PDA

View Full Version : What would be the effects of Nibiru on the asteroid belt?



Jairo
2010-May-18, 12:14 PM
If it existed and had a perihelion close to Earth, would it mess with the ressonance with Jupiter? Disperse the asteroid belt? Etc?

NEOWatcher
2010-May-18, 01:11 PM
Without knowing it's trajectory, mass, speed, etc.*, there's no way of knowing.

*That's of course the wild assumption that it even exists.

captain swoop
2010-May-18, 02:52 PM
Is this a conspiracy?

Bozola
2010-May-18, 02:55 PM
IF it existed, and since you use the word "perihelion", implying a solar orbit, means that if it was of a significant size we would have already detected it's effects by the orbital dynamics of all the other bodies in the solar system. Since we do not, this would mean that "Nibiru" is far too small to be of any grand consequence other than the usual issues that Earth orbit crossing asteroids have of wanting to fall on your head.

It would destroy all life on Earth unless Bruce Willis stops it.

Bozola
2010-May-18, 02:57 PM
Is this a conspiracy?

"Nibiru" is Akkadian for "conspiracy".

Jairo
2010-May-18, 05:41 PM
I know every conspiracist might have his own idea of Nibiru, but I considered an often seen version: equal or bigger than Earth, orbit of 3,600 years and perihelion between Mars and Jupiter.

Kinetic
2010-May-18, 08:08 PM
I know every conspiracist might have his own idea of Nibiru, but I considered an often seen version: equal or bigger than Earth, orbit of 3,600 years and perihelion between Mars and Jupiter.

Surely if it had a perihelion between Mars and Jupiter that would put it's orbit in the same plane as the rest of the planets? I'm pretty sure orbital period of 3600 years would give it a massive eccentricity forcing it across the paths of pretty much every other planet in the Solar System, yet there seems to have been no interaction. Conservation of angular momentum?

Van Rijn
2010-May-18, 10:04 PM
If it existed and had a perihelion close to Earth, would it mess with the ressonance with Jupiter? Disperse the asteroid belt? Etc?

From Mike Brown's blog (http://www.mikebrownsplanets.com/2008/02/i-do-not-pseudo-science.html):


First, if this planet were out there as described we would simply have seen it by now. We haven’t. Being the person who has been doing the looking, I find this argument particularly compelling. Second, if the planet had the orbit that is ascribed to it, it would only last for about a million years before it came too close to Jupiter and got ejected out of the solar system.

(Mike Brown is the astronomer who found Eris, among other things.)

Starfury
2010-May-25, 12:23 AM
From 2012hoax.org:

Niburu's impossible orbit

Nibiru's proposed orbit would be highly elliptical. So highly elliptical that it is for all intents and purposes a straight line, out and back. We know this because a simple mathematical relationship exists between the period and the length of the semi-major axis of the ellipse.

Kepler's Laws

German mathematician and astronomer Johannes Kepler (15711630) discovered three laws of planetary motion. They are:

1. "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the sun at a focus."
2. "A line joining a planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time."
3. "The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit."

Kepler's Laws applied to Nibiru

1. Since all planets orbit in ellipses with the Sun at one focus, Nibiru must go around the Sun, not just through the orbital paths of the planets[6].
2. All planets sweep out equal areas in equal time intervals, so Nibiru must move very slowly at it's aphelion, or furthest point from the Sun, and very fast at it's perihelion, or closest point[6].
3. The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. Since Nibiru's period is specified as 3,600 years, we can use Kepler's third law to determine something about its orbit[6].

Kepler's third law can be expressed as:

a^3 = p^2

where a is the length of the semi-major axis in astronomical units (AU) and p is the period, in years. Applying a little middle-school algebra to this, we get:

a = \sqrt[3]{(p^2)}

So, assuming that perihelion is at or near Earth's orbit (since it is supposed to come close to us, or even hit us), the distance d from the sun at aphelion is going to be 2a - 1 (twice the semi-major axis, minus 1 AU). Adding this to our formula gives us:

d = 2\left(\sqrt[3]{(p^2)}\right) -1

Substituting our period (3600 years) gives us:

d = 2\left(\sqrt[3]{(3600^2)}\right) -1

d = 2\left(\sqrt[3]{12960000}\right) -1

d = 2(234.892058) -1

d = 469.784116 -1

d = 468.784116

In other words, given a 3,600 year orbit that brings it to within 1 AU of the sun (the area of Earth's orbit) the far end of the orbit must be 469 AU out from the sun.

Just as a comparison point, Pluto is on average about 39.5 AU away from the Sun. It's year is about 248 earth years long. If we plug 248 into equation (2) above, we get 39.47 AU. We can see that the formula works.

