So, is nibiru coming?

[bill7907]

Since most of the top secret projects are hidden, we do not know if Nibiru is indeed on an orbit that would get considerably close to planet Earth.
We cannot refute the idea that Nibiru exist because we know so little about what the Government has up its sleeves up to now.

Anyhow, even if Nibiru would be coming, they would never admit that a planet that big will eventually cause big catastrophes on planet Earth in a future to come.

Originally Posted by bill7907

Anyhow, even if Nibiru would be coming, they would never admit that a planet that big will eventually cause big catastrophes on planet Earth in a future to come.

Hmmm interesting theory... Now a planet that huge coming close... please explain to me just what the government has at it's disposal to hide such a huge planet in the sky?

Of course you could just refute ALL science as well...

Funny no one called 17P/Holmes "nibiru" It was twice as big as Jupiter at one point and very easy to see with the naked eye for weeks

[bill7907]

Originally Posted by zorgon

Hmmm interesting theory... Now a planet that huge coming close... please explain to me just what the government has at it's disposal to hide such a huge planet in the sky?

Of course you could just refute ALL science as well...

Funny no one called 17P/Holmes "nibiru" It was twice as big as Jupiter at one point and very easy to see with the naked eye for weeks

If it's been detected by the IRAS, then it is not visible to the naked eye.
It's as simple as that if they want to hide it.

[BeaTnik-BandiT]

Originally Posted by zorgon

Funny no one called 17P/Holmes "nibiru" It was twice as big as Jupiter at one point and very easy to see with the naked eye for weeks

It actually came bigger than the sun.
Not it's core obviously, but it's gazeous halo.

salute.

Originally Posted by BeaTnik-BandiT

It actually came bigger than the sun.
Not it's core obviously, but it's gazeous halo. .

Quite true but I expected that to be too much for the Lemmings

My favorite part was when it looked like a Giant Cosmic Jellyfish...




It was certainly visible from Earth


oops too big...

http://spaceweather.com/comets/holme...-von-Bagh1.jpg

And here is the the second video where he admits he was wrong......

Nibiru Visible To The Naked Eye Now! - vlog pt 2


"Know this. I never intended to mislead you" ~ PlanetNibiruIsHere

[truthseeker]

Hi Zorgon,

Have you read "Dark Star: The Planet X Evidence" by Andy Lloyd. I have never read Sitchen's work, as I have been largely put off by all the negative press about his ideas and theories. However, I recently read Lloyd's book and found it both interesting and informative. You may well have read the book or at least come across his website at http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/. If not, I recommend a perusal of both.

Anyway, he does not buy into all of Sitchin's stuff, but does treat him respectfully. He speculates tha Planet X is actually one of the moons (or planets?) of a brown dwarf, which as I am sure you know is a kind of failed star, or a star that never came to be. He argues that this is within our solar system, but currently out toward or beyond the kuiper belt. A brown dwarf can apparently be around the size of Jupiter(perhaps a little bigger), though it has a far greater mass than such a planet. It is really half way between a planet and a star, as I understand it (and I am no astronomer). Thus the dark star, according to Lloyd, is a brown dwarf and thus a substellar companion of the Sun.

Lloyd argues that this dark star is currently at aphelion (furthest from the Sun) and in a very elliptical orbit. He believes that the reasons that it is not visible to astronomers, at the current time, are as follows. Firstly, because it is at aphelion and thus too distant to be easily seen. Secondly, because it is somewhere in the direction of Sagittarius, a constellation that can be found in the thickest part of the milkyway as seen from Earth. It is thus indistinguishable from the mass of stars, nebulae, etc. that litter that part of the sky. Thirdly, and finally, a brown dwarf, by its very nature, does not give off much light. The combination of these three, he suggests, is why it has not been identified and seen by astronomers. If it has been spotted, it may have been mistaken for a body outside of our solar system, as its motion through the sky (he suggests a 10,800 year orbit of the Sun) is extremely slow as compared to the orbits of the planets, from Eris and Pluto inward.

He also suggests that the perturbations of Uranus and Neptune can best be understood by the presence of a large Jupiter size body in the outer solar system. Small dwarf planets like Pluto and Eris just do not account for this. Lloyd also suggests that it is not the dark star itself that comes into the known planetary zone when it is as perihelion (closest to Sun) but one of its satelites or moons. He suggests that it is this sattelite or moon that is the famed 'Niburu', which may get as close to the Sun as the orbit of Saturn at certain periods in history/prehistory.

As I am no expert on these things, I have no idea what is and is not possible. However, on the surface, his ideas do seem to have some air of credibility about them. Anyway, I would be interested to know what you think?

If Lloyd is right, then there is certainly no suggestion that either the dark star or one of its moons is going to be entering our planetary zone in or around 2012. I certainly can not beleive any such significant body could be missed if it was actually within the planetary zone of our solar system.

Best Wishes

Truthseeker

[Koyaanisqatsi]

in the youtube video he admits he is wrong. to his credit i dont feel he acted maliciously. he now claims is Sirius. is this true? i have never noticed this bright object before. it has been clearly visible every night in the west southwest sky from sunset until about 9pm. i am ignorant of astronomy.


now here is the dumbest question of all time. i was always taught stars twinkle and planets dont. my amateur observations of the heavens over time has proved this to be true. so if this is Sirius then why does'nt it twinkle? it shines continuously like venus.

go ahead laugh but i hope someone can explain this one to me.

Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi

go ahead laugh but i hope someone can explain this one to me.

No laughing...

The twinkling effect is caused by atmospheric conditions... bright object like Venus or Sirius low to the horizon go through more atmosphere for the light to reach your eye so less twinkle.

Look at how large and orange the moon appears at moon rise or set... Partly due to paralax but also the denser air

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally Posted by zorgon

No laughing...

