NIBIRU AT LAST?? Brazilian Astronomer claims have found rogue planet hidden behind Neptune.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


So let me ask you this, and try to respond truthfully.

Were you one of those people claiming "THERE CAN BE NO OTHER LARGE PLANETS IN SOLAR SYSTEM BECAUSE BLAH BLAH BLAH"?

How do you know for certain that whatever planet this is could not come close enough to cause disasters in the planets in the inner Solar System?

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

So let me ask you this, and try to respond truthfully.

Were you one of those people claiming "THERE CAN BE NO OTHER LARGE PLANETS IN SOLAR SYSTEM BECAUSE BLAH BLAH BLAH"?

How do you know for certain that whatever planet this is could not come close enough to cause disasters in the planets in the inner Solar System?

I never said that there can be no such thing as another large planet in the solar system.

Sure -- I suppose it is possible that there is some "planet" (or something) out there that could potentially come in close, disrupting the inner planets. I'm open minded about this Brazilian astronomer's ideas, just like I'm open minded about the possible existence of the hypothetical planet "Tyche" as proposed by John Matese and Daniel Whitmire, or the Japanese astronomers and their potential "Planet X" that they say may reside out in the Kuiper belt. However, a lot of things are possible, and things I could wildly speculate about being possible are not necessarily so.

Other large astronomical bodies have recently been discovered in the solar system, but none of them are Nibiru. Eris and Sedna are two that immediately come to mind. Eris, discovered in 2005, has its own moon and is potentially larger than Pluto. However, there was no speculation that it would ramble through the inner solar system wreaking havoc.

The mere act calculating the potential existence of a large celestial body somewhere out beyond Neptune does not suddenly make that object "rogue". If these calculations turn out to be accurate, and that planet does exist, then it has been their for billions of years. The act of discovering it today does not suddenly make it want to tear through the inner part of the solar system. If this planet does exist, then it doesn't care about this Brazilian astronomer and his calculations. It will just keep doing what it's always been doing.

So I'm not sure how this Brazilian Astronomer's work (no matter how accurate or inaccurate his idea turns out to be) would suddenly make the possible existence of Nibiru any more likely.

Originally posted by stereologist
By people that don't know what they are talking about. Planet X has nothing at all to do with Nibiru. The evidence that Planet X might have existed was shown to be wrong in 1987. Nothing has ever shown Nibiru to be possible.

So claims "stereologist" despite what REAL scientists have found...

Constraints on planet X/Nemesis from Solar System's inner dynamics

Author: Iorio, L.

Source: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 400, Number 1, November 2009 , pp. 346-353(8)

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell

Abstract:

We use the corrections to the standard Newtonian/Einsteinian perihelion precessions of the inner planets of the Solar system, recently estimated by E.V. Pitjeva by fitting a huge planetary data set with the dynamical models of the EPM ephemerides, to put constraints on the position of a putative, yet undiscovered large body X of mass MX, not modelled in the EPM software. The direct action of X on the inner planets can be approximated by a elastic Hooke-type radial acceleration plus a term of comparable magnitude having a fixed direction in space pointing towards X. The perihelion precessions induced by them can be analytically worked out only for some particular positions of X in the sky; in general, numerical calculations are used. We show that the indirect effects of X on the inner planets through its action on the outer ones can be neglected, given the present-day level of accuracy in knowing . As a result, we find that Mars yields the tightest constraints, with the tidal parameter . To constrain rX we consider the case of a rock-ice planet with the mass of Mars and the Earth, a giant planet with the mass of Jupiter, a brown dwarf with MX= 80mJupiter , a red dwarf with M= 0.5 M⊙ and a Sun-mass body. For each of them we plot rminX as a function of the heliocentric latitude β and longitude λ. We also determine the forbidden spatial region for X by plotting its boundary surface in the three-dimensional space; it shows significant departures from spherical symmetry. A Mars-sized body can be found at not less than 70-85 au: such bounds are 147-175 au, 1006-1200 au, 4334-5170 au, 8113-9524 au and 10 222-12 000 au for a body with a mass equal to that of the Earth, Jupiter, a brown dwarf, red dwarf and the Sun, respectively.

www.ingentaconnect.com...

To summarize according to Iorio, and this older research paper he made.