At nearly 470 AU, the gravity of the sun is negligible, almost non-existent. So as a result, Nibiru must be traveling close to the Sun's escape velocity when it comes within 1 AU of it. At a distance of 1 AU, the Sun's escape velocity is about 42km/s, so this is the speed at which Nibiru should be traveling (or a hair under it) in 2012. In comparison, the Earth's orbital velocity is a bit under 30km/s, Venus' is about 35km/s and Mercury's is 47.8. Nibiru would be whipping around the Sun nearly as quickly as Mercury.

Unstable Orbit

The orbit described above would be highly unstable. A highly elliptical orbit is unstable because it will suffer drastically from the slightest perturbation - Jupiter's gravity would probably be enough to send Nibiru spiraling off to who knows where. Pluto's orbit is stabilized by Neptune, as Pluto is locked into a 2:3 orbital resonance with Neptune. The maths behind multiple body problems are nightmarish to sort out because they have no closed solutions (the objects all affect each other to such a degree that the orbits gradually precess), so professional astronomers use computers to perform these calculations. But you should understand this: As much as the fictional Nibiru would pull on other planets, those planets would also pull on Nibiru. With a long, thin ellipse as described, even the slightest nudge from the gravity of another object, even if that object is considerably smaller than Nibiru, would have a dramatic effect on Nibiru's orbit.

Nibiru undetected

In the last few years, the news has been full of new planets discovered around other stars. Usually these are discovered by the observed light curve from the star where the planet partially eclipses the star, or by the motion of the star as the planet causes it to wobble. Very recently we actually visually detected a planet orbiting Fomalhaut. We can see distant objects in our own solar system which would be much dimmer than Nibiru. Remember that Nibiru is large, supposedly earth-sized or larger. Some claim that it is in orbit around a 'dark star', which would be even larger.

Even though we can detect sub-stellar objects, and now, even planets around other stars, why can't we find Nibiru?

A devastating analysis, if you ask me.

A.DIM
2010-May-25, 06:55 PM
...
In other words, given a 3,600 year orbit that brings it to within 1 AU of the sun (the area of Earth's orbit) ...
I think if you're going to utilize Sitchin's 3600yr orbit for Nibiru, you should also acknowledge that it isn't said to come as close as one AU. Instead its perhelion is alleged to be some 3AU, near the asteroid belt.
Moreover, if you're drawing on Sitchin as original source material for these claims you should know Nibiru isn't said to be returning in 2012.


Even though we can detect sub-stellar objects, and now, even planets around other stars, why can't we find Nibiru?

Do we know where to look?

If one reads this paper (pdf) (http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~dpw9254/Sedna_like.pdf) one might realize that a wide binary solar companion would not necessarily have been detected by now. As stated in the paper, IRAS could have picked it up (some say it did) but even still it would not have been perceived as a solar companion.
As I understand it, its proper motion would need be identified.

JayUtah
2010-May-25, 07:54 PM
...

I think if you're going to utilize Sitchin's 3600yr orbit for Nibiru, you should also acknowledge that it isn't said to come as close as one AU. Instead its perhelion is alleged to be some 3AU, near the asteroid belt.

Then perhaps you'd be so good as to reparameterize Starfury's correct orbital model and show that a perihelion of 3 AU (as opposed to 1 AU) materially affects his outcome -- specifically that it materially alters the orbital eccentricity so as to avoid the instability he mentions.

Moreover, if you're drawing on Sitchin as original source material for these claims you should know Nibiru isn't said to be returning in 2012.

Straw man. Starfury does not mention Sitchin. There are plenty of Nibiru-believers such as Burak Eldem who propose a 2012 return date and a roughly 3,600-year orbital period. The debate is about Nibiru, not about Sitchin.

If one reads this paper (pdf) (http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~dpw9254/Sedna_like.pdf) one might realize that a wide binary solar companion would not necessarily have been detected by now.

Straw man. If one reads the paper, one discovers that a wide-binary companion which displays two specific consequential properties of interest to those researchers may be in the IRAS database but may not have been recognized as such. That is by no means proof that any wide-binary companion would be undetectable in general, or that a wide-binary companion of the characteristics analyzed by Starfury would escape detection.

Don J
2010-May-26, 07:35 PM
The explanation about why the Sun's companion (if any) may be hard to detect ?

Sun's Nemesis Pelted Earth with Comets, Study Suggests

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/nemesis-comets-earth-am-100311.html

Bozola
2010-May-26, 08:14 PM
Nemisis ain't the same as Nibiru. 25,000 AU is not a perihelion "close to Earth".

