It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nibiru/Planet X The Thread...(Part Deux)

page: 10
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   

NibiruWarrior
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Irm, actually, all languages do stem from Sumeria, formerly Bablylon, where at the tower of Babel God mixed up the languages. Its right there in the Bible take a look.


Source other than the BIble?




posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   

PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by vkey08
 


The winged discs are found in many cultures, Persian, Babylonian, Aztec none of whom knew about Ra.





I am not familiar with the other cultures "gods" and representations as my background is almost purely Egyptian/Greco-Roman history, but I would assume that a similar representation would suffice in each of their cultures, ancient peoples assigned anthropomorphic qualities to their gods, and to things they could not understand , I used Egypt as it's the one i'm most familiar with the reasoning behind.

The Mayans (or Aztec's I don't have the patience to go looking it up currently) had all manners and kinds of wing-ed gods, including if I remember correctly, a winged snake, are you going to claim that's Nibiru destroying us all?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Another excellent point!



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 



Okay, so I'm trying to follow your reasoning and understand your assumptions. Why is it not possible for a theoretical small binary body to have a highly elliptical orbit that passes through the inner solar system?


It is possible, but then the orbits of the inner planets would not be as nearly circular as they are now.


Also, your are making assumptions about eccentricity which use circular logic. If Nibiru did exist, it would only have a noticeable affect on the eccentricities of the planets when it was closer to perihelion. Thus, to see if the eccentricities of the planets were affected by a hypothetical Nibiru you would have to know their values before the last hypothesized passage, 3600 years ago, and compare them to today. If they were the same then you could make your case. If they were not you would have to explain the cause of the difference. However, we don't know what the eccentricities were 3600 years ago.


If Nibiru did exist, it would have a resonance effect on all of the planets as they passed through their inferior conjuction with it. Over time, these resonances would so distort the orbits that planets would be ejected out of the Solar System, as they were in the system's earliest days:




posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Okay, remember, eccentricity is the shape of a object's orbit. An eccentricity of 0 is a perfect circle. A eccentricity of 1.0 is a hyperbolic orbit (in and out, sling shot around the sun, then goodbye).

Planet's eccentricity do not change on the fly. They have to be changed by external influences, such as gravitational attraction with another body. The small the mass of a body, the more easily it is influenced by a larger mass object.

Earth has a eccentricity of 0.016. That is a very stable orbit that helps makes us not get too close to the sun, nor too far away. Increase that eccentricity, and you have the Earth getting extremely hotter and extremely colder each year, enough so that life would become impossible on our planet.

Mercury has a eccentricity of 0.205. Venus is 0.0067. Mars is 0.093.

If you bring in a high mass object (Jupiter mass and larger) into the inner solar system, as it passes by the inner planets, it will pull on them. This can be show using the Hill Sphere equations, that show us how far out from a body it's gravitational influence extends.

Once a body's eccentricity has changed, if it becomes even more eccentric, it's orbit about the sun becomes less stable. Even after the body that passed through moves away, the sun will become the dominate gravitation influence again, taking many years (up to millions) to make that planet's eccentricity stop changing.

The result will not be a orbit with a smaller eccentricity, but one that is quite high.

Having something come by and do that every 3600 years would have made life impossible on Earth, if the Earth would be able to even remain in orbit around the sun, or the other inner planets.

I and many others have run simulations on this, and every time, things in the inner solar system go ballistic. Orbits change, and none of them get any better. They get worse with each pass.

The other thing is: with a semi major access of 235 AUs, and 3600 year orbit....any high mass object will not remain there. That type of orbit is too unstable for it. Any where from 5 to 15 times it makes it's orbital period, it will do one of two things:

It either leaves the system (thrown out), or it falls into a closer, shorter period of rotation.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


One thing all of these cultures also have in common is placing a major emphasis on the Sun in their religions. If Nibiru exists why is there no mention of it in China's 4000 year long recorded history? Sure you can post ambiguous pictures as evidence all day but when it comes down to it the one culture that should have a record of this object does not.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   

NibiruWarrior
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Irm, actually, all languages do stem from Sumeria, formerly Bablylon, where at the tower of Babel God mixed up the languages. Its right there in the Bible take a look.


While the bible is a great book, filled with many interesting stories and some good advice....I don't think I would use it as a source for how languages came about.

