PDA

View Full Version : That Speedy Planet X

AsimovGirl
2002-Oct-25, 06:08 AM
I have spent countless hours reading websites both debunking and predicting planet x's arrival. I've even read Hazelwood's "book," and I have yet to find anyone who "disproves" his claim that planet x will travel the distance from Pluto's orbit to Earth in 45 days. Doesn't this prove he's full of tripe? That seems a little quick to me. Who needs to fund research into faster-than-light travel? Let's all hitch a ride on planet x...seriously, has anyone debunked or commented on this particular detail? I'd love to read what someone with an ounce of education had to say about it.

jorune_98
2002-Oct-25, 02:26 PM
That's an excellent point. Just out of curiosity, how fast would this planet be traveling in Miles Per Second with the following facts known:

1) The average orbital radius of Pluto is 3660 million miles; however, its orbit is more eccentric than the other planets, so much so that it is currently inside the orbit of Neptune (radius 2793 million miles).

2) for a body at the earth's distance from the sun to escape from the sun's gravitation, the velocity must be 26 mi (41 km) per sec.

When Planet X hits the average distance of Pluto from the sun (3660 million miles) and arrives at Earth in 45 days wouldn't its speed exceed the escape velocity of the sun and thus speed right out of our solar system never to be seen again?

Can anyone confirm this hypothesis?

-Jorune
Planet X: Fact or Fiction?
http://www.enteract.com/~jorune/px.htm

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Oct-25, 02:59 PM
On 2002-10-25 10:26, jorune_98 wrote:
1) The average orbital radius of Pluto is 3660 million miles; however, its orbit is more eccentric than the other planets, so much so that it is currently inside the orbit of Neptune (radius 2793 million miles).
It was inside Neptune's orbit for twenty years, but it is now outside of Neptune's orbit, and will be for hundreds of years.

2) for a body at the earth's distance from the sun to escape from the sun's gravitation, the velocity must be 26 mi (41 km) per sec.
That's what I get--it's the square root of two times the orbital speed, idnit?

Can anyone confirm this hypothesis?
I'm not really familiar with Hazelwood's claims. What are his words, exactly?

SeanF
2002-Oct-25, 03:16 PM
On 2002-10-25 10:59, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

On 2002-10-25 10:26, jorune_98 wrote:
1) The average orbital radius of Pluto is 3660 million miles; however, its orbit is more eccentric than the other planets, so much so that it is currently inside the orbit of Neptune (radius 2793 million miles).
It was inside Neptune's orbit for twenty years, but it is now outside of Neptune's orbit, and will be for hundreds of years.

I almost responded to this, too, but then I checked my orrery in HomePlanet. It shows Pluto as still being inside Neptune's orbit.

Pluto is now farther away from the sun than Neptune - however, when you plot the complete ellipses, Pluto is still within the arc of its ellipse that is inside Neptune's ellipse.

So, what we need to know is where Planet X will cross Pluto's orbit - is it near Pluto's perihelion or aphelion or what? I'm sure the Planet X-perts can tell us exactly where it's going to come in, aren't you? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

jorune_98
2002-Oct-25, 03:41 PM
I don't see a need to get that specific. What if we just use the average distance of Pluto from the sun (3660 million miles) as our crossing point. I have a feeling no matter what we use as a reference crossing point(Pluto's perihelion or aphelion) the speed at which Mark Hazlewoods claim will far outreach the escape velocity of the Sun thus throwing the PX far out into deep space never to be seen again.

Anyone willing to corroborate that hypothesis? Maybe I'm wrong here.

-jorune

Doctor J
2002-Oct-25, 03:57 PM
I think thats right about the speed...

See the Planet X and Pole Shift site:

http://www.planet-x.150m.com/math.html

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Oct-25, 04:16 PM
On 2002-10-25 11:16, SeanF wrote:
I almost responded to this, too, but then I checked my orrery in HomePlanet. It shows Pluto as still being inside Neptune's orbit.

