# Massive, Hidden Object in Space



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 15, 2011)

Here is the data on the large exo-solar body out past the Oort Cloud that some have been posting about as well myself about the dark jupiter.  they are closer to finding enough data on this dark object to substantiate its definition.  This has been a postulate for several years now but this is more compelling if they can resolve this mass.

Wonderful data.  This too is the basis for Nibiru and other far fetched postulations.

Scientists, telescope hunt massive hidden object in space &#8211; This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

Robert


----------



## syrenn (Feb 15, 2011)

Cool. Thanks for posting


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 15, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> Here is the data on the large exo-solar body out past the Oort Cloud that some have been posting about as well myself about the dark jupiter.  they are closer to finding enough data on this dark object to substantiate its definition.  This has been a postulate for several years now but this is more compelling if they can resolve this mass.
> 
> Wonderful data.  This too is the bases for Nibiru and other far fetched postulations.
> 
> Robert



VERY interesting


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 15, 2011)

But to put this into prospective regarding us, here, on Earth, this disance of this object, if proven to be, is at a distance of some 1,395,000,000,000 (1.395 _trillion_ miles.  Thus, it is nearly 1/4 of a LY distant.

One Light Year is: 5,865,696,000,000 miles.

Most astronomical measurements are done with a parsec, which is 4.3 LY.

Robert


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 15, 2011)

Even more clear for comparison, this object is 15,000 times further from us and the sun, than we are from the sun itself here on Earth at 93,000,000 miles.

Robert


----------



## The Infidel (Feb 15, 2011)

Will it cause global warming?


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 15, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> But to put this into prospective regarding us, here, on Earth, this disance of this object, if proven to be, is at a distance of some 1,395,000,000,000 (1.395 _trillion_ miles.  Thus, it is nearly 1/4 of a LY distant.
> 
> One Light Year is: 5,865,696,000,000 miles.
> 
> ...



I never realized that a parsec was a real measurement. I thought it was just used for TV.  Thanks for pointing that out. I'm all for space exploration but dang its expensive.


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 15, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > But to put this into prospective regarding us, here, on Earth, this disance of this object, if proven to be, is at a distance of some 1,395,000,000,000 (1.395 _trillion_ miles.  Thus, it is nearly 1/4 of a LY distant.
> ...



Cost for NASA to you: $0.31 per week.  

As far as a parsec, yes, it is a real measurement and it is based on the distance from our sun, to our closest star, Alpha Proxima, at, you guessed it, 4.3 light years. That is where they got that measurement from and so when we use measures to say, The Great Attractor, for example, at 600 million light years, in Astronomy they say, 139.4 MP (2390 Parsecs) and the like.

Hope that is helpful.

Robert


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> Here is the data on the large exo-solar body out past the Oort Cloud that some have been posting about as well myself about the dark jupiter.  they are closer to finding enough data on this dark object to substantiate its definition.  This has been a postulate for several years now but this is more compelling if they can resolve this mass.
> 
> Wonderful data.  This too is the basis for Nibiru and other far fetched postulations.
> 
> ...



How can it be hidden if it can be seen?


----------



## xsited1 (Feb 15, 2011)

Here's an oldie but goodie, if you can get your hands on a copy:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Nemesis-Death-Star-Richard-Muller/dp/1555841732]Amazon.com: Nemesis: The Death Star (9781555841737): Richard Muller: Books[/ame]


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 15, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the data on the large exo-solar body out past the Oort Cloud that some have been posting about as well myself about the dark jupiter.  they are closer to finding enough data on this dark object to substantiate its definition.  This has been a postulate for several years now but this is more compelling if they can resolve this mass.
> ...




It CANNOT be seen. The issue is its assumed effects on the Oort Cloud, The Kuiper Belt, and all TNOs that we know of.

Whatever it is, it orbits so far out it will take us awhile to get a probe to it. It orbits the Sun nearly every 27 million years, what ever it is.

Robert


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Feb 15, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Robert_Stephens said:
> ...



I understood it that it could been seen, because you said it was massive. Or am I missing something here? If it can't be seen how do you know it's massive? and if it's massive how can it be hidden?


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 15, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I understood it that it could been seen, because you said it was massive. Or am I missing something here? If it can't be seen how do you know it's massive? and if it's massive how can it be hidden?



Ok, read carefully. It is _surmised_ to be at least 6 times the size of Jupiter, to have the effect it does on the Oort Cloud, TNOs, The Kuiper Belt and the long long narrow orbits of comets, which should not be this way if there was no out side solar influence of some kind. The only thing that fits this is a Dark Jupiter, an  object that is about 6 times the size of Jupiter's mass. Is that better?

Thanks,

Robert


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

It cannot be seen because it emits no light of its own.  It is inferred that it is there because of gravitational effects perceived to occur in the oort cloud (which itself is inferred as it has not been "seen" either.  The oort cloud is the hypothesised origin of the comets that frequently pass into the inner solar system.  The only way to "see" Tyche would be to have a probe travel to where it is mathematially calculated to be, or long exposure photography from the HST or if it happens to occlude a star and we happen to be luckily looking at the right patch of sky at the time.


----------



## Sheldon (Feb 15, 2011)

We may get a better idea of whether or not some kind of disadvantaged star/planet is out there in the next couple years. NASA has their WISE program that, if I remember right, is scanning the entire sky with infrared--which is the only real way that we could pick-up something as dark as what this is hypothesized to be.


----------



## Sheldon (Feb 15, 2011)

Here we go

NASA - Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 15, 2011)

Sheldon said:


> We may get a better idea of whether or not some kind of disadvantaged star/planet is out there in the next couple years. NASA has their WISE program that, if I remember right, is scanning the entire sky with infrared--which is the only real way that we could pick-up something as dark as what this is hypothesized to be.



Excellent.  Correct. WISE and the new James Webb Space Telescope are going to open many pandora's boxes big time.

Robert


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> It cannot be seen because it emits no light of its own.  It is inferred that it is there because of gravitational effects perceived to occur in the oort cloud (which itself is inferred as it has not been "seen" either.  The oort cloud is the hypothesised origin of the comets that frequently pass into the inner solar system.  The only way to "see" Tyche would be to have a probe travel to where it is mathematially calculated to be, or long exposure photography from the HST or if it happens to occlude a star and we happen to be luckily looking at the right patch of sky at the time.



Soooo...it is an inference from an inference...

Funny how science wanders down these paths.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 15, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> Sheldon said:
> 
> 
> > We may get a better idea of whether or not some kind of disadvantaged star/planet is out there in the next couple years. NASA has their WISE program that, if I remember right, is scanning the entire sky with infrared--which is the only real way that we could pick-up something as dark as what this is hypothesized to be.
> ...


wow, nice

that thing looks cool


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 15, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It cannot be seen because it emits no light of its own.  It is inferred that it is there because of gravitational effects perceived to occur in the oort cloud (which itself is inferred as it has not been "seen" either.  The oort cloud is the hypothesised origin of the comets that frequently pass into the inner solar system.  The only way to "see" Tyche would be to have a probe travel to where it is mathematially calculated to be, or long exposure photography from the HST or if it happens to occlude a star and we happen to be luckily looking at the right patch of sky at the time.
> ...