Van Rijn
2010-May-26, 09:43 PM
Nemesis has the advantage of at least being physically possible, though the evidence is lacking. A point not mentioned in the space.com article: Sedna, according to Brown, was likely perturbed by something long ago, but that doesn't mean that it must be a present solar companion.

Van Rijn
2010-May-27, 04:14 AM
I think if you're going to utilize Sitchin's 3600yr orbit for Nibiru, you should also acknowledge that it isn't said to come as close as one AU. Instead its perhelion is alleged to be some 3AU, near the asteroid belt.


I get an eccentricity of about 0.9872 instead of 0.995744 for an orbit with a 3600 year period that comes within three AU of the sun. For both, the eccentricity is pretty close to one . . . which would be parabolic, not an elliptical orbit, meaning the object wouldn't be held by the sun. That's another way to say it's unstable: It doesn't take much perturbation to get it over the edge.

I ran this through gravity simulator (http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/what.html) (eccentricity as above, semi major axis 234.89) including the planets. The period of the orbit varied dramatically (sometimes much shorter, sometimes much longer) , and in a few dozen orbits Nibiru was on its way out of the solar system.

eburacum45
2010-May-28, 04:24 PM
So we can safely say that Sitchin's figures are bunk. But seeing as he was a/ not an astronomer, and b/ pulled the figures more-or-less out of thin air, that should not really be a surprise.

neilzero
2010-May-31, 12:31 PM
Two or three Earth mass dipping briefly into the asteroid belt at 3600 year intervals, will disrupt many asteroids very slightly, perhaps two into orbits that would threaten Earth. I can say two safely as tiny asteroids don't threaten, and odds are no medium or large asteroids would have their orbits altered by important amounts. That said there is a million to a trillion = slight possibility that Ceres will hit Earth a year or more after the perihelion of Nibiru, if Nibiru has any reality.
We should have detected Nibiru a year or more ago, if it has a slightly larger diameter than Earth, and will reach perihelion in 2012 in the asteroid belt. It should presently be visable with rather puny amature telescopes, even if it matches the least reflective of light of the darkest body we have found. All educated guesses. Please tell me if I'm way off. Neil

ravens_cry
2010-May-31, 01:20 PM
I get an eccentricity of about 0.9872 instead of 0.995744 for an orbit with a 3600 year period that comes within three AU of the sun. For both, the eccentricity is pretty close to one . . . which would be parabolic, not an elliptical orbit, meaning the object wouldn't be held by the sun. That's another way to say it's unstable: It doesn't take much perturbation to get it over the edge.

I ran this through gravity simulator (http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/what.html) (eccentricity as above, semi major axis 234.89) including the planets. The period of the orbit varied dramatically (sometimes much shorter, sometimes much longer) , and in a few dozen orbits Nibiru was on its way out of the solar system.

You do realize what this means don't you?
It means the universe must be less then 108,000 years old, or Nibiru would be out of the solar system!:wall:

Hungry4info
2010-May-31, 01:59 PM
I am forced to disagree with some of the statements presented here.


Surely if it had a perihelion between Mars and Jupiter that would put it's orbit in the same plane as the rest of the planets?
No. Inclination is one of the six ways we define an orbit. An orbit can be inclined to the plane of the planetary system, have a perihelion near the sun, an aphelion much more distant, and not cross the orbits of any planets (multiple long-period comets being a great examples).


Even though we can detect sub-stellar objects, and now, even planets around other stars, why can't we find Nibiru? Not necessarily a fair comparison. Exoplanets are found through a method that would not be applicable to a hypothetical Nibiru. As A.DIM noted, the visual detection of Fomalhaut b was greatly assisted by knowing where in the sky to look.

Tenshu
2010-Jun-01, 07:26 AM
Not necessarily a fair comparison. Exoplanets are found through a method that would not be applicable to a hypothetical Nibiru. As A.DIM noted, the visual detection of Fomalhaut b was greatly assisted by knowing where in the sky to look.

So...what then? Do you believe Nibiru exists? A planet supposed to be as big as jupiter or possibly bigger should've been detected by now in some form if it was going to show up in less than two years.

slang
2010-Jun-01, 10:06 AM
So...what then?

So... nothing? Just because someone notes that a particular argument on one side of a discussion may not be a very good one, doesn't mean he automatically agrees with the other side of the discussion.

Kinetic
2010-Jun-01, 02:34 PM
I am forced to disagree with some of the statements presented here.


