes could pick up the glow from such an object, if they looked in the right direction. WISE is a sensitive infrared telescope that looks in all directions.

NASA (WISE) - Tyche Article



Notice the statement that Tyche would be "too cold and faint" to be identified by a normal telescope...

So they are saying that they have identified an ultra cold brown dwarf in the same article as talking about Tyche... and stated it would be too cold and faint to be detected by a normal "visual telescope"


I think it comes down to attention to detail in reading between the lines...



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Havick007
 



I know that article is old news but I found it very interesting that the mentioned the brown dwarf in the same paragraph as near earth objects and other objects of study in our solar system...

Everything else in that paragraph relates to the solar system... except the brown dwarf (as far as we know) was that a subtle hint??

This is about an object outside of the solar system that is about the same temperature as tepid tea.

If the sentence had been rewritten as 2 sentences to separate in solar system and out of the solar system objects you would be saying the same thing.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
The thing is a nebula. You see a star right through it.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Havick007
 



Notice the statement that Tyche would be "too cold and faint" to be identified by a normal telescope...

So they are saying that they have identified an ultra cold brown dwarf in the same article as talking about Tyche... and stated it would be too cold and faint to be detected by a normal "visual telescope"

I think it comes down to attention to detail in reading between the lines...

Any object so far away is too dim to detect by reflected sunlight. Therefore, it must be detected by what it emits, not what it reflects. In the future sensors might be able to directly detect it through reflected sunlight, but not today.

If they are able to detect an out of solar system object that is as cold as the object detected, then it seems that a closer hotter object should be detected - and it hasn't. Thus a brown dwarf orbiting our Sun seems more and more remote.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Sorry but that 32 degrees of insanity is the biggest load of crap I have come across. I cannot stand donny, danny, what ever his name is and truthfully, the show should be called "Hey I'm danny aka donny and I am 2 parts insane".



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I have seen this issue in the msm in the past couple of weeks or so and maybe it is out there. By the sounds of it, they are on to something. But one thing I have noticed about the recent news is that it pretty much is just the same as the old news. When they can entertain us with something new and I guess mind blowing then I will become a bit more interested. I hope that it is real but my gut tells me that it is crap.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I really thought you had enough of this nonsense last week with the 26-29th prediction.

Nibiru or a Nebula pick one??? cant have both and one isnt the other.

are there any nebula's in the Milky Way?

at some point H_A you and Nancy L have to quit seeing each other!!!



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by stereologist
 




It doesn't matter what the planet or other object emits. It reflects lights and can be seen.

I know this as do most people, I would think. PX does not seem to get this.

Statements like this can be found in almost every thread PX comments on


Planet X emits most of it's light in the IR spectrum, hence invisible to the naked eye unlike Elenin, and only able to be viewed with special IR filters, some say old floppy disks work.




Okay you geniuses, I meant to say "doesn't emit reflected light".

Have you boy wonders ever heard of a black hole? How much light does it reflect?

Celestial objects emit/reflect varying amounts light, some of it visible to the naked eye, some of it in the non-visible spectrum, and the range varies from zero to the full spectrum. This depends usually on the chemical composition of the atmosphere if there is one, or the chemical composition of the gases and/or minerals that compose the planet/planetoid/comet/meteor/star, of which some chemicals can absorb and admit no visible light. And of course there is gravity.
edit on 28-5-2012 by PlanetXisHERE because: epiphany



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



Okay you geniuses, I meant to say "doesn't emit reflected light".

I think you meant to say doesn't reflect. What you wrote makes no sense.

Actually, every solid body reflects light even if it is a small amount.


Have you boy wonders ever heard of a black hole? How much light does it reflect?

There is no surface to a black hole.


Celestial objects emit/reflect varying amounts light, some of it visible to the naked eye, some of it in the non-visible spectrum, and the range varies from zero to the full spectrum. This depends usually on the chemical composition of the atmosphere if there is one, or the chemical composition of the gases and/or minerals that compose the planet/planetoid/comet/meteor/star, of which some chemicals can absorb and admit no visible light. And of course there is gravity.

There are no surfaces that absorb 100% of incoming light.

The Moon has an albedo of .12. It is a poor reflector and shines bright in the night sky.

Comets are down to 0.04 and some "rocks" in space are 0.05.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


With the exception of a black hole everything reflects light. If you're proposing Nibiru is actually a black hole then you clearly have no grasp of physics. First if such an object existed in the solar system we would be orbiting that, not the Sun. Second, there would be no solar system as the mass of a black hole would throw the orbits of the planets into chaos. If a large mass object exists in the solar system it has to be at least on the edges of the Kuiper Belt if not in the Oort Cloud and it would never get any closer. There is no Planet X, at least using Lieder's definition of Planet X, and there is no Nibiru.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
There is so much we are learning and have yet to learn, like dark matter for instance. Just watched a seminar on black holes and dark matter. It seems its possible for an object to be out there not emmiting light.... Especially if it were dark but we would feel the effects if said object made it into our neck of the woods.

Time will tell all though, this is the only thing I know for sure...



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


With the exception of a black hole everything reflects light. If you're proposing Nibiru is actually a black hole then you clearly have no grasp of physics. First if such an object existed in the solar system we would be orbiting that, not the Sun. Second, there would be no solar system as the mass of a black hole would throw the orbits of the planets into chaos. If a large mass object exists in the solar system it has to be at least on the edges of the Kuiper Belt if not in the Oort Cloud and it would never get any closer. There is no Planet X, at least using Lieder's definition of Planet X, and there is no Nibiru.


I'm not trying to say Planet X is a black hole, I was just disproving the statement above that all objects reflect light.






top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join