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

reply to post by DJW001

But Matese and Whitmore do not characterize Tyche as a brown dwarf. In fact they say it is too small to be a brown dwarf.

We present updated dynamical and statistical analyses of outer Oort cloud cometary evidence suggesting that the Sun has a wide-binary jovian mass companion. The results support a conjecture that there exists a companion of mass ~1—4 MJupiter orbiting in the innermost region of the outer Oort cloud.

www.ucs.louisiana.edu...

They cite Zuckerman and Song (2008), who say:

By focusing on brown dwarf companions to young stellar primaries, it is possible to derive a first estimate of the brown dwarf IMF over the entire range of brown dwarf masses (13 MJ to 79 MJ) – the number of companion brown dwarfs is proportional to mass to the −1.2 ± 0.2 power.

arxiv.org...

The lower limit for brown dwarf mass is 13 times the mass of Jupiter. Matese and Whitmore say that Tyche would be, at the most, 5 times the mass of Jupiter.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

My objection isn't that Matese and Whitmire chose to characterize the hypothetical body as a "brown dwarf;" my objection is that you have conflated a diverse collection of hypothetical and imaginary celestial bodies into a portmanteau planet and claim that it's been "discovered." Where is your data to support that goulash?

Thank you for at least acknowledging that fact. I appreciate your not trying to constantly BS me. Despite Phage's misrepresentations throughout this thread, it is a brown dwarf that Matese and Whitmire are and always were searching for.

I find it extremely interesting that shortly after the whole "brown dwarf controversy" erupted, EVERY reference (except one) to brown dwarfs in Matese and Whitmire's paper was removed, even though 'brown dwarf' is still seen in the title of their older papers.

My "goulash" is simply 30 years of observations similar to the oddity above. Why would it be necessary to remove every reference to a 'brown dwarf' in a scientific paper if something big that involved a brown dwarf wasn't going on? Why are these "diverse collection of hypothetical and imaginary celestial bodies" always named before they're even discovered? Is that the way it works with astronomical discoveries? And why do these mystery objects always seem to involve brown dwarfs, going back to a 1984 U.S. News and World Report article that specifically mentioned a brown dwarf as being one of the possibilities.

Tell me DJ, do you actually believe that after three infrared telescopes have been launched since the 1980s, a massive brown dwarf star that's only "theorized", but given various names and repeatedly said to reside in our solar system can't be found?

Excuse the corollary, but it's like the government claiming that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon while refusing to release any photos or CCTV videotapes that they confiscated minutes after the attack.

It just doesn't pass the smell test...

And Phage, don't bother. I'm only gonna respond to people who don't insult my intelligence.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

I find it extremely interesting that shortly after the whole "brown dwarf controversy" erupted, EVERY reference (except one) to brown dwarfs in Matese and Whitmire's paper was removed, even though 'brown dwarf' is still seen in the title of their older papers. /quote]
Are you trying to discredit these authors by stating that they do not understand that an object 1 to 4 Jm is far too small to be a brown dwarf? You'd have thought that a referee from a peer reviewed journal would have could that mistake.

Why would it be necessary to remove every reference to a 'brown dwarf' in a scientific paper

Because it was wrong. The hypothesized Tyche is 1/3 the mass of the small end of brown dwarfs.

a massive brown dwarf star that's only "theorized"

There you go telling lies, lies, lies. No one is suggesting massive brown dwarf. There have been suggestions of a brown dwarf, but no brown dwarfs on the large end of things.

[quotea massive brown dwarf star that's only "theorized", but given various names and repeatedly said to reside in our solar system can't be found?

Multiple lies here:
1. No single object
2. Not massive brown dwarf
3. Not given various names

Thanks for all the misrepresentations sock.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

What "brown dwarf controversy" is that and when did it erupt?

