A 10th Planet found?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I would imagine that this would be a huge topic on here right now, but it seams all the Nibiru/Planet X people are silent, maybe writing new theories possibly as I write this.

1. So why is it that this is not a big topic right now?

2. What is the significance of this discovery scienetificaly.
3. What new theories are going to be made?
4. How does this change the standard model of our solar system or does it?
5. What theories are out there that are supported by this discouvery?

Link: www.atsnn.com...

edit: added link

[Edited on 15-3-2004 by HumptyDumpty]




posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 12:28 PM
link   
My wife said something about it today but I have not heard anything more about it today



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I belevie there is no scientific evidence of the existence of a tenth planet....

Someone please prove to me that it exists, becasue i keep hearing all these theories and wat-not, but have seen no evidence......



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   
watch www.nasa.gov...

around 9.00 pm eastern standard time for 4 hours long
conference by nasa about same topic.



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

this is the link from the other thread.

news.bbc.co.uk...

and that is off the bbc site which has a bit more info on the planet. it seems that it would be too small to be considered for the nibiru planet in my opinion, as if i remember correctly that was supposed to affect Earth doing such things as tearing it in half with the gravity of the thing



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Planet X was discovered a long time ago. Its in my planetary studies book and it was made years ago. Its supposedly next to brown dwarf and a black hole. Scientists think that the black hole is what pulled the planets so far apart.

[Edited on 3-15-2004 by theshadowknows]



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I don't think they are sure on the size, but they also say it has around a 10,500 year cycle around the sun. Nibiru is 3,600 years, I believe.



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Here it is folks!

www.nasa.gov...


Other notable features of Sedna include its size and reddish color; it is the second reddest object in the solar system, after Mars. At an estimated size of three-fourths the size of Pluto, it is likely the largest object found in the solar system since Pluto was discovered in 1930.


Interesting, but really just more proof of the Ort cloud. There was a previous object, Quaror, also a planetoid, touted as planet X as well... They even think that Sedna may have a moon!!!



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
www.gps.caltech.edu...

Planetoid not planet as such. There are quite a few known solar objects that are not quite planets and not quite asteroids (Sedna, 2004 DW, Quaoar, 2002 AW197). Sedna has a particularly long orbit though (10,500 yearsish) and is the second reddest object in the solar system (after Mars). It is perhaps better known as an Inner Oort cloud object.

Relative Orbits:


ipac.jpl.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumptyDumpty
1. So why is it that this is not a big topic right now?

2. What is the significance of this discovery scienetificaly.
3. What new theories are going to be made?
4. How does this change the standard model of our solar system or does it?
5. What theories are out there that are supported by this discouvery?


1. Because we have discovered quite a few big Kuiper Belt Object in the last few years. Sedna not large enough for a real planet, it's a big KBO (Kuiper Belt Object). Actually, Pluto is also too small for a planet and belongs to this group of KBOs. A list from this article:

  • Name, diameter (km), mean distance from sun (AU), discovery date
  • 2004 DW, ~1600, 45, 2004
  • Quaoar, 1200200, 43.25, 2002
  • Varuna, 1060200, 43.23, 2000
  • Ixion, 1055165, 39.39, 2001
  • 2002 TX300, ~965, 43.19, 2002
  • 2002 UX25, ~910, 42.71, 2002
  • 2002 AW197, 890120, 47.52, 2002
We can now add Sedna, ~2200, 67, 2004 to this list.

2. It's a nice test of discovery methods using new CCD technology, but it's not really that amazing. As said above, we have found a lot more of these objects. This one is about the same size, but just further away. It's just the fact that our technology was sophisticated enough to detect it that makes it interesting.
3. No.
4. It doesn't. It confirms our idea that there is a cloud of small planetesimals. We actually suspect large objects than those we've found.
5. The standard idea of the evolution of our solar system. It predicts the objects and explains them. They were formed at the same time of the other planets, but were probably under influence of Jupiter never able to form really large objects.

