NASA finds Tyche, the 'good sister' of Nemesis/Nibiru/Planet X/Wormwood/Hercolubus

reply to post by muzzleflash


If there is a planet sizedmass or larger object in the outer parts of the solar system it could be 1/3 of a light year away. A probe to Pluto is going to take 9 years to get there and Pluto is relatively close. Pluto is really close compared to these hypothetical objects in the Oort cloud.

BTW there has been a long standing theory in Astronomy that some type of object was causing gravitational effects on the outermost planets of our solar system, and that the same object could be the cause of what kicks up the comets out of the Oort cloud.

This is a little mixed up. The gravity effects turned out to be due to an incorrect mass for Neptune which was corrected in the 1989 flyby of Voyager 2. The idea that comets are kicked out of the Oort cloud is based on the idea that there is a periodic nature to extinction events on Earth. That object, if it exists, is too far away to cause the motions of the planets to be affected.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
We should determine it's trajectory and send a space probe there.

Well, we sent out Voyager 1 and 2 in 1977 and neither have yet reached the proposed orbit of this hypothetical planet. So whilst I do agree with you, don't expect any photos any time soon!

The first tranche of data is to be released in April, and astrophysicists John Matese and Daniel Whitmire from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette think it will reveal Tyche within two years. "If it does, John and I will be doing cartwheels," Professor Whitmire said. "And that's not easy at our age."

Wow thats my school, anyone wanna ask questions? I can ask those professors

I read about this discovery just this morning on The Huffington Post, and immediatly did a search here on ATS for a thread. Glad to see your post stereologist.

And thanks for the unhighjack there, sonofthelaw.

It occured to me that the recent demotion of Pluto, which broke my heart because I'm a Scorpio, and I luvs me a little Pluto, and this new announcement, by NASA, or WISE, may be related.

Could it be that they dicovered this planet and concluded that Pluto was one of it's moons? And, since they CANNOT be forthright, by nature, they announced it backwards? Good news/ bad news. Bad news first. Pluto is out. Good news Tyche is in!

reply to post by windword


Pluto can't be a moon. It has a well known orbit around the sun. Pluto itself has moons, 3 I believe.

No new planet has been discovered. It is predicted. The prediction is not simply that something is out there, but that something with specific properties is out there in a particular part of space.

reply to post by stereologist


Good point.
My bad

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by windword

 

No new planet has been discovered. It is predicted. The prediction is not simply that something is out there, but that something with specific properties is out there in a particular part of space.

Right, just "predicted", like it's some kind of strange new quantum physics theory.

Is that why the article says,

But scientists now believe the proof of its existence has already been gathered by a Nasa space telescope, Wise, and is just waiting to be analysed.

Why not be forthright for once and just admit it still hasn't been announced?

Or is this another one of those "pathetic" articles like the 1983 Washington Post story?

reply to post by GoldenFleece

Why not be forthright for once and just admit it still hasn't been announced?

Or is this another one of those "pathetic" articles like the 1983 Washington Post story?

1. It has not been announced because it has not been discovered.
2. This article is well written unlike the poor, jumbled writing of the 1983 article.

Where does it say that something has been discovered. The original paper suggests that the predicted object would be detectable in the WISE data. Now that WISE has finished collecting data the authors state that if this does exist, then the evidence should be in the WISE data. That is what they predicted.

The article making the predictions does have that high a probability that the object exists. So maybe the predicted object does not exist. In that case the WISE data will not show the existence of Tyche.

So have we heard anything more from Nasa about this? As i'm getting rather sick of listen to experts who don't know either.

reply to post by Slipdig1

I wouldn't expect to hear anything from NASA. It's already been stated there won't be any conclusive information for a couple of years. And that's assuming the relevant part of the sky was surveyed twice before the coolant ran out.

reply to post by stereologist

Since when are planetary objects named (twice!) before they're ever discovered?

BTW, you've been a naughty boy. I caught you being deceitful again:

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

Really? Can you support this? What percentage of star systems are binary or greater?

Yes, really!

Are you trying to suggest you've never read the authors' abstract that you keep referencing?

At least 2/3 of solar type stars in the field reside in binary or multiple star systems
(Duquennoy and Mayor ( 1991)).

I'm sorry, but your credibility is shot. For someone who has such a long history posting about this topic and who constantly makes definitive statements, you can no longer be trusted.

You're also in violation of ATS' T&C:

15). You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

Since when are planetary objects named (twice!) before they're ever discovered?

Can you explain this?

Are you trying to suggest you've never read the authors' abstract that you keep referencing?

Can you explain which abstract you are talking about?

Let's see why you should be banned (using your corrupt logic).

Here is what was stated.

a BINARY star system, which is completely supported in the astronomical circles since MOST systems are binary.

Here is what I asked.

Really? Can you support this? What percentage of star systems are binary or greater?

Here is what you stated

At least 2/3 of solar type stars in the field reside in binary or multiple star systems (Duquennoy and Mayor ( 1991)).

This is a deceitful answer since I asked about stars and you give an answer about a very small subset of stars. You should be banned or sanctioned for violation of rule 15. You certainly cannot be trusted.

Let's get some real information about stars and how many are binary or in systems with more stars.