Sorta.

Science, like me, based on failure, mistakes, questions, error, stupidity, assumption without cause, and postulation. Emperical evidence then proves fact over matter. That is the nature of Discovery. Very few involved in science or technology or the like are _legends in their own mind_, since everything becomes awe and wonder.

My whole program is based on what I do not know. It is the joy of discovery.

It is very much the words of Carl Sagan's "The Pale Blue Dot".

Robert


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 15, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Carl Sagan predicted in 1991 that the Gulf War oil field fires would freeze the planet into an ice ball.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > It cannot be seen because it emits no light of its own.  It is inferred that it is there because of gravitational effects perceived to occur in the oort cloud (which itself is inferred as it has not been "seen" either.  The oort cloud is the hypothesised origin of the comets that frequently pass into the inner solar system.  The only way to "see" Tyche would be to have a probe travel to where it is mathematially calculated to be, or long exposure photography from the HST or if it happens to occlude a star and we happen to be luckily looking at the right patch of sky at the time.
> ...







That is correct.  The oort cloud is so far the best explanation for the comets that penetrate into the inner solar system but it is not the only possibility here.  This is not climatology where they only focus on man as a cause, there are many hypotheses for observed phenomena.  The goal is to test as many different theories as possible to find the one that is closest to observed reality.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...






Just because he was a great astronomer doesn't make him perfect any more than Kaku is perfect, scientists are far from perfect, but the good ones, when presented with evidence will modify their viewpoints.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 15, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...


source?


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 15, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Robert_Stephens said:
> ...



I watched him say it on television.

How old are you?


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Robert_Stephens said:
> ...






There were a few scientists who thought the effect of the burning wells would act as an analog for nuclear winter which was another Sagan cause.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 15, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...


probably older than you
provide a source please
i tried to find one and could not


----------



## whitehall (Feb 15, 2011)

Hidden? That's a bit misleading isn't it? The verb "hide" indicates an intelligent effort to remain out of sight. Maybe NASA is playing games to generate more funding. Just because our technology can't make out a thing quarter lightyear away it doesn' mean it's hidden.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 15, 2011)

westwall said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...


i remember some making that claim, but i dont remember Sagan saying any such thing


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 15, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Check CNN. If they still have the tape and transcript.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 15, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...


seems your memory is defective in several ways

i changed the search from your hyperbolic line to a more reasonable Kuwaiti oil fires and found this



> During Operation Desert Storm, Dr. S. Fred Singer debated Carl Sagan on the impact of the Kuwaiti petroleum fires on the ABC News program _Nightline_. Sagan said we know from the nuclear winter investigation that the smoke would loft into the upper atmosphere and that he believed the net effects would be very similar to the explosion of the Indonesian volcano Tambora in 1815, which resulted in the year 1816 being known as the _Year Without a Summer_, in massive agricultural failures, in very serious human suffering and, in some cases, starvation.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Carl Sagan / Nuclear Winter -- 1983


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 15, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




See, I knew you could do it. Good job.

So I take it you survived the mass starvation part.


----------



## westwall (Feb 15, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...







Did you?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 15, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...


that doesn't exactly support your claim


----------



## American Horse (Feb 15, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > I understood it that it could been seen, because you said it was massive. Or am I missing something here? If it can't be seen how do you know it's massive? and if it's massive how can it be hidden?
> ...



Actually Robert, the Wise Telescope is hoped, when recent data is released in April, to show some visual indications of what is presently being named "Tyche" with infrared images; that expectation of detection is because it is four or five times warmer than Pluto because of residual heat, and perhaps also because of compressive heat.  

At any rate confirmation of its existence hangs on that WISE data. Otherwise the theory is to explain the mystery of the 20% percent of comets which come from a high angle, which is an anomaly, and also the periodicity of extinctions of about 27 million years which are theorized to coincide with Tyche's orbit.  A problem with that, though, is that Tyche's orbit should be affected by the passage of stars nearby during those long periods, and its orbit be altered by those passing stars.  This would call into question the 27 MY period.

The non-anomalous comets which begin their fall into the inner solar system is based on theory of perturbation (disturbance) known as "the galactic tide theory," the explanation of which is implied in the name.


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 15, 2011)

American Horse said:


> At any rate confirmation of its existence hangs on that WISE data. Otherwise the theory is to explain the mystery of the 20% percent of comets which come from a high angle, which is an anomaly, and also the periodicity of extinctions of about 27 million years which are theorized to coincide with Tyche's orbit.  A problem with that, though, is that Tyche's orbit should be affected by the passage of stars nearby during those long periods, and its orbit be altered by those passing stars.  This would call into question the 27 MY period.
> 
> The non-anomalous comets which begin their fall into the inner solar system is based on theory of perturbation (disturbance) known as "the galactic tide theory," the explanation of which is implied in the name.



I _do_ understand. However, any "stars" out side of Sol influence have nothing to do with Tyche's position or state or orbital configuration as they are too far away (4 LY, 13 LY, 29 LY, 27 LY). The orbital time line of Tyche is based on where it is assumed to be, in orbit around the sun and the only influence there would be the sun itself on what it is-- dark Jupiter or what have you.

WISE will yield much data on this and this is exciting.

Robert


----------



## American Horse (Feb 15, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > At any rate confirmation of its existence hangs on that WISE data. Otherwise the theory is to explain the mystery of the 20% percent of comets which come from a high angle, which is an anomaly, and also the periodicity of extinctions of about 27 million years which are theorized to coincide with Tyche's orbit.  A problem with that, though, is that Tyche's orbit should be affected by the passage of stars nearby during those long periods, and its orbit be altered by those passing stars.  This would call into question the 27 MY period.
> ...



Robert, you need to take into account the period time frame of 27,000,000 years which it's orbit is impuited to take. That's a long time; but not so much astronomically.  I recall a few years back in Astronomy Magazine, an article that showed in the future there would be numerous relative close passes from stars that might have an affect way out there where a body was in delicate balance and might be pulled one way or the other.

Our stellar neighborhood is a dynamic one.  At one time our sun had some untold number of siblings. They are mostly long departed, but others have come into our vicinity to confuse our view of things.  I just mention that last part to suggest that on a long astronomical scale, in our journey around the galaxy, which takes some 230,000,000 MY, things move around a lot.  

You will find this interesting:

"  - In the plane of the galaxy the Sun is located in the small spiral arm we call the Orion arm (or local arm) which is really just connection between the two nearest major spiral arms (the Sagitarius and Perseus arms). There is a neat page on these structures: SEDS Milky Way Spiral Structure page. We pass through a major spiral arm about every 100 million years, taking about 10 million years to go through . . . "

Curious About Astronomy: How often does the Sun pass through a spiral arm in the Milky Way?