The twinkling effect is caused by atmospheric conditions... bright object like Venus or Sirius low to the horizon go through more atmosphere for the light to reach your eye so less twinkle.

Look at how large and orange the moon appears at moon rise or set... Partly due to paralax but also the denser air

hmmmm, this answer was profoundly difficult for me to understand so rather than relying on my brilliant colleagues to spoon feed my lazy slovenly self i took the initiative of researching myself so that perhaps i could better understand my colleagues answers to my silly little questions.

As it turns out zorgon wins the cookie with his correct response that the twinkling effect is caused by atmospheric conditions. unfortunately for zorgon, he will receive only 1/2 of his tasty chocolate chip cookie because he suggests that when light goes through more atmosphere it twinkles less. this is in fact wrong. when light travels through more atmosphere it twinkles more, ie objects close to the horizon twinkle more than objects overhead as the light from objects proximate to the horizon obviously travel through more atmosphere to reach your retina. i found a quadrillion websites confirming this and i will simply quote one of many and you can investigate it further if you care too...

"The light would take a longer path through the atmosphere to the observer. That would mean that the light would pass through more disturbed air, making all the twinkling effects even more pronounced. So, stars near the horizon twinkle far more than stars that are nearly overhead."

http://astroprofspage.com/archives/1168

thank you zorgon for at least attempting to address my question.


stars twinkle and in general planets do not because stars are so far away that they are essentially points of light from oblivion. this light source is easily messed with by the atmosphere, as pointed out by zorgon, and messed with even more if the atmosphere is very turbulent. this messing with on behalf of the atmosphere makes the light from distant stars appear to twinkle. planets on the other hand can be considered not just a tiny pinpoint of light from oblivion but rather a disc of light made up of many points of light albeit closer to home. there is power in numbers and so the 'disc' of the planets light is not so easily distorted by our atmosphere and so planets do not appear to twinkle. under extreme atmospheric turbulence however the edges of even the moon for instance can appear to flicker a little.

should anyone want to verify this rather mundane subject i will provide one link of quadrillions covering this subject.

http://astroprofspage.com/archives/1168



so all off my jabbering brings me back to a simple question as yet unanswered. if the object of light in the sky referred to in the ewetube video is indeed sirius then why does it not twinkle?

furthermore i have seen this same thing in the sky and apparently many others have too. again it is not twinkling and appears too large to be a star. so... what is it?

[ABHA]

Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi

hmmmm, this answer was profoundly difficult for me to understand so rather than relying on my brilliant colleagues to spoon feed my lazy slovenly self i took the initiative of researching myself so that perhaps i could better understand my colleagues answers to my silly little questions.

As it turns out zorgon wins the cookie with his correct response that the twinkling effect is caused by atmospheric conditions. unfortunately for zorgon, he will receive only 1/2 of his tasty chocolate chip cookie because he suggests that when light goes through more atmosphere it twinkles less. this is in fact wrong. when light travels through more atmosphere it twinkles more, ie objects close to the horizon twinkle more than objects overhead as the light from objects proximate to the horizon obviously travel through more atmosphere to reach your retina. i found a quadrillion websites confirming this and i will simply quote one of many and you can investigate it further if you care too...

"The light would take a longer path through the atmosphere to the observer. That would mean that the light would pass through more disturbed air, making all the twinkling effects even more pronounced. So, stars near the horizon twinkle far more than stars that are nearly overhead."

http://astroprofspage.com/archives/1168

thank you zorgon for at least attempting to address my question.


stars twinkle and in general planets do not because stars are so far away that they are essentially points of light from oblivion. this light source is easily messed with by the atmosphere, as pointed out by zorgon, and messed with even more if the atmosphere is very turbulent. this messing with on behalf of the atmosphere makes the light from distant stars appear to twinkle. planets on the other hand can be considered not just a tiny pinpoint of light from oblivion but rather a disc of light made up of many points of light albeit closer to home. there is power in numbers and so the 'disc' of the planets light is not so easily distorted by our atmosphere and so planets do not appear to twinkle. under extreme atmospheric turbulence however the edges of even the moon for instance can appear to flicker a little.

should anyone want to verify this rather mundane subject i will provide one link of quadrillions covering this subject.

http://astroprofspage.com/archives/1168



so all off my jabbering brings me back to a simple question as yet unanswered. if the object of light in the sky referred to in the ewetube video is indeed sirius then why does it not twinkle?

furthermore i have seen this same thing in the sky and apparently many others have too. again it is not twinkling and appears too large to be a star. so... what is it?

Hi sirius twinkles like mad and is the brightest star rising in the east, Orions belt points to it, Orions belt is three stars in a line.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally Posted by Lee BURTON

Hi sirius twinkles like mad and is the brightest star rising in the east, Orions belt points to it, Orions belt is three stars in a line.

thanks lee

this object does not twinkle one iota. it looks and behaves like a bigger version of venus. i have not had the opportunity to see where it rises from, but i have seen it setting and appears to set in the west-southwest sky at least here in new orleans. by 9pm it pretty much dips below the horizon and is no longer visible.

i wish i knew what it was especially since i have never noticed it before.

i am sure there is a rational explanation for it i just wish one would present itself so i could just forget about this thing already



correction: at 8pm i tried to see it but could not. must have gone down already. will try earlier next time right after sunset.

Originally Posted by truthseeker

If Lloyd is right, then there is certainly no suggestion that either the dark star or one of its moons is going to be entering our planetary zone in or around 2012. I certainly can not beleive any such significant body could be missed if it was actually within the planetary zone of our solar system.

The fact that there may indeed be a dwarf star companion to our sun is postulated by many astronomers... but at such a distance it does not show up in gravity perturbations.

I have not looked fully at Lloyds work yet, but I will.