How about instead we take a look at how scholars classify Sumerian:




Sumerian is a language isolate. Ever since decipherment, it has been the subject of much effort to relate it to a wide variety of languages. Because it has a peculiar prestige as the most ancient written language, proposals for linguistic affinity sometimes have a nationalistic background. Such proposals enjoy virtually no support amongst linguists because of their unverifiability.
Several linguistic problems arise in the attempt to relate Sumerian with known language families. First, the amount of time between the earliest known form of Sumerian and the oldest reconstructable form of the proposed related language is too great to make reliable comparisons. Another problem difficult to overcome is that the phonetic and semantic change to vocabulary that can occur over long periods of time can make a language unrecognizable from its ancestor. Words in two languages that may sound alike today are more likely to be unrelated than related.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   

PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by vkey08
 


The winged discs are found in many cultures, Persian, Babylonian, Aztec none of whom knew about Ra.





Yes,

some of the images you supplied are of other Gods,

en.wikipedia.org...


Is there a link to the pic with descriptions of all the images?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
What ever happened to Buddyman, who posted the OP? He has not been around to explain the random collection of pseudo-facts that he posted. Buddyman, could you at least return and explain why you think such things as unoccupied Chinese cities and the commemoration of Euler's mathematical work on comets on the Swiss Franc note have anything at all to do with the possibility that there is an undiscovered planet in the Solar System?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   

eriktheawful
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Okay, remember, eccentricity is the shape of a object's orbit. An eccentricity of 0 is a perfect circle. A eccentricity of 1.0 is a hyperbolic orbit (in and out, sling shot around the sun, then goodbye).

Planet's eccentricity do not change on the fly. They have to be changed by external influences, such as gravitational attraction with another body. The small the mass of a body, the more easily it is influenced by a larger mass object.

Earth has a eccentricity of 0.016. That is a very stable orbit that helps makes us not get too close to the sun, nor too far away. Increase that eccentricity, and you have the Earth getting extremely hotter and extremely colder each year, enough so that life would become impossible on our planet.

Mercury has a eccentricity of 0.205. Venus is 0.0067. Mars is 0.093.

If you bring in a high mass object (Jupiter mass and larger) into the inner solar system, as it passes by the inner planets, it will pull on them. This can be show using the Hill Sphere equations, that show us how far out from a body it's gravitational influence extends.

Once a body's eccentricity has changed, if it becomes even more eccentric, it's orbit about the sun becomes less stable. Even after the body that passed through moves away, the sun will become the dominate gravitation influence again, taking many years (up to millions) to make that planet's eccentricity stop changing.

The result will not be a orbit with a smaller eccentricity, but one that is quite high.

Having something come by and do that every 3600 years would have made life impossible on Earth, if the Earth would be able to even remain in orbit around the sun, or the other inner planets.

I and many others have run simulations on this, and every time, things in the inner solar system go ballistic. Orbits change, and none of them get any better. They get worse with each pass.

The other thing is: with a semi major access of 235 AUs, and 3600 year orbit....any high mass object will not remain there. That type of orbit is too unstable for it. Any where from 5 to 15 times it makes it's orbital period, it will do one of two things:

It either leaves the system (thrown out), or it falls into a closer, shorter period of rotation.





You make some seemingly valid claims Erik, and unfortunately my limited grasp of orbital mechanics does not allow me to challenge it. I will however give it this last cheap shot that pales in comparison to your thorough response:

Scientists have argued recently over the prevalence of binary systems in our galaxy and universe, some have even suggested they are the norm though there is no consensus on this. However, if binary systems comprise even 10% of the systems and there seems to be evidence the number is much higher - they are in fact quite common and must for the most part be somewhat stable to have lasted this long. And given that it is accepted that we do not currently live in one though some admit there is a small possibility we do and just don't know it; there is much we do not know about binary systems and our assumptions about binary systems could easily be wrong as has been the case with much of science through the ages.

Though I would of course agree this falls lamentably short of proving anything related to this topic.

I think we have covered some interesting topics, I'll be going out of town for a few days, I know some here (not you Erik of course) construe a lack of a response as some kind of victory, but some people here don't work at home for a living, have a life outside of ATS, friends, families, hobbies etc.

Please remember (again this is not directed at you Eric) that trying to make yourself right and others wrong is just ego, however thought provoking discussions which challenge assumptions and explore anomalies (basically how most scientific breakthroughs are made) without attempts at ego/emotional engagement are very worthwhile pursuits.

Also, remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, that would apply to more than a few posts on here.

Bye for now!




edit on 5-2-2014 by PlanetXisHERE because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2014 by PlanetXisHERE because: epiphany



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


We have found planets orbiting multiple star systems. All of the stars in these systems would be visible from a planet in such a system. Since no companion star is visible from Earth, the Sun must not have a companion star. It doesn't get much simpler than that.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


We have found planets orbiting multiple star systems. All of the stars in these systems would be visible from a planet in such a system. Since no companion star is visible from Earth, the Sun must not have a companion star. It doesn't get much simpler than that.