A Mars-sized body can be found at not less than 70-85au
An Earth-sized body at 147-175au
A Jupiter-sized body at 1006-1200au
A brown dwarf at 4334-5170au
A Red Dwarf at 8113-9524au
A Sun-sized stellar object at 10222-12000au

...
The reason for this is totally unclear. One may speculate that an unknown gravitational field within the Solar system slightly redirects the incoming cosmic microwave radiation (in the similar way as a motion with a certain velocity with respect to the rest frame of the cosmological background redirects the cosmic background radiation and leads to modifications of the dipole and quadrupole parts). Such a redirection should be more pronounced for low–l components of the radiation. It should be possible to calculate the gravitational field needed for such a redirection and then to compare that with the observational data of the Solar system and the other observed anomalies.
...

arxiv.org...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Wrong, Planet X is also another name which had been given to Nibiru.

Absolutely wrong. You need to learn that different names are given to hypothetical planets. Planet X is not Nibitu, which has never been hypothetical. It is pure fiction. Planet X is not Tyche or Nemesis or this hypothetical planet in this thread. All are different with different properties.

BTW, those who disagreed were ALWAYS claiming "THERE CAN BE NO OTHER LARGE PLANET OUT THERE BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE KNOWN BY NOW" and look at where we are now... More and more evidence says the contrary to the claims of PROBABLY people like yourself who have claimed "NO LARGE PLANET CAN EXISTS IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM".

Simply more confusion. You are wrong yet again.

The claim is that there can be NO unknown planet that has an orbit that enters the orbits of the known planets. Check this hypothetical planet again. If it exists it is far enough out so that it has evaded detection up till now. It has a predicted orbit that does NOT enter the orbits of the known planets. The planet does NOT have a regular orbit.

And btw, it has EVERYTHING to do with Nibiru, if you would read the scientific peer-reviewed papers I have given about this topic you would know that scientists are saying that some LARGE unknown gravitational source in our Solar System is affecting comets, satellites, and it seems to be also affecting the distance between the Sun and planets.

Please reread the papers. This has NOTHING to do with Sitchin's fictional planet. Scientists have proposed unknown planets for various reasons. Some of the papers have been found to be wrong as was the case with Nemesis. Tyche does not appear to exist. It has not been seen in the WISE data.

Did you miss the part where your article says SOME crocodiles?... Which means MANY others were about the same size as today's crocs...

Crocs are not dinosaurs the article even states that.

Large 'Planet X' May Lurk Beyond Pluto
By Ker Than,LiveScience
Posted: 2008-06-19 17:56:30
Filed Under: Science News

(June 19) - An icy, unknown world might lurk in the distant reaches of our solar system beyond the orbit of Pluto, according to a new computer model.


The hidden world -- thought to be much bigger than Pluto based on the model -- could explain unusual features of the Kuiper Belt, a region of space beyond Neptune littered with icy and rocky bodies. Its existence would satisfy the long-held hopes and hypotheses for a "Planet X" envisioned by scientists and sci-fi buffs alike.

"Although the search for a distant planet in the solar system is old, it is far from over," said study team member Patryk Lykawka of Kobe University in Japan.

The model, created by Lykawka and Kobe University colleague Tadashi Mukai, is detailed in a recent issue of Astrophysical Journal.

If the new world is confirmed, it would not be technically a planet. Under a controversial new definition adopted by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) last week, it would instead be the largest known "plutoid."

The Kuiper Belt contains many peculiar features that cant be explained by standard solar system models. One is the highly irregular orbits of some of the belts members.

The most famous is Sedna, a rocky object located three times farther from the sun than Pluto. Sedna takes 12,000 years to travel once around the Sun, and its orbit ranges from 80 to 100 astronomical units (AU). One AU is equal to the distance between the Earth and the Sun.

Possible Planet X

6 The increase of the Astronomical Unit

6.1 The observation

From the analysis of radiometric measurements of distances between the Earth and the major planets including observations from Martian orbiters and landers from 1961 to 2003 a secular increase of the Astronomical Unit of approximately 10 m/cy has been reported (36) (see also the article (37) and the discussion therein).

6.2 Search for explanation

Time–dependent gravitational constant and velocity of light This increase cannot be explained by a time–dependent gravitational constant G because the ˙ G/G needed is larger than the restrictions obtained from LLR.

