posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 01:01 PM
I want everyone to pay close attention to the information I am going to present to you. Planet X, or Nibiru, originated with one Zecariah Sitchin.
Now, anyone who has looked into his work to any great degree will know that his "translations" were flights of fancy most of the time. What he
claimed to have translated from ancient cuneiform was in no way accurate in most instances. Some of it was close to the true meaning, but mostly he
just ad-libbed, as is the case with Nibiru, among other things, such as aliens and the Annunaki. But that is something for another day. There used to
be a website, which may still be up, called Sitchin is wrong, or something like that, in which you have someone who is actually a scholar and who can
translate these texts, who goes through step by step to show you where Sitchin was truly wrong.
Not to mention that we know more today than anyone did when he supposedly translated these texts. So even the existence of such a planet shouldn't
have been an issue. It is his fault, and he is wrong. Not to mention the fact that he said Nibiru would not return to the Earth until the year 2900.
So many people have just ran with the idea. There have been dozens of predictions of the return of Nibiru, all of which have been wrong. But everytime
someone makes a new "prediction" all those past failures are forgotten.
Supposedly Nibiru has an orbital period of something like 3500 years. If this was the case, it would be well within our solar system now, somewhere
near to Jupiter, or right inside it. It would be VISIBLE, and would not look like a comet at all. You can see four moons of Jupiter without much help,
and this planet is supposedly much larger.
Then there is the fact that the position of all the planets is predicted way in advance. And these have always been accurate. If Nibiru truly were
real, it would have affected the gravitational balance of the solar system, throwing off some of the planetary orbits, since were supposedly talking
about a rather large body.
Then there is the fact that astronomers have discovered smaller bodies than Nibiru, at a much greater distance. It would have been found if it were
there, and no government could cover the fact up, because so many astronomers would be competent enough to detect it, and realize it is not supposed
to be there.
Now let's consider that Nibiru truly has an orbital period of 3500 or 3600 years, whichever it is, as claimed. We can use Kepler's Third Law of
Planetary Motion here, which states "The ratio of the squares of the revolutionary periods for two planets is equal to the ratio of the cubes of
their semimajor axes: " I would put the formula here, but it would look wrong in just regular letters and numbers, and I don't know how to do it
any other way. But suffice it to say that this formula would yield Nibiru's semi-major axis at 235 AU. That would translate into Nibiru's major axis
being 470 AU.
We know Nibiru’s orbit around the sun can’t be a perfect circle because its orbital eccentricity is 0, since if that were the case it would ALWAYS
be 235 AU from the sun, meaning it could never even get to the inner solar system. Doing more math, the orbit would have to be elliptical in shape,
but very, very flattened, since 234/235 would give us an orbital eccentricity of .995, assuming Nibiru came within 1 AU of the sun, meaning its outer
edge would go about 469 AU at its furthest point. What does all that mean? It means an unstable orbit. VERY unstable.
Not to mention that, doing a bit more math, one can see that Nibiru must be travelling at something like 43 Kilometers/second. And lo and behold, the
escape velocity of our solar system is a bit less than that at 1 AU from the sun. This means that any slight push of pull from another object in our
solar system would perturb Nibiru's orbit, ejecting it from our solar system and off into the inky blackness of space.
And there are even MORE reasons than that, but that is the most scientific reason, calculated using the supposed data that Sitchin himself came up
with, supposedly from his translations. Obviously he was wrong, like I initially said.