Planet X myth debunked

Mar 16, 2014 by Jean-Louis Santini
The hunt for Planet X began after Uranus (pictured) was first discovered in 1781 with astrologers hoping it could explain the wobbly orbit of Uranus around the sun

It was an elusive planet that for 200 years appeared to explain Uranus's wobbly orbit. And there was the sister sun theorized to be near our solar system that caused asteroids to swerve toward Earth.

There is just one problem: neither "Planet X" nor "Nemesis" ever existed, researchers now say.

Or probably not.

"The outer solar system probably does not contain a large ("Planet X"), or a small, companion star ("Nemesis")," concluded University of Pennsylvania astronomer Kevin Luhman, who directed the study using NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) telescope.

The results were published in the most recent edition of The Astrophysical Journal.

Most theories had estimated Planet X to be up to four times the size of Jupiter—the biggest planet in our .

They suggested it would be found some 1,486 billion kilometers (923 billion miles) from the sun, or about 10,000 times farther than the Earth's orbit.

But the images gathered by the telescope did not detect any object larger than Jupiter.

Luhman doesn't rule out the possibility that a planet is lurking somewhere in the asteroid belt.

It would be hard to find if it were closely aligned with a bright star that blinds the telescope or were much smaller than had been theorized.

A computer generated NASA montage obtained 29 August 2002 from images collected by the Voyager 2 spacecraft shows Neptune (Lower-L) as it would appear from a spacecraft approaching Triton, Neptune's largest moon

But after this latest survey, Luhman said the odds of finding one are very unlikely: "That is like a one in a hundred chance."

History of Planet X

Scientists first imagined the existence of Planet X in 1781, when they discovered Uranus, a gas giant that astonished astronomers with its orbital variations, apparently incompatible with Newton's laws of gravity.

Observers concluded that these irregularities could be explained by the existence of another, unknown planet that was exerting its own gravitational force.

Attempts to track this mysterious Planet X led to the discovery of Neptune in 1846. But the estimated mass of Neptune couldn't explain the deviations of Uranus's orbit.

That led astronomers to continue their search for Planet X—which, in turn, led to the discovery of Pluto in 1930. But the dwarf planet was also too small to explain Uranus's irregular path around the sun.

Finally, in the 1990s, researchers determined that they had slightly overestimated the mass of Neptune, which meant the planet could in fact be the reason for Uranus's orbital behavior.

Yet Planet X believers were still not convinced.

Sister sun killed dinosaurs?

The existence of Nemesis, a sun-like star nearby, was first posited in the 1980s. The star, by occasionally coming closer to the sun, interfered with the orbit of comets and asteroids leading them to occasionally hit the Earth.

Collisions like these are blamed for the five mass extinctions over the last 540 million years—the most recent being the dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago.

"So over the years, there have been different pieces of evidence suggesting there might be something there," Luhman explained to AFP.

But the WISE telescope didn't find anything.

The hunt for Planet X and Nemesis may have turned up empty, but the study did uncover 3,525 stars and brown dwarfs—celestial objects whose mass puts them between a star and a large planet—within 500 light years of the sun.

"Neighboring star systems that have been hiding in plain sight just jump out in the WISE data," said Ned Wright, a University of California, Los Angeles astronomer who contributed to the study.

Explore further: WISE survey finds thousands of new stars, but no 'Planet X'

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Bright star reveals new exoplanet

Jan 22, 2014

An international team of astronomers at Stellar Astrophysics Centre in Aarhus, Denmark, have discovered a new exoplanet, christened "Kepler-410A b." The planet is about the size of Neptune and orbits the ...

Newly discovered celestial object defies categories

Jan 08, 2014

An object discovered by astrophysicists at the University of Toronto (U of T) nearly 500 light years away from the Sun may challenge traditional understandings about how planets and stars form.

Nearby failed stars may harbor planet

Dec 16, 2013

(Phys.org) —Astronomers, including Carnegie's Yuri Beletsky, took precise measurements of the closest pair of failed stars to the Sun, which suggest that the system harbors a third, planetary-mass object.The ...

