PDA

View Full Version : Sitchin's Nibiru size?



Jairo
2011-Feb-15, 01:28 AM
According to Sitchin, what is Nibiru's size? Or has he never specified that?

danscope
2011-Feb-15, 03:04 AM
What is the size of a point of baseless fantasy in some one's head? Hmmm........ Read.... there is no nibiru , nor was there ever a nibiru . Just wishful paranoid thinking on the part of a few people looking for notoriety , and Nothing else .
Nuff said .

kleindoofy
2011-Feb-15, 03:13 AM
... Or has he never specified that?
The verb tense "has" infers the possibility of future specification on his part. That possibility no longer exists. To answer that question, we will have to use our fantasy. Just like he did.

Jairo
2011-Feb-15, 03:24 AM
I forgot he died (and perhaps the difference between simple past and present perfect).

Jairo
2011-Feb-15, 03:27 AM
Since ZetaTalk took over the Nibiru franchise for their 2012 apocalypse, I find it amusing to show Sitchin's orignal version to newbies who think he endorsed ZetaTalk.

I like to see the shock in their faces. Is that motive noble enough for you?

kleindoofy
2011-Feb-15, 03:35 AM
... I like to see the shock in their faces. ...
If I were to express my true opinion of ZetaTalk and Sitchin here, the patron saints of family friendliness would lock me out for a week.

Gillianren
2011-Feb-15, 05:46 AM
I forgot he died (and perhaps the difference between simple past and present perfect).

For what it's worth, I didn't realize he had. Of course, I didn't much care, either!

vonmazur
2011-Feb-15, 07:08 AM
He said it was a "Brown Dwarf" once, to Art Bell, and that the Nephilim lived on one of the moons....There are supposedly 11 moons!!

Dale

Jairo
2011-Feb-15, 11:36 AM
Vague, but at least that would mean it's bigger than Jupiter.

Thanks.

Jairo
2011-Feb-15, 11:37 AM
Hi, Gillian! =]

Bobbar
2011-Feb-15, 01:08 PM
If you go buy the YouTube videos, depending on what day it is, it's either the size of Jupiter, Venus, an Airplane or Sun-grazing comet.

A.DIM
2011-Feb-15, 02:07 PM
According to Sitchin, what is Nibiru's size? Or has he never specified that?

Through all the threads started and questions asked about Nibiru, you've still not consulted the source?

IIRC, he suggested Nibiru is 2-3 times as massive as Jupiter.

A.DIM
2011-Feb-15, 02:09 PM
He said it was a "Brown Dwarf" once, to Art Bell, and that the Nephilim lived on one of the moons....There are supposedly 11 moons!!

Dale

Hi Dale.
I'm curious, where did you hear Nibiru has 11 moons?

stutefish
2011-Feb-15, 07:00 PM
As far as I can tell, Nibiru is supposed to be large enough to be gravitationally catastrophic to other bodies in the Solar System (e.g., Earth), but small enough to be gravitationally undetectable by other bodies in the Solar System (e.g., Earth).

I think the real question is about the size of the gap between these two properties in any rational Venn diagram of same.

parallaxicality
2011-Feb-15, 07:42 PM
I think he initially claimed it was larger than Earth but still a terrestrial planet. only later, when it was pointed out that no life could survive on a planet with Nibiru's orbital path, did he suggest that Nibiru was a small star that the Nephilim lived around.

vonmazur
2011-Feb-16, 01:42 AM
Hi Dale.
I'm curious, where did you hear Nibiru has 11 moons?

Adim: I went to a public lecture in NYC a long time ago, and there, Zachariah himself was holding forth on this..They handed out somekind of document to those attending with all kinds of "Facts". It was in that if I am recalling it correctly. Supposedly some of the moons were lost fighting "Tiamaat", but I think they said there were 11 originally. this was in the 70's so I could be mistaken.

Dale

Hungry4info
2011-Feb-16, 02:50 AM
Purely hypothetically, how could anyone know that even if it were true? The moons of Jupiter weren't discovered until the early 1600s and Jupiter is a lot more visible (and real) than Nibiru has ever been.

Jens
2011-Feb-16, 04:40 AM
Purely hypothetically, how could anyone know that even if it were true? The moons of Jupiter weren't discovered until the early 1600s and Jupiter is a lot more visible (and real) than Nibiru has ever been.

Recalling vaguely, I think he claimed that the planet or star or whatever had made close passes to the earth in the past, and that people had seen the moons at that time.

eburacum45
2011-Feb-18, 12:18 PM
IIRC, he suggested Nibiru is 2-3 times as massive as Jupiter.
That is not large enough to be a brown dwarf, so any moons orbiting it would be frozen iceballs, heated only by tides. There could be a subetrranean ocean , even life, on some of those moons, but the surface enviroment would be very unlike Earth's.

