Hey,
Sharpen your pencils all you pippy poindexters here at BABB,
its Colonel Vianova,your favorite GLPer,
Drs Marsden, Brown, Murray , Matese,
and Velikovsky as a casual observer,
are here for a comment or two.
Since Phil would not talk about it.....

Dr P. states that Sedna has a stable orbit, and that there is nothing unusual about it.
Thus I would assume that the huge object ,as suggested in the links by ***Drs Murray and Brown,
be it a brown dwarf or,
huge "body of planetary mass " {as dr P would say},
also has a stable orbit as well.

Comments please on Drs Murray , Matese, Marsden and Browns statements on the highly controversial comments that
IMPLICATE that our solar system is either ,
part of a binary star system ,
with a brown dwarf,
or there may be huge planet{s}
still out there to be discovered that are affecting the comets and outer planets as well.

Royal Astronomical Society, Dr. John Murray,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/467572.stm

on comets

they spend millions of years in the Oort cloud, until they are deflected into an orbit that takes them into the inner Solar System where we can see them.

By analysing the orbits of 13 of these comets, Dr Murray has detected the tell-tale signs of
***a single massive object that deflected all of them into their current orbits.

"Although I have only analysed 13 comets in detail," he told BBC News Online, "the effect is pretty conclusive. I have calculated that there is only about a
***one in 1,700 chance that it is due to chance."

In a research paper to be published next week in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, he suggests that the
***so-far unseen planet is several times bigger than the largest known planet in our Solar System, Jupiter.

Being so far from the Sun - three thousand billion miles - it would take almost six million years to orbit it.

"This would explain why it has not been found," explained Dr Murray to BBC News Online. "It would be faint and moving very slowly."

Opposite direction

He has calculated that it lies in the constellation of Delphinus (the Dolphin).

But the planet orbits our Sun in the "wrong" direction, counter to the direction taken by all the other known planets.

It is this which has led to the remarkable suggestion that it did not form in this region of space along with the Sun´s other planets, and could be a planet that "escaped" from another star.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ts_991014.html

In the October 11 issue of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,
Dr. John Murray, an astronomer from the Open University in the United Kingdom proposed that a large object in the extreme outer realms of the solar system may be gravitationally affecting the orbits of long-period comets. He theorizes that the object would have to orbit the sun 32,000 times farther away than Earth (about 3 trillion miles) and would have to be at least as massive as Jupiter, if not more so. Given its distance, it would also be extremely faint and slow moving.

In other research, a professor of physics at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Dr. John J. Matese, is making a case for the existence of a 2- to 3-Jupiter mass object orbiting some 2.3 trillion miles from the sun. In a paper soon to be published in the planetary journal, Icarus, Dr. Matese asserts that this object, too,
***has created a "concentration" of Oort cloud comets and is responsible for sending a significant number of them - perhaps as much as 25 percent - into the inner solar system.

Murray´s research suggests that the some of the incoming comets include a group coming from directions in space that are aligned in an arc across the sky. This arc, he asserts, could mark the wake of some large body moving through space in the outer part of the Oort cloud. A similar theme arises in Dr. Matese´s research. His study of 82 Oort cloud comets indicates that approximately 25 percent of these have an "anomalous distribution" in the sky that can best be understood if there exits some perturbing force in the Oort cloud, i.e.,
a large, as yet undetected, body.

** Anita Cochran, astronomer and comet specialist at the University of Texas at Austin
Most prominent among these, she says, is the fact that there are more observers in the Northern Hemisphere to discover comets than in the Southern Hemisphere, thus a number of long-period comets are probably escaping detection and analysis

Dr. Matese´s theory focuses on different aspects of long-period comet orbits, but nevertheless begs the question: could the darkest corner of our solar system harbor a tenth planet
***or a brown dwarf?"

Pro brown dwarf

*** "A brown dwarf, he contends, would not have been detected in the previous infrared searches, such as the one conducted by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) in the early 1980s, because the alleged planet/brown dwarf is too near the galactic plane. To ferret out such an object in that busy IR region requires greater sensitivity than IRAS possessed at the time."

Not Brown Dwarf

**"Dr. Murray rules out the notion that the object might be a heretofore undiscovered brown dwarf since, being brighter than a planet, it would probably have been detected by now. He does not, however, rule out other possible explanations for the observed entrainment of comet orbits."