I have been looking through this thread and have to ask, Why does anyone believe that Never A Straight Answer (NASA), or for that matter any US government affiliated entity will divulge information of the type associated with the "myth" of 2012. If this event is, and I repeat IF, going to happen it would stand to reason that TPTB (The Powers That Be) would want it to stay mum as long as possible. The truth is, you can't milk a cow that is running. The structure of our current society, to have any chance of functioning, as far as the work-a-day way of tax and spend is concerned would come to a screeching halt. 6 and a half billion people freaking out in survival mode wouldn't be pretty. Why the seed bank is such a good idea now and not say 10, 20, 30 years ago. How long have we known about the Yucatan Peninsula and good by dinosaurs. I understand there is a zoo bank also. I would say I hate to be Captain Paranoia, but I have little faith in our "elected" representatives. This is speculation as I do not happen to have my own personal observatory, wish I did, but don't. I am well aware of the Y2K scare. When I think about it though, If I were aware of a cataclysmic event looming large; and I knew approximately when said event were to happen, I believe a trumped up “Global Event” to come and go without any trouble might be kind of handy for the purpose of say plausible deniability. TPTB have shown the value of the public at large on numerous occasions, if I am not mistaken. The list of time of the public at large being expendable is quite long, no. If you want only expert opinion so be it; careful to not be asleep at the wheel so to speak.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

I truly appreciate the depth of your scrutiny of the informstion "our" government allows to be divulged. We as member of this country and world have need of concern. The cloak of darkness laid over understanding is undeniable and excessive. the shame about this is the amount of time to prepare allowed to the commoners is almost a crime.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

What "brown dwarf controversy" is that and when did it erupt?

You see Phage things got a little out of control around here during your absence . And well umm, as you can see this is how crazy things can get if you're not here to keep us in line........... I swear that may sound funny but it's not really a joke.

Fleece
I swear Fleece that is pretty funny. I'm sorry. I apologise.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

Thank you for at least acknowledging that fact. I appreciate your not trying to constantly BS me. Despite Phage's misrepresentations throughout this thread, it is a brown dwarf that Matese and Whitmire are and always were searching for.

You're welcome. You did cite a source to back up that one claim. Fair is fair.

I find it extremely interesting that shortly after the whole "brown dwarf controversy" erupted, EVERY reference (except one) to brown dwarfs in Matese and Whitmire's paper was removed, even though 'brown dwarf' is still seen in the title of their older papers.

Matese and Whitmire simply stopped calling it a "brown dwarf" when they realized that it would not be massive enough to be classified as such.

My "goulash" is simply 30 years of observations similar to the oddity above. Why would it be necessary to remove every reference to a 'brown dwarf' in a scientific paper if something big that involved a brown dwarf wasn't going on? Why are these "diverse collection of hypothetical and imaginary celestial bodies" always named before they're even discovered? Is that the way it works with astronomical discoveries? And why do these mystery objects always seem to involve brown dwarfs, going back to a 1984 U.S. News and World Report article that specifically mentioned a brown dwarf as being one of the possibilities.

I'm not sure if your first question even makes sense. Undiscovered bodies are sometimes given tentative names by the scientists who propose them a) to avoid circumlocutions like "the hitherto undiscovered mass I am proposing" and b) to give the theorist a chance to commemorate something. When a new planet is actually discovered, the discoverer generally proposes a name, but it does not become official until the IAU votes on it. The dwarf planet Eris was initially named "Xena" by its discoverer, but the IAU didn't approve. The reason undiscovered brown dwarf stars became fashionable in the 1980's is because astronomers had only then realized that such an intermediary body could exist.

Tell me DJ, do you actually believe that after three infrared telescopes have been launched since the 1980s, a massive brown dwarf star that's only "theorized", but given various names and repeatedly said to reside in our solar system can't be found?

The fact that the entire sky has been mapped in the infra-red and no such body has yet been found suggests that the various theories were simply wrong.

Excuse the corollary, but it's like the government claiming that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon while refusing to release any photos or CCTV videotapes that they confiscated minutes after the attack.

It just doesn't pass the smell test...

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. In addition to the infra-red surveys, thousands of people observe the sky every night, people in no way associated with any government. With all these eyes watching, it is clear that any body that remains to be discovered in our solar system is either very small, very distant, or both.

reply to post by wacchfuleye61


Why would anyone think that it "stands to reason" that anyone would hide this information. The only reason I see that this claim is made is to support the hoax that is 2012. That is as far fetched as any of the notions of 2012. It amounts to attacking the messenger without understanding the nature of the claim.

6 and a half billion people freaking out in survival mode wouldn't be pretty.

That's probably true. That would be the case if a planet sized or larger mass were headed our way. Amateur astronomers would have detected an incoming object years ago. An incoming object would be naked eye visible right now if were to be here in 2012.