It has also been speculated that a time–dependent change in the velocity of light can be responsible for this effect. Indeed, if the speed of light becomes smaller, than ranging will simulate a drift of distances. However, a inspection of Kepler’s third law
T2 4π2
a3 = GM⊙

(17)
12

shows that, if one replaces the distance a by a ranging time a = ct, then effectively the quotient G/c3 appears. Only this combination of the gravitational constant and the speed of light governs the ratio between the orbit time, in our case the orbit time of the Earth. Consequently, a time–dependent speed of light is equivalent to a time–dependent gravitational constant. Since the latter has been ruled out to be possibly responsible for an increase of the Astronomical Unit, also a time–dependent speed of light has to be ruled out.

Cosmic expansion The influence of cosmic expansion by many orders of magnitude too small, see Sec.9.2. Neither the modification of the gravitational field of the Sun nor the drag of the planetary orbits due to the expansion is big enough to explain this drift.

Clock drift An increase of ranged distances might also be due to a drift of the time scale of the form t → t + αt2 for α > 0. This is of the same form as the time drift needed to account for the Pioneer anomaly. From Kepler’s third law one may ask which α is suitable in order to simulate the increase of the Astronomical Unit. One obtains α ≈ 3 · 10−20 s−1 what is astonishing close to the clock drift needed for a clock drift simulation of the pioneer anomaly, see Eq.(16) and below.
7 The quadrupole and octupule anomaly Recently an anomalous behavior of the low–l contributions to the cosmic microwave background has been reported. It has been shown that (i) there exists an alignment between the quadrupole and octupole with > 99.87% C.L. [38], and (ii) that the quadrupole and octupole are aligned to Solar system ecliptic to > 99% C.L. [39]. No correlation with the galactic plane has been found.

The reason for this is totally unclear. One may speculate that an unknown gravitational field within the Solar system slightly redirects the incoming cosmic microwave radiation (in the similar way as a motion with a certain velocity with respect to the rest frame of the cosmological background redirects the cosmic background radiation and leads to modifications of the dipole and quadrupole parts). Such a redirection should be more pronounced for low–l components of the radiation. It should be possible to calculate the gravitational field needed for such a redirection and then to compare that with the observational data of the Solar system and the other observed anomalies.

..........................
8.2 Other anomalies?
There is one further observation which status is rather unclear bit which perhaps may fit into the other observations. This is the observation of the return time of comets: Comets usually come back a few days before they are expected when applying ordinary equations of motion. The delay usually is assigned to the outgassing of these objects. In fact, the delay is used for an estimate of the strength of this outgassing. On the other hand, it has been calculated in (44) that the assumption that starting with 20 AU there is an additional acceleration of the order of the Pioneer anomaly also leads to the effect that comets come back a few days earlier. It is not clear whether this is a serious indications but a further study of the trajectories of comets certainly is worthwhile.

arxiv.org...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Were you one of those people claiming "THERE CAN BE NO OTHER LARGE PLANETS IN SOLAR SYSTEM BECAUSE BLAH BLAH BLAH"?

How do you know for certain that whatever planet this is could not come close enough to cause disasters in the planets in the inner Solar System?

What sorts of disasters are you talking about? Are you one of those people claiming that one planets causes quakes on the other?

Secular increase of the astronomical unit and perihelion precessions as tests of the Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati multi-dimensional braneworld scenario
Lorenzo Iorio JCAP09(2005)006 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2005/09/006


PDF (313 KB) | HTML | References | Articles citing this article



Lorenzo Iorio
Viale Unità di Italia 68, 70125, Bari, Italy
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract. An unexpected secular increase of the astronomical unit, the length scale of the Solar System, has recently been reported by three different research groups (Krasinsky and Brumberg, Pitjeva, Standish). The latest JPL measurements amount to 7 ± 2 m cy−1. At present, there are no explanations able to accommodate such an observed phenomenon, either in the realm of classical physics or in the usual four-dimensional framework of the Einsteinian general relativity. The Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati braneworld scenario, which is a multi-dimensional model of gravity aimed at providing an explanation of the observed cosmic acceleration without dark energy, predicts, among other things, a perihelion secular shift, due to Lue and Starkman, of 5 × 10−4 arcsec cy−1 for all the planets of the Solar System. It yields a variation of about 6 m cy−1 for the Earth–Sun distance which is compatible with the observed rate of change for the astronomical unit. The recently measured corrections to the secular motions of the perihelia of the inner planets of the Solar System are in agreement with the predicted value of the Lue–Starkman effect for Mercury, Mars and, at a slightly worse level, the Earth.

www.iop.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Another discovery he made is the following.