******************************************

Remember Marsdens and browns stuff on Sedna?

Marsden
"How it got there in such an eccentric orbit that comes as close as 76 astronomical units
to our sun and goes all the way out to nearly 1000 astronomical units away is a complete mystery! There might still be something else out there causing this object´s peculiar orbit." * Brian Marsden, Director, Minor Planet Center, Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.


"But even if it sent it into 76 A.U., when then is the aphelion 1,000 A.U. ? There is no way! I can´t think of any way of getting into this orbit, other than having some unknown planet or planets in the range..."

"...still might be something out there affecting Sednas orbit..."...hmmm

"But to be honest, we really don´t know how big this object is. It could even be **bigger than Pluto if it has a very dark surface. Or it could be a lot smaller if it has a very bright surface."


Dr Brown

"...Brown said there is one unexplored region of space left, amounting to about 20 percent of the sky, that hasn't 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 centre, which is harder to search. Brown said his team is considering making that search now." (7)

"....searching the 20% of the unexplored sky..."..."for an Earth sized object.."...hmmmm

Earth sized object my ***,
Brown is saerching for Murrays,

"so-far unseen planet is several times bigger than the largest known planet in our Solar System, Jupiter."
******************
In lieu of all the statements by Marsden on
Sedna...

The SPACEGUARD Foundation - http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~marsden/SGF/
An association aimed at the protection of the Earth environment against the bombardment of objects of the solar system (comets and asteroids).

Marsden is on the board of directors

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~marsden/SGF/members.html
list of members of SPACEGUARD Foundation


DEEP IMPACT MISSION
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/deepimpact.html

"On July 4, 2005, the Deep Impact mission will impact the surface of comet Tempel 1 thus creating a fresh crater larger than the size of football field and deeper than a seven-story building. The spacecraft will study the crater formation process and examine the subsurface structure of one of the solar system´s most primitive objects, a remnant from the outer solar system formation process. The Deep Impact spacecraft will launch in December 2004 and then encounter comet Tempel 1 on July 4, 2005.

Deep Impact will be the first mission to make a spectacular, football-stadium-sized crater, seven to 15 stories deep, into the speeding comet. Dramatic images from both the flyby spacecraft and the impactor will be sent back to distant Earth as data in near-realtime. These first-ever views deep beneath a comet´s surface, and additional scientific measurements will provide clues to the formation of the solar system."


More

"The Hubble observations provide clear evidence that very low mass red dwarf stars must have some form of dynamo to amplify their magnetic fields."
His conclusions are based upon Hubble´s detection of a high-temperature outburst, called a flare, on the surface of the extremely small, cool red dwarf star Van Biesbroeck 10 (VB10) also known as Gliese 752B. Stellar flares are caused by intense, twisted magnetic fields that accelerate and contain gasses which are much hotter than a star´s surface.

Though the star´s normal surface temperature is 4,500 degrees Fahrenheit, Hubble´s GHRS detected a sudden burst of
***270,000 degrees Fahrenheit in the star´s outer atmosphere. Linsky attributes this rapid heating to the presence of an intense, but unstable, magnetic field.


***Since VB10 is nearly a brown dwarf, it is likely brown dwarfs also have strong magnetic fields," says Linsky. "Additional Hubble searches for flares are needed to confirm this prediction."

The new Hubble observations suggest a magnetic dynamo perhaps of a new type can operate inside these stars.
These results are being reported at the 185th meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Tucson, Arizona"

This sure goes back to the
Interplanetary Arc thread,

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bb...owdate=3/19/04

and the recent evidence of brown dwarves with CMEs .

Yea, get one of these red/brown dwarves on an elliptical orbit cruising thru the solar system belting out quarter million degree flares....coming close to planets and moons, and perhaps we get the "electric cratering" mentioned in the arc thread in the astronomers experiment

marsden comet impact earth

The SPACEGUARD Foundation - http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~marsden/SGF/
An association aimed at the protection of the Earth environment against the bombardment of objects of the solar system (comets and asteroids).

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~marsden/SGF/members.html
list of members f SPACEGUARD Foundation
Marsden is on the board of directors

DEEP IMPACT MISSION
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/deepimpact.html

On July 4, 2005, the Deep Impact mission will impact the surface of comet Tempel 1 thus creating a fresh crater larger than the size of football field and deeper than a seven-story building. The spacecraft will study the crater formation process and examine the subsurface structure of one of the solar system's most primitive objects, a remnant from the outer solar system formation process. The Deep Impact spacecraft will launch in December 2004 and then encounter comet Tempel 1 on July 4, 2005.