The closest star system found in a century

Mar 11, 2013

(Phys.org) —A pair of newly discovered stars is the third-closest star system to the Sun, according to a paper that will be published in Astrophysical Journal Letters. The duo is the closest star system ...

Kepler finds a very wobbly planet

Feb 04, 2014

(Phys.org) —Imagine living on a planet with seasons so erratic you would hardly know whether to wear Bermuda shorts or a heavy overcoat. That is the situation on a weird, wobbly world found by NASA's planet-hunting ...

Recommended for you

How small can galaxies be?

Sep 29, 2014

Yesterday I talked about just how small a star can be, so today let's explore just how small a galaxy can be. Our Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light years across, and contains about 200 billion stars. Th ...

The coolest stars

Sep 29, 2014

One way that stars are categorized is by temperature. Since the temperature of a star can determine its visual color, this category scheme is known as spectral type. The main categories of spectral type are ...

Simulations reveal an unusual death for ancient stars

Sep 29, 2014

(Phys.org) —Certain primordial stars—those 55,000 and 56,000 times the mass of our Sun, or solar masses—may have died unusually. In death, these objects—among the Universe's first-generation of stars—would ...

User comments : 61

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

GuruShabu
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 16, 2014
The first photo legended as Uranus is, in fact, Ariel.
One of the 27 moons of Uranus...
Anyone knows that Uranus is a Gas planes so no surface features...
This photos is of a silicate rocky celestian body!
These "scientific" articles are getting worse by the day!
Check here Ariel's photos:
http://en.wikiped...l_(moon)
Whydening Gyre
3.8 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
What if if it were an extremely dense planet and thusly a lot smaller than expected?
However logic then dictates, it would have an effect on other planets, so....nahhh...
Interrociter
5 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2014
"Luhman doesn't rule out the possibility that a planet is lurking somewhere in the asteroid belt." "Asteroid belt"? Don't think so. Should be "Oort Cloud."
Anda
5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2014
This article should be published in "astrology.org"...
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2014
Sigh. I thought Yirka was the low mark of Phys.org.

To add to the other problems, but not really a fault of the article author, Nemesis was debunked a decade ago. More data and modern statistics (autocorrelation) used on the fossil record of bivalves showed no periodicity in extinctions to high precision.
marraco
4.3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2014
Naively, I expected everybody here, and the writers, to at least know that Urauns is a gaseous planet.
Doug_Huffman
3.2 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2014
[ ... ] More data and modern statistics (autocorrelation) used on the fossil record of bivalves showed no periodicity in extinctions to high precision.
So you say without citation. Dave Raup is a close acquaintance and author.

Raup, D.M.; Sepkoski, J.J. (1 February 1984). "Periodicity of Extinctions in the Geologic Past". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 81 (3): 801–805. Bibcode:1984PNAS...81..801R. doi:10.1073/pnas.81.3.801. PMC 344925. PMID 6583680.

Of which is noted,
In 2010, Melott & Bambach re-examined the fossil data, including the now-improved dating, and using a second independent database in addition to that Raup & Sepkoski had used. They found evidence for a signal showing an excess extinction rate with a 27-million-year periodicity, now going back 500 million years, and at a much higher statistical significance than in the older work.
Melott, A.L.; Bambach, R.K. (2010). "Nemesis Reconsidered". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
nkalanaga
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2014
GuruShabu: Thank you. I knew it wasn't Uranus, but had no idea which moon it was.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2014
In 2010, Melott & Bambach re-examined the fossil data, including the now-improved dating, and using a second independent database in addition to that Raup & Sepkoski had used. They found evidence for a signal showing an excess extinction rate with a 27-million-year periodicity, now going back 500 million years, and at a much higher statistical significance than in the older work. Melott, A.L.; Bambach, R.K. (2010). "Nemesis Reconsidered". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Interesting, thanks for pointing the study out!
Bonia
Mar 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2014
Wasn't just the NASA, which http://phys.org/n...ed.html, but when I face such a loud dismissal, then I'm getting the more careful about it.
It WAS flawed, if you are looking for scientific accuracy. IT WAS A MOVIE!
Bonia
Mar 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2014
Nirbu is coming...