Here is info from a 2003 study with many more stars and a greater selection than the 1991 study.
adsabs.harvard.edu...&A...397..159H

The frequency of binaries with P

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Can you explain which abstract you are talking about?

Oh, just the one you've been referencing and quoting the entire thread -- until now, of course.

Remember this? Persistent Evidence of a Jovian Mass Solar Companion in the Oort Cloud

Yeah, the same one you kept demanding I read, which posits a binary companion to our sun and references the fact that two-thirds of similar stars are binary.

I'll pass on the rest of your magnum opus attempt to misdirect and play dumb.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

Yeah, the same one you kept demanding I read, which posits a binary companion to our sun and references the fact that two-thirds of similar stars are binary.

Is it really that hard to be clear and explicit in your posts? No. When I used Jm I apologized didn't I because I used a notation which was not clear.

OK, so now you made a statement which you attributed to a paper you did not read by quoting something from a paper you did read. This 2010 paper uses the 1991 paper to justify some steps on page 30.

This is the reference for that information. Correct?
Duquennoy, A. and M. Mayor 1991. Multiplicity among solar-type stars in the solar neighborhood: II.
Distribution of the orbital elements in an unbiased sample.Astron. Astrophys. 248, 485-524.

What Matese and Whitmore are discussing is the likelihood of our star having a companion with a particular type of orbit based on the probability distributions determined by other astronomers.

The original question had nothing to do with the frequency of binary solar type stars. Rather the question posed was the frequency of stars. If you didn't understand that point in their article, then I hope I was able to clarify what they were getting at.

Here is what you wrote.

Are you trying to suggest you've never read the authors' abstract that you keep referencing? /quote]
I knew that this claim about solar type binaries was not in an abstract I used to support one of my positions. It was a minor referenced inside of the article.

If you make the proper effort to quote and link then you won't make mistakes like this.

edit on 16-2-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)

I'll try to be more clear, but my primary objection is since you purport to know so much about this topic, you'd have to know the majority of stars are binary, but instead tried to dispute this fact with another poster.

Also. I didn't deserve to get hit with both barrels right from the start of this thread. Not really necessary to be so heavy-handed, especially since U.S. media are now declaring, "Astronomers Doubt Giant Planet 'Tyche' Exists in Our Solar System."

Of course it quoted TWO scientists, neither of whom had read their paper, but still effectively neutralized.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

I'll try to be more clear, but my primary objection is since you purport to know so much about this topic, you'd have to know the majority of stars are binary, but instead tried to dispute this fact with another poster.

Also. I didn't deserve to get hit with both barrels right from the start of this thread. Not really necessary to be so heavy-handed, especially since U.S. media are now declaring, "Astronomers Doubt Giant Planet 'Tyche' Exists in Our Solar System."

Of course it quoted TWO scientists, neither of whom had read their paper, but still effectively neutralized.

Just because a newspaper uses a sensational headline does not mean it is true. There are people on both sides of the issue. I have never claimed to know a lot about any subject. At best I can look for the evidence.

Anyways keep an eye on this subject because the solar system is big and there may be a large mass out there in the solar system. If there is it's going to be far away and never come into the inner part of the solar system, but it will be a part of the amazing place we live in.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

If there is it's going to be far away and never come into the inner part of the solar system,

Thou doth protest too much.

Making definitive statements like that without having the slightest idea whether it's true or not reminds me of an odd line in that Washington Post article:

"It's not incoming mail," Cal Tech's Neugebauer said. "I want to douse that idea with as much cold water as I can."

So they claim to not even know what this massive object is, but want to "douse with as much cold water as possible" any idea that it might be incoming?

Oooo Kayyy.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

Making definitive statements like that without having the slightest idea whether it's true or not

You are making an argument from ignorance. You are simply stating that since you have no idea why this is true, then it is not correct. Sorry, but it is. The issue here is gravitational perturbations. If you do not understand what that means then take a basic course in astronomy. The portion of the solar where the known planets orbits exhibits no missing mass. Therefore no mass enters this part of the solar or comes close to this part of the solar system.

So they claim to not even know what this massive object is, but want to "douse with as much cold water as possible" any idea that it might be incoming?

Such feeble efforts at misrepresenting the article are really showing that you are nothing but a troll. The issue is whether the object is approaching the Earth. The definitive answer to that was no. You don't have to know what it is to determine that it is not approaching.

So please stop trolling and take a basic course. Even a high school level course would be of enormous assistance to you in understanding these issues.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

If you do not understand what that means then take a basic course in astronomy.

Would you recommend the course you took so I can learn about galaxies that are the size of Jupiter and 50 billion miles away?

They changed the name from Nemesis to Tyche for an easy simple reason. They know they will be showing proof soon enough, they dont want to announce proof of a star named The destroyer or Nemesis, they switched to the "good" star so people wont panic. easy enough.. with all the 2012 talk going on everywhere, they dont want to start unwanted panics if they annouce finding it... but technically it should still be named nemesis because thats what it is.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

Would you recommend the course you took so I can learn about galaxies that are the size of Jupiter and 50 billion miles away?

No one has said that this is the case except you?
Why are you trying to look bad in front of everyone?