Order of Kilopi
"...nothing outside of Sitchin's book(s)."?? Why, Archer, you've read them?Originally Posted by Archer17
I thought we were considering various astronomers' evidence for a perturber here, not "Sitchin's fantasy."
So... could there be a sort of resonance between Jupiter and Nibiru? It seems like Sedna is thought to have a certain resonance as well, but I'll have to verify that.
Order of Kilopi
My mistake, I thought you'd remember this particular property of Nibiru, considering your "resume" with Sitchin threads and all.
My emphasis.I'm not about to try reading your mind. As far as astronomers showing us Nibiru .. it hasn't happened. It's that simple. You can dream all you want. If they find it, I'll shut up .. till then (..I'll play ostrich as abrasively as possible) you'll just have to do what you have been doing .. substituting speculation for reality and NOT showing us Nibiru.
Sorry, Archer but you well know that "it hasn't happened" and you continue to ignore the "reality" of current observational evidence that lends itself to at least "speculation" on a planetary body like Nibiru.
So why so tearse?
Order of Kilopi
... and we witnessed an "orbital modeller" which showed "no evidence of it's passage," BUT the modeller did not show "Nibiru" approaching from beneath the ecliptic, inclined, and passing somewhere near the Asteroid Belt, before turning and diving back down to the depths from whence it came. This is "Sitchin's Nibiru" and apparently would have most interaction with Jupiter.
Indeed. Who ever claimed Sedna's discovery "confirmed Sitchinism?"And while we're on the subject...What I don't understand is how the discovery of Sedna confirms "Sitchinism". At it's closest, Sedna is way out there past Pluto...from what we know, it never passes through the Solar System itself, so how is it a confirmation of Sitchin's "theory's"??
What I mean is that one can either consider current findings by astronomers that most certainly suggest another planetary body is part of our system, and it could possibly be the "perturber" we've been looking for, as observational evidence for the likelihood of such a body. If Sitchin or PX were not an issue, I'd like to think "science" would arrive at the same conclusions based on what we're currently observing. Isn't that how science works?As far as your "turn of a phrase" is concerned. Are you sayin that because "skeptics" won't accept "theory's" without evidence to confirm them...we are somehow "hiding our heads in the sand??" That doesn't make any sense!
Banned
Let's quit with the games A.DIM. We know, outside of your obsessed blatherings, exactly where to find Nibiru."...nothing outside of Sitchin's book(s)."?? Why, Archer, you've read them?Evidence? Did they find a perturber now? Oh, you mean more speculation. More words.About as likely as some sort of resonance between Nibiru and Nancy's Planet XKeep us updated, will ya? :wink:
Order of Kilopi
Sorry, this is where you keep losing me. If this planet did actually exist then it would have to orbit the Sun, unless you are claiming that it passes through the area of the aseroid belt and continues on in it's orbit then heads on back through on the other side as it comes back. Of course that would give it an orbit of 7,200 years not 3,600 years because it would actually have to vist twice per orbit and this doesn't seem to be what you are claiming. From what I understand you are claiming that this planet has a more comet like orbit which then creates serious physics problems in how such a large mass can turn in such a sharp angle (though even with the long eliptical orbit passing twice through the asteroid belt this is still quite a problem.) The orbit of Senda is well away from the sun and so is affected by a rather weak gavity field, however the orbit that you propose (or appear to) is extremely close to the sun and as such on the angles it travels there is an extremely good case for it to be pulled into the sun itself.
Vianova, you still insist on calling this thing a Brown Dwarf. Get an astronomy book and learn. If the thing you claim as a Brown Dwarf is so, then all of our Gas Giants qualify as well.
If you are claiming that this thing is 5 times the Volume size of Jupiter, but only has 20-50 Earth masses, it still doesn't count as a Brown Dwarf because such things are determined by MASS not by equatorial radius. If you can't get the terms right, why should we bother listening to the rest of your arguement?
Add to this that such a planet at best (2 Jupiter Volumes and 50 Earth masses) would have a density of only 103 kg/m³. Compare this with water which has a density of 1027 kg/m³, Jupiter (1,314 kg/m³.) Even Saturn who density is extermely low for its components clocks in at 690kg/m³ nearly 7x what your mystery planet would be. As liquid Hydrogen has a density of 70 kg/m³ one would almost have to conclude that the entire planet was virtually this, or a substantial portion anyway. There is no way that that it could be a terrestial planet as claimed by others, and regardless, still would not be a Brown Dwarf.
[edited to fix a few typos]
Banned
Since Nibiru doesn't exist I ascribe no properties to it.My mistake, I thought you'd remember this particular property of Nibiru, considering your "resume" with Sitchin threads and all.Inserting snide remarks into my post is petty. Even for you. Grow up.I'm not about to try reading your mind. As far as astronomers showing us Nibiru .. it hasn't happened. It's that simple. You can dream all you want. If they find it, I'll shut up .. till then (..I'll play ostrich as abrasively as possible) you'll just have to do what you have been doing .. substituting speculation for reality and NOT showing us Nibiru..My emphasis.Let's cut through the bullcrap here. There is no observational evidence for Nibiru. None. Zilch. Nada. To equate speculation regarding possible planets beyond Pluto's orbit with Nibiru's existence is nothing but wishful thinking. Since irrefutable proof of this planet is something beyond your ability to produce, I suppose you have to latch onto something. In this respect you have your head in the sand.
Order of Kilopi
So many things to say...