Pluto is now farther away from the sun than Neptune - however, when you plot the complete ellipses, Pluto is still within the arc of its ellipse that is inside Neptune's ellipse.
Interesting point! I had to do some digging, but we're missing something. I suspect it's the third dimension.

Neptune's orbit is not very elliptical. As near as I can tell, according to this page (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptunefact.html), Neptune's aphelion occurs at 4545.67 million km, but according to SkyMap (http://www.skymap.com/), Pluto is now 4573 million km from the Sun--and already much farther than Neptune's aphelion.

HomePlanet might be projecting Pluto's orbit down to the ecliptic--and that would have foreshortened it, since Pluto's orbit is so highly inclined. Is that a possibility?

2002-Oct-25, 04:28 PM
I have talked about this in some of the PX groups I read. Basically, for a planet to travel as fast as Mr. Hazlewood ridiculously claims, it would fly past the Sun and escape from the solar system (and, I suspect, the Galaxy; I'll have to calculate that), never to return.

SO if it's on an orbit that brings it back every 3600 years, it cannot be on an orbit as he claims, unless he postulates new physics. Of course, he does, parroting the claims of one James McCanney, who says that electromagnetic forces are more important than gravity in orbital mechanics.

Right.

The basic point is that if it obeys gravity, as it must, then it would be closer than Jupiter and easily seen. If it doesn't obey gravity, as Mr. Hazlewood claims, then it wouldn't be on a regular orbit without throwing everything we know about physics out the window. Oddly, I am not willing to do that on his say-so.

Bear in mind, Mr. Hazlewood has not even a jottle of a grasp of science. He simply says what he wants to make sure his conclusions are correct, even if this completely contradicts reality. His book is loaded with such things.

SeanF
2002-Oct-25, 06:59 PM
On 2002-10-25 12:16, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
HomePlanet might be projecting Pluto's orbit down to the ecliptic--and that would have foreshortened it, since Pluto's orbit is so highly inclined. Is that a possibility?

Yup, looks like that's exactly what's happening. Dagnabbit, how come I didn't think about that before I posted! Oh, well.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Oct-25, 08:33 PM
To be fair, what I learned was that Pluto and Neptune were at the same distance from the Sun on Feb. 11, 1999, when Pluto was outbound--so it could well have been "inside" the orbit of Neptune even past then, depending on how you define "inside." /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

dschon
2002-Oct-26, 09:45 PM
The main point is not if Neptune or Pluto is closer, but the speed of the alleged Planet X.

If you calculate the speed of Mark's claim of Planet X's 45 day orbital trip from Pluto's orbit to Earth, which is roughly 4 billion miles, it is FAR BEYOND THE VELOCITY NEEDED TO ESCAPE BEING A SUN'S PLANET!

Tell me how Planet X could still maintain being an orbiting planet at the speed of 1028 miles/s without violating orbital physics? Or even 231 miles/s if it starts moving from beyond Pluto today?

It just can't happen...

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Oct-27, 01:12 AM
On 2002-10-26 17:45, dschon wrote:
It just can't happen...

Unless there are big magnets involved. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Smaug
2002-Oct-27, 04:18 AM
OOOOOOOOOO magnets are fun /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

David Hall
2002-Oct-27, 01:43 PM
Yeah, but if big magnets are involved, they'd be screwing up our computers big time. If it can affect a planet, it must be seriously strong. And strong magnetic fields are bad for our electronics.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Oct-27, 04:44 PM
On 2002-10-27 08:43, David Hall wrote:
Yeah, but if big magnets are involved, they'd be screwing up our computers big time.
<font size=+1>Q.E.D.</font>

I'll be d**ged.

dschon
2002-Oct-27, 05:52 PM
I take it that no one actually knows from which calculation do they get the 2003 date.

dschon
2002-Oct-28, 12:50 AM
Why is the date set at May 2003?
This is a very good question. Despite reading virtually everything I can find on the internet about Planet X, no one seems to have given a sensible reason for why that date is set. Considering websites are recommending we flee to the hills with several years supplies of food, it would be helpful if they said why this date was when Planet X would be coming. I'm sure many of you, after looking at the evidence, may believe there is a 10th Planet that periodically passes through our solar system with damaging effects but May 2003 seems incredibly precise considering Planet X cannot be seen. The Sumerians give it an orbit of 3,600 years, with a last passage of 1628BC, but this hardly pinpoints a date of May 2003.