Deep Impact will be the first mission to make a spectacular, football-stadium-sized crater, seven to 15 stories deep, into the speeding comet. Dramatic images from both the flyby spacecraft and the impactor will be sent back to distant Earth as data in near-realtime. These first-ever views deep beneath a comet's surface, and additional scientific measurements will provide clues to the formation of the solar system.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...in_000901.html

http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/sedna.htm

"Marsden favours an object closer in, a "planetary object," he told Space.com , perhaps at between 400 and 1,000 AU. "Perhaps there's more than one planet out there," Marsden said. "Who knows? But let's suppose it is something of an Earth mass,
****maybe even a few Earth masses.
A close approach could throw this object [Sedna] from something more circular into something more eccentric."
**************************************************

Hey this stuff is a lot better than Planet Ecks,
obviously scientiofic undersatnding of what is happenning in the Oort cloud or beyond that is affecting this solar system is going to change rapidly.

I suppose that the nagging question is,
if there is a brown dwarf ,
with 20-50 earth masses,
or huge planet with 2-5 the size of Jupiter,
or many of them,
do they have stable nearly circular orbits?
or highly elliptical orbits like Sedna,
and if so,
what or who is to say that those orbits do not intersect within the solar system?

** Anita Cochran, astronomer and comet specialist at the University of Texas at Austin
Most prominent among these, she says, is the fact that there are more observers in the Northern Hemisphere to discover comets than in the Southern Hemisphere, thus a number of long-period comets are probably escaping detection and analysis,

and the fact that the legendary PX supposedly blindsides us from the area of the south pole,
perhaps there is something to historical mythology of a returning large planet .

What do you think? :wink:

Vianova, I'd welcome you here, except that over at GLP you have been pretty rude to me many times. Coming here and starting off your first post by calling us "pippy pointdexters" is not a great way to be able to continue posting. I ban people who are rude, and you have two strikes already.

Hey Phil,
gee dont I get 3 strikes here at BABB?
OK , I have 2 strikes.
Better not strike out my first nite.
Thanks for letting me post.

In any case Phil,
I was just wondering if these comments by the aforementiond scientists
were of valid merit, and worthy of response here on your forum.

It seemed to me to be all pretty bold statements,,
Brown dwarves and all, or
"***so-far unseen planet is several times bigger than the largest known planet in our Solar System, Jupiter."

And why only one "unforeseen planet " ?
"several times bigger than Jupiter"

Like I saked earlier Phil,
if there is something that large or massively gravitational out there,
would it have a stable orbit,
like Sedna supposedly has,
or could it be what Sedna actually orbits towards in its unusual elliptical orbit,
and all that "second foci point" binary star proposal,
Or can we safely assume that it could also easily be a giant rogue planet , or even massive brown dwarf with another Sedna style orbit intersecting with the planetary alignments?

with the huge comets Hale-Bopp and NEATV1, coming virtually one after the other, it is not hard to imagine that something bizarrely huge or massive could come by as well, with an entourage of NEATV1s as a predecessor.

Every time these astronomy and physics Drs bring out more
"speculations" derived from scientific analysis,
on these huge outerplanets/brown dwarves,
the more Sitchin and Velikovsky sound right on the money .

Think of Sedna's size. Since we discovered Sedna, how can you explain an object much more massive than Sedna avoiding detection? While it's technically possible, it's highly improbable for the reason I just gave.

Archer 17 says
"...how can you explain an object much more massive than Sedna avoiding detection? While it's technically possible, it's highly improbable for the reason I just gave."

Well, obviously Marsden , Murray , and Matese believe it is hard to detect.

Murray
***so-far unseen planet is several times bigger than the largest known planet in our Solar System, Jupiter.
Being so far from the Sun - three thousand billion miles - it would take almost six million years to orbit it.
"This would explain why it has not been found," explained Dr Murray to BBC News Online. "It would be faint and moving very slowly."