An invisible black death star sun...

Coming to smash the earth.....
GuruShabu
1 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2014
This article should be published in "astrology.org"...

Perfect stated Anda!
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2014
'There is just one problem: neither "Planet X" nor "Nemesis" ever existed, researchers now say.
Or probably not.
"The outer solar system probably does not contain a large...'
1 emphatic 'no' and 2 'probably' for the same item!? These early statements hardly give one the motivation to read on.

'The hunt for Planet X and Nemesis may have turned up empty, but the study did uncover 3,525 stars and brown dwarfs—celestial objects whose mass puts them between a star and a large planet—within 500 light years of the sun.'
Oh I get it, these are cause of 'Planet X and Nemesis' theories...then again PROBABLY NOT! (just being funny here)
I'm pleased the article reminds us of mass extinctions...are we due for another then? PROBABLY NOT.
GuruShabu
1.5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2014
Naively, I expected everybody here, and the writers, to at least know that Urauns is a gaseous planet.

Hi Marraco,
Thats is a very basic assumption that was demolished by this article.
You are right and I am astonished that such a thing could be published here...
DarkHorse66
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2014
Naively, I expected everybody here, and the writers, to at least know that Urauns is a gaseous planet.

Careful, possibly not entirely. From wiki (Uranus): "In contrast, the interior of Uranus is mainly composed of ices and rock." & " Uranus is similar in composition to Neptune, and both are of different chemical composition than the larger gas giants Jupiter and Saturn. For this reason, astronomers sometimes place them in a separate category called "ice giants"". Wiki (Neptune): " The interior of Neptune, like that of Uranus, is primarily composed of ices and rock.[11] It is possible that the core has a solid surface, but the temperature would be thousands of degrees and the atmospheric pressure crushing".
http://en.wikiped...i/Uranus
http://en.wikiped.../Neptune
Regards, DH66
Sinister1812
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2014
According to the graph in the other article, there could still be a Neptune size planet at around 1000Au that's undetectable.
http://cdn.phys.o...eyfi.jpg

Who knows?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2014
According to the graph in the other article, there could still be a Neptune size planet at around 1000Au that's undetectable.
http://cdn.phys.o...eyfi.jpg

Who knows?
You're reading that graph wrong Sinister, a Neptune-sized planet could be detected out to about 6000-10,000 AU according to that graph.
Sinister1812
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2014
According to the graph in the other article, there could still be a Neptune size planet at around 1000Au that's undetectable.
http://cdn.phys.o...eyfi.jpg

Who knows?
You're reading that graph wrong Sinister, a Neptune-sized planet could be detected out to about 6000-10,000 AU according to that graph.


Ah crap, thanks for the correction Maggnus. Well, if that's the case, then that would push it out heaps further than the orbit of Sedna.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
Regarding the new study by Merlott et al, "Nemesis Reconsidered", the authors state that: "In this sense we confirm the originally noted feature in the time series for extinction. However, we find that it displays extremely regular timing for about 0.5 Gy. The regularity of the timing compared with earlier calculations of orbital perturbation would seem to exclude the Nemesis hypothesis as a causal factor." and "We show here that the fossil record is inconsistent with perturbations expected in the orbit of a dark Solar companion with the requisite orbital period."

see here: http://arxiv.org/...0437.pdf

So they reconsidered it, then determined with even more accuracy that it "would seem to exclude the Nemesis hypothesis".