Superstring
2002-Oct-28, 02:09 AM
I rest my case...we don't have any solid scientific proof of Nibiru colliding with Earth. I seriously doubt anything significant regarding this will happen in May.

jorune_98
2002-Oct-28, 02:33 AM
I'm actually in the process of researching the may 2003 date and will be writing an article on the matter.

** Excerpt from unfinished essay **

As always I try to take a fair and objective viewpoint regarding the Planet X theory. In this installment, we examine the origin of the famed 2003 date. Many critics of the Planet X theory continually ask for "proof" as to the dates origin. As with most aspects of Planet X, it's arrival in May 2003 is surrounded in confusion and mystery. Nobody, it seems, can agree as to when this doomsday planet will get here.

-jorune
Planet X: Fact or Fiction
http://www.enteract.com/~jorune/px.htm

2002-Oct-28, 01:13 PM
What I don't understand is if Planet X passed by in 1628 BC, why didn't our poles shift then? (This has probably been discussed before, but bear with me)

Also, it's going to make it from the distance of Pluto's orbit to the inner solar system in 45 days??? BA, I can't wait for you to make those calculations to find out if the "object" is indeed moving fast enough for galatic espace velocity.

Electromagnetic forces are really what's going to flip our planet over? Well, I guess the first sign that the end will be near is that we will be losing satelite communication. I guess that's a good way to get these people off the air. That and Jerry Springer.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Shade on 2002-10-28 08:27 ]</font>

dschon
2002-Oct-28, 11:05 PM
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00928.htm

Nothing new...

1) Point A (PX) and Point B (Earth) are separated by
33.119 billion miles (9.012 Sun-Pluto units).

(http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/Tword03a.htm)
(Column='Apr. Date', entry='5/7/01')

2) Point A initial velocity is about 0 miles/second, at
least it's quite slow compared to later speeds.

(http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s100.htm)
('...vast majority of its time in an essential dither')

3) Point B arrival time is about 104 weeks from Point A.

(http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/Tword03a.htm)
(Column='Weeks to go')

The ones who noticed the above info also understood the
formula V=S/T, Velocity=Distance divided by Time, and upon
applying the data to the formula, came up with an *average*
velocity for the trip from Point A to Point B:

Velocity = 33.119 billion miles / 104 weeks

V(average) = 526 miles/second
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Why is this speed important?

BECAUSE THE ESCAPE VELOCITY AT THE SURFACE
OF THE SUN IS ONLY 384 MILES/SECOND!!!

(http://www.krysstal.com/solarsys.html)

My apologies for the shouting text, but the SIGNIFICANCE is
that PX, traveling at this *average* speed will NEVER slow
down enough to go into an orbit.

BUT WAIT! IT GETS EVEN WORSE!!! By taking all the column
data for 'Weeks to go' and 'Distance in B. mls' from the URL
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/Tword03a.htm, and plotting a
velocity curve for each successive pair of distance and time
points (see JJ note on 06/24, same thread)...

THE TRUE VELOCITY OF PX AT THE EARTH PASSING

THAT IS MORE THAN 5 TIMES THE ESCAPE VELOCITY
AT THE SURFACE OF THE SUN!

I did NOT take these numbers out of thin air.
I did NOT find these numbers in a dream.
I did NOT take these numbers from a spy.
I did NOT find these numbers in a conspiracy group.