Matese
"...2- to 3-Jupiter mass object orbiting some 2.3 trillion miles from the sun
***has created a "concentration" of Oort cloud comets and is responsible for sending a significant number of them - perhaps as much as 25 percent - into the inner solar system.
Dr. Matese´s theory...could the darkest corner of our solar system harbor a tenth planet
***or a brown dwarf?
"A brown dwarf, he contends, would not have been detected in the previous infrared searches, such as the one conducted by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) in the early 1980s, because the alleged planet/brown dwarf is too near the galactic plane. To ferret out such an object in that busy IR region requires greater sensitivity than IRAS possessed at the time."

Marsden
"....There might still be something else out there causing this object´s peculiar orbit."
"But even if it sent it into 76 A.U., when then is the aphelion 1,000 A.U. ? There is no way! I can´t think of any way of getting into this orbit, other than having some unknown planet or planets in the range..."

Brown
"...Brown said there is one unexplored region of space left, amounting to about 20 percent of the sky, that hasn't 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 centre, which is harder to search. Brown said his team is considering making that search now."

Considering their resumes that's not surprising. What do you think?

Well my physics isn't the best, but from a relative common sense approach to things, two points stand out in my mind.

1) No obvious effects on planatary orbits.

If planet the size of the one you are talking entered into the inner solar system then there would be a lot of disturbance in the orbits of the planets already here. This means that their orbits would be greatly perturbed and far more elipitical than they are (Venus has an eccentricity of 0.0068 the least of all planets, Earth's is 0.0167, and Mars' is 0.093 still well under Pluto's of 0.250) Most of the Inner Planet's orbits are very circular showing very little devation, not what would have been predited under the above senario. Nothing I hve seen yet shows how such a planet could indeed enter the system without causing serious gravitational effects on planetary orbits, especially if it is supposed to have such serious effects on the Earth as some claim.


2) I would be serious surprised if a planet 20-50 times Earth's size (which by the way doesn't come near the size of a Brown Dwarf as that is only about size of Neptune to half the size of Saturn. In fact even a planet that is 5 times Jupiter's size desn't count as a Brown Dwarf as it is still to small by a magnitude of 100.) However having said that, Any planet that big would hve extreme proble with a radical comet-like orbit because of factors of momentum. You can't stop a plent the size of Jupiter on a dime, yet that is the physics that is being claimed in your theory. If a planet did follow such an orbit, the leaving orbit would be parabolic in shape and that would fire such a planet out of the system after one pass.

Think about it this way. The planet's momentum has to be reduced to zero before it can be reversed. That means that for massive obects, such as planets, they has to travel a distance of almost equal distance past the sun as it arrives from. This means that unless it has a very narrow orbit that it can't pass through the solar system and because stable orbits need to have the Aphelion at least twice that of the Perihelion to prevent the planet's obit becoming Parabolic. That will result in any Planet of size at the most perhaps coming close to the outer planets, but nowhere near the inner ones. This means that even if such a planet does exist, it won't be a problem to us.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Go Phantom Wolf! Did I tell you I like the way you think? 8)

Phantom wolf says

"Nothing I hve seen yet shows how such a planet could indeed enter the system without causing serious gravitational effects on planetary orbits, especially if it is supposed to have such serious effects on the Earth as some claim. "

What about Van Flanderns collisional theory of Planet X causing the asteroid belt?

"I would be serious surprised if a planet 20-50 times Earth's size (which by the way doesn't come near the size of a Brown Dwarf ..."

the idea, was that it was a brown dwarf with
**20-50 earth **masses, not size
.Approximately the size of Jupiter , this would be actually, though Matese infers a brown dwarf of only 2-3 earth masses.

"If a planet did follow such an orbit, the leaving orbit would be parabolic in shape and that would fire such a planet out of the system after one pass. "

Well then explain Sednas orbit, why does it not just,
"parabolically fire out of the system in one pass?'
What about all the comets ?.....

"That will result in any Planet of size at the most perhaps coming close to the outer planets, but nowhere near the inner ones."

still again, what about van Flanderns asteroid belt formational events ? Sednas orbit works in your description, as an outer solar system influence, but Sednas existence alone has shown that radical elliptical orbits that were never before thought possible of planets are now very real.
Marsden...
"How it got there in such an eccentric orbit that comes as close as 76 astronomical units
to our sun and goes all the way out to nearly 1000 astronomical units away is a complete mystery! There might still be something else out there causing this object´s peculiar orbit." *

Then take into account huge comets like NEATV1,
the cometary head almost twice the size of Jupiter,
and all the controversy over its core size.
Phil and Co. maintain the premise that NEATV1 had an inner core of very small proportions inside of the dirty snowball,
McCanney and his crowd maintain it was the size of Mercury .
I believe this as well,
that NEATV1 was a planetary sized object in cometary form and motion.

