Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Highly elliptical planetary orbit discovered

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Many have debated on ATS the existence of highly elliptical planetary orbits, some saying they could not exist, and using this to debunk the existence of certain possible objects in our own solar system.

Well, it appears they do exist.

There was a thread on this article yesterday, but the OP didn't even mention this highly elliptical orbit discovery, which seems to me to be the most important point of the article, so I would like to discuss that aspect on this thread and not any Tolkein references (whom I admire greatly), I'll leave that to the other thread.




Kind of reminds me of another picture, the one on the Swiss Franc:





It makes you wonder......

Here is a link to the new article on the discovered highly elliptical planetary orbit:

Link

Peace......and Preparedness......no fear......




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


I don't get the link here between Halley's comet and this exo-planet?

Are we calling comets planets now?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Interesting orbit.

Must be an invisible thread connecting these.

Dont think there is any connection......but you never know.

Hope you are wearing your mental flack jacket!



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Many have debated on ATS the existence of highly elliptical planetary orbits, some saying they could not exist, and using this to debunk the existence of certain possible objects in our own solar system.



Must have missed this "could not exist" discussion. Care to provide a cite?

Note carefully that "could not exist" is different than "unstable".



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


I don't get the link here between Halley's comet and this exo-planet?

Are we calling comets planets now?




I don't think I mentioned Halley's comet in the OP, what does that have to do with this article?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I'm hoping this isn't a masked attempt to make Nibiru legitimate =)

But yeah I read about this the other day .. it's very interesting and left scientists a bit baffled.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Many have debated on ATS the existence of highly elliptical planetary orbits, some saying they could not exist, and using this to debunk the existence of certain possible objects in our own solar system.



Must have missed this "could not exist" discussion. Care to provide a cite?

Note carefully that "could not exist" is different than "unstable".


Feel free to use the ATS "search" function, if you are truly so desirious of a citation:

ask.abovetopsecret.com...

However, that is not the main thrust of my article, which is that highly elliptical orbits do exist for planets.



edit on 10-1-2013 by PlanetXisHERE because: spelling



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


I don't get the link here between Halley's comet and this exo-planet?

Are we calling comets planets now?



Halley's comet isn't mentioned in the original post, nor is it mentioned in the article... what are you talking about?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


You posted a picture of it...

On the Swiss franc.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
Halley's comet isn't mentioned in the original post, nor is it mentioned in the article... what are you talking about?



The picture of the Swiss bank note is one that has the old astronomer Euler on the other side of the note.
On the side shown, is a copy of a drawing that Euler made of comet Halley's orbit.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by miniatus
Halley's comet isn't mentioned in the original post, nor is it mentioned in the article... what are you talking about?



The picture of the Swiss bank note is one that has the old astronomer Euler on the other side of the note.
On the side shown, is a copy of a drawing that Euler made of comet Halley's orbit.


Point taken... and agreed, that image doesn't apply since it's a comet and not a planet...



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Feel free to use the ATS "search" function, if you are truly so desirious of a citation:



I did do a search before posting, and only found discussion relating to the instability of highly eccentric orbits, and none pertaining to their impossibility.

As shown on the swiss banknote, comet Halley is a very famous example of a highly eliptical orbit.
Thus the incredulity that you could state that people claim such orbits are impossible.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by miniatus
Halley's comet isn't mentioned in the original post, nor is it mentioned in the article... what are you talking about?



The picture of the Swiss bank note is one that has the old astronomer Euler on the other side of the note.
On the side shown, is a copy of a drawing that Euler made of comet Halley's orbit.


Some people think it represents something else entirely, the supposed planetary object "Hercolubus".

Anyway, the point of the OP is that highly elliptical orbits do exist.

However, these two pictures do look quite similar:






posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Many have debated on ATS the existence of highly elliptical planetary orbits, some saying they could not exist, and using this to debunk the existence of certain possible objects in our own solar system.

Well, it appears they do exist.


People don't say highly elliptical orbits don't exist, but if there was a planet in our solar system that behaved such as the one mentioned in your OP, then the orbits of of the other planets in our solar system would be a telltale to its existence -- but that is not the case.

The fact that the reason for the exact orbits of Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, etc are well understood means there is NOT another planet that swoops through the inner solar system from time-to-time.

Consider Sedna, for example:
Obviously highly elliptical orbits for large-sized bodies are not impossible, and not many (if any) who has discussed "Planet X" with you before has claimed it is impossible. All we need to do is look to Sedna for proof of that. Sedna is a relatively large body in our solar system (it is a dwarf planet) that has an extremely elliptical orbit -- although Sedna is not the mythical Nibiru, because Sedna's elliptical orbit does not bring it in towards the inner solar system.


Image Source


edit on 1/10/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Scientist's are slowly trying to ease us into the truth!



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
IMO, langrangian points for binary systems with sometimes shared exoplanets in temporarily highly eliptical orbits may be fleeting (with fleeting being relative) but common. Since binaries are common, why wouldn't a smattering of shared planets be common. Perhaps the time of closest approach is the time that comets and planetoids and exoplanets become shared.

If, as in the case of the 2000 year orbit for Fomalhaut b, this close approach is just a one time occurence, we wouldn't know, and there is no data from 2000 years ago to verify that it happened before.

It's kind of like the theories of how our spate of recent (past few decades) comets were originally disturbed out of the Oort by a passing star millions or billions of years ago. It just makes more sense to consider a binary. And, in considering a binary, to grasp that the objects entering our system may not be the same objects as entered 3600, 12,000 and 24,000 to 26,000 years ago.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   
These article writers need to understand the difference between perigee and perihelion. The former is "closest approach to Earth", and the latter is "closest approach to the Sun".
edit on 17-1-2013 by Mogget because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Oh look! A thinly veiled attampt to justify nibirus ever changing and impossible status / orbit / location!



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
However, these two pictures do look quite similar:





Any highly elliptical orbit will look similar to the supposed orbit of Nibiru. As has been pointed out above, the question is whether a planet with such an orbit exists in the Solar System (and the answer is no).



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



Many have debated on ATS the existence of highly elliptical planetary orbits, some saying they could not exist, and using this to debunk the existence of certain possible objects in our own solar system.


No one has ever said that highly elliptical orbits do not exist. Comets and asteroids usually have "highly elliptical" orbits. The argument against your precious Planet X is that if it were more massive than an asteroid or comet it would betray its presence by its gravitational effects. How was the 21st of December for you? Anything interesting happen?





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join