THESE DATA WERE TAKEN FROM YOUR OWN WEB SITE AND
WERE USED TO CALCULATE AVERAGE AND TRUE VELOCITY OF PX
AT THE POINT IT IS SUPPOSED TO PASS OUR SUN.

===========

(even in June 2001 did skeptics prove their point that Planet X wouldn't come in 2003 because there simply wasn't going to be enough time or Planet X could simply not be that fast!)

...and look where we are now, nearly November 2002 and Mark is still at it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dschon on 2002-10-28 18:09 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dschon on 2002-10-28 22:27 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Oct-29, 01:02 AM
On 2002-10-28 18:05, dschon wrote:
My apologies for the shouting text,
There is an edit/delete button at the bottom of each post, so you can fix it. There is a time limit on deletes.

dschon
2002-Oct-29, 03:28 AM
Sorry, I was quoting and forgot about the [quote] tag

HankSolo
2002-Oct-29, 08:02 PM
Just want to clarify some things that have been misstated. The original source of Nibiru is Mesopotamian texts. The "father" of the Nibiru theory is Zecharia Sitchin. Anything you are reading about PlanetX/Nibiru now is rooted in Sitchin's Earth Chronicles series of books, starting with The 12th Planet. His version of the events are the only ones with any credibility, as he is the only one who has researched this subject.

The 2003 return date is solely an invention by Nancy Leider, nothing else, and is based on her psychic sessions with aliens in another star system. Hazlewood got the date from Leider and has said so. There is absolutely no credibility in her claims. I do not understand why people are taking so much time to debunk this garbage, when we should be talking about more interesting things... like aliens! I have not seen a single pro-PX2003 supporter on this site.

A passage of Nibiru happened when the gods left the earth for good, and left kingship on earth to mankind. That was somewhere around 3760BC and marks the beginning of the Hebrew calendar. The next return date would be circa 3400AD.

Catastrophic events during a passage is extremely rare, and subject to ripe conditions on earth.

Nibiru does not pass close to the earth. It does not pass between the earth and the sun. It is theorized to pass outside the asteroid belt.

The orbit of Nibiru is inclined to the ecleptic at around 40 degrees so it never crosses the path of any planet.

The actual amount of time it spends closer to the sun than Neptune/Pluto is about 30 years. It would be visible for most of that time.

Those are the facts, at least as presented by Sitchin. This is the real basis behind the PX2003 invention and is the only thing that deserves discussion. Nancy must have read one of his books and came up with a good idea to capitalize on it. Mark followed suit. Can't blame them really. Unfortunately, they've suckered all of you into it too. And I have yet to see a single pro PX2003 post! I could understand if someone was making the argument...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HankSolo on 2002-10-29 15:04 ]</font>

Doctor J
2002-Oct-30, 03:42 PM
Whats the problem?

Here it is....why are we treating this as a debate? In a debate both sides have to have legitimate and realistic positions. There is NO EVIDENCE that Planet X exists, ever existed, or ever will exist. A bunch of ancient Sumerian texts put through the mill of Sitchin's imagination, or the alledged communications of invisible aliens, and spiced by a couple of science fiction movies and books, does not make an argument, or create a fact. There is in fact NOTHING to debate. Those of us who do debate it are actually giving the Planet X supporters about 1000% more credit than they deserve. Its our weakness. We want to treat all ideas as equal, no matter how outlandish and farfetched, when the plain fact is that they are not all equal. Some things are just plain fiction.

HankSolo
2002-Oct-30, 06:20 PM
My point is that you can only have an argument if two people disagree. I've yet to see a post from a proponent of PX2003 in any thread, so until then, you're all just muttering to yourselves /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif. Maybe there used to be a pro-PX2003'er? But I certainly haven't seen any in the 3 months that I've been here.