NEATV1 coming in from BEHIND the sun
http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/rea...18_0754_c3.gif

Explain how this Planet X migrated inward enough to cause this destruction but left no trace regarding orbits. I'm particularly curious how you would describe a hypothetical Planet X interacting with Jupiter. Can you answer this without running and consulting Van Flandern's hokum?
Matese infers, but there is no proof of this inference. Does this brown dwarf exist because he "says so?" We require evidence here, not heresay.What about "all the comets?" And what about Sedna's orbit? Do you know it? While you're at it, explain how "all the comets" have anything to do with Sedna's orbit.Sedna is a "planet?" If I told you Sedna was a comet, what would you say? :wink: Care to provide proof for all this .. in your own words? We could go to GLP or to the sources of your information but what would that accomplish? You came here, so outside of tossing us quotes from other people, tell us something we don't know, like how we are wrong, and all by yourself. Think you can handle it?

While I don't know "Van Flanderns collisional theory" in particular, those I hve tend to suggest that Earth was once part of a planet that existed there, however Earth's own position and orbit tend to preclude such. If you therefore claim that the Asteriod belt was once a planet that leaves the problem of where the rest went, s the asteroids have nowhere enough mass to have ever been a planet.


While I have done a huge amount of investigation of Sendra's orbit, as far as I know, it never come very close to the sun so we aren't talking abut anything similar to what is being suggested by any proponents of PX. As for Comets, numerous comets are in fact flung out of the system on Parabolic orbits, in fact it is far from a rare event. It almost seems that stable orbits for comets seem to be the rare ones.

By the way, I was talking about MASS with the Brown Dwarves. These have masses about 1/10th of our sun. Size from distance doesn't mean lot when it comes to planets as gravity is an affect of mass, not equator size. Neptune has a mass of about 17 Earths hence why I used it as a lower limit for your 20-50 Earth masses. Saturn has a mass of about 95 Earths which is why I used it as an upper limit. Jupiter has a mass of 315 Earths, and is still over 100 times smaller in mass than a Brown Dwarf. Matese might infer that a brown dwarf has only 2-3 Earth masses, but if he does, he's wrong because the term "Brown Dwarf" refers to a body about 1/10th of our sun's mass. If he doesn't understand the term, then he shouldn't use it. If his knowlegde of Astronomy is lacking in this area, one has to wonder where else he mkes such blatant mistakes.

Again,* to claim that the Astroid belt was the result of a collision means that the missing mass must be explained. Extrordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I don't see you doing that here.

Masses of orbiting objects cn be determined by their orbit and velocities. While I haven't got the formulas on me nor can do the maths spectactlurly, I am sure that someone here can do the math and prove what the mass of this comet is. Again, Extrordinary claims (in that this comet is the size of Mercury) require extraordinary proof, I again have not seen this given.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Here is Matese's web page. Matese does propose that a large mass body could be out as far as 25000 AU who gravitational influnces create long-period comets but IIRC he does not support Sitchin or Nancy PX/Nibiru theories.

Vianova writes:

"...perhaps there is something to historical mythology of a returning large planet ."

Could there be something big and dark quietly orbiting our sun far beyond the known Solar System?

Could be.

But I don't see a single shred of convincing 'historical mythology' that even suggests such a situation. If, however, one insists on adding brown dwarves to the Solar system planetary lexicon based on cherry-picked myths and questionable translations of the same, one should also include mermaids in biology texts, and fund an expedition to Faery to obtain samples of unicorn horns.

I submit that the evidence for either is *at least* as strong as that for 'Nibiru.'

I think I've been discussing these and similar findings for almost 2yrs around here when it was once proclaimed "Impossible!," and then we progressed to "possible but unlikely," and now the discovery of Sedna coupled with exciting new technology, in my mind, is making it not only possible, but likely that another (maybe more?) planetary body resides in our solar system. How has it not been found? Well, there is that 20% yet to be thoroughly scanned. What will we find when we finally do? I daresay we discover our "perturber," the notorious planet X, or as I prefer, Nibiru.
Now, if you ask me for evidence to support this of course I'll refer you to these astronomers who are professors at major accredited universities, and you'll say, "Considering their resumes, that's not surprising," and then I'll ask, "what about them? I don't know. And how do you see that affecting their "science," as it were?"