No. Inclination is one of the six ways we define an orbit. An orbit can be inclined to the plane of the planetary system, have a perihelion near the sun, an aphelion much more distant, and not cross the orbits of any planets (multiple long-period comets being a great examples).
.

He said specifically that it has a perihelion between Mars and Jupiter, it also has to come close enough to the Earth to affect us and it has to orbit the sun. These 'fixed' points limit the extent of it's inclination.

JayUtah
2010-Jun-01, 03:20 PM
...

Inclination is one of the six ways we define an orbit. An orbit can be inclined to the plane of the planetary system...

True. The major axis of the orbit would have to lie in the ecliptic plane in order for the perihelion to lie between Mars and Jupiter, but the actual inclination of the orbit may vary considerably. The problem then becomes determining such an orbit that manages to evade detection yet achieves all the destructive goals of Nibiru.

...(multiple long-period comets being a great examples).

Yes, a number of them have been detected despite their small size and oddly oriented orbits. Hence it doesn't make sense to suggest that Nibiru must be undetectable because it may lie outside the ecliptic.

Exoplanets are found through a method that would not be applicable to a hypothetical Nibiru. As A.DIM noted, the visual detection of Fomalhaut b was greatly assisted by knowing where in the sky to look.

Fomalhaut b was discovered by largely the same method as Neptune was discovered in our solar system: by using observable gravitational perturbations in known objects to predict the presence of a nearby planetary mass, then to confirm that prediction visually. That method works fine on a Jupiter-sized planet 25 LYs away, and it works fine on a Neptune-sized planet a few AU away. It ought to work exceptionally well on an object now inside our solar system and larger than our largest planet.

Show us the perturbations.

The notion that it would be invisible or hard to detect based on the non-use of techniques designed to narrow or expedite a visual search for non-mythical objects remains a straw man. Yes we do indeed employ indirect techniques to narrow the search, but that's because it's prudent to do so, not because discovery (intentional or accidental) is unlikely otherwise.

A.DIM
2010-Jun-01, 03:22 PM
I think if you're going to utilize Sitchin's 3600yr orbit for Nibiru, you should also acknowledge that it isn't said to come as close as one AU. Instead its perhelion is alleged to be some 3AU, near the asteroid belt.

Then perhaps you'd be so good as to reparameterize Starfury's correct orbital model and show that a perihelion of 3 AU (as opposed to 1 AU) materially affects his outcome -- specifically that it materially alters the orbital eccentricity so as to avoid the instability he mentions.

Hi Jay,

Nibiru is also said to be inclined to the ecliptic some 30deg.
Would this materially affect Starfury's model?
I don't know.
However, only recently have we observed a planetary system most like that proposed by Sitchin: Perturbed Planets Outside of the Plane (http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3505/perturbed-planets-outside-of-the-plane). And while this system is "on the precipice of stability, I'm unconvinced we can say with any certitude what range of orbital eccentricities are possible.



Moreover, if you're drawing on Sitchin as original source material for these claims you should know Nibiru isn't said to be returning in 2012.
Straw man. Starfury does not mention Sitchin. There are plenty of Nibiru-believers such as Burak Eldem who propose a 2012 return date and a roughly 3,600-year orbital period. The debate is about Nibiru, not about Sitchin.
Fine; debate and debunk what you will.



If one reads this paper (pdf) (http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~dpw9254/Sedna_like.pdf) one might realize that a wide binary solar companion would not necessarily have been detected by now.
Straw man. If one reads the paper, one discovers that a wide-binary companion which displays two specific consequential properties of interest to those researchers may be in the IRAS database but may not have been recognized as such. That is by no means proof that any wide-binary companion would be undetectable in general, or that a wide-binary companion of the characteristics analyzed by Starfury would escape detection.

OK, if Nibiru has those properties as described by Starfury, I'd agree it should've been detected by now.

A.DIM
2010-Jun-01, 03:37 PM
So we can safely say that Sitchin's figures are bunk. But seeing as he was a/ not an astronomer, and b/ pulled the figures more-or-less out of thin air, that should not really be a surprise.

I must admit I was rather surprised to see that article about the planetary system with jupiter-like bodies in inclined elliptical orbits, announced only a few weeks ago.
Sitchin proposed a similar solar system in '77.

A.DIM
2010-Jun-01, 03:58 PM
Fomalhaut b was discovered by largely the same method as Neptune was discovered in our solar system: by using observable gravitational perturbations in known objects to predict the presence of a nearby planetary mass, then to confirm that prediction visually. That method works fine on a Jupiter-sized planet 25 LYs away, and it works fine on a Neptune-sized planet a few AU away.

Persistent Evidence of a Jovian Mass Solar Companion in the Oort Cloud (http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.4584v1.pdf).


