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

Originally posted by stereologist

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

You fix?... naaa, more like twist until you break the truth and turn it into a lie....

Originally posted by stereologist
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.

So, because you MIGTH have given that link it means you are right?... No, more so when your reading comprehension is really lacking.

I remember well you claiming that no large planet or a brown dwarf could exist in those distances, and all the evidence you gave was your opinion...

Originally posted by stereologist
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.

A brown dwarf is NOWHERE near the size of a star or any Sun-size object, and there are brown dwarves that are so faint that you MIGHT only detect them in infrared, depending on the area they are.

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

Like I tried to inform you in the past in order for any scientific data to be replaced by new sets you actually need to be able to replicate the results more than once... In fact several times, otherwise either the smaller constraints or the larger ones could be right... It is called the scientific method. Maybe you heard of it.

Originally posted by stereologist
The paper begins with the Pioneer anomaly which has been worked out and has a prosaic explanation.

Many times there have been claims made that the "pioneer anomalies has been explained already" yet even NASA doesn't think so, and neither do other scientists who don't work for NASA...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by stereologist
The paper begins with the Pioneer anomaly which has been worked out and has a prosaic explanation.

Many times there have been claims made that the "pioneer anomalies has been explained already" yet even NASA doesn't think so, and neither do other scientists who don't work for NASA...

False diochotomy argument.
I see this a lot with young earth creationists.
The argument goes along the lines of "If they dont agree with you, they must agree with me."

So here we have Electric Universe saying, in effect, "NASA dont believe the anomaly has been explained, therefore NASA agree it could be Nibiru."

Wrong in so many ways.
I'll list just one...
1. The "Pioneer Anomaly" is an unknown force that points back directly towards the centre of the solar system. Something like drag, or a retardation force on the spacecraft.
NOT explainable at all by an undiscovered browndwarfdeathstarnibiruplanet further out.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

So, because you MIGTH have given that link it means you are right?... No, more so when your reading comprehension is really lacking.

No. It simply means I am familiar with the paper. As far as reading comprehension is concerned, the issue is that the constraints in that paper are smaller than the constraints imposed by observations in the IR, optical, and other parts of the EM spectrum.

I remember well you claiming that no large planet or a brown dwarf could exist in those distances, and all the evidence you gave was your opinion...

Then I suggest you tune up your reading comprehension and go back and see that I posted information from whole sky surveys. The issue boiled down to you using the weakest constraint and being unable to understand how basic math works when there are multiple constraints.

A brown dwarf is NOWHERE near the size of a star or any Sun-size object, and there are brown dwarves that are so faint that you MIGHT only detect them in infrared, depending on the area they are.

Please go back and read for a change. I specifically made a reference to a Sun sized object, i.e. much bigger than a brown dwarf. You even quoted me writing "a Sun-sized object ".

Who is telling lies?

Like I tried to inform you in the past in order for any scientific data to be replaced by new sets you actually need to be able to replicate the results more than once... In fact several times, otherwise either the smaller constraints or the larger ones could be right... It is called the scientific method. Maybe you heard of it.

Sorry, but the higher constraints existed in IRIS, WISE, LINEAR, STARR-PANS and many other systems. So once again you need to work on the information I have already provided to you.

Many times there have been claims made that the "pioneer anomalies has been explained already" yet even NASA doesn't think so, and neither do other scientists who don't work for NASA...

The group that had access to more data than anyone else has shown quite well how the Pioneer anomaly is explained. There will always be a few holdouts like you that prefer to leave it as an anomaly. That's okay. You just get left in the dust as the scientific method is applied. Maybe you heard of it.

PS> Did you finally figure out what a dinosaur is?

I suppose only two points can be proven, or have been;

1- past civilizations have met catastrophic ends?

2- nobody has lived to see what causes these catastrophic ends and lived to tell about it?

So, I'm guessing we're not supposed to be able to see it coming, as it seems to come like a thief in the night, if it comes at all...

It's probably been here the whole time but we just don't know how to recognize it?

reply to post by loveguy


Some cultures or civilizations met catastrophic ends. Most simply changed. We see a culture or civilization by the things they made. If they changed their style, then we see a different culture or civilization.

A typical catastrophe would have been warfare.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


As stated by MANY members on here IF Nibiru existed it would cause problems with the orbits of the planets now since you seem to think your a expert on this when will it appear and when it doesn't we can put your BS to rest

NASA has already basically admitted that if a planet X does exist that it would very difficult for them to detect it.
www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Tardacus
NASA has already basically admitted that if a planet X does exist that it would very difficult for them to detect it.

As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread so far, there are many different meanings of the term "Planet X".

Which one are YOU using in that sentence?
Be specific.

I live in Marquette, Michigan. Today 9/14/12 I was riding my bicycle around Presque Isle park and decided to stop and take some pictures of the sun. It was about 7:20 pm or so. These are the pictures that I took:

Spamming thread after thread with reflections photos. Why?

Originally posted by Tardacus
NASA has already basically admitted that if a planet X does exist that it would very difficult for them to detect it.
www.nasa.gov...

Misquoting a NASA source again. Nowhere in that article did they say that it would be very difficult for them to detect it. What they are saying is that WISE is able to detect such an object, but it would take them a long time to sift through all the data WISE produced.

While the possibility of a planet way out there is scientifically acceptable, the possibility of Nibiru (a planet on a stable 3,600 year orbit that takes it close to Earth) goes against all known laws of celestial mechanics.

reply to post by stereologist

Same mistake I did few weeks ago. Clarify yourself by making such fotos to any other lighting source, a lamp for example. You will see the same effect like with the Sun in your photos. It is a camera effect.