Why the seed bank is such a good idea now

The old seed bank claim. Every seed company in the world has its own seed bank. Even a friend of mine who sells seeds for desert plants has his own seed bank and has had it for decades. Larger companies have had one for a long, long time.

I would say I hate to be Captain Paranoia, but I have little faith in our "elected" representatives.

Starting thinking outside of the box. You're stunk in the cover up mode of thinking. You're stunk in the thinking that people can't operate outside of the confines of the government. Start looking at how many discoveries are done by amateurs. Think comets and Jupiter impacts.

You might not have a personal observatory, but your local astronomy club does. So get out there and join them and learn face to face how the "ebil gummint" cannot hide these sorts of things.

"NASA finds Tyche" - nope. I'm sick and tired of people putting their own meaning into the headlines. Nothing's been found yet.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

With all these eyes watching, it is clear that any body that remains to be discovered in our solar system is either very small, very distant, or both.

Would that include noticing a second sun in China?

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Let's all walk outside and view the second sun. There wasn't one? I checked myself and there is nothing there.

reply to post by stereologist

Were the atmospheric conditions the same as what was shown on Chinese television?

Or are you just parroting a foolish Cluckerspud comment?

reply to post by GoldenFleece


That has to be the nuttiest comment yet. You are claiming that this is an atmospheric effect? How do you know that?

reply to post by stereologist

Stop trying to twist my words, shill. People are on to you.

It's obvious that the two suns shown on Chinese TV can only be seen on partially overcast days.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


No one is twisting your words. You have done nothing but lie about newspaper articles for days.

Do how do you know anything about this second sun? How do you know it is an atmospheric effect? Here is what you stated:

Were the atmospheric conditions the same as what was shown on Chinese television?

Hmmm. People that repeated tell lies are caught time and time and time again.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Since you seem to be very confused, I will make an attempt to help you clarify your thoughts. The first step to understanding the true nature of reality is to know the difference between appearance and reality. The video you link to is an excellent example: it presents an image in it which appears as though there were two suns in the sky. Appearances can be deceiving. In this case, you must turn to your inner self first and ask: Am I really seeing this with my own eyes, or am I being presented with a fleeting, artificial image? A moment's meditation would reveal that if there were two suns in the sky, you should be able to see them yourself. Indeed, if there were truly two suns, everyone on Earth should be able to see them, therefore the video is some manner of illusion. Experience of the nature of optics allows one to conclude that this illusion is indeed not a sundog, but rather the result of the sun being bisected by something on the horizon and taking on what appears to be two circular aspects when magnified by the camera. The human mind is capable of revealing all mysteries in time.

As for your confusion about the different planets you have confounded, their names, their dates of discovery and so forth, it might help if one views them spread out first in terms of time, then in terms of space. Let us therefore create a timeline which clarifies how the existence of planets is predicted and confirmed and the various ways these planets were named.

July 5, 1687: Noted alchemist Sir Isaac Newton published

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

. on which he set forth the mathematical principles governing celestial motion. He deduced that all bodies possessing mass were linked together by an invisible force called "gravity." This force was proportional to the masses involved and acted over a distance without intermediation. His principles would make it possible to observe the actions of unseen bodies on those that were visible, permitting the discovery of new planets. Reference.

March 13. 1781: Sir William Herschel first observes a body he believes to be a comet. A Russian astronomer, Anders Johan Lexell, using Newton's equations, was the first to calculate its orbit and prove that it was indeed a new planet. Herschel named the new planet "Georgium Sidus," or "George's Star" after his monarch, King George III. Reference.

January 1, 1801: Giuseppe Piazzi first spots a small star of about 8th magnitude. Upon discovering that the star had changed positions when he tried to recover it the following night, he began to suspect it might be a comet. After plotting its path over several night, he concluded it must be a new planet. It's orbit was calculated and found to lie in a "gap" between Mars and Jupiter predicted by Bode's Law. He named the tiny new planet "Ceres Ferdinandea," after the Roman and Sicilian goddess of grain and King Ferdinand IV of Naples and Sicily. By 1807, three more such planetoids were found, all of them named after classical goddesses. Although they were initially called "planets," Sir William Herschel coined the term "asteroid" from the Greek αστεροειδής, asteroeidēs, "star-like." This term became universal by mid-century. Reference. Reference.