It ought to work exceptionally well on an object now inside our solar system and larger than our largest planet.
Indeed, except only misinformation claims Nibiru is inside our solar system.


Show us the perturbations.

Do cometary wakes and bodies like Sedna or CR105 qualify?

Swift
2010-Jun-01, 04:58 PM
A.DIM,

Please be careful. This thread is to discuss the "conspiracy theory / 2012" version of Nibiru. I do not want to confound that discussion with discussions about other hypothetical Oort Cloud bodies. If you wish to defend the 2012 Nibiru version in this thread, then do so, but you will be held to the appropriate rules. If you want a discussion of other Oort Cloud objects, start a new thread in ATM or Astronomy.

JayUtah
2010-Jun-01, 07:45 PM
...

Nibiru is also said to be inclined to the ecliptic some 30deg.

It is also "said" to exist at all. Give the world something besides vague allusions to other phenomena and loose fits to various minor anomalies, then we'll talk.

Would this materially affect Starfury's model?
I don't know.

If the orbit is highly eccentric then no, it wouldn't really matter. Close to planets means close to planets, whether in or out of their plane.

I'm unconvinced we can say with any certitude what range of orbital eccentricities are possible.

I'm convinced that the discovery you point to is not carte blanche to believe in a rogue body in our solar system. The reason a non-planar system is so momentous a discovery is that it does appear to be comparatively rare and generally unstable. Two planets in a harmonic, semi-stable state is certainly not equivalent to a stable solar companion in a 3,600-year orbit in our solar system.

Fine; debate and debunk what you will.

As we have been.

OK, if Nibiru has those properties as described by Starfury, I'd agree it should've been detected by now.

Agreed. If you argue that Starfury's model is inapplicable, we'll need something more rigorous than "Sitchin says so."

Hungry4info
2010-Jun-01, 08:01 PM
Do you believe Nibiru exists? No.


Fomalhaut b was discovered by largely the same method as Neptune was discovered in our solar system: by using observable gravitational perturbations in known objects to predict the presence of a nearby planetary mass, then to confirm that prediction visually. That method works fine on a Jupiter-sized planet 25 LYs away, and it works fine on a Neptune-sized planet a few AU away. It ought to work exceptionally well on an object now inside our solar system and larger than our largest planet.

I agree with this, but I was referring to its actual detection, as opposed to its prediction, which you seem to be describing. Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken, Fomalhaubt b could have been anywhere around that Kuiper Belt-like ring. Was it's mean anomaly constrained before the planet was actually detected? (was Neptune's?)

If a hypothetical Nibiru existed, with the extremely eccentric proposed, would we be able to predict its location very effectively? (though I realise that's a moot point, it and/or much of it perturbed much would have been ejected Gyr ago).

JayUtah
2010-Jun-01, 10:13 PM
...

I agree with this, but I was referring to its actual detection, as opposed to its prediction, which you seem to be describing.

Yes, I think we're on slightly different pages.

Most exoplanets are discovered by means of differential magnitude -- the minute changes in a star's brightness over time caused by a transiting planet. If we were to observe Jupiter transit the Sun from far outside the solar system, we'd see the Sun dim ever so slightly as Jupiter passed in front of it and blocked some of the light. Ordinarily the planet would be too dim to be seen as a reflective object through direct observation.

Fomalhaut b is unique in that it can be seen directly as a reflective object.

Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken, Fomalhaubt b could have been anywhere around that Kuiper Belt-like ring. Was it's mean anomaly constrained before the planet was actually detected?

I don't think so because the morphology of the debris disk indicates that there may be other shepherd planets that have not yet been directly observed.

(was Neptune's?)

Yes. That's the brilliance of Neptune's discovery: a differential analysis on where Uranus was seen to be and where it was observed to be pointed to the likely position of Neptune, which was then observed directly after the predictions narrowed the field to search.

If a hypothetical Nibiru existed, with the extremely eccentric proposed, would we be able to predict its location very effectively?

We would predict its orbit and anomaly based on how we observed it to interfere with the orbits of objects we know precisely, such as the other planets in the solar system. Since there is no observable perturbation in the solar system, we can't predict it that way. If it were going to arrive in 2012 and had a 3,600-year period and a 1-3 AU perihelion, we'd be seeing the other planets shift in their orbits, regardless of inclination (so long as the major axis is in the ecliptic). A.DIM patiently reminds us that not all Nibiruphiles accept the 2012 return date, and that's fine; it's out of scope for this particular thread. But if it's meant to arrive in 2012 and has the mass of several Jupiters, we should already be seeing it as a reflective object.