1) A brown dwarf (or BD) in our solar system, in a bound orbit with our Sun, is completely contrary to all the evidence. Let's get our terms straight: a BD has a maximum of about 0.08 times the Sun's mass, and a minimum of about 0.01 times the Sun's. Jupiter's mass is 0.001 times the Sun's, and 314 times the Earth's. So an object would need thousands of Earth masses to be a BD, at least. So what you're talking about here is a planet mass, not a BD.
Mark Hazlewood and his ilk are the ones talking about a BD, and that is just plain silly. A BD in our solar system would be pretty bright in the infrared, and discovered ages ago.
2) What about a planet? Well, I read Matese and Murray, and found their papers to be interesting, but not terribly well supported. In fact, Murray's paper is under a lot of fire. It is likely he is simply wrong. Matese is on firmer, but by no means firm, ground.
3) McCanney is a crank. It's really that simple. His theories are contradicted by the most basic observations. I suppose it's getting to be time to write up a page about him. For example, meteor showers are known to be from comets; their orbits are not only correlated with comets, but the strengths of the showers can be predicted knowing comet orbits and their perturbations from planets. This directly contradicts McCanney's claims that comets grow in mass, not lose mass, as they orbit the Sun. Comets are seen to split, which contradicts his theory again. Probes were sent to Comet Halley, showing it was small, contradicting his theory. I could go on and on.
4) van Flandern is not a reliable source either. His association with the Naval Observatory was some time ago, and since then has proposed many theories which can be and have been shown to be grossly wrong. Try here to start.
5) Could there be a tenth planet in the solar system? Yes, and I have never denied that. But if so, it is not at all like what McCanney, Hazlewood, Lieder, Sitchin, or any other pseudoscientists claim. For one, it'll obey the laws of physics.
6) About Sedna: yes, the orbit is odd. But before we jump to a conclusion that defies six different laws of physics before breakfast, we should probably observe it for a while first. It's the first object seen that far out, and as we discover more we'll be able to understand their dynamics better.
More info will be forthcoming soon about Sedna soon, since there have been many observations of it since discovery (including Hubble images, which should be released soon, I expect.
Order of Kilopi
And so few baseball bats....
Thanks for the back up BA. Unfortunately I doubt it will sink in after all I only told them this, what 3 times?
Established Member
The response generally seems to be along the lines that astronomy's definition of a brown dwarf is flawed. The proposed woo-woo definition is usually whatever parameters fit the argument at that particular time.
Order of Kilopi
](*,) Yeah we know that you invented the term. but you are wrong so we redefined it for you. :roll:
Member
First a quick explanation of the title of this thread
Drs Marsden,Murray,Matese find Velikovskys Visionary PX
Tossing Velikovsky into the fray was meant to draw interest to the work of Murray , Matese , and Marsden.
and to this thread.
Also I want to pull in the Orbital Mechanics PhD-Dr P.
to comment on what is basically a cornucopia of orbital mechanics by Murray and Matese.
Dr P. feels Velikovsky was insane, and so do many here at BABB as well.
For Archer 17
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
Albert Einstein
All I can say is that you have a very narrow approach to the possibilities rendered forth by Murray, Marsden , amd Matese.
If these very scientists took your attitude , they would never investigate anything.
It is obvious that they are pursueing these ideas , because they KNOW
That something BIG is out there affecting the orbits of the comets at least..
What we dont KNOW, is the status of its orbit, or if it is a
Brown dwarf or huge Planet.
Stable orbit?
Nearly circular?
radically elliptical like Sedna?
Krill says
"What would cause a highly eccentric elliptical orbit to become less eccentric? "
Murrays
***a single massive object that deflected all of them
into their current orbits.{comets}
"..a large object in the extreme outer realms of the solar system may be gravitationally affecting the orbits of long-period comets."
this could make an orbit both more,
or less eccentric with successive passes near the
"single massive object"
Krill says
"And what would cause a "wobble like a giant knuckleball" to iron itself out over time?"
The original and more powerful solar gravitational influences, of our sun.
**************************************
Nibiru
The one thing Dr P. and I have actually agreed on in the past! is the whole mumbo jumbo on Nibiru, and its inhabitants.
The idea of a huge planet , swinging by full of giant Nibiruans, all super advanced in technologies , and visiting Earth when they swing by every 3600 years is a bit hard to swallow.
If they were so advanced , they could come and visit us all the time.They could leave their Godforsaken Nibiru and move to earth.
The only scenario I can possibly come up with for a Nibiru with lifeforms , would be a brown dwarf with a planet close enough to it , to be heated and lit as it is far out in space.
This planet could also be very large and have some possibilities of retaining heat in some fashion.
It could have an a.u. of possibly much less than 1 from the brown dwarf.
This type of planet may be similar to whats called Pegasi planets, though not identical.
Below are links to planets found ,pegasi planets , etc.
Ideas on these links that MAY lend validity to a brown dwarf with planet?
And Life?
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0210/11planet/
First planet found orbiting close-in binary star
MCDONALD OBSERVATORY NEWS RELEASE
Posted: October 10, 2002
"Astronomers with the McDonald Observatory Planet Search project have discovered the first planet orbiting a star in a close-in binary star system.
The planet orbits 2 AU from the larger star in the Gamma Cephei system, while the secondary star is a mere 28-30 AU distant."
PLANETARY SCIENCE: Weather on the Pegasi Planets
binary system with planets that "may be ejected"
70 Virginis
magnitude: 4.97
This star, 78 light years away, lies on the border of the constellation Virgo. In January of 1996, Geoff Marcy and Paul Butler announced their discovery of a massive planet -- over six times the size of Jupiter -- orbiting 70 Virginis. The
***planet's surface temperature is estimated at 85 degrees Celsius, ***well within the range for liquid water. But the massive planet is likely a lifeless gas giant. If this alien world has moons, they may be more hospitable to life.