September 23, 1846: Johann Gottfried Galle (assisted by Heinrich D'Arrest), first observes a planet that had been predicted using Newton's equations by Urbain Le Verrier. The unseen body's presence was revealed by irregularities in the motion of George's Star, which was by then called "Uranus" by everyone but HM Nautical Atlas Office.Reference.

March 26, 1859: French amateur astronomer Edmond Modeste Lescarbault claims to have observed a transit of an intra-Mercurial planet predicted by Le Verrier. This planet was hypothesized to explain irregularities in the orbit of Mercury, using, once again, Newtons laws. As "discoverer," Lescarbault named this planet "Vulcan," Although other observers claimed to have made sporadic sightings over several decades, it was never officially confirmed. In 1915, Einsteins Theory of Relativity was able to account for the precession of Mercury's orbit without postulating the existence of Vulcan, and the planet lives on in fond memory as the Solar System's "ghost planet." Reference., PlanetVulcan.org. (I can't wait to get a planetvulcan,org e-mail address, can you?)

1906: Percival Lowell, eccentric American astronomer, dedicates his observatory to the search for a trans-Neptunian planet. It had been suspected for years due to perturbations in Neptune's orbit. Working with William Henry Pickering, they worked out possible locations for this hypothetical planet which the dubbed "Planet X," X being the mathematical symbol for "unknown."

February 18, 1930: Clyde Tombaugh, working at Lowell's Flagstaff Observatory, and using a device that compares photos taken on successive nights, spots a previously unknown body near where Lowell and Pickering's calculations predicted "Planet X" be found. By tradition, the observatory retained the right to name the new planet. There was a sort of contest held and the winning name, Pluto, was suggested by Venetia Burney, an eleven year old English school girl. The choice of name may have been influenced by the fact that the first two letters of Pluto commemorate the initials of Percival Lowell. Reference.

ca. 1962: Samael Aun Weor , born Víctor Manuel Gómez Rodríguez, begins to issue prophecies about a planet he calls Hercolubus:

Hercolubus is already coming, it is found in view by all the astronomers of planet Earth; it is gigantic, mighty, six times bigger than Jupiter and belongs to the Tyler solar system. It is not like many suppose, a dislocated planet of some solar system, no, it is not dislocated; it spins around the gravitational center of the Tyler solar system. Before long, that gigantic world will pass on an angle of our solar system, then the catastrophe will be precipitated. In celestial mechanics, Hercolubus helps verticalize the poles, it is a piece of the great machine. The approach of Hercolubus is at our door. In the year 1999, Hercolubus will be visible before all human beings and every eye will see it, and in plain midday it will appear like another sun. When Hercolubus passes near the Earth, it will obviously precipitate the catastrophe. This gigantic world has an extraordinary power of attraction.

The End Times

Weor was highly influenced by Madame Blavatsky, so it is unclear whether he believes that Hercolubus and it's primary, Tylo, exists on this "vibrational plane" or not. Elsewhere, he says:

An unusual event is going to accelerate the process of swift change to the axis of the planet Earth.
I am referring to the planet Hercolubus.
This planet is six times bigger than the planet Jupiter.
The planet Hercolubus belongs to the distant solar system of Tylo. The solar system of Tylo is rapidly approaching our solar system, and Hercolubus is rapidly approaching Earth.
Modern Astronomers have before their sight the planet Hercolubus, or as it is known by modern science, the Barnard star.
This planet is a powerful giant that will pass through an angle of our solar system. When this happens, the revolution of the axis of the planet Earth will accelerate violently.
Then the final catastrophe will occur.
Some scientists believe that they will be able to push this monstrous planet away with nuclear explosions, but this will be useless. It will be impossible to push this tremendous mass of a planet out of the way with mere nuclear bombs.
This same planet brought Atlantis to an end. Before Atlantis existed, it annihilated the existence of another continent. We know very well that the continent of Mu or Lemuria sank within the waters of the boisterous pacific ocean after 10,000 years of earthquakes and incessant volcanic eruptions.

Source.

Unfortunately, this has taken rather longer than I expected, but I will continue laying out this timelline later, starting with theorizing about the possibility of brown dwarfs in 1963. I hope this is of help in getting your thoughts together.

Nasa did not confirm or denied still too soon for either of the answers check

dailycosmicnews.blogspot.com...