Hungry4info
2010-Jun-01, 11:01 PM
Most exoplanets are discovered by means of differential magnitude.

According to the EPE (http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php), 425 planets have been detected with doppler spectroscopy, and 81 have been detected with differential photometry (the vast majority of which were discovered that way).


Yes. That's the brilliance of Neptune's discovery: a differential analysis on where Uranus was seen to be and where it was observed to be pointed to the likely position of Neptune, which was then observed directly after the predictions narrowed the field to search. Ah, alright. Thanks for that bit of info.


A.DIM patiently reminds us that not all Nibiruphiles accept the 2012 return date, and that's fine; it's out of scope for this particular thread. But if it's meant to arrive in 2012 and has the mass of several Jupiters, we should already be seeing it as a reflective object. I suppose hypothetically you could rig up an (unbound) orbit that would allow for a sufficiently rapid approach velocity to have "Nibiru" out in the Oort cloud now, and in the asteroid belt in two years, but this wouldn't satisfy their 3,600 year period thing and more closely resemble a flyby.

Either way, as we all agree, the object they describe is unphysical.

R.A.F.
2010-Jun-02, 03:05 PM
I must admit I was rather surprised to see that article about the planetary system with jupiter-like bodies in inclined elliptical orbits, announced only a few weeks ago. Sitchin proposed a similar solar system in '77.

Velikovsky proposed a "hot Venus" before it was directly observed, and he got that right...yet it would take a page and a half to post everything he got wrong.

Sitchin's "proposition" is in no way meaningful and it was not arrived at scientifically...it's called coincidence and it happens all the time.

JayUtah
2010-Jun-02, 06:43 PM
...

According to the EPE (http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php), 425 planets have been detected with doppler spectroscopy, and 81 have been detected with differential photometry...

Okay, then I stand corrected. I think the point I was getting at was that Fomalhaut's planet was relatively unique in having been discovered by inference from observed gravitational effect. Most others seem to be discovered by some photometric technique. In any case trying to generalize or apply them to a search for Nibiru has to examine the problem in more detail.

I suppose hypothetically you could rig up an (unbound) orbit that would allow for a sufficiently rapid approach velocity to have "Nibiru" out in the Oort cloud now, and in the asteroid belt in two years, but this wouldn't satisfy their 3,600 year period thing and more closely resemble a flyby.

Sure. You could postulate a hyperbolic orbit. But as you say, any orbit with a period (3,600 years or otherwise) must be a closed orbit and therefore bounded by some strict laws of motion even if some of its parameters are unknown.

A highly eccentric orbit is long and skinny. You can say its perihelion might be only 3 AU out, but what that means is that it's going to stay within 3-5 AU of the ecliptic for most of its journey through the solar system, even with the least favorable inclination. It will therefore have a gravitational effect on the planets -- in this case to draw them out of plane.

Either way, as we all agree, the object they describe is unphysical.

Indeed.

NGCHunter
2010-Jun-02, 07:02 PM
Indeed such an object is unphysical and in order to move from the oort cloud to asteroid belt distances in 2 years time I think you'll find it would have to be traveling at a significant fraction of c, about 16% (47437 km/sec), and far higher than even galactic escape velocity. This is incompatible with their claims about a 3600 year orbit, or any kind of previous visit at all. I don't know of any galactic object that travels that fast relative to the sun. The fastest object I can find is a pulsar being kicked out of the galaxy by the force of its own supernova at a mere 1100km/sec.

Bobbar
2010-Jun-02, 08:47 PM
Phil posted this (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/12/rampaging-cannonball-star-is-rampaging/) in his blog a while back. A star being ejected at 400,000 km/h. Not exactly a brown dwarf, however. :lol:

NGCHunter
2010-Jun-02, 08:57 PM
Fast as 400,000 km/hr is, that's "only" 111 km/sec. It would have to be traveling about 427 times that fast to get from the oort cloud to the asteroid belt in 2 years. To put it another way, it would take that speedy star about 854 years to travel from the oort cloud to the asteroid belt. And as you say, it's a far cry from a brown dwarf, so we'd see something that large a long, long time before it got here. It'd no doubt be naked eye brightness even from as far as the oort cloud.