Good points, I think.
But now I'm conflicted with astronomers who are trained in their field and teach or work as such and through their work can be shown to have no "common sense!"




Seriously though, I think PhantomWolf doesn't realize that we've pretty well established that Nibiru's orbit (according to Sitchin, that is), coming from beneath the ecliptic and not closer than the Asteroid Belt, leaves Jupiter as the primary candidate for continued interaction. I wonder if Nibiru and Jupiter could have some sort of resonance?

Bodies beyond the orbit of Pluto was never considered impossible. That's a flimsy strawman A.DIM. What has to be proven is that an interloper like Planet X or Nibiru exists. It hasn't. Citing credentials of "professors at major accredited universities" is something you do all the time. This tactic isn't all that uncommon among believers of all things woowoo (sounds like a variation of #29 of the Woo Woo credo). Show me Nibiru A.DIM, empty words are a poor substitute.

Here is where our differences are readily appearent. I embrace new knowledge, new discoveries...that's what science is about. But, I understand that you have to wait and see where the evidence takes you. You, on the other hand, have decided that Sitchin is correct in his "findings". You've found a conclusion that you like, without supporting evidence. Sitchin has reached his "conclusions", yet can't convince anyone (except true believers) that he is correct."Sitchinism" is not science...though you and Hank would like us "here" to believe that, it's simply not true. And to discuss Sitchin as if his "theory's" are based in fact is just a bunch of blah, blah, blah.

Both you, and Hank, express yourselfs extremely well...which makes it more the mystery why you both would be "suckered in" by this Sitchin "nonsense".

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I hate to melt your snowman A.DIM but what you don't seem to realize is that when it comes to establishing Nibiru's orbit there is nothing outside of Sitchin's book(s). What's with this "we" stuff? Resonance? :roll: How about proving Sitchin's fantasy first.

archer 17says
"Explain how this Planet X migrated inward enough to cause this destruction but left no trace regarding orbits......
without running and consulting Van Flandern's hokum? "

INTERESTING, I see that there is dissension here at BABB about famous NASA astronomers like Van Flandern and his ideas.OK I wont "run and consult Van Flanderns hokum"

We are talking about billions of years of interactions, and orbital recoveries within those vast time frames.
One has to assume that an huge PX style object has interacted within the orbit of Jupiter with van Flanderns ideas.
EVEN Van Flandern could not PROVE it..

Sedna has already been proposed as a candidate of an ancient interaction of a passing huge"body of planetary mass",
that literally pulls it out of the solar system and leaves it in the orbit it has now.

Suppose that a PX type of body comes close enough to Mars or Earth, and affects the orbital functions to the point that drag is applied, and both or one planet is perturbed form its orbit.
This does not mean that a 20-50 Earth mass brown dwarf will wisk Earth or Mars away, but a significant enough of a close pass , could cause Mars or the Earth to wobble away like a giant knuckle ball thru space , BUT still in a predominantly solar orbit. OVER time the orbits restabilize, and probably pretty quickly actually.
The time period of "wobbling knuckleball' type of orbital movement created by the passing huge gravitational mass, would be minimal as the object passes by and the solar gravitational influences retake the stage.
Thus the evidence of orbital decays and perturberations would be basically in geologic record of the planets affected.
There would obviously be cataclymic catastrophic surface changes, and the inevitable polar flip to whatever degree..

Archer 17 continues
"Matese infers, but there is no proof of this inference. Does this brown dwarf exist because he "says so?" We require evidence here, not heresay."

You ask me for evidence?
Matese made the statements , you need to contact him.

Archer 17 continues
"While you're at it, explain how "all the comets" have anything to do with Sedna's orbit?
Sedna is a "planet?"

The comets have similar "radical ellipitical orbits" like Sedna does.My implications here are that some comets are not just tiny asteroidal sized nuclei with an huge entourage of dirty
snowball debris, but that NEATV1 ands others are enormous and MAY have inner cores within the head that are as large as Sedna.
Sedna MAY have been a comet as well, captured by
Marsdens,
"Marsden favours an object closer in, a "planetary object," he told Space.com , perhaps at between 400 and 1,000 AU. "Perhaps there's more than one planet out there," Marsden said. "Who knows? But let's suppose it is something of an Earth mass,
****maybe even a few Earth masses.
A close approach could throw this object [Sedna] from something more circular into something more eccentric."

