Planet X/12th Planet Long Elliptical Orbit

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Nancy

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

In article <6fs4n2$g2i$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> I hate to be the bearer of bad news again, Nancy, but if your
> "12th Planet" is beyond 40 AU out, then it can't get here as
> early as 2005 like I heard you say in a recent post.
> Assumming it is coming in on a long elliptical orbit as you say
> and is still 40 AU out, than it will be 20 years before it arrives!
> If it's even further out, say at 100 AU, then it will arrive in
> 76 years. Obviously we'd see such an object with plenty of
> parallax.

The Zetas have addressed the 12th's increased speed in the topic called
Entry Angle,http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s31.htm
"While it is out in space the 12th Planet moves slowly, but increases
speed rapidly as it comes close to one of its two foci. When the 12th
Planet is passing your Sun it is moving rapidly, the time spent within
your outer planet Saturn's orbit a mere 3 months. It zips by." And by
the way, its 2003, not 2005.

But they also want to speak to you, since you have engaged.
(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
On what basis do you make this statement? The current sedate rate that
your familiar planets take, slowly circling the Sun, always within
their balanced range from the Sun? You have before you a recent
discovery of a planet on a long elliptical orbit that your science
CANNOT EXPLAIN! But you still insist on asserting that your math
explains ALL. Such is the arrogance of human astronomy.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

Ah, they're speaking of a couple of newsworthy pieces that appeared in
1996 and 1997!

......
CNN article by Associated Press dated October 23, 1996.
New rebel planet found outside solar system
It's roller-coaster orbit stuns scientists

A new planet that breaks all the rules about how and where planets form
has been identified in orbit of a twin star about 70 light years from
Earth in a constellation commonly known as the Northern Cross. The new
planet has a roller-coaster like orbit that swoops down close to its
central star and then swings far out into frigid fringes, following a
strange egg-shaped orbit that is unlike that of any other known planet.
&quot;We don't understand how it could have formed in such an
orbit,&quot; said William D. Cochran, head of University of Texas team
that discovered the planet at the same time that a group from San
Francisco State found it independently.


.......
Associated Press article titled Tiny Planet Discovered Beyond Pluto
June 5, 1997
Theory Suggest More Objects in Solar System

Astronomers have found an icy miniplanet that orbits the sun well
beyond Pluto, providing evidence that the solar system extends much
farther than was once thought. ... At its most distant, it wanders
three times farther from the sun than Pluto, tracing a looping, oblong
path into an astronomical terra incognito. Astronomers have found a
miniplanet names 1996TL66 beyond the orbit of Pluto. The discovery of
the 300-mile-across object has extended the known edge of the solar
system's Kuiper Belt by at least 9.35 billion miles.

Jim Scotti

unread,
Apr 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/1/98
to

Nancy (sa...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: In article <6fs4n2$g2i$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
: > I hate to be the bearer of bad news again, Nancy, but if your
: > "12th Planet" is beyond 40 AU out, then it can't get here as
: > early as 2005 like I heard you say in a recent post.
: > Assumming it is coming in on a long elliptical orbit as you say
: > and is still 40 AU out, than it will be 20 years before it arrives!
: > If it's even further out, say at 100 AU, then it will arrive in
: > 76 years. Obviously we'd see such an object with plenty of
: > parallax.

Begin ZetaBabble:

: The Zetas have addressed the 12th's increased speed in the topic called


: Entry Angle,http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s31.htm
: "While it is out in space the 12th Planet moves slowly, but increases
: speed rapidly as it comes close to one of its two foci. When the 12th
: Planet is passing your Sun it is moving rapidly, the time spent within
: your outer planet Saturn's orbit a mere 3 months. It zips by." And by
: the way, its 2003, not 2005.

Yup, I think that proves my point. There's no understanding of simple
physics behind these claims. If it's to be here in 2003, then it can't
be any further out than about 20 AU, unless, of course, it's not bound
to our solar system, but then its not on a "long elliptical orbit".

Once again, you have not learned what Johannes Kepler was able to
figure out about 400 years ago about the motion of objects around our
sun on elliptical orbits. You don't understand the concept and the
workings of an elliptical orbit. The central body occupies only one
of the two foci. The other is empty and has not affect on the motion
of your 12th planet. When it's near the other focus, it will be moving
at its slowest, not "zipping". If your mythical planet spends "a mere
3 momths" within the orbit of Saturn, then it's certainly not an any
sort of elliptical orbit, but rather a hyperbolic orbit. Go read
a good book on celestial mechanics before you try to argue about how
objects move through our solar system. The basics aren't terribly
difficult.

Begin Zetababble:

: But they also want to speak to you, since you have engaged.


: (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
: On what basis do you make this statement? The current sedate rate that
: your familiar planets take, slowly circling the Sun, always within
: their balanced range from the Sun? You have before you a recent
: discovery of a planet on a long elliptical orbit that your science
: CANNOT EXPLAIN! But you still insist on asserting that your math
: explains ALL. Such is the arrogance of human astronomy.
: (End ZetaTalk[TM])

End ZetaBabble.