LINK
***The population of presently detected extrasolar planets indicates properties that were largely unexpected by theories developed to understand the solar system.
Some of the detected planets have short periods and very small orbital separations (``Pegasi-planets´´),
**and long-period planets have eccentricities up to nearly unity (like HD80606).
*What is the key difference between our system and others? What is the key parameter for the diversity of planetary systems in the galaxy? With angular momentum as a separator between binaries and planetary systems the aim of the splinter meeting is to look at the role of angular momentum in star/planet/brown dwarf formation as a possible key to understand the diversity of planetary and stellar systems.
LINK
******...and if you do the simple physics, one can see that a "habitable zone" exists around BOTH stars within the 3 AU dynamic "safe zone." Indeed, it could be possible that BOTH Alpha Cen A and B have planets conducive to life...."
" Another extra-solar planet has been discovered orbiting 16 Cygni B. But unlike all other previously known planets this one has a very large orbital eccentricity (0.6); its orbit carries it from a closest distance of 0.6 AU from its star to 2.7 AU. ***This calls into question many theories of planetary formation.
**Detecting extra-solar planets directly is very difficult. Even the Hubble Space Telescope wouldn't be able to image planets at the expected sizes and distances from their suns
Member
On binary star systems with planets,
and why brown dwarves are hard to find,
and the missing mass of the universe
http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pre...ases/95-48.txt
"The brown dwarf, called Gliese 229B (GL229B), is a small companion to the cool red star Gliese 229, located 19 light-years from Earth in the constellation Lepus.
** Estimated to be 20 to 50 times the mass of Jupiter,
GL229B is too massive and hot to be classified as a planet as
we know it,
**but too small and cool to shine like a star.
**At least 100,000 times dimmer than Earth's Sun, the brown dwarf is the
faintest object ever seen orbiting another star."
"If the dwarf formed as a binary companion,
***its orbit probably would be far more elliptical, as seen on most binary stars."
**"However, the orbital motion is so slow, it will take many
decades of telescopic observations before a true orbit can be
calculated."
"Astronomers have been trying to detect brown dwarfs for three decades.
**Their lack of success is partly due to the fact that as brown dwarfs age they become cooler, fainter, and more difficult to see."
"Another reason brown dwarfs were not detected years ago is that
imaging technology really wasn't up to the task,"
http://www.solstation.com/stars2/23librae.htm
"In 1999, astronomers announced the discovery of a Jupiter-like planet around this Sun-like star
Subsequent astrometric analysis, however, suggests that planet b may have as much as 34 times the mass of Jupiter
Brown Dwarfs or Planets?
Once the first brown dwarf candidates were actually found, however, astronomers realized that it was actually quite difficult to definitely rule on the validity of competing hypotheses about how a substellar object was actually formed without having been there.
***This problem is particularly difficult to resolve in the case of stellar companions, objects that orbit a star -- or two.
Berkeley astronomer Ben R. Oppenheimer,...would like to define a brown dwarf as an substellar object with the mass of 13 to 80 (or so) Jupiters. ...Therefore, stellar companions with less than 13 Jupiter masses would be defined as planets. "
WHite dwarf
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/darkmatter-00a.html
"A White Dwarf star, discovered in the constellation of Taurus, has been shown to be one of the coolest and therefore oldest white dwarfs ever found...The existence of such a population could partially explain the enduring mystery of the nature of dark matter in our Galaxy...
Astronomers have been searching for very cool white dwarfs for many years but with little success...
...and supports the claims from the theoreticians, that observers have simply been looking for the wrong kind of objects.
*** In fact, as much as 90% of the mass in our Galaxy may be hidden in the form of 'dark matter'."
"By measuring the duration of the brightening, astronomers get a ***crude measure of the mass of the otherwise invisible forgeround object"
http://www.holoscience.com/news/failed_star.html
NASA´s latest observatory, designed to see the most violent and stunning cosmic phenomena, captured something unexpected. The Chandra X-ray Observatory, orbiting in space about one-third of the way to the moon,
***saw the first-ever flare from what´s known as a brown dwarf, or failed star.
"We were shocked," said Dr. Robert Rutledge of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, CA, the lead author on the discovery paper to appear in the July 20 issue of Astrophysical Journal Letters. "
The energy emitted in the brown dwarf flare was comparable to a small solar flare, and was a billion times greater than observed X-ray flares from Jupiter.
The flaring energy is believed to come from a twisted magnetic field.
"This is the strongest evidence yet that brown dwarfs and possibly young giant planets have magnetic fields, and that a large amount of energy can be released in a flare," said Dr. Eduardo Martin, also of Caltech and a member of the team.
***Brown dwarves
http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sour...ndwarf_fg.html
their mass was too small for them to be stars and too large for planets.
***It is now estimated that brown dwarfs are approximately as numerous as normal stars in our galaxy.
http://www.bahnhof.se/~davidgr/browndwf/bd_def.html
***At the moment there seems to be no clear cut way of determining if an object is a large planet or a small Brown Dwarf.
Central Temperature By definition, the central temperature must be less than 3 million degrees, as that is the critical temperature required for substantial nuclear reactions to take place. The temperature is dependent on the mass, and will be lower for lower mass objects.
***Why are Brown Dwarfs important?
As you may know, one of the most important problems in cosmology/astrophysics just now is the problem of the so called
*** "Missing Mass".
Various observational and theoretical arguments can be used to show that we have only been able to identify about 10% of the mass of the universe.