JeffD1
2011-Feb-19, 09:02 PM
I know a brown dwarf is sub-stellar but would a brown dwarf be described as having 'moons' or would they be 'planets'?
,,,or is it all semantics anyway?

Paul Beardsley
2011-Feb-19, 09:07 PM
I know a brown dwarf is sub-stellar but would a brown dwarf be described as having 'moons' or would they be 'planets'?
,,,or is it all semantics anyway?

Good question. I'm guessing it is just semantics, but I'd like to know.

JeffD1
2011-Feb-19, 09:35 PM
I suspect that since Nibiru was orgininally described as the 'planet' Nibiru that Stichin had to describe bodies orbiting it as 'moons'.
Thus I ask if a body known as a brown dwarf is a planet or a star. After all I am not about to take Stichin's word for it.

parallaxicality
2011-Feb-19, 09:46 PM
Brown dwarfs, if you need to make such a distinction, are stars. They are stars that never grew large enough to fuse hydrogen. But they didn't form like planets; planets form from the "bottom up", via accretion, while stars form from the "top down", via gravitational collapse. If Nibiru is a brown dwarf, then it is incapable of hosting life, either on its surface (it doesn't have one) or on its planets, as it is too cold to create a habitable zone. The only way Nibiru could be a habitable object is if it were a red dwarf star with a planetary system. It could then support life on one of its orbiting planets.

Since it is impossible to determine an object's method of formation directly with a telescope, most astronomers don't really bother with distinctions.

But the Juno mission could throw a spanner into the works...

JeffD1
2011-Feb-23, 04:29 PM
No that I need to make the disticntion but it put me in mind of other conspiracies in which the word 'speed' is used when the poster is referring to an acelleration or the 'temperature' on the Moon as if it is an atmospheric temperature.

If 'moons' are referring to object smore properly termed 'planets' then just as in the above examples, it belies an misunderstanding o the subject matter. Thus it illustrates a lack of credibility, alas only noticable by others who do have an understanding of the subject.

Weltraum
2011-Feb-24, 06:52 AM
I think he initially claimed it was larger than Earth but still a terrestrial planet. only later, when it was pointed out that no life could survive on a planet with Nibiru's orbital path, did he suggest that Nibiru was a small star that the Nephilim lived around.

Fun thought - that original version of Nibiru sounds like Hubbard's creation, Psychlo, in Battlefield Earth. That was, to my understanding, a larger terrestrial world. I only ever saw one moon around that one in the movie, though, and I haven't read that book.

Weltraum
2011-Feb-24, 06:54 AM
Adim: I went to a public lecture in NYC a long time ago, and there, Zachariah himself was holding forth on this..They handed out somekind of document to those attending with all kinds of "Facts". It was in that if I am recalling it correctly. Supposedly some of the moons were lost fighting "Tiamaat", but I think they said there were 11 originally. this was in the 70's so I could be mistaken.

Dale

Really? It sounds like some exciting science fiction at least!

Weltraum
2011-Feb-24, 06:59 AM
No that I need to make the disticntion but it put me in mind of other conspiracies in which the word 'speed' is used when the poster is referring to an acelleration or the 'temperature' on the Moon as if it is an atmospheric temperature.

If 'moons' are referring to object smore properly termed 'planets' then just as in the above examples, it belies an misunderstanding o the subject matter. Thus it illustrates a lack of credibility, alas only noticable by others who do have an understanding of the subject.

Well, this is pretty much the universal base problem with conspiracies - they all thrive on the shared ignorance and tendency to fantasise of the general audience, and only experts in certain fields can truly debunk them. And even then, those who don't understand or don't want to give up on the belief simply won't do it.

Van Rijn
2011-Feb-24, 09:13 AM
Through all the threads started and questions asked about Nibiru, you've still not consulted the source?

IIRC, he suggested Nibiru is 2-3 times as massive as Jupiter.


I just noticed that Whitmire and Matese (the researchers suggesting an Oort cloud planet they call "Tyche"), which some have referred to in Nibiru claims, actually rule out this version of Nibiru.

Quoting from this PDF of one of their articles:

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~dpw9254/Jovian%20companion.final.pdf

"IRAS and 2mass observational constraints prohibit present locations r>2000:10,000:25,000 AU for Mp=2:5:10 Mj respectively."

(see top of page 9 of the pdf)

So, they're saying the evidence wouldn't allow a two Jupiter mass world within 2,000 AU. However, based on the claimed orbital period (3600 years), Sitchin's Nibiru would never be further than about 770 AU from the sun.

Of course, as discussed in earlier threads, a world with an extremely eccentric orbit, as Nibiru is claimed to have, would have an unstable orbit, and would likely escape the sun after a few orbits. Also, the period of the orbits it did manage would change quite a bit. And, a massive world like this, if it came well into the solar system, would cause massive disruption that would be impossible to miss. But I thought it was amusing that what some are calling evidence for Nibiru is actually evidence against it.

A.DIM
2011-Feb-24, 02:49 PM
Really? It sounds like some exciting science fiction at least!
No doubt, I've always said that people should read The Earth Chronicles if for nothing else than terrific historical sci-fi!

A.DIM
2011-Feb-24, 03:09 PM
I just noticed that Whitmire and Matese (the researchers suggesting an Oort cloud planet they call "Tyche"), which some have referred to in Nibiru claims, actually rule out this version of Nibiru.

Quoting from this PDF of one of their articles:

http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~dpw9254/Jovian%20companion.final.pdf

"IRAS and 2mass observational constraints prohibit present locations r>2000:10,000:25,000 AU for Mp=2:5:10 Mj respectively."

(see top of page 9 of the pdf)

So, they're saying the evidence wouldn't allow a two Jupiter mass world within 2,000 AU. However, based on the claimed orbital period (3600 years), Sitchin's Nibiru would never be further than about 770 AU from the sun.

Of course, as discussed in earlier threads, a world with an extremely eccentric orbit, as Nibiru is claimed to have, would have an unstable orbit, and would likely escape the sun after a few orbits. Also, the period of the orbits it did manage would change quite a bit. And, a massive world like this, if it came well into the solar system, would cause massive disruption that would be impossible to miss. But I thought it was amusing that what some are calling evidence for Nibiru is actually evidence against it.

I don't know, if Tyche exists as described by these guys it primarily means Sitchin misinterpreted the SAR (3600) as the orbital period of Nibiru, which I find possible. Much of his thesis could still work if we discover a large perturber body in the outer system...

R.A.F.
2011-Feb-24, 03:56 PM
Much of his thesis could still work if we discover a large perturber body in the outer system...

Any sizable perterber passing through our Solar System would leave gravitational "effects" which we do not witness.

In other words....no, it couldn't work.

Van Rijn
2011-Feb-24, 09:37 PM
I don't know, if Tyche exists as described by these guys it primarily means Sitchin misinterpreted the SAR (3600) as the orbital period of Nibiru, which I find possible.


The possible existence of Tyche is beside the point. The point is that the observational evidence argues against the Nibiru claims. That's in addition to the issue that a highly eccentric orbit would be unstable. A longer period, as you suggest, would make the orbit even more eccentric, and therefore, make the orbit even less stable.

A world that has a wide orbit, always well outside the orbits of the eight planets, remains a possibility, but that seems very different from Sitchin's claims.

Weltraum
2011-Feb-25, 12:10 AM
Of course, as discussed in earlier threads, a world with an extremely eccentric orbit, as Nibiru is claimed to have, would have an unstable orbit, and would likely escape the sun after a few orbits.:clap: You've identified the real fate of Nibiru, I think :lol: It was slated to come back and wreak havoc, but alas! It escaped on its last trip out - something Sitchin and whatever ancients didn't foresee happening.

Move along, nothing to see here :whistle:

A.DIM
2011-Feb-25, 03:19 PM
The possible existence of Tyche is beside the point. The point is that the observational evidence argues against the Nibiru claims. That's in addition to the issue that a highly eccentric orbit would be unstable. A longer period, as you suggest, would make the orbit even more eccentric, and therefore, make the orbit even less stable.
A world that has a wide orbit, always well outside the orbits of the eight planets, remains a possibility, but that seems very different from Sitchin's claims.

And it is, which means he got some things wrong. For me it has come down to discovering whether or not a large perturber is in the outer system, one perhaps with satellites of its own, occasionally bombarding the inner system. Sitchin called it a "planet" but described it as star-like and having satellites (according to his interpretations of ancient texts). If we find a sub stellar companion to the sun, a sub brown dwarf, say, with its own planets on an inclined elliptical orbit I'd be tempted to argue he got some things right too.
We'll have to wait and see if WISE turns it up, if it's there.

parallaxicality
2011-Feb-25, 06:13 PM
Even if it is there, no one is suggesting it ever comes anywhere near Earth. And unless it's a red dwarf, which seems impossible given its proximity to Earth, there's no way it could support life.

Van Rijn
2011-Feb-25, 09:55 PM
If we find a sub stellar companion to the sun, a sub brown dwarf, say, with its own planets on an inclined elliptical orbit I'd be tempted to argue he got some things right too. We'll have to wait and see if WISE turns it up, if it's there.

So, it doesn't concern you that anything that could possibly exist would have to be radically different from what he claimed?