Doug Huffman, it is wise to read the cites you make to be sure they are actually saying what you think they say.
Sinister1812
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2014
Thanks for the 1s GuruShabu, did you even look at the graph? I doubt it.
Zachia
1 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2014
the WISE telescope didn't find anything
The WISE data were released with NASA nearly two years after finishing of the mission and they're censored. I hope, you don't expect to find something interesting on it.
Doug_Huffman
1.3 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2014
Raup, Merlott and I were addressing periodicity, of which Planet X is a hypothetical cause. I read the Merlott in preprint and am pleased that Maggnus read it at all, even only the abstract.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2014
Raup, Merlott and I were addressing periodicity, of which Planet X is a hypothetical cause. I read the Merlott in preprint and am pleased that Maggnus read it at all, even only the abstract.
Yea, actually I read the whole thing. You'll note I didn't only quote from the abstract (like you did) I also quoted from the body of the paper.

Are you changing your position now Doug? Have I misunderstood you? My impression was that you were using the new Merlott paper to suggest that new techniques support the premise that a "Nemesis" type body causes periodic extinctions. Is that incorrect?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
the WISE telescope didn't find anything
The WISE data were released with NASA nearly two years after finishing of the mission and they're http://forums.the...cluded/. I hope, you don't expect to find something interesting on it.

@zephir
are you going for a record on number of incarnations on a site?

linking to a forum chat site that is for conspiracy nuts is NOT empirical data
from the site
Feel free to talk about Any Topic and Everything here i.e The Latest Conspiracy News, Spirituality, Awakening, Ascension, Channeling, Our Spiritual, Physical and Alien Ancestry, UFO's, Abduction and other Extra-Terrestrial related issues and events. Politics and Economy.


so how does this support your claims of censorship? why not link NASA? show PROOF!
if ya cant link empirical data, dont waste everyone's time
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2014
Have I misunderstood you? My impression was ...
LOL all this confusion from my seventeen words! I caught you out and now you demonstrate ADHOCKERY.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2014
Hi there Cap'n...Oh you mean like http://xfacts.com/x5.html? All the proof you need!...that is if you don't the count the misinterpretations of what Sumerians wrote...sure zeph is in there somewhere ha!
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2014
Have I misunderstood you? My impression was ...
LOL all this confusion from my seventeen words! I caught you out and now you demonstrate ADHOCKERY.

Wow, you're not the sharpest tack in the board are you? Caught me out how exactly? Ad hockery you say! Lol, what exactly have I "ad hocked"?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2014
linking to a forum chat site that is for conspiracy nuts is NOT empirical data
Valid info exists independent of its source. You might suspect zephyrs info but this does not mean that it is wrong, only that you might want to look for corroboration from a source you're more comfortable with.

For instance David icke is a wanker but he can nevertheless be a very reliable source of facts.
http://www.davidicke.com
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2014
@TheGhostofOtto1923...you mean those reptilians are real? Or do they come from Planet X?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2014
Valid info exists independent of its source. You might suspect zephyrs info but this does not mean that it is wrong, only that you might want to look for corroboration from a source you're more comfortable with

@Otto
it might not mean it is "wrong" but the source is definitely not a good one, and from what I saw, neither was the info
there was also a link on his source for NASA, but it did not corroborate the claim that I saw

as for looking for a source that I am more comfy with: Zephir made the claim, therefore it is Zeph's responsibility to come up with a legitimate source that supports his claim (as it is NASA, there should be evidence- it brings to mind the claims of NASA covering up the pyramid on the moon and doctoring the moon photo's, etc)

I dont know anything about "David icke"... I will check it out, as well as his sources and support
Zachia
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2014
so how does this support your claims of censorship? why not link NASA? show PROOF!
This is just the reason, I linked the discussion there. The pictures with erased data are linked there (1, 2) BTW If you're beliving, that the astronomical data of NASA aren't censored, then you're simply very naive. Before some time ALL studies of NASA were pulled down from the web with respect to their analysis regarding the national security. I could ask instead, why some apparent supporter of mainstream science like you should represent an ubiased source regarding the controversial topics, which are censored with mainstream science.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2014
BTW If you belive, the astronomical data of NASA aren't censored, then you're simply very naive.

@zeph
ok... you CLAIM it is censored with pice from a fruit-cake convention in a conspiracy forum
and you say that I am naïve?
Did you ever contact NASA and request information about the blacked out boxes? Did you try to find out what the reason might actually be? Maybe the pixel was bad, or pixellation occurred distorting the image... there are a myriad of reasons that a pic like this could have small black boxes.

Given your propensity to support ANY conspiracy to come down the pike, I suspect this is just another cold-fusion-aether-daw-unsupported-biased-pseudoscience claim made as there is NO supporting evidence that you provided thus far that can be taken as legitimate
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2014
I could ask instead, why some apparent supporter of mainstream science like you should represent an ubiased source regarding the controversial topics, which are censored with mainstream science

@zeph
ok, WTF does this even mean?
What unbiased source am I representing? Especially regarding the "controversial topics" which are "censored" with mainstream science?

Do you mean that YOU don't like legitimate science sites because they wont let garbage science be represented, like your CLAIMS about cold-fusion etc?

If you have a beef with them (universities, etc), take it up with them
if you have a problem with me using empirical data, then you are stupid
if you cannot provide empirical data to support your CLAIMS, then you have the issue, not I

we've been down this rabbit hole before. provide empirical data
I do it to support my arguments, you should as well

Zachia
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2014
Maybe the pixel was bad, or pixellation occurred distorting the image... there are a myriad of reasons
Censoring is just censoring, no matter which reason it is. For example, I don't analyze the reasons, for which my accounts are deleted from here. These things just happens.
YOU don't like legitimate science sites because they wont let garbage science be represented
I just don't like the censorship in any form. The "garbage science" labelling is just the same evasion made with trolls, like the Putin's "protection" of "native Russians" at Crimea. The reasons and evasions aren't important, the result is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2014
@TheGhostofOtto1923...you mean those reptilians are real? Or do they come from Planet X?
No, I mean that David icke is real and that he employs very good researchers who have done some very good work. I think icke is smarter than he looks - he uses that outrageous cover story because he knows that that's the only way to sell.

I didn't say it was easy to sort his facts from his fiction, only that it's possible.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
For example, I don't analyze the reasons, for which my accounts are deleted from here. These things just happens

@zachia/zephir
MAYBE your accounts were deleted because you post known debunked science, you add links to pseudoscience sites and try to support arguments with links to conspiracy sites?
Like this
WISE data were released with NASA nearly two years after finishing of the mission and they're http://forums.the...cluded/

As this is against posting rules... that would explain it, dont you think?
I just don't like the censorship in any form. The "garbage science" labelling is just the same evasion made with trolls

1- as you are on a SCIENCE site, and you are posting KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE, then that makes YOU the troll, not those who censor you for breaking the rules
2- I dont like censorship either, BUT there are RULES and you dont follow them

make your own forum and do what you like, but as THIS is a SCIENCE site
there are other places for the other stuff
Zachia
1 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2014
I'm not posting any pseudoscience, you hysterical troll... :-) I just linked two pictures with erased pixels from on-line WISE database. Try to live with it: it's me who proves my stance here - not you. I'm just following the rules of this forum - not you.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
I just linked two pictures with erased pixels from on-line WISE database

@zachia/zeph
actually, your link is copied here
http://chani.invi...4997.png
lets see... first it starts with chani.invisionzone.com... and that is what you are assuming is the WISE database?
Um... NOT
your first link was the "forums" on the chani site (STILL not WISE database)
all links you've made here as Zachia are to chani... NOT the WISE database
so THAT means that this claim
it's me who proves my stance here - not you. I'm just following the rules of this forum - not you

is intentionally false, and is just a temper tantrum
guess what... thats right!
It means that you are WRONG YET AGAIN

nice try, skippy. Care for another round?
This time lets see if you can ACTUALLY link WISE database here
P.S. just because it LOOKS like a screenshot, doesn't mean it IS one
PROVE IT
Zachia
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2014
lets see if you can ACTUALLY link WISE database here
I cannot, 'cause it's censored. This is a proof. Show me instead, you can do it and I'll respect your moral victory in this matter..;-)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2014
lets see if you can ACTUALLY link WISE database here
I cannot, 'cause it's censored. This is a proof. Show me instead, you can do it and I'll respect your moral victory in this matter..;-)