Sedna is not a planet or anything confirmed yet.
Some call it a planet,
Marsden wants to reclassify Sedna and EVEN Pluto as a new class of object,
the "plutino",
which describes anything like Pluto or smaller outside the 9 planet orbital scheme, which has that relative form of size and is
"an icy planetoid".
I think that this is a mistake, but they are the experts.

I believe this as well,
that NEATV1 was a planetary sized object in cometary form and motion.

Velikovskys Venus was thought to be a an enormous comet of extraordinary gravitational influence and mass, whose orbital trajectory was slowed dramatically by passing Jupiters gravitational influences,then passed by Mars, sucked its oceans off of the surface, and then slowed and orbitally decayed into the orbit of Venus which stabilized over time into the orbit it has now.

phantom wolf says

"If you therefore claim {Van Flandern claims !} that the Asteriod belt was once a planet that leaves the problem of where the rest went, s the asteroids have nowhere enough mass to have ever been a planet."

Van Flanderns idea as that whatever hit the planet between Mars and Jupiter, was large enough to keep on going.
The missing mass was most likely gravitationally absconded away by the huge planetary culprit , or even a 20-50 earth mass brown dwarf, and /or was ejected out of the solar system from the impact. The remaining debris that is now the asteroid belt, stabilized in solar orbit over vast amounts of time.

If you believe Van Flandern....
Hey Phil, any comments on Van Flandern?

sky eye guy says
"But I don't see a single shred of convincing 'historical mythology' that even suggests such a situation. If, however, one insists on adding brown dwarves to the Solar system planetary lexicon based on cherry-picked myths..."

Well Sitchin be damned then.
I guess his translations and Sumerian clay tablets are ALL poppycock and BS.
Polar flip evidences are invalid I assume.
Matese added the brown dwarf scenario , though Murray disagrees with that and maintains it to be huge planet.
Van Flandern of NASA fame suggested the asteroid belt theory, and that certainly implies a passing giant that causes major disruptive occurences in the solar system.

A.DIM says
"I think I've been discussing these and similar findings for almost 2yrs around here when it was once proclaimed "Impossible!," and then we progressed to "possible but unlikely," and now the discovery of Sedna coupled with exciting new technology,...Now, if you ask me for evidence to support this of course I'll refer you to these astronomers who are professors at major accredited universities, and you'll say, "Considering their resumes, that's not surprising,"

Indeed, and thank you.

Quickly here, I have to go to work today.

ASSUME for JUST a minute that the PX story of an orbital return every 3600 years is plausible.
Just because it comes around every 3600 years, does not mean that it crosses close to the planets each and every time.
This kind of interplanetary collision or garvitational interplay, could be once every 100 million years or more/less.

Did we , or did we not see
Shoemaker Levy plow into Jupiter?!
What would happen if NEATV1 hit Mercury , on its next passage 37000 years from now?
As comets like Hale-Bopp and NEATV1 go back out into the Oort cloud {for lack of a better described return destination},

then these comets may be,
orbitally realigned,
as in Murrays,
"..a large object in the extreme outer realms of the solar system may be gravitationally affecting the orbits of long-period comets."

Dr. Matese asserts that this object, too,
***has created a "concentration" of Oort cloud comets and is responsible for sending a significant number of them - perhaps as much as 25 percent - into the inner solar system. '

Murray´s research suggests that the some of the incoming comets include a group coming from directions in space that are aligned in an arc across the sky. This arc, he asserts, could mark the wake of some large body moving through space in the outer part of the Oort cloud. "

And Murrays grand finale

"By analysing the orbits of 13 of these comets, Dr Murray has detected the tell-tale signs of
***a single massive object that deflected all of them into their current orbits.

"Although I have only analysed 13 comets in detail," he told BBC News Online, "the effect is pretty conclusive. I have calculated that there is only about a
***one in 1,700 chance that it is due to chance."

Vianova writes:

"...Well Sitchin be damned then. I guess his translations and Sumerian clay tablets are ALL poppycock and BS."


Finally, Vianova, a statement of yours I find perfectly acceptable.