Plot a course for the looney bin, number One. Engage.

Science can easily explain these "planets on long elliptical orbits",
it's only the details of how things work that have perhaps not been
worked out yet, but the laws of physics are not so easily dismissed.
I don't claim that "my" math explains all, but I do believe the the
methods of science will eventually be able to understand pretty much
anything we see in the Universe.

: Ah, they're speaking of a couple of newsworthy pieces that appeared in
: 1996 and 1997!

: ......
: CNN article by Associated Press dated October 23, 1996.
: New rebel planet found outside solar system
: It's roller-coaster orbit stuns scientists

: A new planet that breaks all the rules about how and where planets form
: has been identified in orbit of a twin star about 70 light years from
: Earth in a constellation commonly known as the Northern Cross. The new
: planet has a roller-coaster like orbit that swoops down close to its
: central star and then swings far out into frigid fringes, following a
: strange egg-shaped orbit that is unlike that of any other known planet.
: &quot;We don't understand how it could have formed in such an
: orbit,&quot; said William D. Cochran, head of University of Texas team
: that discovered the planet at the same time that a group from San
: Francisco State found it independently.

Keep in mind this planet is orbiting a distant star, not our sun. Most
of the implied mystery here is press generated. Notice they say "breaks
the rules for how planets _form_" - that does not imply any mystery about
how the planet orbits its star. It says that scientists have yet to
completely understand how it came to be. You have twisted the meaning
around to fit your own agenda, and once again demonstrate little or no
comprehension of the scientific method and in fact of the English language.

: .......


: Associated Press article titled Tiny Planet Discovered Beyond Pluto
: June 5, 1997
: Theory Suggest More Objects in Solar System

: Astronomers have found an icy miniplanet that orbits the sun well
: beyond Pluto, providing evidence that the solar system extends much
: farther than was once thought. ... At its most distant, it wanders
: three times farther from the sun than Pluto, tracing a looping, oblong
: path into an astronomical terra incognito. Astronomers have found a
: miniplanet names 1996TL66 beyond the orbit of Pluto. The discovery of
: the 300-mile-across object has extended the known edge of the solar
: system's Kuiper Belt by at least 9.35 billion miles.

Yeah, so? There are uncounted billions and billions of small bodies
out beyond Neptune that we haven't discovered yet. 1996 TL66 is
representative of one class of such objects. No mystery, and no
"12th planet" here.

Jim.

--
"...my brain is wobbly." Art Bell, June 13, 1997.
(Need I say more about Art Bell?...)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Scotti
Lunar & Planetary Laboratory jsc...@lpl.arizona.edu
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721 USA http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy

unread,
Apr 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/3/98
to

In article <6fu2gd$dhs$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> You don't understand the concept and the workings of an
> elliptical orbit.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Nor do YOU! You put into your equations only what you have SEEN, or
what they present back to you is likely to occur base on what you have
seen. When you come upon something you have not seen before, they you
re-compute and get smug again. Smug is hardly the word, and arrogant
is still too mild for the behavior of elite astronomers who have just
recently had egg on their faces regarding their reversal on 1997 XF11.
You don't ever make mistakes? You don't ever have to scratch your
heads and go back to square one? What about the recent discovery that
the Universe was not expanding more rapidly that supposed? Supposed is
the operant word here, as this is what you DO! When you find your
previous suppositions don't fit, you teak the math until it fits the
new observation and then proclaim you know ALL. And when some things
don't fit into the equation, you toss them out entirely.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

In article <6fu2gd$dhs$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> Science can easily explain these "planets on long elliptical
> orbits", it's only the details of how things work that have
> perhaps not been worked out yet, but the laws of physics are
> not so easily dismissed.

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
How can you make a pronouncement that OUR statements on the orbit of
Planet X, the 12th Planet, are utterly wrong, and in the next breath
admit you cannot explain the orbits of two bodies recently discovered!
You've just made our point for us. Thank you.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])


Nancy

unread,
Apr 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/3/98
to

In article <6fu2gd$dhs$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
> If it's to be here in 2003, then it can't be any further out than
> about 20 AU, unless, of course, it's not bound to our solar
> system, but then its not on a "long elliptical orbit". Once again,
> you have not learned what Johannes Kepler was able to figure
> out about 400 years ago about the motion of objects around
> our sun on elliptical orbits. You don't understand the concept
> and the workings of an elliptical orbit. The central body
> occupies only one of the two foci. The other is empty and has
> not affect on the motion of your 12th planet. When it's near
> the other focus, it will be moving at its slowest, not "zipping".

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Now how could that be, logically? If you can't explain why an
elliptical orbit is assumed, you place an immaginary body at a point in
space to fit the math? It fits the equations of your Gods of physics,
who must be worshiped, apparently, at all costs. If the math of orbits
was worked out centuries ago, based on what they knew and had observed,
then this same math must be applied. Is THAT logical? You're making
the broad assumption that a body CANNOT orbit two foci. Why not? If
all you have seen are objects looping far out in their orbits around a
single foci, then this is all there is?