----------



## Douger (Feb 15, 2011)

Are any other of these celestial beings infested by murkins ?
 Please inform.
Until then I'll continue life on the isthmus.........
Hears murkins (furiously typing a Google search)


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 15, 2011)

American Horse said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



The orbital timeline is not subject to debate. If it is out there at about 1.5  to 1.7 LY from Sol, its orbital time line will be 27 M years. 

If you are speaking 'stars' moving in and out of our Sol Space, that too is not likely, since anything close to something like that would destroy the chance of life to begin here, 4.3 billion years hence. What happens is within about 30 LY of us, enough foreign unknowns move and are swung out of normal orbiting due to any number of events, but they are fleeting or passing events. 

But stars are rotating on their own axis, and the orbiting is fixed positions by the galactic influences of location. This s real overview stuff a nd not technical but its essentially the way its set up.

This is a good exchange.

Robert


----------



## American Horse (Feb 16, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Robert_Stephens said:
> ...



Here is a comment by Adrian L. Melott. Department of Physics and Astronomy. University of Kansas. Lawrence:  (He calls it by it's former name Nemesis)


Sun's Rumored Hidden Companion May Not Exist After All 
(He refers to the 27-MY cycle and says in part)

" - If Nemesis existed and had this kind of an orbit, its orbit would not be regular," Melott told SPACE.com. "Calculations indicate its orbit would change by 20 to 50 percent due to the gravitational attraction of stars as they pass by us, and the movement of the sun in the galaxy."

Thus, a celestial body like Nemesis couldn't explain such a long-standing, steady cycle, because its orbit itself would not be steady over such a long period of time.

Melott said his data basically puts the final nail in the coffin of the Nemesis idea. But others aren't so sure. Some in the field question whether the fossil record is really accurate enough to establish a cycle going back that far.

"To that I would say, yes we can, now that the accuracy has improved so much," Melott said. "And even if there were errors in the timing, that wouldn't cause something to appear so clockwork and regular, it would smear the signal out."

Melott and Bambach said it leaves the question of what's causing the extinction cycle totally open.



And I will repeat a snippet from my post #38  above; re your words bolded above: 
vis: "But stars are rotating on their own axis, and the orbiting is fixed positions by the galactic influences of location. This s real overview stuff a nd not technical but its essentially the way its set up."

"  - In the plane of the galaxy the Sun is located in the small spiral arm we call the Orion arm (or local arm) which is really just connection between the two nearest major spiral arms (the Sagitarius and Perseus arms)... [SNIP] ... We pass through a major spiral arm about every 100 million years, taking about 10 million years to go through . . . "

Curious About Astronomy: How often does the Sun pass through a spiral arm in the Milky Way?


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 16, 2011)

American Horse said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



For me, I would highly question him and his position any day, any time. That is not possible, for if it were, Sol would also fall to that sort of influence, thus changing our celestial dynamics and Earth's position in the Solar System and that would negate life forming.

So many of these people do not do this all the time, or everyday and so they postulate without all the parameters of the bigger picture.

Totally false.

On the other hand, for an example, I am doing an image of The Great Attractor. When I first studied it and found out about and it became the THE news around the news and around the Astronomy world, it was incredible.

Everything in our quadrant of the universe was moving toward this and everyone was trying to find out what it was. I loved it. Then, lo, as new mods were added to the HST, it was discovered that the The Great Attractor wasn't so great after all, and only about 12% for mass and influence they thought. Then, even bigger, beyond TGA, was The Shapley Super Cluster, the largest mass in the universe we know of now.

And THAT was the culprit for drawing everything in 1/4 of the universe toward it at 14% the speed of light.  The most massive cluster of galaxies known, ever.

The point is here that so many used to argue that the TGA was a black hole, others, a singularity, still others had some other wild brain theory. 

The point here is until we "See" Tyche in some spectra, this is all academic conjecture.

Hope that is helpful.

Robert


----------



## BrianH (Feb 16, 2011)

So let me see if I understand what you're saying...

This object cannot be seen, but the effects on the objects around it make it "obvious" that there is "something" there correct?  And this object is affecting things around it in such a way that it is suggested that it must be 6 times larger than Jupiter?  (I'm not being sarcastic, just trying to make sure I understand what's being stated here.)

It makes sense that there has to be some type of gravitation force from "something" that causes on other things.  It wouldn't make much sense to assume that these other things are being affected by nothing.  I wonder if this "object" is a giant mass of dark matter...possibly the largest we've seen yet?  Or do they assume that it's not dark matter?


----------



## BrianH (Feb 16, 2011)

Ok, I actually just read the link on the OP.  WOW....I had no clue of any of this...Very interesting.


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 16, 2011)

BrianH said:


> So let me see if I understand what you're saying...
> 
> This object cannot be seen, but the effects on the objects around it make it "obvious" that there is "something" there correct?  And this object is affecting things around it in such a way that it is suggested that it must be 6 times larger than Jupiter?  (I'm not being sarcastic, just trying to make sure I understand what's being stated here.)
> 
> It makes sense that there has to be some type of gravitation force from "something" that causes on other things.  It wouldn't make much sense to assume that these other things are being affected by nothing.  I wonder if this "object" is a giant mass of dark matter...possibly the largest we've seen yet?  Or do they assume that it's not dark matter?



Perfectly correct. Yes. However, DM is now questioned to even exist along with Dark Energy. They are now trying to find if there is any new models to apply to unseen mass. Wild and confusing.  They will not know until they have instruments to "see" it in the real, not conjecture.

Good questions,

Robert


----------



## BrianH (Feb 16, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > So let me see if I understand what you're saying...
> ...



You know, if this "thing" is proven to actually be an object...it will be one the greatest space discoveries IMO.  This proves that there are so many things in our world that are left to be discvoered.  I makes me wonder how much that isn't discovered even here on earth.  Things we can't see.  If this thing is clear then it may be a great discovery to see "what" makes it transluscent.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 16, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


yes, the greatest, till the next one 


btw, it might not be "translucent" we just might not have anything that can detect it, yet


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 16, 2011)

Both post of you fellas are correct.  It is dark as it has no light source to shine outwards. They are called "Dark Jupiters" for no other description _yet_.  Another words, they are huge like Jupiter, but never ignited as stars.

Hope that's helpful for clarification.

Robert


----------



## BrianH (Feb 16, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > Robert_Stephens said:
> ...




I guess my next question would be... Is it blocking out whatever is behind it?  Or is it like dark matter and transluscent, but distorting things behind it?


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 16, 2011)

BrianH said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...


well, one of the ways they have detected something is when it passes in front of a star
that was posted either in this thread or one of the others


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 16, 2011)

BrianH said:


> I guess my next question would be... Is it blocking out whatever is behind it?  Or is it like dark matter and transluscent, but distorting things behind it?




It is a mass about 6 times the size of jupiter, orbiting about 1.5LY out from our sun. It orbits every 23 million years around the sun and is at the outer limit of Sol's influence. This is the known postulate for Tyche, as of today. It remains to be proven and verified what this is, for certain.

Robert


----------



## BrianH (Feb 16, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > I guess my next question would be... Is it blocking out whatever is behind it?  Or is it like dark matter and transluscent, but distorting things behind it?
> ...