How would an unignited star that emitted no light in the visible spectrum be visible? No binaries are Brown dwarves?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   

PlanetXisHERE

DJW001
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


We have found planets orbiting multiple star systems. All of the stars in these systems would be visible from a planet in such a system. Since no companion star is visible from Earth, the Sun must not have a companion star. It doesn't get much simpler than that.


How would an unignited star that emitted no light in the visible spectrum be visible? No binaries are Brown dwarves?


Because their companion star would be shining, and they would be lit up by that star - the same as we can see the outer planets which by themselves have no light source. So it would be "Star light, star bright, both stars I see tonight".
edit on 5-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   

PlanetXisHERE

DJW001
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


We have found planets orbiting multiple star systems. All of the stars in these systems would be visible from a planet in such a system. Since no companion star is visible from Earth, the Sun must not have a companion star. It doesn't get much simpler than that.


How would an unignited star that emitted no light in the visible spectrum be visible? No binaries are Brown dwarves?


Just because a star doesn't emit light in the visible spectrum doesn' tmean it wouldn' t emit some sort of lit energy.. that energy (in the areas above and below the human eye's threshold) would still be visible to instrumentation and special types of optics, since they have not discovered such an animal in our solar system, it doesn't exist (harping on the visible light thing is really getting old)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 





How would an unignited star that emitted no light in the visible spectrum be visible?



How do you see the moon at night PlanetX?


Light reflects of surfaces and back into our eyes so we can see,

How do you see anything that doesn't emit its own light?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   

PlanetXisHERE

DJW001
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


We have found planets orbiting multiple star systems. All of the stars in these systems would be visible from a planet in such a system. Since no companion star is visible from Earth, the Sun must not have a companion star. It doesn't get much simpler than that.


How would an unignited star that emitted no light in the visible spectrum be visible? No binaries are Brown dwarves?


A brown dwarf will emit heat. May not be much heat, but it will be a lot relative to the cold of space. Heat is infrared and can be detected.

It will also emit electromagnetic energy in the radio wavelength part of the spectrum.

And of course, light from our sun will reflect off of it. This is how we see Kuiper Belt dwarf planets that are farther away than Pluto, and a lot smaller than a gas giant or brown dwarf, which would have a much larger surface area to reflect the sun's light.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Here is a quick summary:

1. If the Sun had a companion star, it would be visible. No such star is visible, therefore the Sun is not a binary star.

2. If the Sun had a Brown Dwarf companion, the Brown Dwarf would reflect sunlight and be visible. Even if it had a low albedo, it would radiate heat energy in the infrared. No such body is visible either in reflected or infrared light, therefore the Sun does not have a Brown Dwarf companion.

3. If a planet were to have a perihelion in the inner Solar System and an aphelion in the outer Solar System, it would disrupt the orbits of the other planets. Ancient astronomical observations from China and Mesopotamia can be used to date events with great precision, proving that no such disruption has occurred in the past four millennia, therefore there is no planet with such an orbit.

4. Ancient astronomers left highly detailed records in both China and Mesopotamia. If they knew about the outer planets, they would have included them in their records. Their records only include the Sun, the Moon, and five of the six visible planets, therefore they did not know about the outer planets.

5. Even if it were possible for a planet to approach from the celestial south pole, it would be visible to the millions of people who live in the Southern Hemisphere. No-one in the Southern Hemisphere observes such a planet, therefore no such planet exists.

6. If a planet orbited the Sun directly opposite the Earth, so as to be blocked by the Sun, such a planet would affect the orbits of Venus and Mars and be visible to the STEREO constellation of satellites. No such perturbations are observed, nor is such a planet visible to STEREO, therefore no such planet exists.

Edit to add: 7. Harrington, one of the only astronomers to believe that the Sun had a massive companion, put his academic reputation on the line and actively searched for it. He found nothing.

Have I covered everything adequately for you?
edit on 5-2-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


There is nothing wrong at this time with thinking that the sun might have some sort of binary companion, except the lack of evidence so far. Even Phage said that it's possible.

However, what we are trying to show you is that: even if the sun does indeed have a binary companion that is a small, brown dwarf, that does not in fact prove anything about Nibiru to be true.

If such a companion to the sun existed, it can not have a highly eccentric orbit that brings it close to the inner part of the solar system. If it did, it would not have been here for very long, and it would have scattered the inner planets or given them highly eccentric orbits. Especially if it was a 3600 year period orbit.

We may not know everything about the Universe (far from it). But we do understand orbital mechanics quite well. We have had literally centuries of observational data to work with, and of course within this past century, practical application (IE launching things into orbit, navigating the solar system, placing probes into orbits).