@zeph
YOUR lack of proof is NOT proof of conspiracy or censorship
and YOU made the claim.
time to put up or shut up
I aint doin' your work for ya...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
lets see if you can ACTUALLY link WISE database here
I cannot, 'cause it's censored. This is a proof. Show me instead, you can do it and I'll respect your moral victory in this matter..;-)

@zeph
YOUR lack of proof is NOT proof of conspiracy or censorship
and YOU made the claim.
time to put up or shut up
I aint doin' your work for ya...

The simple answer would be to try and see the pics on NASA site, then link it to prove it...
Pippero
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2014
The reason, why I'm instinctively downvoted without any arguments, when I'm talking about nonexistence of WIMPs, gravitational waves or big bang cosmology is, these theories became a religious thing for proponents of mainstream physics
Back to this GARBAGE again Zephyr? I have asked you several times now with no response, but let try once more.

Can you show anything, anything AT ALL that supports your contention that dark matter or neutrinos can initiate fusion in anything at any time? Anything? One single thing, anywhere?

You have no support at all for any of the gobblegook you spout on this site. Why bother?
Mimath224
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
@Captain Stumpy, hi there, sorry I'm a bit late with this one '..ok, WTF does this even mean?..' I know this one because I am a member, World TaeKwonDo Federation. And you will find listed everywhere as WTF (along with ITF etc.) but what does that have to do with Planet X?
Oh yes, of course, silly me, the Korean founders must have come from Planet X Ha!
Do you think zeph is a member too? Maybe he will tell you whereas he wont bother with me.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
I'm just saying, that NASA had enough of time for manipulation of WISE data

@Zachia/Pippero/Zephir
and I am saying that your insistence of conspiracy is not proof of conspiracy
claims require proof otherwise you might as well just say "fairy tears makes squid urine salty" as it holds every bit the same validity of unsubstantiated conjecture
In my theory the global warming could be caused with dark matter cloud pervading the solar system
unsubstantiated conjecture: see last comment
This cloud could be dragged with Planet X, but it could have many other origins (Great Rift gravitational shadow, dark matter at galactic plane, etc)
and Bigfoot could be related to Danny DeVito, too
So far we have only indirect evidence, so I don't take the Planet X hypothesis very seriously. But I know about many indicia of it already
links/proof?one link 404'ed, one is conjecture, & no X found http://phys.org/n...net.html
next delusion?
Danie
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2014
The name of this post is misleading.

tr.v. de·bunked, de·bunk·ing, de·bunks. To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of

All your article states, is that they haven't found anything yet, and may be more difficult than previously thought.
ThomasQuinn
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2014

For instance David icke is a wanker but he can nevertheless be a very reliable source of facts.
http://www.davidicke.com


I'd like to hear what 'facts' David Icke is a reliable source of? Go ahead, I could use a laugh!
bwmassen
2 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2014
Planet X and Nemesis have many corollaries to dark matter. We use an unknown/undetected amount of matter explain something that our theory doesn't...dark martter? Perhaps one day dark matter will be 'debunked' when we achieve a deeper understanding of Einstein's equations as was the case with Newton's equations?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2014
Do you even know what the word 'corollary' means?
baudrunner
1 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2014
For those of you who don't believe that NASA data is censored, well, I can tell you that it most certainly is. Check out the following location in Google Earth. Select View->Explore->Sky and input the following co-ords: -5.982030° -91.571036°

Of course there is a Planet X, it is Nibiru, and the reason that you can be sure that it exists is that they published an article debunking it. Nobody asked for the article.