Is it blocking out things behind it?  Or is it so hidden that they can even determine that?


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 16, 2011)

At this distance it has not even been seen. Just supposed by its behavior as known on other objects described. It is totally conjectured to be as described and I always hold off on any data until it is verified, on things like this. 

Good query, however,

Robert


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 16, 2011)

I'm amazed of how much hoopla this news made yesterday and now nothing, other than Space Com and NASA.

Weird. 

Astronomers Doubt Giant Planet 'Tyche' Exists in Our Solar System| Giant Planet Tyche Not Likely to Exist, Say Experts | Space.com

Robert


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 16, 2011)

And notice everyone, and this is how it all goes, today they do NOT think it is there.......

I always wait on stuff like this as it is always a reach out into the dark until it is absolutely verified.

Bad deal, and frustrating. But, it lets you see the fallibility of discovery and its quest.

Robert


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 16, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> Here is the data on the large exo-solar body out past the Oort Cloud that some have been posting about as well myself about the dark jupiter.  they are closer to finding enough data on this dark object to substantiate its definition.  This has been a postulate for several years now but this is more compelling if they can resolve this mass.
> 
> Wonderful data.  This too is the basis for Nibiru and other far fetched postulations.
> 
> ...



Very cool.

If it is officially found.  Would it me a planet or called something else?


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 16, 2011)

Don't know, they say now it isn't there, today-- its a sham.  Read that article above with the graphic.

Terral will love this.

Robert


----------



## editec (Feb 16, 2011)

Any theory based on the notion that there is something "massive" in our solar system that we have as yet not discovered is completely preposterous.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 16, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> Don't know, they say now it isn't there, today-- its a sham.  Read that article above with the graphic.
> 
> Terral will love this.
> 
> Robert



Lame

That would have been interesting.

As far as Terral goes, we shouldn't hear from him for days.  Since we were all supposed to die yesterday.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 16, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know, they say now it isn't there, today-- its a sham.  Read that article above with the graphic.
> ...


No, that's *March* 15th when the poles shift and we all die.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Feb 16, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Robert_Stephens said:
> ...



5 hours of sleep + no coffee + No work at work + bordom = I don't care enough to double check and have now embarassed myself in the flame zone.


----------



## American Horse (Feb 16, 2011)

Link Back to Post #42


One good thing about this right now is that in April (presumably, or shortly thereafter) we will have some results from WISE to establish or discredit (although this has such popular appeal that it has a life of its own) a theory to explain a single phenomenon: the high angle of approach of certain cometary anomalies, the 27-M.Y. cycle of extinctions notwithstanding.  

And the 27 M.Y. orbital cycle has only one thing to establish it as proof, other than extinctions which may be some period greater or lesser: at a distance out at the outer limits of the Oort cloud, and at some projected appropriate velocity, an orbital cycle might share a period that matched the extinctions.

Don't they need some explanation of the mechanics that would account for such a large body to form out where the stuff of the original accretion disc is most disparate?  Do Pluto/Charon or particularly other large KBOs show any resonance that would indicate or support its existence?  Hopefully the New Horizons Mission will yield something useful, but not of course in the immediate future, as it will begin its observations of the Kuiper Belt not before 2015.

EDIT:  I would not expect New Horizons to actually detect such an object in whatever spectra, but at the very least some indication of a resonance that might begin to support its existence.  It does appear that the scientists who (currently) postulate this large mass think that WISE might turn up something.


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 16, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> Cost for NASA to you: $0.31 per week.
> 
> As far as a parsec, yes, it is a real measurement and it is based on the distance from our sun, to our closest star, Alpha Proxima, at, you guessed it, 4.3 light years. That is where they got that measurement from and so when we use measures to say, The Great Attractor, for example, at 600 million light years, in Astronomy they say, 139.4 MP (2390 Parsecs) and the like.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that info. I was under the impression that the closest star, leaving the sun out of it, was only @ a light year away. I was mistaken.


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 16, 2011)

American Horse said:


> Link Back to Post #42
> 
> 
> One good thing about this right now is that in April (presumably, or shortly thereafter) we will have some results from WISE to establish or discredit (although this has such popular appeal that it has a life of its own) a theory to explain a single phenomenon: the high angle of approach of certain cometary anomalies, the 27-M.Y. cycle of extinctions notwithstanding.
> ...



What s so funny and compelling, last night several Astronomer's now say it does not exist and give reason why it does not.  But, in infrared it will be imaging different an what one imagines but reveals what we cannot see in pure optical spectra.

This is going to be great to see what results from all this posturing, if and when, it is confirmed what may be out there, or not.

Robert


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2011)

And while looking for something like that, we will more than likely find something we did not even imagine. A very wise cowboy from Eastern Oregon, Rueben Long, once stated, "Research is always a bargain, even when it costs too much".


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 16, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> And while looking for something like that, we will more than likely find something we did not even imagine. A very wise cowboy from Eastern Oregon, Rueben Long, once stated, "Research is always a bargain, even when it costs too much".



Perfect. And so very very true. Had it not been for NASA's investment in Mercury Program, we, you and I, all, would not be using this medium to communicate. 

Robert


----------



## mah127 (Feb 20, 2011)

nibiru.....


----------



## mah127 (Feb 20, 2011)

I believe they have been covering up planet x for some time.  Just not sure when it will cause havoc.  Could be 2011 or 2025 who knows.


----------



## Liability (Feb 20, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> But to put this into *prospective *regarding us, here, on Earth, this disance of this object, if proven to be, is at a distance of some 1,395,000,000,000 (1.395 _trillion_ miles.  Thus, it is nearly 1/4 of a LY distant.
> 
> One Light Year is: 5,865,696,000,000 miles.
> 
> ...



We all need some better prospective.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Feb 23, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I understood it that it could been seen, because you said it was massive. Or am I missing something here? If it can't be seen how do you know it's massive? and if it's massive how can it be hidden?



I'm sure this has been answered, but it may interest you to know that the last few planets out in our solar system were first found based on gravitational effects they had on other planetary trajectories.  IIRC, the legendary Carl Fredrick Gauss found a few things using this technique.

It gets pretty hard to actually "see" things in outer space that are not actively generating their own light once you get any reasonable distance out.  Gravitational effects have been used to detect planets in other solar systems, etc.  The math is quite interesting.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 23, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Robert_Stephens said:
> ...



You aint a rocket scientist nor an astrophysicist .

Site Contents: About the Artist

Robert A.M. Stephens is a professional artist, painting full time since May of 1977. Winning an art scholarship at age 14 sent him to the University California at Davis.There he was told he would never be an artist since he preferred to paint realistically. He agreed with their dissent since he hated the abstract, subjective creations popular during that period of the mid 60's, thus surrendering the scholarship. From that point he was determined to become a professional artist and decided to teach himself somehow. It took him 11 more years before he could launch his career as an easel painter and fine artist in plein-aire works professionally.

A 5 time Smithsonian (SITES) alumni in conjunction with NASA, and with work in collections, museums, and academies worldwide, he has proved UCD's art department they may have been a little hasty.

The image archive at this site is a collection both digital and oil on canvas/panel, that have been executed and sold or is for sale in current inventory as indicated in each image page. The artist is currently represented by the Hanson Trust, Inc., Gig Harbor, WA, USA. The Agent Provocateur can be reached at: Percheron74@comcast.net or,

http://web.archive.org/web/20040803041547/http://www.behold-the-rage.com/
The Art Of Robert A.M. Stephens-Behold The Heart
Internet Archive Wayback Machine

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3342869-post93.html

Yikes indeed.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 23, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...


he has never claimed to be either, so whats the problem?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 23, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> he has never claimed to be either, so whats the problem?



http://www.usmessageboard.com/3342804-post92.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3342869-post93.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3343283-post173.html


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 23, 2011)

Enjoy the entertainment , but question the math.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3342869-post93.html



> N=£&#8710;.32n/&#8747;&#8211;(&#8710;230/ç&#8706&#8800;Vn&#8721;ø«C/Pi&#8776;/µ


Gibberish


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 23, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > he has never claimed to be either, so whats the problem?
> ...


no where in those post did he claim to be what you said he wasnt


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 23, 2011)

Impled


> we can turn the HST to see down to earth and read down to 5.5".





> The equation for validation for this is as follows, where N=orbital velocity x distance/position on local:
> 
> N=£&#8710;.32n/&#8747;&#8211;(&#8710;230/ç&#8706&#8800;Vn&#8721;ø«C/Pi&#8776;/µ
> 
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 23, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Impled
> 
> 
> > we can turn the HST to see down to earth and read down to 5.5".
> ...


only if you make a giant leap of faith


----------



## Sheldon (Feb 23, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Impled
> ...





I kind of had the same impression as Fitnah. His sigline led me to think he was doing some kind of official work with NASA, like working with Hubble images, or calculating distances and sizes of astronomical objects. 


Scaled Dynamics
NASA Visual Exploration


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 23, 2011)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3342804-post92.html
He asserts several  things in the post 
His means of living
A mathematical proof
A law of celestial mechanics
The accuracy of created photographs.
All of his assertions have been proven to be false.
In Mr Robert case, a leap of  faith is out of the question.







> Lastly, The photo above is from HST and is taken in gamma, infrared, and red shift laurex, which sees through dust and other diffusions. It is an accurate image of the Milky Way's galactic core. You are in error.
> 
> This is what I do for a living.



Finished color images are actually combinations of two or more black-and-white exposures to which color has been added during image processing.
The colors in Hubble images, which are assigned for various reasons, aren't always what we'd see if we were able to visit the imaged objects in a spacecraft. We often use color as a tool, whether it is to enhance an object's detail or to visualize what ordinarily could never be seen by the human eye.

HubbleSite - Behind the Pictures - Meaning of Color


----------



## Douger (Feb 23, 2011)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the data on the large exo-solar body out past the Oort Cloud that some have been posting about as well myself about the dark jupiter.  they are closer to finding enough data on this dark object to substantiate its definition.  This has been a postulate for several years now but this is more compelling if they can resolve this mass.
> ...


It must be a Google conspiracy.  They hide everything !


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 23, 2011)

Sheldon said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Yeah his sig is a concocted rouse  to imply he is something he is not.
I like the way he  paints and I own a jeep .
But his science, well it  just aint.




Robert_Stephens said:


> Most astronomical measurements are done with a parsec, which is 4.3 LY.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/3325207-post4.html
> Robert


The parsec (parallax of one arcsecond; symbol: pc) is a unit of length, equal to just under 31 trillion (31×1012) kilometres (about 19 trillion miles), 206265 AU, or about 3.26 light-years. Parsec - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Astronomy uses Astronomical Units  to measure distance Parsecs for angles Astronomical system of units - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 23, 2011)

Come on Mr Robert explain yourself.
 fix your sig and hang the right avy


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 23, 2011)

Would this massive object make our sun wobble?

Has anyone measured the wobble? If we can measure a wobble many light years away, 8 light minutes should be easy.


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 23, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> Would this massive object make our sun wobble?
> 
> Has anyone measured the wobble? If we can measure a wobble many light years away, 8 light minutes should be easy.



No, it could not.  It would have to have 50,000 Jupiter masses and be close, very close, to have any effect on Sol.

Robert


----------



## American Horse (Feb 23, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Would this massive object make our sun wobble?
> ...






> The solar mass is the standard unit of mass in astronomy, used to indicate the masses of other stars and galaxies. It is equal to the mass of the Sun, about two nonillion kilograms or about 332,950 times the mass of the Earth or 1,048 times the mass of Jupiter.



A hypothetical mass equal to 50,000 Jupiters would be 47.7 (50,000/1048) times as massive as the sun, so it would cause a lot more than wobbles: the sun would actually be circling the mass instead of vice versa.  That would create the kind of wobbles we are considering in this discussion. And we should also consider that the corresponding shifts in radial velocity of the sun (if being viewed from a lateral position within or close to the orbital plane of the "dark mass" and the sun) would be visible as blue and red Doppler shifts in spectroscopy wavelengths.



> Doppler Spectroscopy - Otto Struve proposed in 1952 the use of powerful spectrographs to detect distant planets. He described how a very large planet, as large as Jupiter, for example, would cause its parent star to wobble slightly as the two objects orbit around their center of mass. He predicted that the small Doppler shifts to the light emitted by the star, caused by its continuously varying radial velocity, would be detectable by the most sensitive spectrographs as tiny red shifts and blue shifts in the star's emission. However, the technology of the time produced radial velocity



Today this is standard practice for astronomers to detect the radial velocity of stars relative to our postiton in the solar system, and can be used to detect extra solar planets when the "wobble' would be obscured because it is being seen in its orbital plane relative to us. To date almost all of the known extrasolar planets have been discovered using Doppler spectroscopy.


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Feb 23, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Would this massive object make our sun wobble?
> ...



Interesting stuff Robert. Thank you. ~BH


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 23, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Would this massive object make our sun wobble?
> ...



You're an idiot.


----------



## DiveCon (Feb 24, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> You are in error on myself and the Jupiter volumes. Sorry.
> 
> Robert


they seem to be of the impression that you are misrepresenting yourself here
but i have never seen you claim to be anything other than an artist


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 24, 2011)

I am me, a contractor for NASA. Simple.  If they question that, I guess that is the way it is.  Somehow, my work and art got here.  But who knows.

NASA - NASA and the Arts

Robert


----------



## RevBig (Feb 24, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> You are in error on myself and the Jupiter volumes. Sorry.Robert



With all due respect, even an object the size (mass would be a better term I suppose!)  of Jupiter (or a smaller object) one  would cause detectable minor perturbations in a solar mass star. It's one way we find extrasolar planets. I cant post supporting links until I make a few more posts (why is an mystery to me!) PM me for the links I took the time to source if you want them.