***So where is the other 90%? One theory is that it is bound up in brown dwarfs, so the discovery of vast numbers of Brown dwarfs (or the discovery that there are very few Brown Dwarfs) would have great repercussions for cosmology.
Then,
this is a tough read , and the paper was rejected by the journal, however they felt it should get some internet play
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~mmw1/
A refereed publication
"This report was received on 26th July 2000. While some of the points made could be challenged the major point was accepted."
"MA409 is about the formation of planets and brown dwarfs through Woolfson´s ´Capture Theory´, in which massive interstellar clouds are tidally disrupted and induced to fragment by encountering a compact star in a young stellar cluster
..the previous referee´s comments. First of all I cannot agree with the previous referee that we should not discuss alternative theories for planet formation as there is a standard model believed by most astronomers....
*** It is clear that our ideas of planet formation based upon one object, the solar system, needs some revision in the light of the newly discovered extrasolar planets and their unexpected locations close to their parent stars.
The discovery of extrasolar planets close to their primaries and the longstanding problem of producing Uranus and Neptune on a sufficiently short timescale has stimulated solar nebula theorists to look at various mechanisms for planetary migration...
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980122c.html
"The high energy astronomers at NASA don't know much about this subject, so we asked an expert: Eric Mamajek of Pennsylvania State University:
The solar-like stars 16 Cygni B and 55 Cancri A have been found to have Jupiter-size extrasolar planets orbiting them. So we do have indirect proof, through Doppler spectroscopy methods (Marcy & Butler, SFSU, Lick Observatory), that planets indeed form in binary systems.
..solar-like stars Alpha Centauri A and B. They orbit each other at an average distance of 23 AU, however the eccentricities of each orbit bring them to as close to 11 AU and as far as 35 AU. Numerical simulations by Paul Weigert at University of Toronto have shown that each star has a "safe zone" about 3 AU in radius in which planets could safely survive for billions of years. Objects placed further out from each star than about 3 AU are dynamically ejected in a matter of millions of years or less...
***...and if you do the simple physics, one can see that a "habitable zone" exists around BOTH stars within the 3 AU dynamic "safe zone." Indeed, it could be possible that BOTH Alpha Cen A and B have planets conducive to life...."
http://www.universetoday.com/html/da...2001-1025.html
Nest of Brown Dwarfs found in Stellar Nursery
"...Ophiucus, is well known as a stellar nursery containing at least 100 newborn stars. But the surprise was in finding these brown dwarf stars
*which are usually too faint to notice."
Senior Member
Well, I don't feel that Velikovski was insane...just that he was very confused as to what constitutes reality. I mean he confuses hydrocarbons with carbohydrates. Doesn't that sound a bit confused??
Member
SEARCHING FOR PX
in the southern hemisphere.
many people claim that PX or a brown dwarf only supposedly visible from the farthest southern reaches of this planet would have been found by now, with all the observatories in the southern hemisphere.
Dont forget Dr Browns
"...20% of the unexplored sky..." as well
Here are some notes on southern hemisphere observatories.
Mt Stromlo was the most perfectly located southern hemisphere observatory for viewing southern approach phenomena, positioned far better and closer to Antarctica than the Chilean or South African observatories
1.Even if there are many observatories capable of searching for a PX, or brown dwarf in the southern hemisphere, they have to be
TIME ALLOCATED to search for it.
Most observatories are on strict schedules for various universities and space agencies to accomplish a multitude of space search tasks.
Thus if they are not searching for PX as a primary target they will never see it, if it is there.
2.MOST of the southern hemisphere observatories
of major consequence
***ARE STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION***
3.Infrared search is very limited and Mt Stromlo was to be a site for infrared search.
The ISO and SOFIA infrared are also under
TIME allocation restraints, i.e., if they arent directed to do a lengthy search, in the direction or possibilities of a PX or BROWN DWARF, then they will never find it as well
*****************************************
Southern hemisphere Observatories of note
...under construction
http://www.salt.ac.za/
official site for the largest telescope in the Southern hemisphere.
WELCOME to the Southern African Large Telescope (SALT) website.
Track the progress of the telescope being built.
***(SALT is due to be **completed in December 2004 with an estimated $30 million budget.)
http://www.eso.org/projects/alma/
6 November 2003: Astronomers Break Ground on Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) - World´s Largest Millimeter Wavelength Telescope.
Scientists and dignitaries from Europe, North America and Chile
***are breaking ground today (Thursday, November 6, 2003) on what will be the world´s largest, most sensitive radio telescope operating at millimeter wavelengths.
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~brian/press/
PLANS UNVEILED FOR THE NEW STROMLO
Mt Stromlo is not just an icon of Australian science, it is the workplace of number of the worlds leading researchers, Professor Chubb said.
***The planned redevelopment includes:
The Advanced Instruments and Engineering Facility, which will replace the workshops destroyed in the blaze, offering expanded design and manufacture capabilities for precision optical instruments and a research and development program focusing on Extremely Large Telescopes
A new robotically-controlled two-metre telescope, the Phoenix
The worlds fastest sky-mapping telescope, the Skymapper, to be built at the ANU Siding Spring Observatory, but controlled from Mt Stromlo through a broadband link
http://www.visit-chile.org/activities/astronomy.phtml
The skies above the Andean foothills between La Serena and Copiapó are recognized as being the clearest in the southern hemisphere, a fact which has led the world´s great astronomical laboratories to construct giant observatories here.
The European Southern Observatory, representing a coalition of eight European nation, maintains La Silla Observatory and Paranal Observatory further north;
***here the ESO is busy at work on the last of four 8.2 meter telescopes which together comprise the Very Large Telescope (VLT).
The Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, meanwhile, ***is constructing an 8 meter Gemini telescope near their current site. Las Campanas Observatory, owned by the Carnegie Institution of Washington, **is in the process of adding two 6.5 meter telescopes to their installations near La Serena.
For European and North American stargazers, a visit to the Southern Hemisphere can be truly disorienting. Orion appears on his head or side, Polaris can´t be seen at all, even the sun seems lost, following a course through the northern sky.
ON INFRARED ASTRONOMY
As far as I know the only one was in Mt Stromlo in the southern hemisphere for IRA
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...amp;highlight=
PHIL PLAITT
"I just received a letter from the American Astronomical Society about the fires that have swept Canberra in Australia, devastating the Mt. Stromlo observatory. This was one of the world´s premier astronomical research centers, and is now almost totally destroyed."
One of the astronomers who had to evacuate reported that the fire front approached the observatory at about 100 km/hour (62 miles/hour), leaving only about 5 minutes to get out. It is quite fortunate that there were no fatalities.
All of the telescopes were destroyed. The aluminum domes collapsed; the steel 74-inch dome remaind standing, but the building interior was gutted and the mirror "damaged beyond repair". The 50-inch mirror "is a pile of goo on the floor". The road to the laser ranging facility is blocked, but it did not likely survive.
***Sadly, the just completed "Near Infra-red Integral Field Spectrograph" valued at 4 million dollars, placed at Mount Stromlo...was destroyed
INFRARED Space Observatory
http://www.iso.vilspa.esa.es/images/iso002.jpg
Trippy picture !
http://sofia.arc.nasa.gov/
SOFIA
Stratospheric Observatory for Infra Red Astronomy
{aircraft mounted}
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/
...........................................
Additional curiousities from the Chilean site
Archaeoastronomy inquires about the possible relationship between astronomy and archaeological sites. We hope to awaken more interest in the subject in South America and share both experience and information with other groups.
According to one extended belief, the change of the cosmic era of Pisces to Aquarius, in addition to the passage to the new millenium, has brought with it a displacement of the terrestrial magnetic energy of the parallel 30ş N to 30ş S, from its previous location in the Himalayas of Tibet to the Elqui Valley in Chile.
Member
Van Flandern on PX:
Some good stuff here....
"AN ASTRONOMER´S ANALYSIS OF THE AKKADIAN SEAL
by Tom Van Flandern
Referring to Figure 101, p. 205 of Sitchin´s "Twelfth Planet": a large star symbol is in the center. It is way too small in diameter relative to the planets; but we might overlook that as artist´s license, if only the planets were shown to scale.
Next we note that nine raised circular impressions ("orbs") surround the star in roughly a circle, located weaving in and out among the star´s rays. However there is no obvious beginning or ending place along the circle. Nothing appears to mark the place where "Pluto" is followed by "Mercury". (Sitchin´s arrow marker is not part of the original Seal.) Indeed, nothing identifies any of the orbs. Their identities must be guessed by inference. Two additional orbs appear farther out than the close circle of nine. Their relationship, if any, to the orbs in the inner circle is unclear.
It was said that the third orb could be identified with the Earth because it was accompanied by another orb which represented our Moon. This is far from obvious. First, there is nothing whatever to suggest that the orb at about one o´clock is the "third" in any sequence. Next, its diameter is distinctly smaller than the diameter of the next clockwise orb, which the text associates with Venus. Venus and Earth should be about the same size, or Earth slightly larger; but the Seal as interpreted has it the other way around.
The orb associated with the Moon is one of the two outer orbs, and the smallest overall. Although it is about the right size relative to the Earth (1/4), it´s association with the Earth is not obvious, since its spacing from the Earth-orb is about the same as the spacing between any of the orbs. Specifically, it is farther from the Earth-orb than the Mercury-orb is from the Venus-orb. If the outer orbs are supposed to be moons, then "Mercury´s" presence there would suggest that it was a moon of Venus. That might be acceptable, because there is some evidence that Mercury did start out that way billions of years ago. But in saying that I am clearly stretching to accommodate the depiction. Tighter logic would dictate that a Mercury-orb farther from the Sun than a Venus-orb, yet closer to the Venus-orb than the Moon-orb was to the Earth-orb, was simply incorrect in both respects.
Things do not improve after that. The Mars-orb is too large in diameter relative to both Venus and Earth: it should be half of Earth´s diameter. Then we come to the three largest orbs more or less in a line, each progressively larger than the last. Associating Nibiru with the first of these is easy, since the solar system has a gap filled with asteroids there; so any orb whatever could be argued to be the missing parent of the asteroids. But we do not have that kind of freedom with the solar system´s two giant planets. Jupiter is larger than Saturn in reality, but the reverse is true of the orbs. Moreover the relative sizes are way off. Jupiter should be over ten times the diameter of the Earth.
Both Jupiter and Saturn have other identifiers as well. Between them they have several of the solar system´s largest moons. And Saturn has rings, arguably the most distinctive feature of any planet. But nothing whatever appears to support the association of these two orbs with the giant planets we know. The relative sizes are wrong with respect to the other planets and with respect to each other; and no moons or rings are suggested.
It doesn´t get any better, because next we have an orb which does not correspond to anything known in the solar system, in a location which would be unstable for anything to form. Moreover the association of anything with Pluto is questionable, since Pluto would remain unknown even to advanced interstellar visitors, unless they carefully scanned the skies checking every tiny spot of light among hundreds of millions of brighter star images.
