New Sign Of NIBIRU

reply to post by rajaten

Or maybe they weren't astronomers or if they were they were very bad ones.

This document:
docs.google.com...

Is purported to be theirs. In it they run through the Nemesis hypothesis and claim that the supernova remnant G1.9 is actually a brown dwarf about 60AU from the Sun. They base the claim on two pieces of evidence.

First they say that between 1984 and 2008, G1.9 displayed too much angular movement to be a very distant object.

Así pues tenemos dos posiciones estelares de G1.9+0.3 perfectamente diferenciadas en el transcurso de 24 años:
a. 1984 - RA 17h 45m 37s, Dec. -27:09
b. 2008 - RA 17h 48m 45s, Dec. -27:10

They are right, a change in right ascension of slightly more than 3 arcminutes in 24 years is far too great for an object 24,000 light years away. But there is a problem. The "astronomers" got their 1984 data from The MOST Galactic Centre Survey - II. New results on published supernova remnants and G2.4 + 1.4. The description of the table they used:

Table 1. This table lists (1) The Galactic cooridinates, (2) and (3) the right ascension and declination for epoch and equinox B1950.0

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...
I cannot find the source in the "astronomers'" document for the 2008 location but if you look for yourself you will see that "Figura 7" shows that Epoch J2000 coordinates are used. So what's the problem? Two different coordinate systems are used. The difference between the coordinates amounts to slightly more than 3 arcminutes of right ascension. G1.9 is in the same place it was in 1984. What "moved" was Earth's axis, it's called precession and it has nothing to do with Nibiru or Nemesis. Quite an obvious thing for the "Spanish astronomers" to miss.


Next, they present evidence from an article titled "A 20 Year Radio Light Curve for the Young Supernova Remnant G1.9+0.3". They present radio telescope observations and claim that the fluctuations in the size of G.19 demonstrate that it cannot possibly be a supernova remnant. It gets smaller, then larger, then smaller. The problem? The MOST radio telescope is not capable of determining the size of G1.9.

The MOST observations are not at high enough resolution to detect significant changes in the size or mophology of G1.9+0.3 with time.

What was observed? The brightness of G1.9. And what did it find?

Twenty years of observations with the Molonglo Observatory Synthesis Telescope show that the young supernova remnant G1.9+0.3 has increased in brightness by 1.22 ± 0.24 0.16 per cent yr−1 between 1998 and 2007

It found that G1.9 fits the profile of a young supernova remnant.
arxiv.org...


The "Spanish astronomers" are not astronomers or they are very bad ones.

reply to post by Phage


So I guess NASA has all the "good" astronomers? LOL

reply to post by dragnet53


lol yeah if you figure out anything important you become an "affiliate" employee with a "keep your mouth shut" severance package.

reply to post by dragnet53

No.
Not all of them. Most astronomers know which coordinate system to use. They don't all work at NASA.

reply to post by rajaten


Ooooh nooooo! When you have nothing at all to say you drop into the silly death threat claim.

Phage knew the issue here. I knew that these gents were bad astronomers or not astronomers and had made some basic arithmetic mistakes. I'm glad someone with the details explained it well.

This reminds me of the microscopist that wrote down the wrong lens in his notes. He had the wrong magnification and showed a huge loss of cells in a study. It was a ground breaking discovery until others showed that it looked like an arithmetic mistake and sure enough it was.

As Maxwell Smart used to say, "Chief I missed it by that much."

reply to post by stereologist


I have no idea what you are talking about.

reply to post by rajaten


It is not rare for people to make arithmetic mistakes in their work. The peer review process spots these mistakes. The goal is to have many eyes reviewing work to avoid propagating mistaken ideas.

These guys made a huge mistake. It was spotted. End of story.

Found on web:
Here is another ... Observations of an Astronomer after 8 years of investigation ...
starviewer.wordpress.com...

"After several years studying with methodology absolutely scientist on the individual and analyzing historical, astronomical, archaeological sources and even geocosmic analyses of the behavior of our Solar System and the milk route, with the adapted material, and of the cyclical phases and geologic stages through which our planet has passed from Pangaea to the present time freezings including and evolutionary cyclical extinction, the subject is very clear, and can be transformed in two convergent lines, both correct ones, but of different reach and magnitude: 1
starviewer.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by ClbDeth
Found on web:
Here is another ... Observations of an Astronomer after 8 years of investigation ...

It's yet more "starviewer" team nonsense. They claim there's a brown dwarf out there almost half the size (mass?) of the sun. That would have to be a red dwarf, not a brown dwarf, and it would be an incredibly bright object in our skies. The gravitational perturbations would be extreme, it would put to shame a far more conservative test I did for hypothetical Nibiru on an otherwise identical orbit. The result of that test (using an object not even as massive as a brown dwarf) showed that Saturn should have been gravitationally pulled completely away from its original orbit by now as the object approaches perihelion in late 2012.

I see I got a couple responses from my post which is great even thou they're all negative deluded comments. I never sign on to this site but when I do I won't be rebutting with anyone so save your energy. What is the objective of going back and fourth on the internet? It's completely pointless and I really don't see why people do it. All I will do on this site is post my opinion and move along. If you don't believe me that's fine but in the end I'm probably right with whatever I type and you're probably wrong lol.

reply to post by Bithpo


You were completely off in your comments about science in your August 8th post. You have no idea how things work. You might want to take a basic course and understand what we do and do not know. A little reading on the meaning of the word brown dwarf might be helpful in the short term.

You also need to stop the unsubstantiated lashing out. Pretending to be better than others simply brings on heaps of laughter from all sides. It's hard to take someone seriously with such vacuous commentary.


Your August 8th post asks a question and then tosses out the answer "of course." Are you really sure about that?

reply to post by Phage



phage, do you ever get tired of being right? haha i truly appreciate your input on these threads.