*~*RB*~*


----------



## RevBig (Feb 24, 2011)

A bit of interesting trivia; If Jupiter were about sixty times more massive it would begin fusion reactions making it a star. More mass would not make Jupiter's size grow rather it would cause the planet to fall in upon itself and compress under its own gravity. At this point, thermonuclear reactions would ignite and Jupiter would become a luminous star with a diameter of about 100,000 miles (161,000 km.). Cool eh? 

*~*RB*~*


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 24, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> I am me, a contractor for NASA. Simple.  If they question that, I guess that is the way it is.  Somehow, my work and art got here.  But who knows.
> 
> NASA - NASA and the Arts
> 
> Robert


Your work is your  art.
Science and math out of reach for you.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3317700-post61.html



> The equation for validation for this is as follows, where N=orbital velocity x distance/position on local:
> 
> N=£&#8710;.32n/&#8747;(&#8710;230/ç&#8706&#8800;Vn&#8721;ø«C/Pi&#8776;/µ
> 
> ...



You want to try and walk that equation back ?
or make it clear you dont do science and math you paint.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 24, 2011)

Hey Robert does your blood smell like cologne ?


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 24, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > I am me, a contractor for NASA. Simple.  If they question that, I guess that is the way it is.  Somehow, my work and art got here.  But who knows.
> ...



The equation is perfect. It is also beautiful as is all math.

Robert


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 24, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Hey Robert does your blood smell like cologne ?



Beautiful art. Cool guy. Cologne?  Not certain.  Most of the time it HAS to smell like peppers.....

Robert


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 24, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Robert_Stephens said:
> ...



Its perfect alright, perfect gibberish.


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 24, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Phuck you, azzhole.  How is that? So, ban me motherphuckers.  What a dweebville.  Education is a wonderful thing, hon.

I am love,  hilarious group.

Robert


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 24, 2011)

There are plenty of folk here  up to the task  of understanding  advanced math 
Dr traveler a  Mathematician ,
Xsisted1 A designer of integrated circuits ,
a couple of Amateur astronomers A horse asterike(sic)
 Myself with a back ground in nuclear physics from the Navy.
There are also several teachers here.
Im certain we can muster up the brain power to follow your explanation of the equation if you can  come up  with one.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 24, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> There are plenty of folk here  up to the task  of understanding  advanced math
> Dr traveler a  Mathematician ,
> Xsisted1 A designer of integrated circuits ,
> a couple of Amateur astronomers A horse asterike(sic)
> ...


Uh oh. Looks like Robert is about to "Reap the Whirlwind"!


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 25, 2011)

RevBig said:


> A bit of interesting trivia; If Jupiter were about sixty times more massive it would begin fusion reactions making it a star. More mass would not make Jupiter's size grow rather it would cause the planet to fall in upon itself and compress under its own gravity. At this point, thermonuclear reactions would ignite and Jupiter would become a luminous star with a diameter of about 100,000 miles (161,000 km.). Cool eh?
> 
> *~*RB*~*



With a 1x4x9 monolith, the extra mass would not be necessary.


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 25, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of folk here  up to the task  of understanding  advanced math
> ...



I have always been fond of tornadoes. In your case, do you eat mom's menses also. I do love your script 'o plenty and fun to see digital meltdowns. Trust me, that dark underbelly of a cross dressing phase you are now locked into will pass.

Robert


----------



## Robert_Stephens (Feb 25, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> There are plenty of folk here  up to the task  of understanding  advanced math
> Dr traveler a  Mathematician ,
> Xsisted1 A designer of integrated circuits ,
> a couple of Amateur astronomers A horse asterike(sic)
> ...



Plato's quote in your signature is superb.  True as well. Did you see the launch today?

R


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 25, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of folk here  up to the task  of understanding  advanced math
> ...



Naw, this is a 'find Waldo'  moment. It must be referenced. Although, having an 'equal to' sign, a 'not equal to' sign, and an 'approximately equal to' sign in the same equation is going to make Waldo hard to find.


----------



## RevBig (Feb 25, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> RevBig said:
> 
> 
> > A bit of interesting trivia; If Jupiter were about sixty times more massive it would begin fusion reactions making it a star. More mass would not make Jupiter's size grow rather it would cause the planet to fall in upon itself and compress under its own gravity. At this point, thermonuclear reactions would ignite and Jupiter would become a luminous star with a diameter of about 100,000 miles (161,000 km.). Cool eh?
> ...



I can see this is not a serious forum! If the monolith were of alien design it may be weightless. In any case, I think I may not be long here, I was looking for something with a bit more ummm' science and less playing, even though I am a rank amateur. However have fun, I am going to check out a few more threads and if they are all like this one (more about science) I may be looking for another home ~

RevBig


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 25, 2011)

RevBig said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > RevBig said:
> ...



It could be weightless, but still have mass.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Feb 25, 2011)

Robert_Stephens said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of folk here  up to the task  of understanding  advanced math
> ...



That is not an explanation of the equation.



The equation for validation for this is as follows, where N=orbital velocity x distance/position on local:

N=£&#8710;.32n/&#8747;(&#8710;230/ç&#8706&#8800;Vn&#8721;ø«C/Pi&#8776;/µ
Please  post a detailed explanation of the equation.
The original context .
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3317700-post61.html
Please explain the  unbroken chain of false statements about science.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3356645-post85.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3355078-post81.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3354950-post79.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3317700-post61.html


----------



## RevBig (Feb 25, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> RevBig said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



* cof *, I was just testing you. I should not of used the word 'weightless' in any case, its over used and incorrectly applied in many cases.   Microgravity is usually a good substitute.  However, that said we were talking about adding enough mass to Jupiter to begin fusion reactions . If the "1x4x9 monolith" were to be placed on Jupiter what material would be used to construct it? It would have to be heavy and dense to possess the correct mass to begin the fission reactions!  Black hole stuff? Neutron star stuff, my elder basset hounds massive belly fat ? Huh? 

rb


----------



## Mad Scientist (Feb 26, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


You're not gonna' get one either because in addition to all his other self professed medical maladies, it appears Robert suffers from *Adult* Attention Deficit Disorder as well.


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 26, 2011)

RevBig said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > RevBig said:
> ...



You funny!  Mr "Take yourself too seriously"  Party of one...your table is ready.


----------



## percysunshine (Feb 26, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> RevBig said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



Why are you inserting false words into his reply to my post?


----------



## HUGGY (Feb 26, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > RevBig said:
> ...



If you want to keep something private...send a PM TWIMC.  This is a public thread and I was responding to the reply suggesting that the poster was going to leave.  My reply was not to you personally.  Suggesting my words were "inserted" or false is stupid.


----------



## waltky (May 21, 2011)

Only 12 million light years away...

*Snapshot reveals a black hole's jets*
_20 May`11 - A network of radio telescopes scattered around the Southern Hemisphere has produced the best-ever view of cosmic jets erupting from a supermassive black hole at the center of another galaxy._


> The new image shows a region of space less than 4.2 light-years across at the heart of Centaurus A, 12 million light-years away in the constellation Centaurus (of course). The galaxy, also known as NGC 5128 is anchored by a black hole as massive as 55 million suns. It's a huge radio source. In fact, if our eyes could see radio waves, Centaurus A would look nearly 20 times as big as the full moon, due to the giant lobes of radio-emitting matter spreading out from the galaxy itself.  The matter is streaming into the lobes via the particle jets that emanate from the black hole.
> 
> "These jets arise as infalling matter approaches the black hole, but we don't yet know the details of how they form and maintain themselves," Cornelia Müller, a doctoral student at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in Germany, said in a NASA image advisory released today.  Müller is the lead author of a study about the jets, appearing in the June issue of Astronomy and Astrophysics. She and her colleagues targeted Centaurus A with a network of nine radio telescopes in Africa, South America and Australia, known collectively as the Tracking Active Galactic Nuclei with Austral Milliarcsecond Interferometry project, or TANAMI. The telescopes joined forces to zoom in on the heart of the galaxy.
> 
> ...


----------



## American Horse (May 21, 2011)

waltky said:


> Only 12 million light years away...
> 
> *Snapshot reveals a black hole's jets*
> _20 May`11 - A network of radio telescopes scattered around the Southern Hemisphere has produced the best-ever view of cosmic jets erupting from a supermassive black hole at the center of another galaxy._
> ...



In what way are you confused and how does the black hole 12 million light years distant relate to the OP?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 21, 2011)

LOL. 

"In July, another Space.com article said the celestial evidence suggests Tyche could not possibly exist."

LOL.


----------



## syrenn (May 21, 2011)

Massive hidden object in space?? 






god has a space ship?


----------



## percysunshine (May 21, 2011)

*"Massive, Hidden Object in Space "*

If they prove another orbiting massive planetoid like body exists, the should call it 'Elvis'.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 22, 2011)

*Well, this certainly seems appropriate to this thread. Opens up many cans of worms. *

10 Jupiter sized 'Orphan' planets found by researchers | NEWSWARPED.COM

Japanese astronomers working with scientists in the United States and New Zealand claim to have found free-floating &#8220;Orphan planets&#8221; which do not seem to orbit a star.

Publishing their findings in Nature magazine, they say they have found 10 Jupiter-sized objects which they could not connect to any solar system. They also believe such objects could be as common as stars are throughout the Milky Way. 

The objects revealed themselves by bending the light of more distant stars, an effect called &#8220;gravitational microlensing&#8221;.

Einstein correctly predicted that objects of large enough mass can bend light. If a large object passes in front of a more distant background star, it may act as a lens, bending and distorting the light of that star so that it may appear to brighten significantly. 

The researchers have examined data collected from microlensing surveys of what is called the Galactic Bulge, the central area of our own Milky Way.

They detected evidence of 10 Jupiter-sized objects with no parent star found within 10 Astronomical Units (AU). One AU is equivalent to the distance between our Earth and Sun. Further analysis led them to the conclusion that most of these objects did not have parent stars. 

Based on the number of such bodies in the area surveyed, the astronomers then extrapolated that such objects could be extremely common.


----------



## American Horse (May 22, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> *Well, this certainly seems appropriate to this thread. Opens up many cans of worms. *
> 
> 10 Jupiter sized 'Orphan' planets found by researchers | NEWSWARPED.COMThe objects revealed themselves by bending the light of more distant stars, an effect called &#8220;gravitational microlensing&#8221;.
> 
> ...


The bolded text is confusing because it cannot be accurate.  Does it mean that these planet sized bodies are detected through gravitational lensing, and that the lense stars (perhaps in the galactic bulge) made their observation possible?  If that is so then are these bodies somewhere near the center of the galaxy, perhaps 25,000 light years or between there and here?  

One thing is certain; that statement cannot mean that there are ten Jupiter sized objects within 10 AU of our sun or earth, because Saturn is about 10 AU from the sun/earth and Uranus is about 19 AU.  We already know there is only one Jupiter sized mass body in that distance and it is Jupiter.  Therefore this is not an accurate statement, and owing to the fact that it is a blog post we have reason to believe that the comment is an interpretation of something more complex than the author has conveyed to us in his or her article.

Rogue planetary sized mass bodies (whether Jupiter size or not) would be most common in regions where stars are orbiting in multiples like binary or triple star systems and they come in close proximity to each other and planets are ejected from their parent body into interstellar space.  In the central galactic bulge stars, whether multiple stars share gravitational centers or not may come in close proximity relatively often with other multiple star/planetary systems.  

Out here in our region of space there are those types of systems, but they rarely come close enough to eject a planet in that way.  That means that phenomena would be most common in dense stellar populations like the central region of our galaxy or possibly in star clusters where stars are in much more chaotic paths and are being more or less constantly deflected into new partnerships or associations while losing old partners or associated bodies.

The one new thing I got out of that article is that once ejected into intstellar space the body, regardless of size, would no longer technically be classed as a planet; to be a planet it would have to be orbiting a star as its primary.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2011)

Well, whatever you wish to call them, and no matter what their origin, if one were to come through our solar system, it would definately be a case of there goes the neighborhood.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, whatever you wish to call them, and no matter what their origin, if one were to come through our solar system, it would definately be a case of there goes the neighborhood.



Had to PosRep you for that.

I keep trying to tell you that its so evident we've been wiped down many, many times already and nowhere is this more evident than in the absolute improbability that though human have been genetically coherent for 200,000+ years we only found a practicable way to harness electricity 100 years ago


----------



## American Horse (May 23, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, whatever you wish to call them, and no matter what their origin, if one were to come through our solar system, it would definately be a case of there goes the neighborhood.





> From NASA: The discovery is based on a joint Japan-New Zealand survey that scanned the center of the Milky Way galaxy during 2006 and 2007, revealing evidence for up to 10 free-floating planets roughly the mass of Jupiter. The isolated orbs, also known as orphan planets, are difficult to spot, and had gone undetected until now. *The newfound planets are located at an average approximate distance of 10,000 to 20,000 light-years from Earth. *



The bolded text clarifies the distance mentioned in the BLOG as 10 A.U. 

SOURCE: Free-Floating Planets May be More Common Than Stars - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory


----------



## Old Rocks (May 28, 2011)

Well, that's the ones they know about.


----------



## American Horse (May 29, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, that's the ones they know about.



Of course. but since we know how they come into being we can make a rational evaluation of how many there are, and that was done; there may be as many as there are individual stars.  Now consider how many stars collide, and/or come within proximity by random wandering and the number shrinks to inconspicuous odds because of the vastness of space.  Those which have been detected lie within the central region of the galaxy where stars are most abundant as you'd expect.  The article said 10 detected with 10 AU, but the original article from wich it was abstracted said 10 to 20,000 light years, so the frame of reference is off by a factor of .63 billion  to one.

EDIT - It is one more thing to worry about, that's for sure, particularly because they are not visible in ordinary light.  It should be pointed out that ordinary stars transit our neighborhood far more commonly than we would think.  We might see a star withing a light year (63,000 AU) three or four times each million years.


----------



## American Horse (May 29, 2011)

What the existence these dark Jupiter-plus sized objects speak to is the need for humanity to establish permanent outposts out of harm's way.  Mars would be a smaller target and a moon of Jupiter smaller still, and close to a giant deflector/vacuum cleaner. 

In time, free market capitalism, if not deterred but hopefully encouraged, will accomplish that as a matter of course.


----------



## HUGGY (May 29, 2011)

American Horse said:


> What the existence these dark Jupiter-plus sized objects speak to is the need for humanity to establish permanent outposts out of harm's way.  Mars would be a smaller target and a moon of Jupiter smaller still, and close to a giant deflector/vacuum cleaner.
> 
> *In time, free market capitalism, if not deterred but hopefully encouraged, will accomplish that as a matter of course.*



Huh?  Why would they/it do that?   Free market capitalism does NOTHING without a customer to sell a good or service to.  What exactly would they be selling to whom to justify such a venture?


----------



## American Horse (May 30, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > What the existence these dark Jupiter-plus sized objects speak to is the need for humanity to establish permanent outposts out of harm's way.  Mars would be a smaller target and a moon of Jupiter smaller still, and close to a giant deflector/vacuum cleaner.
> ...



Here are just a few applications for commercial ventures in space &#8211; and how  fortunes can be built:

Having a human presence in space would open up the need for support systems and facilities, or water for life support, transportation, logistics, etc. 

Moving satellites or other materials from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to geosynchronous Orbit (GEO), eventually from Earth LEO to the moon.  Satellites could be placed in LEO then captured and lifted into GEO by transports (call them Space transport systems) waiting there -  The fuel to power thise transports would be mined on the moon - here are potentially huge fuel savings with fuel transported from moon to any earth orbit and held in space depots for distribution to these space vehicles remaining in orbit.


And there are not just fuel savings: Would eliminate need for expendable booster stages when launching from Earth, and lifting the fuel to the final stage at LEO.

Satellite maintenance in orbit - Capturing, repairing and replacing satellites back into orbits  (presently satellites are not built amenable to be maintained or upgraded, but to be replaced by costly new satellites, with additional launch costs.

Collecting and removing space debris from orbit; ejecting it back into earth atmosphere.

Commerical operations on moon - Mining fuels for use powering space  transportation systems from LEO to GEO - Mining operations can be performed by &#8220;Tele-robots&#8221; with real time actuation.  (here on earth military drones are an example of a Tele-robot in everyday use.) 

Building and maintenance of Solar energy capture and transmission  from GEO to Earth based transmission/distribution systems &#8211; Whole countries could be independent from earth source energy importation such as oil, coal, NG, and  nuclear power.
Look Here=>msnbc.com updated 4/13/2009 10:41:47 PM ET 


> California's biggest energy utility announced a deal Monday to purchase 200 megawatts of electricity from a startup company that plans to beam the power down to Earth from outer space, beginning in 2016.



Space tourism &#8211; LEO habitat for the very wealthy - There are already examples of $20 million tickets for visits to ISS.  (See Bigelow Aerospace)

Mining asteroids in Earth crossing obits for fuel and volatiles to be used in LEO, GEO, or Lunar Halo orbit.

Elon Musk now offers a complete package price contract to put 53 (117k pounds) metric tons into orbit at a cost of $849 per pound.  (assumes full loads; this includes earth based support).  This price is about one fifth the cost of the shuttle lifting a pound into orbit.

Elon MUsk believes (and has said) Aay long term human presence in space requires much cheaper access to space. Therefore, if your longterm goal is a long term human presence in space, you must focus on cheaper access to space. That's his goal, his thinking, and what he is accomplishing.


----------



## percysunshine (May 30, 2011)

HUGGY said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > What the existence these dark Jupiter-plus sized objects speak to is the need for humanity to establish permanent outposts out of harm's way.  Mars would be a smaller target and a moon of Jupiter smaller still, and close to a giant deflector/vacuum cleaner.
> ...



General Motors will figure it out.


----------



## FA_Q2 (May 30, 2011)

He said free market capitalism, nor government companies


----------



## RevBig (Feb 4, 2012)

Hmmm' I read the OT then went to this page and it seems like a different thread! Well I even though I am a minister I love astronomy. I am still trying to decide on a new scope and have been stuck observing with my Nocks' for many months (donations are down to starvation levels). However like the Vatican but on a much smaller scale my church is going to build a small observatory on the mission land. We are saving up our pennies for a 14"  Orion (a cheap but acceptable scope builder)...just saying. 

More on topic ; I am not surprised or wont be if the object exists. Most star systems are binary anyway so I predict that the object will be a brown or other dwarf star and that is exciting! Maybe  billions years ago when the earth was forming or more exciting maybe during a period  when some type of primitive life existed on earth their primitive eyes saw TWO suns in our sky! Well at that distance the other star would look like a dim Venus (unless it was a blue Giant etc). Very interesting stuff ! 

Revb


----------



## waltky (Feb 13, 2012)

Mebbe it's what's slowin' down Venus...

*Rotation of Venus Might Be Slowing*
_February 13, 2012 - The European Space Agency, ESA, says Venus appears to be rotating on its axis slightly slower than it did in the early 1990s, adding 6.5 minutes to the length of the planet&#8217;s day._


> ESA says scientists made the discovery when trying to reconcile a new map made with recent measurements taken by its orbiting Venus Express spacecraft with features observed some 16 years ago by NASA&#8217;s Magellan orbiter.
> 
> ESA researchers noticed the Venus Express data indicated that some objects on Venus were up to 20 kilometers from where they expected to find them, if the planet's rate of rotation were the same as when Magellan made its measurements.  The scientists say the Venus Express map and the Magellan map aligned when they added 6.5 minutes to the length of Venus&#8217; day.   ESA says the phenomenon requires further study.
> 
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 12, 2018)

xsited1 said:


> Here's an oldie but goodie, if you can get your hands on a copy:
> 
> [ame=[URL]http://www.amazon.com/Nemesis-Death-Star-Richard-Muller/dp/1555841732]Amazon.com&tag=ff0d01-20[/URL]: Nemesis: The Death Star (9781555841737): Richard Muller: Books[/ame]


Maybe it’s a brown dwarf? A failed star that didn’t ignite. Out in the ort cloud. What is nudging object from the ort cloud at us every few million years? Most stars have a sister. Why doesn’t ours? Maybe it does and we don’t even know it


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 12, 2018)

Death Star


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 12, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Death Star


Howard stern is right there are no aliens out there. Think about what we would do if we found life on another planet. Would we fly all the way and then hide? 

We would first send word and try to communicate with them. Or if we could we would take over and rule.

No aliens ever been here


----------



## evenflow1969 (Jun 15, 2018)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Robert_Stephens said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


We see it's gravitaional effect's not the actual object. It's mass can be estimated by the effect it has on bodies we can see. Some say it could be a failed star. When we get the Web up we may be able to see it's heat signature if it is a failed star. Maybe even if it is just a giant planet


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 15, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Death Star



And it's in orbit around Saturn to boot

60 mile high ridge along its equator


----------