It's a fact that most suns are binaries, and some so close at to give
the appearance of barely keeping each other at arms length. Why should
it be astonishing that a planet would institute an orbit around BOTH?
Clearly, some of the new highly elliptical orbits recently discovered
by your fellows show that orbiting bodies, much larger than dirty
snowballs, are influenced by SOMETHING out there pulling on them.

Are you saying it is impossible for a planet to orbit two suns?
Impossible?
(End ZetaTalk[TM])


Jim Scotti

unread,
Apr 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/3/98
to

Nancy (sa...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: In article <6fu2gd$dhs$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
: > If it's to be here in 2003, then it can't be any further out than
: > about 20 AU, unless, of course, it's not bound to our solar
: > system, but then its not on a "long elliptical orbit". Once again,
: > you have not learned what Johannes Kepler was able to figure
: > out about 400 years ago about the motion of objects around
: > our sun on elliptical orbits. You don't understand the concept
: > and the workings of an elliptical orbit. The central body
: > occupies only one of the two foci. The other is empty and has
: > not affect on the motion of your 12th planet. When it's near
: > the other focus, it will be moving at its slowest, not "zipping".

: (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
: Now how could that be, logically? If you can't explain why an
: elliptical orbit is assumed, you place an immaginary body at a point in
: space to fit the math?

At the risk of loosing some readers, We don't "assume" an elliptical
orbit. We calculate what the orbit is by employing some very simple
and very well confirmed and documented physics. Gravity has been
shown to work as an inverse squared law. Combining that with simple
conservation of momention and you get a constant of motion - namely
the cross product of the radius vector and the velocity vector is
a constant. After several pages of math, these equations reduce into
the equation of a conic section - an ellipse, a parabola or a hyperbola.
There's no imaginary body about it, except in your twisted view of
things.

: ...It fits the equations of your Gods of physics,


: who must be worshiped, apparently, at all costs. If the math of orbits
: was worked out centuries ago, based on what they knew and had observed,
: then this same math must be applied. Is THAT logical? You're making
: the broad assumption that a body CANNOT orbit two foci. Why not?

I don't "worship" the laws of physics. I attempt to understand them.
I follow math that is very much the same as what was found centuries
ago and what has been TESTED rather thoroughly over those centuries,
so well that we have been able to send spacecraft to the planets and
land men on the moon. I make NO "assumption that a body CANNOT orbit
two foci", I use simple physics to make such a statement.

: ...If
: all you have seen are objects looping far out in their orbits around a


: single foci, then this is all there is?

I'm afraid so.

: It's a fact that most suns are binaries, and some so close at to give


: the appearance of barely keeping each other at arms length. Why should
: it be astonishing that a planet would institute an orbit around BOTH?

A planet can orbit both suns in a binary star system. But the sun is
not a binary star system and the focus of an object on an independent
orbit like a planet or asteroid or comet does not find both stars in a
binary system at the "2 foci" of its orbit. The primary focus is at
the center of mass of the system - be it a binary star system where
there are two comparably massive stars, or our solar system where the
majority of the mass lies in the sun.

: Clearly, some of the new highly elliptical orbits recently discovered


: by your fellows show that orbiting bodies, much larger than dirty
: snowballs, are influenced by SOMETHING out there pulling on them.

Yes, that "SOMETHING" is the sun along with minor perturbations from
all the other bodies in the solar system - planets, asteroids, comets
and all of their neighbors.

: Are you saying it is impossible for a planet to orbit two suns?

: Impossible?
: (End ZetaTalk[TM])

Nope. I say that YOUR _understanding_ of the workings of the Universe,
and in particular your understanding of our solar system is flawed.

Chollian Newsgroup User

unread,
Apr 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/3/98
to

Nancy (sa...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <6fu2gd$dhs$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
: > You don't understand the concept and the workings of an
: > elliptical orbit.

: (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])


: Nor do YOU! You put into your equations only what you have SEEN, or
: what they present back to you is likely to occur base on what you have
: seen. When you come upon something you have not seen before, they you
: re-compute and get smug again. Smug is hardly the word, and arrogant
: is still too mild for the behavior of elite astronomers who have just
: recently had egg on their faces regarding their reversal on 1997 XF11.
: You don't ever make mistakes? You don't ever have to scratch your
: heads and go back to square one? What about the recent discovery that
: the Universe was not expanding more rapidly that supposed? Supposed is
: the operant word here, as this is what you DO! When you find your
: previous suppositions don't fit, you teak the math until it fits the
: new observation and then proclaim you know ALL. And when some things
: don't fit into the equation, you toss them out entirely.
: (End ZetaTalk[TM])

: In article <6fu2gd$dhs$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu> Jim Scotti writes:
: > Science can easily explain these "planets on long elliptical

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages