Nasa to debunk 2012 apocalypse myths

recall15

recall15

Dimensional Traveler
Quoted:
WASHINGTON — The world is not coming to an end on December 21, 2012, the US space agency insisted Monday in a rare campaign to dispel widespread rumors fueled by the Internet and a new Hollywood movie.

The latest big screen offering from Sony Picture, "2012," arrives in theaters on Friday, with a 200-million-dollar production about the end of the world supposedly based on myths backed by the Mayan calendar.

The doomsday scenario revolves around claims that the end of time will come as an obscure Planet X -- or Nibiru -- heads toward or collides with Earth.

The mysterious planet was supposedly discovered by the Sumerians, according to claims by pseudo-scientists, paranormal activity enthusiasts and Internet theorists.

Some websites accuse NASA of concealing the truth on the wayward planet's existence, but the US space agency denounced such stories as an "Internet hoax."

end quoted
from:
Link to Rawstory.com

Well, NASA will be OWn3d by the Planet with no name soon... :D
 
Well, NASA will be OWn3d by the Planet with no name soon...
Click to expand...


There's one teeny little problem with Planet X.

If it's going to hit us in just 3 years.....it OUGHT to be visible NOW...even in my own small telescope at home ( which can pick up Neptune easily ). At 3 years distance...Planet X should be somewhere out by Jupiter right now....and easily visible in even the smallest amateur telescope.

There's thousands of amateurs right now glued to the skies looking for comets and asteroids. Howcome none of them can see Planet X ? It does not need NASA to announce things......NASA has nothing to do with naming new planets.

Some people give a load of BS about Planet X coming round from the other side of the sun. But even that is nonsense....as the Earth moves in its orbit so it is impossible for any object that is going to collide with us to be hidden in that way.

What is Whackiest about all the Planet X stuff is that one is NOT reliant on NASA or the big observatories to spot Planet X. There's a huge network of amateurs across the world...thousands of them. One needs only a small ( 6 inch or so ) telescope to spot Neptune.....and even an 8 inch telescope can spot tiny little Pluto which is 7 times further away than Jupiter. Many amateurs have even larger telescopes....getting towards professional observatory size. Not one of them has spotted Planet X.
 
planet X does not necessarily need to be visible now. It could be hiding behind the sun. Remember when Apollo sling-shotted around the moon? Falling directly toward it, but off a little and using gravity to sling-shot back to Earth? Why can't a stellar object behind the sun right now being doing the same?

It's like being chased by the cops down a street (astronomers looking in sky), and you duck behind a large tree (the sun) and as the cop car races by, you round the tree such that you are always invisible to cops. I'm not admitting anything, just saying an object behind sun in an arc similar to but opposite, the arc the sight line makes between earth and sun over time as the earth swings in its orbit, would be invisible to us until we only had 1-3 weeks notice.
 
planet X does not necessarily need to be visible now. It could be hiding behind the sun. Remember when Apollo sling-shotted around the moon? Falling directly toward it, but off a little and using gravity to sling-shot back to Earth? Why can't a stellar object behind the sun right now being doing the same?
Click to expand...

Hmmm.

Trouble is....it would have to be behind the sun for the entire year as the Earth goes round the sun. Now the only way that could happen would be if it was in exactly the same orbit as Earth...but on the other side of the sun. And the problem with that is...it would then never collide with the Earth.

Any object further out from the sun than Earth would, by definition, become visible as the Earth went round the sun......as it would have a slower orbit.

Also.....Planet X is supposed to be coming in from a long way off. That means by definition it would have a very elongated orbit and would thus remain in one part of the sky for a long time. Such an object could not possibly hide behind the sun.....as the part of the sky it was in would soon move out from behind the sun.
 
I'm not admitting anything, just saying an object behind sun in an arc similar to but opposite, the arc the sight line makes between earth and sun over time as the earth swings in its orbit, would be invisible to us until we only had 1-3 weeks notice.
Click to expand...

Wow. That is so incorrect. But, if you actually believe it, then I challenge you to show me your orbital analysis, with complete definition of the orbital elements (there are 6 of them) of Planet X as compared to the well-known orbital elements of earth.

If you can do that, then perhaps you can convince us that you have the knowledge to make this statement of yours somewhat believeable. Of course, it would still be incorrect. And if you show me your orbital analysis I will show you how it cannot possibly lead to the conclusion you make here.

RMT
 
paladius:

You're joking around, right ?

It's like being chased by the cops down a street (astronomers looking in sky), and you duck behind a large tree (the sun) and as the cop car races by, you round the tree such that you are always invisible to cops. I'm not admitting anything, just saying an object behind sun in an arc similar to but opposite, the arc the sight line makes between earth and sun over time as the earth swings in its orbit
Click to expand...

A Planet sized celestial object is behaving like a person hiding behind a tree from the police ? LOL !

I think you're just playing around with some of the folks here...anyone that is reasonably intelligent doesn't have to be an expert to realize that the scenarios as presented so far regarding Planet X just don't work when some thinking skills are applied.

Simply drag out a piece of paper and a pencil and draw it out...Planet X is traveling in an arc on the other opposite side of the Sun, matching the VELOCITY and ARC of the Earth's orbital path around the Sun.

Then draw the line that Planet X would also be traveling along ---> in a direction and at a velocity as it approaches the Sun from outside the Solar System, remaining hidden from our view all the while, avoiding the Sun, and curving "around" the Sun, and then traveling towards Earth.

Also, pencil into your diagram the path of this Planet X to fit into your Apollo explaination...and is still never seen by those as listed by Twighlight in his posts.

Would love to see your diagram posted in the thread here, as a visual explaination of what you've said so far...
 
Now the only way that could happen would be if it was in exactly the same orbit as Earth...but on the other side of the sun.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but it would also have to have a mass that is very similar to earth, and nearly identical orbital velocity.

This whole Planet X thing is absolutely silly, and posts like these from paladius and (especially) recall make it so very apparant to anyone with even a modicum of understanding of Kepler's Laws. Already, there are MANY things that recall has "predicted" (if you call posting other people's predictions, predicting) that have not come to pass. He conveniently ignores his vast numbers of failures. And then there is also recall's favorite prophet, Charlie, who hasn't been hanging around here for awhile (probably because he finally got another job). Most of Charlie's predictions for 2009 have already gone by the wayside. According to him, we should all see Planet X in plain sight by now. It was all supposed to become apparant over this past summer! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

What a bunch of losers...
RMT
 
Not only that, but it would also have to have a mass that is very similar to earth, and nearly identical orbital velocity.

This whole Planet X thing is absolutely silly, and posts like these from paladius and (especially) recall make it so very apparant to anyone with even a modicum of understanding of Kepler's Laws. Already, there are MANY things that recall has "predicted" (if you call posting other people's predictions, predicting) that have not come to pass. He conveniently ignores his vast numbers of failures. And then there is also recall's favorite prophet, Charlie, who hasn't been hanging around here for awhile (probably because he finally got another job). Most of Charlie's predictions for 2009 have already gone by the wayside. According to him, we should all see Planet X in plain sight by now. It was all supposed to become apparant over this past summer!

What a bunch of losers...
RMT
Click to expand...

rmtsun.jpg




Kepler Laws are not acurate when you get The Sun in the 1st Focy of the Elipse and the Black Sun is in the Second Foci of the Elipse, and both stars has independent movements... The result is a excentric orbit of the captured third star of this System "the brown Dwarf" aka The planet with no name aka Nibiru



Orbit5.gif



the next 2 milestones in this timeline are:

November 27 2009

December 10 2009

:oops:
 
the tech data from the above image is:

here

:oops:

also:
creedo717.jpg


why the anomaly is behind the clouds.... no lens flare this time... ... LOL

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gif
 
Nasa to debunk 2012 apocalypse myths - SIGNAL??!!!

Recall and RMT,

I hope this isn't a "signal" to someone or some organization(s)... LOL... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif



TheCigMen
 
Kepler Laws are not acurate when you get The Sun in the 1st Focy of the Elipse and the Black Sun is in the Second Foci of the Elipse, and both stars has independent movements... The result is a excentric orbit of the captured third star of this System "the brown Dwarf" aka The planet with no name aka Nibiru
Click to expand...


The specific law to note is :-

'The radius vector describes equal areas in equal times.'


This is why comets move quickly when close to the sun but slowly when further out. Planet X, by definition, must also have a highly eccentric orbit like a comet.

Now the crucial element in all this is that Kepler's law quite clearly shows that the ONLY way a planet could remain on the other side of the sun for days or months is if it had the same 'radius vector' as the Earth.......effectively the same orbit.

A planet with a highly eccentric orbit cannot possibly have the same radius vector per time period as the Earth. In other words, it is geometrically IMPOSSIBLE for such a planet to remain hidden behind the sun.