MaDeR
2011-Feb-25, 10:55 PM
Sitchin called it a "planet" but described it as star-like and having satellites (according to his interpretations of ancient texts). If we find a sub stellar companion to the sun, a sub brown dwarf, say, with its own planets on an inclined elliptical orbit I'd be tempted to argue he got some things right too.
This is grasping at straws. Anything, something, that have maybe at least some vague connection with Sitchin words. You cannot expect that anyone could take it seriously.

If Tyche-like world would be discovered, it would have nothing to do with Sitchin claims.

Swift
2011-Feb-26, 04:00 PM
And it is, which means he got some things wrong. For me it has come down to discovering whether or not a large perturber is in the outer system, one perhaps with satellites of its own, occasionally bombarding the inner system. Sitchin called it a "planet" but described it as star-like and having satellites (according to his interpretations of ancient texts). If we find a sub stellar companion to the sun, a sub brown dwarf, say, with its own planets on an inclined elliptical orbit I'd be tempted to argue he got some things right too.
We'll have to wait and see if WISE turns it up, if it's there.
A.DIM

You are extremely close to advocating a non-mainstream idea. Statements like "bombarding the inner system" are really close to the line, and you are only saving yourself with words like "perhaps". Frankly, I think this whole discussion is (1) inappropriate and (2) been beaten to death entirely too many times.

Personally, I would just like this thread to fade away. But if it doesn't, and you continue posts like that, the whole set of CT forum rules will apply to you.

R.A.F.
2011-Feb-26, 09:11 PM
If we find a sub stellar companion to the sun, a sub brown dwarf, say, with its own planets on an inclined elliptical orbit I'd be tempted to argue he got some things right too.

Perhaps, but for the wrong reasons...this reminds me of the Velikovski Venus argument...he "predicted" that the surface of Venus would be hot, and it was. Of course his reasoning on the matter did not involve usage of the scientific method...it was just a coincidence that he was "right".


edit to add...I see that MaDeR has posted essentially the same thing....DOH!

Garrison
2011-Feb-26, 09:17 PM
This is grasping at straws. Anything, something, that have maybe at least some vague connection with Sitchin words. You cannot expect that anyone could take it seriously.

If Tyche-like world would be discovered, it would have nothing to do with Sitchin claims.

As the old saying has it; 'a stopped clock is right twice a day', and a conspiracy theorist makes a valid claim by accident every few decades.

Strange
2011-Feb-26, 09:22 PM
As the old saying has it; 'a stopped clock is right twice a day', and a conspiracy theorist makes a valid claim by accident every few decades.

It would be rather suspicious if they were never right. One might begin to suspect something....

Garrison
2011-Feb-26, 11:33 PM
It would be rather suspicious if they were never right. One might begin to suspect something....

Ah, a conspiracy to invent conspiracy theories, probably being organized by the FOX network...:)

Jeff Root
2011-Feb-27, 02:19 AM
Not that I need to make the distinction but it put me in mind of
other conspiracies in which the word 'speed' is used when the
poster is referring to an acceleration or the 'temperature' on the
Moon as if it is an atmospheric temperature.

If 'moons' are referring to objects more properly termed 'planets'
then just as in the above examples, it belies a misunderstanding
of the subject matter. Thus it illustrates a lack of credibility, alas
only noticable by others who do have an understanding of the
subject.
I wouldn't read so much into it. The difference between a planet
and a moon is more historical than technical, and the technical
difference has largely come about in the last few years. I agree
with the description parallaxicality gave of how the terms
came to be applied in this case, and it follows the historical
precedents.

My recollection is that Nancy's Planet X was supposed to be
four times the size of Earth. I don't know whether that meant
four times the diameter (making it the size of Uranus), four
times the volume, or four times the mass. Planet X and Nibiru
would have to be fraternal twins, from what I've read here.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jens
2011-Feb-28, 04:22 AM
No doubt, I've always said that people should read The Earth Chronicles if for nothing else than terrific historical sci-fi!

Does that mean a science fiction novel based on something that really happened?

A.DIM
2011-Feb-28, 01:59 PM
Parallaxicality: Yes, I tend to think the only potential for any life on such a distant "world" would be microbial.

VanRijn: No, it doesn't concern me; I'm not set on Sitchin being wholly accurate.

MaDer: I only tell you what I know of Sitchin's work so you can take it or leave it; I don't care to convince you or anyone.

Swift: Agreed, the OP was answered and I've led us astray. Some posts are deserving of response and I try to respect others' queries. Apologies. I've neither CT nor advocacy and withdraw from any further discussion.

Swift
2011-Feb-28, 05:33 PM
Since the OP's question seems to have been dealt with, and the rest of the discussion seems to have been settled, I'm closing this thread. If anyone has a good reason for reopening it, Report my post.

Jim
2011-Feb-28, 05:35 PM
"... the OP was answered ..."

Seems so. I'm closing the thread before it gets taken in another direction... again. If Jairo or anyone else sees a reason to reopen it, report this post.