...
Within the Newtonian framework, we considered the action of a circular massive ring modeling the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt of Trans-Neptunian Objects, but it does not induce secular variations of e. In principle, a viable candidate would be a putative trans-Plutonian massive object (PlanetX/Nemesis/Tyche), recently revamped to accommodate certain features of the architecture of the Kuiper belt and of the distribution of the comets in the Oort cloud, since it would cause a non-vanishing long-term variation of the eccentricity.Actually, the values for its mass and distance needed to explain the empirically determined increase of the lunar eccentricity would be highly unrealistic and in contrast with the most recent viable theoretical scenarios for the existence of such a body. For example, a terrestrial-sized body should be located at just 30 au, while an object with the mass of Jupiter should be at 200 au.
...

arxiv.org...

Another link to the same research paper which is from 2011.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

This would put an Earth size object right on Neptune's orbit which is at around 30 AU. But of course this would be impossible since any amateur astronomer should be able to see it almost as easy as Neptune can be seen with an amateur telescope.

Now, meanwhile a gas giant at 200 AU should be seen, you would need a telescope with a large aperture. But the thing is, what if it is not just a simple gas giant? what if it is a failed/dead star, maybe a brown dwarf within 200-300 AU? or it could be farther away, but still within the Solar System.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e7a026f2e28d.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


If another large planet exists out there -- and as i said above, some astronomers think calculations show it is entirely possible -- then that planet has existed for a long, long time. Therefore, if another planet exists, the solar system is the way solar system is (and always has been) because of that planet, not in spite of it. In the billions of years of that planet's existence, what would cause it to suddenly have a disastrous effect on the inner solar system, and why now?

Originally posted by stereologist
None of the animals you list are dinosaurs. They are not related to dinosaurs. Please learn why lizards are not dinosaurs. Sharks are NOT even air breathing. Sheeesh ...

First of all alligators and crocs are not lizards...they are reptiles who lay eggs... Since crocs and alligators have existed for millions of years and are reptiles, and the definition of dinosaur is "terrible reptile" (although originally the definition was "terrible lizard") alligators and crocs are modern day dinosaurs... Sheeesh...

Second of all, some species of BIRDS are considered dinosaurs, yet birds, even prehistoric birds are NOT reptiles, so there are dinosaurs that are NOT reptiles...

Third of all, sharks are a species of animal which has existed for millions of years and haven't changed much. Today you can find some great whites and other species of sharks which are almost as large as their prehistoric relatives. I included sharks, and prehistoric fish as a hint that since some of these animals have existed for millions of years and still exist today, it is very possible that other species of animals, including some other dinosaurs can still exist but we haven't been able to see them.

Originally posted by stereologist
I suppose this was a joke on your part.

What is a joke that a prehistoric shark which has existed for millions of years ago still exists now?... i gave evidence of it...

Please take the time to learn why your commentary is pointless. I am sure I know much more about ancient creatures still found today than you do. Take crinoids as an example.

Yeah, I can see that you know much about animals when you claimed that alligators and crocs are "lizards"...

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

If another large planet exists out there -- and as i said above, some astronomers think calculations show it is entirely possible -- then that planet has existed for a long, long time. Therefore, if another planet exists, the solar system is the way solar system is (and always has been) because of that planet, not in spite of it. In the billions of years of that planet's existence, what would cause it to suddenly have a disastrous effect on the inner solar system, and why now?

........
Alan Boss, a planet-formation theorist at the Carnegie Institute in Washington, DC, agrees that a passing star or dense cloud of gas is the more likely cause for Sednas strange travels. Boss said it would be "hard to imagine" forming an Earth-sized object out where the interaction would have taken place.

Region to explore

But Brown said there is one unexplored region of space left, amounting to about 20 percent of the sky, that hasnt been searched for an Earth-sized object that would be orbiting at 70 AU and presumably in the main plane of the solar system. It is the region toward the bright galactic center, which is harder to search.

www.space.com...

In that same link it can be read that...

Browns team said they thought Sedna should be counted as the first known object of the otherwise theoretical Oort Cloud. The distant reservoir of small icy objects is thought to exist based on the orbits of some comets that zoom through the inner solar system now and then, and then disappear into deep space.

Nobody knows what's actually in the Oort Cloud, however.

"I would say that is likely" Stern said in regards to possible Earth-sized planets in the Oort Cloud. In the early years of the solar system, he explained, objects as massive as Earth are thought to have hit Uranus and Neptune. Computer simulations show most of the hypothetical Earth-mass objects "would be ejected from the outer planets region, not accumulated in Uranus and Neptune, so we could someday find these frozen relics in the Oort Cloud."
....

www.space.com...


We know for a fact that some planets/objects have hit at least Uranus and Neptune, and although it is BELIEVED this happened in the early years of the Solar System how do we know this for certain?

Also, there are different results in the calculations, some which show the possible existance of a brown dwarf and others which show at least another planet as large or larger than Earth existing in our Solar System. Is it that inconcievable that a brown dwarf and at least another large planet BOTH exist in the outer limits of our Solar System?


Isn't it possible that a brown dwarf, the companion to our Sun, could have other objects/planets revolving around it and in the distanc past some of these objects collided with other planets in the Solar System? Remember that some planets have orbits that take them thousands of years to completely revolve around the sun.

The asteroid belt itself could have been the result of one of these ancient collisions between planets.

BTW, take a look again at these pictures of the orbit of Sedna, which seems to be revolving around an object large or dense enough to keep it in it's elongated orbit, and take a look at how far is Sedna, and it's elongated orbit, to how far is the inner extent of the Oort cloud in our Solar System.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e7a026f2e28d.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


OK -- so you are telling me that this is possible. I'm not disputing that. I'm just asking for evidence that makes this simply more than just a possibility.

Again, giving calculations and other evidence of potential objects out there does not make Nibiru (as characterized by Sitchin) any more likely. For example, say this was 1845, and only seven planets are known to exist. Using your logic, the calculations that showed the potential existence of Neptune in 1845 would suddenly make the existence of Nibiru more likely. If we used your logic, why would the calculated existence of yet-to-be-discovered Neptune suddenly make the existence Nibiru more likely?

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

So claims "stereologist" despite what REAL scientists have found...

Please tell me about what some REAL scientists have found. I would love to fix more of your mistakes.

To summarize according to Iorio, and this older research paper he made.

A Mars-sized body can be found at not less than 70-85au
An Earth-sized body at 147-175au
A Jupiter-sized body at 1006-1200au
A brown dwarf at 4334-5170au
A Red Dwarf at 8113-9524au
A Sun-sized stellar object at 10222-12000au

BTW, I am the person who pointed you to this paper. I also pointed out that these constraints were weaker than the constrains imposed by Project PAN-STARRS. As I recall you have a difficult time understanding that weaker constraints are trumped by stronger constraints.

For example, a Sun-sized object at 1/3 of a light year would be detected easily by small telescopes. Even early whole sky surveys would have detected such an object. Due to the brightness of such an object it would have attracted attention. Parallax would show such a bright object to be quite close. Such an object would have been well known even in ancients timers because it would be bright to the unaided eye.

So yes, there are much better constraints than those calculated in the given paper.

As for the final speculation. It doe snot mean that this is so. It simply means that if you made the following guess then ... This speculation is based on what is termed a recently noticed anomaly. The paper begins with the Pioneer anomaly which has been worked out and has a prosaic explanation.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Your link simply supplies another in a long list of possible new bodies in the solar system none of which could be Nibiru. The object is far away and never ever enters the orbits of the known planets. It might affect us indirectly on a very long time scale. The only evidence so far is a vague suggestion from a computer program. There just might be something out. If it is it will always be very very far out there.

Posting anomalies has no bearing on a new planet does it? Simply pointing out that there are things we do no understand is pretty obvious isn't it? It makes for interesting research. It doesn't make for a new planet.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Now, meanwhile a gas giant at 200 AU should be seen, you would need a telescope with a large aperture. But the thing is, what if it is not just a simple gas giant? what if it is a failed/dead star, maybe a brown dwarf within 200-300 AU? or it could be farther away, but still within the Solar System.

It would have been trivially detected by any of the whole sky surveys that have ever existed.

Brown dwarfs are effectively gas giants. Your previous link to a paper by the same authors tells us that no such object can be that close and not affect the orbits of the known planets.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

First of all alligators and crocs are not lizards...they are reptiles who lay eggs... Since crocs and alligators have existed for millions of years and are reptiles, and the definition of dinosaur is "terrible reptile" (although originally the definition was "terrible lizard") alligators and crocs are modern day dinosaurs... Sheeesh...

That is the funniest thing I have read for a while.