It does not matter how you play with arcs and curves and ellipses.......the sun moves about 1 degree a day across the sky and that does not change much as the Earth's orbit is roughly circular. Planet X, with it's highly elliptical and eccentric orbit.....will be accelerating as it approaches the sun...so it's motion across the sky will increase with each day. It does not take a genius to work out that if the sun's motion is roughly constant and Planet X's motion is accelerating..........there is no way the two objects can remain in the same line of sight for even a few days....let alone months.

Also....your diagram shows objects of equal mass. If planet X was the same mass as the sun.....it would be a star and be blazingly obvious in the sky. If planet X was Earth sized, then the focus of the orbit would actually be inside the sun ( as it is with Earth ).
 
Now the crucial element in all this is that Kepler's law quite clearly shows that the ONLY way a planet could remain on the other side of the sun for days or months is if it had the same 'radius vector' as the Earth.......effectively the same orbit.

A planet with a highly eccentric orbit cannot possibly have the same radius vector per time period as the Earth. In other words, it is geometrically IMPOSSIBLE for such a planet to remain hidden behind the sun.
Click to expand...

Again, what we get here in this particular star system is a Multiple Star System when n=3 the number of Suns with different Mass...

a1 SUN
a2 Fail Sun aka Dark Companion or Nemesis
a3 Brown Dwarf

ie:

centerofmassof3stars.jpg


as:
The point at which a system of masses would balance if placed on a pivot. If m1 and m2 are the masses of two Star System placed at the points A1 and A2, and if the line A1A2 is divided at B1, so that m1A1B1 = m2A2B1, the point B1 is the center of mass of the two Star System.

When this system captured the Brown Dwarf, we got:

a third mass at A3, and if B1A3 is divided at B2, so that (m1 + m2) = m3(A3B2, B2 is the center of mass of the new three Star System...

and quoted from Wiki:
" Triple star systems



In a physical triple star system, each star orbits the center of mass of the system. Usually, two of the stars form a close binary system, and the third orbits this pair at a distance much larger than that of the binary orbit. This arrangement is called hierarchical.[8][9] The reason for this is that if the inner and outer orbits are comparable in size, the system may become dynamically unstable, leading to a star being ejected from the system.[10] Triple stars that are not all gravitationally bound might comprise a physical binary and an optical companion, such as Beta Cephei, or rarely, a purely optical triple star, such as Gamma Serpentis.
Higher multiplicities
Mobile diagrams: (a) multiplex; (b) simplex, binary system; (c) simplex, triple system; (d) simplex, quadruple system, hierarchy 2; (e) simplex, quadruple system, hierarchy 3; (f) simplex, quintuple system, hierarchy 4.

Hierarchical multiple star systems with more than three stars can produce a number of more complicated arrangements, which can be illustrated by what Evans (1968) has called a mobile diagram. These are similar to ornamental mobiles hung from the ceiling. Some examples can be seen in the figure to the left. Each level of the diagram illustrates the decomposition of the system into two or more systems with smaller size. Evans calls a diagram multiplex if there is a node with more than two children, i.e., if the decomposition of some subsystem involves two or more orbits with comparable size. Since, as already seen for triple stars, this may be unstable, multiple stars are expected to be simplex, meaning that at each level there are exactly two children. Evans calls the number of levels in the diagram its hierarchy.[11]

A simplex diagram of hierarchy 1, as in (b), describes a binary system.

A simplex diagram of hierarchy 2 may describe a triple system, as in (c), or a quadruple system, as in (d).
"

Mobile-diagrams.png


end quoted from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_star

so we got a Trinary system that may be unstable!

also an example of the Math of a 3-body orbit may help:
here:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1986ApJ...300..785B

so the first point will be "Where the center of Mass, barycenter or centroid of the 3 Star System" reside in first place?

and you may use Kepler or Newton?
hint:
"
The three body problem in its restricted form has two degrees of freedom and one constant of motion, the Jacobi integral. It describes the motion of a test particle P with mass under the gravitational influence of two bodies S and J. The assumptions are (i) $ m$ is so small that P has no effect on S and J, (ii) the Kepler motion of S and J is circular, and (iii) P moves in the same plane with S and J. "

but if $ m$ are not Small...

:oops:

In this page you get a 3 body gravitational problem animation:
3bodyanimation.jpg


here:

See how the orbit changed
 
Again, what we get here in this particular star system is a Multiple Star System when n=3 the number of Suns with different Mass...
Click to expand...


No..that doesn't alter a single thing that I said. In fact, your 3-star system makes it even HARDER for 'Planet X' to hide behind the sun.....as the sun itself is in motion within such a system.

Also, if the sun was part of a 3 star system...it would have been blatanly obvious years ago when measuring the parallax of other stars ( their distance based on using the Earth orbit as a baseline ). Just as we observe a 'wobble' in the motion of other stars with planets....there would be quite a wobble in the Sun's own motion ( and hence that of the Earth ). Which nobody has observed.

You need to realise that you can't just have some whacking great brown dwarf or something lurking about without it having blindingly obvious gravitational effects on the system. If there was anything even the size of Earth within the orbit of Pluto.....it would have had quite measurable gravitational effects on the other planets years ago. You cannot plan something like the Cassini mission to Saturn without knowing well in advance all the gravitational variables on the way. The fact that the Cassini mission arrived within 1 second of it's scheduled time....PROVES that there is no Planet X out there.

What is more.....the Sun only occupies about 1/40,000 of the area of the sky. Seems a bit far fetched that of all the places Planet X manages to be....it just....er....'happens' to be in the same place. How convenient !

A far better explanation for something that nobody can see....is that it doesn't exist !
 
No..that doesn't alter a single thing that I said. In fact, your 3-star system makes it even HARDER for 'Planet X' to hide behind the sun.....as the sun itself is in motion within such a system.
Click to expand...

l3bodysim.jpg


just see the time the third body spent behind the 2nd sun...

Aditional data:

The dark Sun is 11 degrees of the plane of our sun, which direction?

Remember all the cover up of the software of the sky? Yes in that position! Orion!

The Mass of the Dark Sun is about 1 +- 0.2 Solar Mass!

the mass of the Brown Dwarf is about 24 times of the Earth

They know!, but instead used Kepler to cover up this issue...
Why?

TPTB wants to everybody died!!! not knowing what will happend!!!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
Why does everyone dance around the original topic and basis for all this speculation?
Do most people here think we live in a binary solar system or not?

I'm just curious about that, it's an interesting topic. I've watched the documentary released recently with a similar name, but is mostly interviews.
 
planet X does not necessarily need to be visible now. It could be hiding behind the sun.
Click to expand...

If it is out past Neptune we would be able to see it from at least western quadature to conjunction and on to eastern quadrature, a minimum of 7-8 months out of the year.
 
If it is out past Neptune we would be able to see it from at least western quadature to conjunction and on to eastern quadrature, a minimum of 7-8 months out of the year.
Click to expand...


This is what recall cannot seem to grasp. By definition, any object outside the Earth's orbit CANNOT 'hide behind the sun'. It doesn't matter what fancy orbital loops one comes up with....it's a matter of very simple geometry.

Also, the idea that NASA or the big observatories are the only ones with access to sky information is pure nonsense. Literally thousands of amateur astronomers scour the skies every day, looking for comets, asteroids, or taking pics of interesting objects. And often working on an equatorial mounting with a good drive that can follow a patch of sky for some time and hence photograph very faint things.

If anything even as faint as Pluto ( which requires at least an 8 inch telescope to spot ) was spotted....we would KNOW about it. Amateurs discover many new objects such as comets every year.....and most of those comets are way fainter than Planet X.

An object 4 times as massive as the Earth is getting on to be 1/4 as massive as Neptune, I'd say a diameter of around 12,000 miles......EASILY visible in even the smallest telescope if it were out around Neptune's orbit. If Planet X was out there.....thousands of amateurs would have spotted it by now. There would be articles about it in Sky & Telescope, and on the hundreds of amateur astronomy sites that exist. It would be absolutely impossible to hide the information.

The fact that not a single such article exists, point blank states that Planet X does not exist.
 
This is what recall cannot seem to grasp. By definition, any object outside the Earth's orbit CANNOT 'hide behind the sun'. It doesn't matter what fancy orbital loops one comes up with....it's a matter of very simple geometry.
Click to expand...

Is not "outside the Earth's orbit", but inside... a narrow one!

an indeed the Poleshift is a Restricted 4-Planetary body problem ... (1 Sun, 2 Nibiru, 3 Earth ,4 Dark Companion aka Nemesis)
and it may be considered as more realistic generalization of the restricted 3-body problem.
(as it has 2 degree of freedom for plane motion)...

:oops:
 
Back
Top