Incidentally, according to all the evidence garnered from my readings (a LOT!) Nibiru should make its next close approach between 2076 and 2078. I don't know what they plan to do this time. They once sucked up all the water and atmosphere from Mars during a close approach to that planet. They are a devious lot, these Nibiruans.
bwmassen
3 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2014
Yes, antialias_physorg, I do know what corollary means. In case you need reminding it is....
"a proposition that follows from one already proved"
and I already imagine you need reminding what proposition means, which is....
"a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion"

antialias_physorg, I don't think you need to be focusing on semantics. To make it clearer for you....propose a undetected planet/brown dwarf to explain weird orbits {explain what equations don't} --> propose dark matter causes things to orbit faster than they should {explain what equations don't} --> it follows that Nemesis/Planet X and dark matter are correlated)?

antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2014
it is....
"a proposition that follows from one already proved"

..and you were using it to link Nibiru with dark matter. Two things not yet proven. See the problem?
I was just pointing out that you were trying to make an argument based on a non-arguemnt...which is sort of nonsensical.

propose dark matter causes things to orbit faster than they should {explain what equations don't} --> it follows that Nemesis/Planet X and dark matter are correlated)?

Propose that the sky is blue. Propose that there exists a lipstick that is blue. Correlated?

Is that really how you think arguments go? Really?
bwmassen
5 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2014
antialias_physorg, how old are you? I was proposing something that is related to the article, and asking for related feedback. Please stop.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2014
Planet X and Nemesis have many corollaries to dark matter. We use an unknown/undetected amount of matter explain something that our theory doesn't...dark martter? Perhaps one day dark matter will be 'debunked' when we achieve a deeper understanding of Einstein's equations as was the case with Newton's equations?

bwmassen So just was is it you are proposing here? Are you suggesting an analogy only? If that is what you intended then you should have posted just that. Your post does seem a bit ambiguous.
bwmassen
5 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2014
I am proposing (i.e. asking why not).....the ambiguity is meant to allow people to interpret as they chose and collaborate from.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2014
bwmassen You have go a bit beyond that. The post is perhaps too vague to allow interpretation
bwmassen
5 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2014
How is tell me why I am wrong too vague?? Is everyone on the site TROLLS??
Mimath224
3 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2014
I am proposing (i.e. asking why not).....the ambiguity is meant to allow people to interpret as they chose and collaborate from.


bwmassen, I assure you I am not a troll. I am a layman in physics and related science subjects. I come here to learn about what researchers are doing. However, your post in reply to mine shows that the ambiguity is indeed intended therefore you admit to being ambiguous...or are you being ambiguous about being ambiguous???

bwmassen
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2014
More semantics. Looking collaborative feedback?
Mimath224
3 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2014
Planet X and Nemesis have many corollaries to dark matter. We use an unknown/undetected amount of matter explain something that our theory doesn't...dark martter? Perhaps one day dark matter will be 'debunked' when we achieve a deeper understanding of Einstein's equations as was the case with Newton's equations?

bwmassen the above was your first post which says what? 'Perhaps one day dark matter will be 'debunked''.
Well that goes just about everything doesn't it? I mean, even today people have written books on how they think 'Einstein was wrong' so isn't it a possibility that SR,GR, QM etc etc will be debunked too (these are just examples and do not reflect opinion I might have). Alien UFO's are continually debunked yet...
So just tell me what your point is and I will gladly discuss it with you!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2014
I was proposing something that is related to the article, and asking for related feedback.

Look, it's very simple information theory: You can only draw conclusions or inferences (or make any statistical correlation measurements) if on of the things you are positing is established. You're trying to connect two unestablished things here by means of a "doctrine of signatures". That isn't how science works.
http://en.wikiped...gnatures

Also I don't think you're using the words correlation and corrolary correcly. You're confusing them with causation and 'look like' respectively.

.the ambiguity is meant to allow people to interpret as they chose and collaborate from.

Using ambiguity is not a good way to communicate what you want to say. Use the correct words and people will answer your questions. (or more likely: Use the correct words and you will notice yourself where the error is. It will eliminate the tech-babble obfuscation layer)
bwmassen
not rated yet Mar 23, 2014
More semantics. Looking collaborative feedback?