Come on Archer, what we're considering here is the science of various astronomers, learned people in the field, that shows evidence of another planet in our system, one with perhaps a highly elliptical inclined orbit - THIS is what was said to be "Impossible!" And when one says look at what these scientists are saying, you say, "considering their resumes..." or "Show me Nibiru!" Well, I'd bet it shan't be long before one of these or some other astronomer does "show you Nibiru" - talk about "strawmen." :-?
On a lighter note, I have a discovered a certain fondness for "debunker's phraseology" and thought of a turn of phrase that can be applied to both "woowoos" and "skeptics" alike: sturdy ostrich.

Long-winded post Vianova but it essentially doesn't contain anything more than your prior ones. No facts, just citations of various people that you use to try to sell your ideas. I had a point by point rebuttal but I can sum it up in one sentence. Show me proof for a solar system interloper, not quotes. Just a couple things more:No. You cited him. You provide the evidence for a brown dwarf without these citations. I can state with confidence that no brown dwarf has been discovered .. no citations required.Sitchin is a woowoo whose unique translations are disputed by his contemporaries.There's nothing about a magnetic pole flip that requires woowoo speculation to work. You continue to invoke examples of speculation and pass this off as somehow quantifying the existence of Planet X/Nibiru/interloping brown dwarves. There are other theories too you know. I require evidence, not data-mining for sympathetic citations.Sounds like you're taking a fanciful hyphothesis and making excuses for it to work. Assume this: There is no PX. No need for orbital speculation to explain why it's not been observed or failed to leave behind obvious evidence of it's prior passage.Maybe Murray can show us Nibiru, eh? :wink: No one else has. Until he or someone else does, all you believers can do is say "what if" until the cows come home.

What you are doing is the only thing you can do A.DIM. You're taking the discovery of Sedna and lamely trying to put a Nibiru-spin on it. As far as the "strawman" goes I stand behind what I said. Need a refresher on what you wrote? Nothing here about elliptical, inclined orbits. If you would have inserted those two words I wouldn't have made that assertion.. I'm not about to try reading your mind. As far as astronomers showing us Nibiru .. it hasn't happened. It's that simple. You can dream all you want. If they find it, I'll shut up .. till then you'll just have to do what you have been doing .. substituting speculation for reality and NOT showing us Nibiru.

A.DIM, please get your "facts" straight.

No one here ever said that a planetary body, as evidenced by Sedna, was impossible. What was said is that "Sitchin's Niburu", which must pass through the Solar System yet leave no evidence of it's passage, IS impossible. Two entirely different things.

And while we're on the subject...What I don't understand is how the discovery of Sedna confirms "Sitchinism". At it's closest, Sedna is way out there past Pluto...from what we know, it never passes through the Solar System itself, so how is it a confirmation of Sitchin's "theory's"??

As far as your "turn of a phrase" is concerned. Are you sayin that because "skeptics" won't accept "theory's" without evidence to confirm them...we are somehow "hiding our heads in the sand??" That doesn't make any sense!

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Don't forget, A.DIM claims to be a skeptic too! :wink:

Vianova wrote:

What would cause a highly eccentric elliptical orbit to become less eccentric?

And what would cause a "wobble like a giant knuckleball" to iron itself out over time?

Regards
Krill

I believe the discovery of Sedna has made many legitimate astronomers rethink the entire 10th planet debate. However, they simply don't believe in the magical Nancy or Hazelwood planet that is going to make our planet stop spinning. There is little doubt the recent discovery of Sedna and a similar sized KBO has opened the door for a discovery of a 10th planet, and possibly more. Perhaps the is another group of planets simply waiting to be discovered as our technology improves. I wouldn't hold my breath on another Jupiter, but I wouldn't rule out another earth-size planet or two.

Blah blah blah... (now that's not very nice, is it?)

More interesting to note is that he & I are of a vast minority here who've actually read Sitchin's work; maybe that's why we're "suckered in." Well, this and the fact that current astronomical evidence is pointing at such a body as being not only plausible but probable. :wink:

For me it this: I have found, not "decided," Sitchin to be a plausible rewrite of History, in much of his "revisionist ancient astronaut woowoo nonsense," but we must find out whether or not another large planetary body is part of our system, and does it have an inclined elliptical orbit which periodically brings it near the Asteroid Belt? I consider this the crux of the debate.


And when we do discover Nibiru? :P

According to Val Trottan, a while ago:
Planet or no planet, Sedna does not qualify as a “large terrestrial planet”, so its discovery does not support Sitchin’s ideas.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.