Tenshu
2010-Jun-03, 05:59 AM
Fast as 400,000 km/hr is, that's "only" 111 km/sec. It would have to be traveling about 427 times that fast to get from the oort cloud to the asteroid belt in 2 years. To put it another way, it would take that speedy star about 854 years to travel from the oort cloud to the asteroid belt. And as you say, it's a far cry from a brown dwarf, so we'd see something that large a long, long time before it got here. It'd no doubt be naked eye brightness even from as far as the oort cloud.

or infared too i do belive would catch it as well by now...if it was real.

parallaxicality
2010-Jun-03, 06:16 AM
This is Sitchin's diagram of Nibiru's orbit (http://www.alienresearchcorp.com/2012/nibiru/0910/discovered/img/nibiru-orbit.jpg)

A.DIM
2010-Jun-03, 08:25 PM
A.DIM patiently reminds us that not all Nibiruphiles accept the 2012 return date, and that's fine; it's out of scope for this particular thread. But if it's meant to arrive in 2012 and has the mass of several Jupiters, we should already be seeing it as a reflective object.

Jay, the OP never suggested a Nibiru return in 2012, that was Starfury's construct. I'm unsure why you feel that became the "scope" of this thread. Again, I concur with the strawman "if it's meant to arrive in 2012..." but the fact remains Nibiru, according to the hypothesis' originator, isn't meant to arrive in 2012. Those who say so, just as with those pre '03, are spreading misinformation. I find it as easy, if not easier, to counter such claims by simply pointing this out.

A.DIM
2010-Jun-03, 08:39 PM
This is Sitchin's diagram of Nibiru's orbit (http://www.alienresearchcorp.com/2012/nibiru/0910/discovered/img/nibiru-orbit.jpg)
If Sitchin's Nibiru exists it is some 1400yrs away, and moving very slowly against the background stars of the galactic center, towards Sag; another reason it would be difficult to detect.

But for fun, here's the Rogue Star (http://janus.astro.umd.edu/orbits/nbdy/rstar.html) simulator. The lowest mass you can input is .08 solar mass. I don't think Nibiru is said to be even this large. But a "very fast" flyby (given the alleged highly elliptical orbit)at 3AU, inclined 30deg, on winter solstice 2012, does very little, if anything, to the inner planets. So, even if some interloper came by in 2012, it doesn't appear much would happen here on Earth.
However, and on topic, this doesn't show what would happen to the asteroid belt.
:)

Swift
2010-Jun-03, 08:41 PM
Jay, the OP never suggested a Nibiru return in 2012, that was Starfury's construct. I'm unsure why you feel that became the "scope" of this thread. Again, I concur with the strawman "if it's meant to arrive in 2012..." but the fact remains Nibiru, according to the hypothesis' originator, isn't meant to arrive in 2012. Those who say so, just as with those pre '03, are spreading misinformation. I find it as easy, if not easier, to counter such claims by simply pointing this out.

A.DIM,

Please be careful. This thread is to discuss the "conspiracy theory / 2012" version of Nibiru. I do not want to confound that discussion with discussions about other hypothetical Oort Cloud bodies. If you wish to defend the 2012 Nibiru version in this thread, then do so, but you will be held to the appropriate rules. If you want a discussion of other Oort Cloud objects, start a new thread in ATM or Astronomy.
I made the determination as to the scope of this thread, which I thought I made clear in my post quoted above. The OP was vague about their intent. But since you are apparently still confused, I'll repeat it one last time.

If you want to talk about hypothetical Oort Cloud bodies that do not involve conspiracies (such as those involving 2012 and the conspiracy by "THEM" to cover up our impending doom) then it doesn't belong in the CT forum. Take it to astronomy or ATM, depending on how far off the mainstream you think the idea is.

There will be no third warning about this, next time it will be an infraction.

A.DIM
2010-Jun-03, 08:46 PM
OK, I'm out.

Van Rijn
2010-Jun-03, 09:44 PM
But for fun, here's the Rogue Star (http://janus.astro.umd.edu/orbits/nbdy/rstar.html) simulator. The lowest mass you can input is .08 solar mass. I don't think Nibiru is said to be even this large. But a "very fast" flyby (given the alleged highly elliptical orbit)at 3AU, inclined 30deg, on winter solstice 2012, does very little, if anything, to the inner planets. So, even if some interloper came by in 2012, it doesn't appear much would happen here on Earth.


Unfortunatly, in that simulation, it doesn't state (at least as far as I can find) exactly what velocity is intended by "very fast," but given that it is zipping by almost in a straight line, I think it is safe to say it is far above solar escape velocity (so no elliptical orbit). Actually, I suspect that "very slow" in that simulation is also not an elliptical orbit, but I'm not as sure about that.

Using your parameters, and despite the extremely limited resolution, there were obvious changes in the orbits of Mars and Earth. I think I saw changes in the orbits of Venus and Mercury as well, but again, the resolution is limited. When I checked the outer planets, they were an absolute mess.