This is true even for advanced interstellar travelers. The volume enclosed by Pluto´s orbit is so vast that the galaxy´s 200,000,000,000 stars could be placed inside its orbit without touching! Pluto is smaller than many solar system moons (including our own), and in any case is a "double" object, since its moon Charon is fully half its diameter and relatively close. Pluto´s orbit crosses Neptune´s; and there is good reason to suspect that Pluto & Charon are escaped moons of Neptune, not true planets. Nothing about the Pluto-orb suggests an identification with Pluto. It is merely that both are "left over" after discussions of the eight major planets are done.
An association of the stray orb with asteroid or possible comet Chiron (not to be confused with Pluto´s moon Charon), which is in an unstable orbit between Saturn and Uranus, would be easier to support than the Pluto identification. But from its relative size and spacing, why not associate this orb with Titan, Saturn´s largest moon and the largest moon in the solar system? It seems as entitled to that status as is the orb associated with the Earth´s moon. The non-uniqueness of any of the associations is plainly evident.
The orbs associated with Uranus and Neptune look about equally large, and are intermediate in size. That is as much as one can say for them, since the sizes relative to inner or other outer planets are not correct; and the next object around the circle is the Venus-orb.
In summary, the Seal does not, by itself, suggest anything more to an astronomer than an artistic rendition of a star surrounded by planets. There are simply no instances where consecutive identifications of orbs with real planets support one another. Each must be argued ad hoc, and each is problematic.
Given the lack of easy recognition of familiar solar system bodies, the extension to unfamiliar ones (based on the Seal alone) must be regarded as an act of pure faith. Perhaps the Akkadian Seal depicts some other planetary system around some other star; but it seems most unlikely to refer to our own solar system."
---------------
On the 3600 year elliptical orbit:
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: 10th planet?
Date: 1 May 1994 16:40:02 GMT
[....]
As for Planet X, the topic of this thread, its orbit could not have a
period of 3600 years and approach the Sun closer than Jupiter, as Sitchin
suggested, because such an orbit is unstable. Its period would be drastically
altered in a single revolution, and it would eventually collide with Jupiter
or get ejected from the solar system....
....Even if giant Jupiter came galloping into the inner solar
system, its tidal effects on Earth would be negligible unless it came quite
close. But the probability of such a close approach is very small; and
again, such an orbit is highly unstable and would soon be eliminated. For
example, comets in such orbits cannot survive longer than about 100,000
years....
------------
And from an internet chat:
*** Tom_Van_Flandern has joined #huntforplanetx
*TT* Welcome Mr. Van Flandern
*Tom_Van_Flandern* Hi, TT and everybody.
*TT* I would like to introduce Dr. Thomas Van Flandern, author of ´Dark
Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets´, also founder of the Meta
Research web site. You will find the link on our home page. Welcome
Mr. Van Flandern.
*Tom_Van_Flandern* I´m happy to join you this evening. I didn´t prepare
any remarks. Should I make some general observations about "Planet X"?
*TT* Actually, I would love hear anything new that you might have observed
yourself and, of course, any remarks you may have on Planet X. And maybe a
bit about your relationship with Mr. Harrington. I have a great deal of respect
for the work both of you did together.
*Tom_Van_Flandern* Regarding Planet X, we think Sitchin made some good
points, but has made mistakes too. For example, the 3600-year-orbit Sitchin
proposes is dynamically unstable. (Short translation: Only a planet with
artificial propulsion could continue to occupy such a magical orbit.) Stability
requirements lead us to conclude that any "real" Planet X could not come
any closer to us than the orbit of Uranus.
*Tom_Van_Flandern* Bob Harrington and I were colleagues at the U.S. Naval
Observatory from the late 1960 until I left in 1983. His untimely death about
8 years ago was a loss for all of us.
*TT* What kind of orbit would you find stable for such a planet?
*Tom_Van_Flandern* An orbit that does not cross or approach any other
planet would probably be stable. Comet Hale-Bopp came in from about
the distance of Sitchin´s "Marduk" or "Nibiru". When it approached, its
orbital period was 4200 years. But after one quick pass through the planetary
region (even with no close approaches), that period was reduced to 2400 years
as it left. You can see how difficult it would be for a planet to come close, yet
maintain a period of 3600 years.
*Eljean* so when you say stable, you mean not erratic? Consistently predicted?
Forgive my ignorance.
*Tom_Van_Flandern* "Stable" means the orbit stays roughly the same over
time. Unstable means the orbit changes drastically on each revolution, and
eventually gets kicked out of the solar system. Comet Hale-Bopp, like all
comets, had an unstable orbit.
*TT* Would it not depend on the mass?
*Tom_Van_Flandern* A small body´s orbit is always independent of its own
mass. It´s like the Tower of Pisa experiment. Light and heavy balls fall at
the same rate in a gravitational field.
*Eljean* I liken what you are saying, Tom, to a boxing match. Rather than one
big "KO", the body blows (approaches) really take their toll over time. Right?
*Tom_Van_Flandern* True, Eijean.
*Tom_Van_Flandern* The astronomical evidence for Planet X indicated
mainly that un-modeled forces were acting on the outer planets and a few
comets. We now know about two new asteroid belts beyond Neptune with
considerable mass in each. These greatly complicate the picture, and might
conceivably account for the un-modeled forces without need of something
more. It seems possible that Planet X is now an asteroid belt in the Kuiper
Belt.
*Eljean* About the complicating evidence and all its implications for PX,
what say you, Dr V?
*Tom_Van_Flandern* I think the evidence now favors that Planet X is an
asteroid belt (the Kuiper belt). In any case, we have no hope of predicting its
location until we determine the mass of the Kuiper belt.