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by amantine]



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
[Edited on 16-3-2004 by elevatedone]



posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
IT'S ALL IN MY SIGNATURE... ALL THE INFORMATION NEEDED CAN BE FOUND RIGHT THERE.

YOU WON'T NEED ANYTHING ELSE. JUST TAKE THE ADVICE THAT IS THERE.


uMM. Ok. anyways.........................

Thank-you very much Kano & amantine. That was what I was looking for. Thanks again. 8)



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   
What will we get now...
People will get on Sitchins back and prove the orbit isn't 3.600, nor is habitable. They will throw away the whole idea of Sitchin being right in any way, not dealing with the interpretation of Nibiru.

The interpretation turns out to be a hoax but not the information about Nibiru itself.

People will delete the idea of the Sumerians and Sitchin being right according to their interpretation and not the things which are written down.

And there you have it, enjoy how people are going to dismiss the facts because they attack the interpretation, menkind is so stupid.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Well, yes, the discovery of Sedna is another nail in Sitchin's coffin.

We've been speculating if he was going to change his statements (it used to be "12" and he'd count the sun as a planet and the moon as another planet, making the Mysterious Planet X out to be #13.)

Now he's going to have to either ignore Sedna (which, according to his numbering, would be #15) or try to shoehorn Sedna into the equation (that would make Sedna planet #13.) The bets are sort of running to the "he's going to ignore them" angle.

He really can't afford to acknowledge them.



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   
It certainly doesn't take long anymore before Sitchin is forced to take some decisions which people aren't going to take seriously anymore..

BBC news
Still some other information
It is currently 90 times the Earth-Sun distance away (149 million km or 93 million miles), but its orbit can take it 10 times further away still.

It is currently 90 times the Earth-Sun distance away (149 million km or 93 million miles), but its orbit can take it 10 times further away still.

Very eliptical...

Although Sedna could be a so-called Kuiper Belt object, its discoverers are unsure if it is as they consider it to be unlike any other object yet found.

The alternative standpoint is that Pluto is a planet and those who believe that will have to classify Sedna as the 10th planet.

Sun and moon and you get Sedna being the 12th. Also elliptical, but not in the way as Sitchin says.





[Edited on 16-3-2004 by LeenBekkemaa]



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Does anyone know how to define the properties of a planet?



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   
But what about Quaoar then Leen? Or the other handful of sub-pluto sized planetoids out there?

While we are at it, I suppose we could chuck the moons of the outer planets into the pile as well.

EDIT: lizard, there is no real standardized definition.

One could be 'an object that orbits a Sun', but that would mean including all the asteroids and comets. We could extend that to include 'and is of a mass large enough that it forms a spherical shape'. But that would mean we have to include all of these additional planetoids, there might be thousands of them in Kuiper/Oort . Another might be 'an object that has a larger mass than all other objects in its orbit combined'. That is a fairly strong one, but it would exclude Pluto as the mass of all other objects in the Kuiper belt far exceed that of Pluto alone.

So with those definitions we either have to promote all these planetoids, or demote Pluto.

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by Kano]



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Intresting...demote Pluto. Kano do you belive they would demote Pluto with the findings and maybe new understanding of our solar system?



posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumptyDumpty
Intresting...demote Pluto. Kano do you belive they would demote Pluto with the findings and maybe new understanding of our solar system?


Actually most scientists wanted to demote Pluto already a long time ago. The problem was that most people already saw Pluto as a planet and it's on the borderline of being a planet. These new findings only give more reason to demote Pluto. Personally I also think it should be demoted.



posted on Apr, 4 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Vatican scientist joins effort to define new object in solar system

One of the Vatican's top scientists has been chosen to be part of a five-man team of international astronomers to decide if Sedna - the most distant object yet seen orbiting the sun - is really a planet.(...)

Holy Inquisition never sleeps >>>>Link...





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join