I don't think that would go unnoticed, but it doesn't matter since a nearby rogue star moving into the inner solar system would have long since been visually obvious on Earth. At any rate, not a good simulator for Nibiru claims.

NGCHunter
2010-Jun-05, 02:11 AM
Here's a simulation I put together using Gravity Simulator and plugging in the typical orbital parameters for Nibiru, and giving it the 90 degree inclination that some woo woos claim keeps it from affecting the planets in a noticeable manner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sJkG976gCM
I gave Nibiru a mass of about 20 Jupiters, about 5 short of a brown dwarf which is frequently accused of being. I gave it a close approach distance of about 3 AU or so. According to the orbital parameters for Nibiru, it should be no farther than about 10 AUs right now if it's going to reach perihelion by 2012. At 10 AUs in the simulation, Saturn (the yellow line) starts to seriously deviate from its normal orbit. Even much earlier than that if you watch the green line at the bottom you can see it "retracing," indicating that Uranus is getting pulled into a new orbit and is noticeably deviating. By the time Nibiru passes perihelion Uranus is in a completely different inclination, as seen at the end of the video at the top right. The final orbits of the outer planets, even Jupiter, are completely changed by the passage of Nibiru, which supposedly occurs every 3600 years. The simulation shows quite a few years in very little time, and the video is actually slowed down to 25% its normal speed, but clearly we would be seeing serious problems with the apparent location of Saturn by now if there were anything to fear.

Drunk Vegan
2010-Jun-05, 04:10 AM
Jay, the OP never suggested a Nibiru return in 2012, that was Starfury's construct. I'm unsure why you feel that became the "scope" of this thread. Again, I concur with the strawman "if it's meant to arrive in 2012..." but the fact remains Nibiru, according to the hypothesis' originator, isn't meant to arrive in 2012. Those who say so, just as with those pre '03, are spreading misinformation. I find it as easy, if not easier, to counter such claims by simply pointing this out.

Regardless of the "arrival date," the fact remains that if there were such a wanderer which approached anywhere between 3 and 1 AU to the sun, and were large enough to cause devastation on Earth (anywhere from Mars-sized to Brown dwarf sized, depending on which Nibiru theory you're talking about) you would see evidence of severe eccentricities in the orbits of all the planets from Nibiru's previous visits.

However, in reality the orbits of the planets in the solar system are highly stable, with almost 0 eccentricity. This is a rarity for planets based on what we've seen in exoplanets, which tend towards high eccentricity.

So, no perturbations in the orbits of the known planets of the solar system... no Nibiru. Q.E.D.

Swift
2010-Jun-05, 04:40 AM
Nice work NGCHunter

Maha Vailo
2010-Jun-05, 08:56 AM
Yes, but what about the effects rogue-star-induced planetary perturbations would have on Earth life? The fact that we're still here would also prove the Nibiru proponents wrong.

- Maha Vailo

mike3
2010-Jun-25, 08:58 PM
Fomalhaut b was discovered by largely the same method as Neptune was discovered in our solar system: by using observable gravitational perturbations in known objects to predict the presence of a nearby planetary mass, then to confirm that prediction visually. That method works fine on a Jupiter-sized planet 25 LYs away, and it works fine on a Neptune-sized planet a few AU away. It ought to work exceptionally well on an object now inside our solar system and larger than our largest planet.


And if you go with the "2012" theories it should be so close it'd be easily visible from Earth to the naked eye. It isn't. So that one's busted.

mike3
2010-Jun-25, 10:06 PM
Yes, but what about the effects rogue-star-induced planetary perturbations would have on Earth life? The fact that we're still here would also prove the Nibiru proponents wrong.

Yes, that's a big problem. If there was any semblance of a solar system possible at all, Earth would be really, really hostile to life.

And this makes me think of one other point that the doom theorists ignore: if it happens every 3,600 years, that's an awful lot of "devastating" catastrophes to be striking the Earth. How would life have even gotten started, much less evolved to the point it's at now, under such hostility? Evolution takes *millions* of years, and if you have almost 280 global catastrophes per million years, that would seem to create a serious problem. After real catastrophes, like the one that killed off the dinosaurs and the earlier and worse one at the end of the Permian, it took *millions* of years of "peace time" for life to recover what was lost.

slang
2010-Jun-26, 10:46 PM
[...] if it happens every 3,600 years, [...]

According to some people, that means it could have happened only once so far.

Abaddon
2010-Jun-27, 10:48 PM
According to some people, that means it could have happened only once so far.

Well that just begs a question.

Are there any young earth proponents, who also espouse PX doom?

Personally haven't seen any such, but maybe they exist.