Now if you want to debate Nibiru and Sitchin and those possibilities, I've posted in plenty of threads and welcome any discussion. That's entirely different than PX2003.

jorune_98
2002-Oct-30, 08:22 PM
On 2002-10-30 13:20, HankSolo wrote:
My point is that you can only have an argument if two people disagree. I've yet to see a post from a proponent of PX2003 in any thread, so until then, you're all just muttering to yourselves /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif. Maybe there used to be a pro-PX2003'er? But I certainly haven't seen any in the 3 months that I've been here.

Now if you want to debate Nibiru and Sitchin and those possibilities, I've posted in plenty of threads and welcome any discussion. That's entirely different than PX2003.

I'd have to agree with you on that. The PX community tends to get together and dream up theories for the arrival of planet x, aliens, space ships in tow, etc (all based on conjecture and speculation)... and the non-pxers all group together and 'mutter' about the insane PX community.

The truth of the matter is, there are people who DO believe in Planet X (and it's arrival here in 2003). Does that mean we just dismiss them as 'delusional' people? Given the fact that there are believers, then the non-believers must address the and provide clear and concise arguments to the fact. The believers (a minority in this forum) must take it upon themselves to PROVE there is a planet X, and the non-believers must provide arguments to the contrary.

My 2 cents.

P.S. everyone knows you cannot prove something does NOT exist. Hence the onus on this matter is on the PX-believers.

Planet X: Fact or Fiction
http://www.enteract.com/~jorune/px.htm
(no I'm not gonna register a domain for something that will be over in 6 months anyway - whether it's fact or fiction)

Doctor J
2002-Nov-01, 05:03 PM
"I'd have to agree with you on that. The PX community tends to get together and dream up theories for the arrival of planet x, aliens, space ships in tow, etc (all based on conjecture and speculation)... and the non-pxers all group together and 'mutter' about the insane PX community.

The truth of the matter is, there are people who DO believe in Planet X (and it's arrival here in 2003). Does that mean we just dismiss them as 'delusional' people? Given the fact that there are believers, then the non-believers must address the and provide clear and concise arguments to the fact."

Why? Just because someone believes something doesnt make it exist.

Hume had this figured out 250 years ago. Belief is irrational, and is often held despite the evidence of ones own eyes, ears and brain. A believer knows that, rationally speaking, some things cant happen, such as the sun stopping in the sky, or the earth stopping its rotation, but they believe that it will happen anyway. No amount of rational argument can prove or disprove a belief, because it is essentially irrational. Hence, there is no way to debate this issue. Anyone with an ounce of scientific knowledge knows that Planet X can't exist and behave the way it does...yet hundreds of people continue to believe that it will be here in May 2003 (or is that June? Or is that 2012? or is that 3000?). Why? Many because they have to believe that some kind of disaster is imminent (read some of the tt-social posts) and this one is just the latest one. Others because they believe that the interpretation of millenia-old myths is more 'scientific' than modern science, despite the fact the the ancient myths are wrong 99.9 % of the time, and are right BECAUSE they are in accord with modern science (ie, prediction of eclipses, phases of the moon, etc.) And others because they have to believe that there is intelligent life out there, with more advanced science (even though it is derived from mesmerism and animal magentism or whatever pseudo-science they use)than ours, even though it violates all the known laws of physics and celestial mechanic established and discovered since the time of the Greek, Indian and Chinese philosophers (who are conspicuous by their absence in this "debate"...why rely on Sumerians? The ancient Chinese have a long and respectable astronomical tradition...the only problem is it agrees with the western tradition)

The common thread is that they all have to believe in something, other than the rational model of modern science. Thats the irrational aspect of the question, and no amount of 'debate' or discussion or argument is going to change that.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Doctor J on 2002-11-01 12:04 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Doctor J on 2002-11-01 12:05 ]</font>

Tandem53
2002-Nov-06, 02:54 AM
"Those of us who do debate it are actually giving the Planet X supporters about 1000% more credit than they deserve."
You're quite right, of course, but it's kind of fun !!