No they are not dinosaurs. Please learn what a dinosaur is. You'll be so embarrassed when you finally learn what a dinosaur is.

Second of all, some species of BIRDS are considered dinosaurs, yet birds, even prehistoric birds are NOT reptiles, so there are dinosaurs that are NOT reptiles...

WRONG. You've got to take the time to learn something about biology. I am at a loss at this complete and utter ignorance of the situation.

Third of all, sharks are a species of animal which has existed for millions of years and haven't changed much. Today you can find some great whites and other species of sharks which are almost as large as their prehistoric relatives. I included sharks, and prehistoric fish as a hint that since some of these animals have existed for millions of years and still exist today, it is very possible that other species of animals, including some other dinosaurs can still exist but we haven't been able to see them.

Not possible. Dinosaurs are air breathers. They can't hide. No breeding population could exist without having been detected.

What is a joke that a prehistoric shark which has existed for millions of years ago still exists now?... i gave evidence of it...

You might want to learn about Steno and the tongue rocks of Malta. Of course I know sharks are relatively unchanged. I collected a 26My old great white tooth. Your posting has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion.

Yeah, I can see that you know much about animals when you claimed that alligators and crocs are "lizards"..

I never stated that. But you did say they were dinosaurs. Now off you go and get a book and learn something about biology.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Your link is no good. No matter. That reference to Brown about a region of space has now been covered.

Posting data is okay, but out of date material doesn't help matters.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Soylent Green is People remember that the orbital properties ascribed to Nibiru are demonstrably impossible. That was shown decades ago when Sitchin first published his fiction.

A planet with a highly eccentric orbit cannot have a stable 3600 year orbit. It changes due to a transfer of momentum to the Sun. Shoemaker showed this to be the case. It is why in part Nemesis was dropped. That required a stable 26My orbit.

I have yet to see a YouTube video posted by a scientist with credentials that purports to show Wormwood/Nibiru. All I can find are sensationalistic videos posted by geeks who have no education in astronomy or celestial mechanics whatsoever.

I'm trying to be open-minded about Wormwood/Nibiru, but it's frustrating when there is no one with an education in celestial mechanics who can calmly and logically present models that show it is even possible. Enthusiasts talk about the 3,600 Earth years elongated, regular and consistent orbit. Someone with a degree in astronomy who believes this is possible, please show me a suggested model and explain it. If anyone has a degree in astronomy believes that no, it isn't 3,600 years like clockwork, it's 26 million years --- fine, post a model and explain how that works.

We've had one excuse after another as to why this supposedly dangerous miniature solar system can't be seen or detected. It's a brown dwarf that doesn't emit light, so that's why we can't see it. It can be seen, but only if the observer is at the South Pole. Hold on, no, we can't see it because it is hidden by the sun. Can't you see why this all sounds like B.S.? Several supposed Wormwood/Nibiru apocalypse years, like 2009, have come and gone. It gets tiresome.

Like I said, I am trying to be open-minded, but I need to hear more from real astronomers. The ones with credentials in celestial mechanics. Are any out there reading this? If so, I would like your fact based opinion. All I hear is that Nibiru will just suddenly show up "like a thief in the night" on 12/21/12. Who would like to show us a scientific model supporting that? Not some dude posting amateur videos saying "see that right there, guys? Looks like the Pepsi logo! What is that thing?!?!" Then there's Lucus and his ridiculously stupid bug out bag.

Rant over.

everytime someone says they found nibiru it ends up being fake because there is no proof of it because it is impossible to see it.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Soylent Green is People remember that the orbital properties ascribed to Nibiru are demonstrably impossible. That was shown decades ago when Sitchin first published his fiction.

A planet with a highly eccentric orbit cannot have a stable 3600 year orbit. It changes due to a transfer of momentum to the Sun. Shoemaker showed this to be the case. It is why in part Nemesis was dropped. That required a stable 26My orbit.

Thank you for this -- I'll look into that information about Nibiru's orbit being impossible.

My point is more general, though. I'm simply saying that just because an astronomer (such as the Brazilian one in the OP) finds evidence that another plant may exist, that doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with Nibiru.

Like I said in one of my posts above, at one time Neptune was the "as of yet undiscovered planet X" whose existence was calculated, but not yet confirmed to exist. If some of these Nibiru believers were around in the 1843 when the possible existence of Neptune was first proposed, they would have been saying:

OMG!!! Astronomers have evidence that another planet exists...it must be Nibiru!!!