*Eljean* Could Jim´s theory encompass that?
*Tom_Van_Flandern* Eijean, I must assume I missed something essential
at the start of Jim´s remarks. I´m unaware of how asteroids in the Kuiper belt
could form a chain at any epoch.
*TT* It will be in the transcript for you to read, Mr. Van Flandern.
*TT* Question is how did it get that way?
*Tom_Van_Flandern* Probably the same way that "Planet K" got to be the
main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter -- by explosion, according to
one theory.
*Tim_Edwards* If so, do you give any credence to Z. Sitchin´s account for the
much closer Asteroid Belt?
*Tom_Van_Flandern* Tim, which particular part? Sitchin hypothesized that
the main asteroid belt was over a billion years old. I see evidence that it is
only 25% of that age. My recollection (possibly faulty -- it´s been years) is
that the Tiamat collision was over a billion years ago in Sitchin´s translations.
*Tim_Edwards* He proposed that the satellites of Planet X collided with
Tiamat on its initial passage.
*TT* Did you want to pass on anything else regarding any new material you
are working on, Mr. Van Flandern, before you leave us?
*Tom_Van_Flandern* Our latest research can be found at metaresearch.org.
The latest findings are about the Leonid meteor storm last month, which will
be published soon. Good night, and happy holidays to all!
*TT* Thank you so much, Mr. Van Flandern for your time! Happy Holidays
to you and your family.
Banned
Invoking Einstein to deal with me? I'm flattered. I'm all for exploration, but unlike you, I'm not selling a concept. I also would require proof, not just words from others to embrace what you are trying to propose. You employ long-winded posts to side-step the key issue. There is no evidence of a solar-system interloper. That's the bottom line. Save your preaching for the choir.
Order of Kilopi
I am not sure what your point is with those two long posts. But I have some comments:
1) The "ejected planet" image by Hubble was retracted, years ago. The "planet" was a background star. Try here, for one.
2) I have no problems with people looking at comets or whatever to look for the gravitational signature of another planet. What I do have a problem with is a paper whose conclusions outreach the evidence at hand. Those papers you mention don't have the evidence to back up the conclusion that a planet exists. They are at best interesting, and at worst jumping wholly to unsupported conclusions.
3) I don't have a "narrow approach" about the papers you mention. In fact, the opposite is true: I am more than willing to let people try to look into this. You however, appear to be the one who won't listen to the idea that something supporting your position could be wrong.
4) About brown dwarfs: you might want to have a care here. I studied brown dwarfs for a few years. I worked on a Hubble spectrum of Gliese 229 B, and planned observations to see if a BD could be detected in UV. I actually know a fair bit about them. A 4.5 billion year old BD in our solar system would be pretty obvious. Again, I will state that there is almost certainly no BD in our solar system. There might be another planet (though the odds are low), but not a BD. Please do yourself a favor and read those articles you quote about masses. Jupiter has over 300 times the mass of the Earth, and a BD has ten or so times the mass of Jupiter. Anything less than that mass is a planet at best.
5) I don't know if Velikovsky was insane, but he was certainly wrong. You quoted Einstein: "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance". The irony of this is supreme: I have studied Velikovsky, quite a bit. I read "Worlds in Collision", and several books and websites discussing his theories. I wrote a chapter in my own book about his theories. I have studied his physics, and came to the conclusion that his theories are ludicrous. That was not a jump to a conclusion; that was after months of research.
6) Continuing on this line of condemnation and investigation: I read Murray's and Matese's papers. There's a BD paper with my name on it, and I worked on dozens of Hubble images of protoplanetary systems, on four different projects. I also am a proponent of looking for another potential planet in our solar system, to the point where I have actually instigated search teams to include looking for it in their algorithms.
This is perhaps why I have little patience for people who say I poopoo the idea of a tenth planet.
Maybe you should do some investigation before making accusations. At least read up on the basics about planets versus brown dwarfs.
Established Member
And where in the sky would this be? Anyone south of the equator can see the ENTIRE southern celestial hemisphere. I'm at 47 deg N (almost half way to the equator) and the whole northern hemisphere, and a good chunk of the southern, is a comfortable observing altitude above the horizon.
Order of Kilopi
I guess that last speel works on the principle of if you can beat them then baffle them with ********. :roll:
Interestingly these posts contradict what was being posted eariler, but then why am I not surprised there. Nor did they relly make much of a point.
I do have question though, if you can help me out here Phil, of someone else that might know. Now all objects orbit not about each other about about a common center of mass. How large would an object be for it to be noticable that the sun was orbiting about a common centre of mass with it, or assuming an object that was about 20 Jupiters, how far away would it have to be at its perihelion?
Order of Kilopi
For an object of 20 MJ to have the same effect on the Solar system barycenter as Jupiter, its distance would have to be sqrt 20 times as far away as Jupiter, or approximately 22 AU, which is inside the orbit of Neptune....assuming an object that was about 20 Jupiters, how far away would it have to be at its perihelion?
Member
Hey its Colonel Vianova,
drinking good wine tonite
Kind of like last nite.
Ha !
But too late to let the Gods throw thunderbolts at planets..
Time,
for A,
Time Out
You know, those infintely now moments..?
Cosmic heretic,
No time for time....
.What was that Vonnegut stuff?
iconoclastic infundibulum or someblahblah like that.
You gotta have a sense of humor,
for the impending brain tumor,
Nibiruans need a sense of humor,
But I'll bet they're a lot Gloomier..,
And I"d rather be on Mother Earth,
But then look at the president,
So may the comets give Birth,
to a new Solar resident,
and may the Gods smile ,
on sweet Mother Earth,
And in Velikovskian style,
May Marsdens SPACEGUARD,
Accomplish its worth.