While space craft are a lot smaller in mass than a planet or a brown dwarf, they still have mass and still have to obey the same physical laws that orbital mechanics and gravitation dictates.

So I'm not saying you are wrong about the sun possibly having a companion (however with each survey we do of the sky, the chances are getting slimmer and slimmer), such a thing could still be discovered.

However, it won't be proof of Nibiru. If something like that is discovered, if anything, it will actually hurt speculation on Nibiru, because it's orbital period will show that it never comes anywhere near the inner solar system.

Just keep in mind that stable, low eccentricity orbits for planets around the sun are possible because we only have the sun providing the largest amount of gravitational influence on us.
When you start having high mass bodies passing close by, it upsets that balance, and the orbits get worse, not better. And with each passing, it would continue to get worse.

Eventually the Earth would have ended up with a Freeze/Bake year, where half the year, the oceans boil, and the other half, they freeze solid, or even worse: 9/10 of the year the Earth is frozen solid, then for 1/10 it get's hot enough to melt lead on the surface.

So, again, if the sun has a binary companion, it is most likely in a stable, low eccentric orbit, and never approaches close enough to influence the orbits of our planets about the sun.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Good evening Guys i hope your well..

In this post i would like to bring the subject of the 'winged disk' symbol into the melee,it is asscoiated with Egypt, as im sure you know and many other cultures such as the Sumeriens,Assyrians,plus many other ancient cultures,even the Freemasons/Rosicrusians in the present.

From what i understand, the studies of many researchers come to the conclusion that this was the appearence Nibiru 'took on' when viewed as it neared its approach to Earth and thus visible to all citizens,they reason that the tail of this so called, planet comet/Brown Dwarf,was responsible for this winged appearence as science now explains how Brown Dwarfs have an orbiting cloud/s/debris trail/field of iron oxides,volatile gases so on- (I will add as well, that i have suggested/implied/surmised all these ancient cultures were seeded/ruled overtly by the Anunaki, who of coarse as the story/research goes were from Nibiru..Therefore they have left their trademark of the winged disk)...-Hence red rain/dust and rivers reported by the ancients(is iron oxide, plus other elements from this 'tail/trail/debris field' the cause of this??) Of coarse im sure you Guys are aware that this red rain/dust/rivers has been occuring all over the world at present??hmm..Another weather anomaly in the news of late for you Guys in the U.S (primarily) But also other areas of the world, is this so called plastic/black snow (when burned)...

Well as you'll see in these links here on Brown Dwarfs, they can also have a make up of Alluminum oxide (which i heard this snow contained..well traces of heavy metals,including alluminium,is that correct?)..Just a suggestion of outside the box thinking, but could this new phenomenon, also be due to a 'vistor' in our neck of the woods and its tail/debris field including the dramatic increase in green meteorites and fireballs additionally?? I know there are theories circulating on how this phenomenon maybe possible...What if that is the real so called 'conspiracy THEORY' and these THEORIES about the snow are just a scapegoat??...Just some food for thought there.....At the end of the day there are matters at hand worsening by the day with regards to our planet/environment and we DO NOT have geniune answers from those who should be trusted in authority IMO,as the credibility of our institutions has been questionable, as i have highlighed with some earlier examples (links and personal opinions) of scandal/deceipt ..I have a post i would like to add tomorrow about more current events and the links that we can possibly draw with regards to this subject.

Just another run down on Brown Dwarfs (links) with some mention to their make up and weather,in relation to the aforementioned potential signs in our weather phenomenon.(Just a quick sidenote but i would like to cover the 2 Sun sightings/phenomena, which i will touch upon in a later post)
www.sciencedaily.com...
www.astrophysicsspectator.com...
www.technologyreview.com...
www.librarising.com...
Nemesis Theory...
www.space.com...


Cool Info here on the Winged disk.... being displayed in the form of company badge logos also ancient and secret society engravings/symbols..
vigilantcitizen.com...
americathebeautifulconspiracy.com...
atruthsoldier.wordpress.com...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
Andy Lloyd here, his main page link has already been posted previously,he has done some sterling work and observations on this subject..
www.darkstar1.co.uk...

An awesome link here!! From a cyber buddy of mine,he's a fantastic bloke and very knowledgeable on many occult goings on and ancient 'real' history,he hasn't given me permission to put this up, but im sure he wouldn't object to getting the word out on the subject/s,namely for awareness..So cheers to you Irmensul!!
irmensulstruthpage.blogspot.cz...

Thanks Guys stay good!!

edit on 5-2-2014 by Buddyman because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2014 by Buddyman because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2014 by Buddyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddyman
 


Where exactly did you get the idea that Brown Dwarfs would leave a trail of iron oxide, or appear to have wings?



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join