Its like cosmic cards....,
Planet X Poker One Eyed Jack Wild,
Solar 9 Card Stud No Plutinos,
Brown Dwarf Draw,
Jovian Jacks Wild,
Cometary Craps,
Newtonian Orbital Mechanics Roulette,
playing all these links on astronomical data and hypothesis,
to weave together a vision of eternity in our solar system,
Newtonian Orbital Mechanics on the run....
Velikovskys Astronomy,
Its cosmic heresy,
Catch a comet by its tail so bright,
Catch the Cosmic Trail of God tonight,
Electromagnetic Love in Timeless Harmony,
A Galactic Supernova Holy Dove,
Iconoclastic Einsteinian,
Starborn Infinity
Silent night,
Holy Night,
May the Stars Shine,
On All Tonite.
Love
CV
Order of Kilopi
I'd just like to say WooWoo.
Established Member
Seconded.
Established Member
Getting back to the OP (hey, I've been gone all weekend!),
No thank you, I'm a mechanical-pencil kind of "poindexter" myself, if you feel a need to put such a label on me.
[aside]My, that's quite a penchant for taking quotes without supporting context, isn't it?[/aside]
Well, we can give up on Murray & Matese, with their 2300-3000 billion mile ideas. The L1 Lagrangian point for the Galaxy-Sun system is somewhere around 5400 AU out from the Sun*. That's around 500 billion miles (American system, which the BBC seems to be using here). And even if M&M were to argue that the object might be in an inclined orbit such that it doesn't pass between the Sun and the Milky Way's core now, that's still going to line it up with the L1 point once or twice every 226 million years or so. And once it's out there past the L1 point (or possibly near it, but things get irregular around there), it's not coming back. But I guess that point just wasn't worth their mentioning. Or else they didn't even think to take it into consideration.
*Oh, and in case you might start thinking that such an object might be stuck at the L1 point, hiding in the galactic center's IR emissions, it's one of the unstable ones, where any perturbation will knock it away eventually. The L4 and L5 are the only stable ones that draw stuff in.
Added: Well, oops. I mixed up the L1 distance and the distance at which the Galaxy's gravity is greater than the Sun's. While it probably isn't quite impossible for something between the two distances to remain in orbit around the Sun, it's still going to be decidedly unlikely.
I guess a woowoo's day just wouldn't be complete without playing some mind games with somebody. :roll: Just gotta show how clever you are.
Actually, you're wrong about this one; this isn't any reason to not believe in any Nibiru/PX hypotheses. Assuming the mass is considerably less than the Sun's, any planet will swing around and switch direction just as easily. And for those really large cases (e.g., binary stars), they'll still do that, with the difference being that the Sun would be moving significantly as well. The only thing that will restrict the sharpness of the orbit is that an extremely eccentric one will end up with a perihelion inside the Sun's surface, which, needless to say, isn't terribly healthy for a planet. But that would require an eccentricity rather greater than I think any of these people are hinting at.
Honored Member
Why is it that when woowoos try to play mind games, they immediately turn into solitaire? :roll: :wink:
Established Member
And now we have -- Nibirian poetry?
Well, I can't accept that as evidence until someone weaves it into a rug.
Order of Kilopi
"Games," Archer? Sorry, no. There apears, however, to be one of "debunkery" being played since this thread is about other scientists, specifically astronomers, who have "no common sense" and apparently overlook some simple "laws" when reaching their theories or conclusions (which is both frightening and intriguing). It IS NOT about Sitchin, and whether or not I agree with him. It IS about the observations astronomers are making. It IS about a possible, planetary body, a perturber, in our system to perhaps help us answer various questions such as: the collision that created the moon? The massive bombardment that apparently "flayed" Mars? the destruction of a former planet in the Asteroid Belt? The perturber of various comets, moons, planets inexplicably in our system? tilted a planet sidewise? The perturber that "transferred" much of Oort's cloud from inner to outer system, as he said so himself?
Are these not real scientific observations? What conclusions or theories might be drawn from these observations if there existed no "woowoo" nonsense? Personally, I think that would be a more objective, "scientific," standpoint. Don't you?
How's that for "obsessed blatherings?"
I think you should really think about what "games" are being played and who the players are, no? :-?
Order of Kilopi
Peotry was a Sumerian invention, so was Nibiru.
Did you know there are several famous tapestries depicting historical events? Further confirmed by textual evidence, and some were woven into Mythology?
Senior Member
Well, HUH!!
But, you're using these "astronomers" observations as "evidence" that Sitchin's "theory's" are viable...so it IS about Sitchin.It IS about the observations astronomers are making.
Games, anyone??
Member
some of the evidences for PX are attribited to Interplanetary Arc
It has been suggested that the giant rift on Mars ,
Valles Marineris,
is an interplanetary arc hit , gashed across the surface of the planet.
Official interpretations are that this rift is a giant separation of tectonic plates.
See Valles Marineris
http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/...p;t=30&v=f
then read some of the discussion at Graham Hancocks site on electric universe and interplanetary arc at the aforementioned link
****
Found this on GLP last night.
Minbari theorizes comets "seeding" the sun producing wild CMEs
Relating to Interplanetary Arc,
the CMEs show distinct helical elctromagnetics in the CME
http://mars.012webpages.com/Sohomovie.html
Scroll to the page bottom to see the last 2 SOHO images,
which were 1998/06/02/1331
and 1999
this link of Minbaris may be not up on the net very long...
Later Gators...Im off to work
Posting Permissions
