@BrianK

I think you missed my theory earlier. I believe it's a reflection of an object behind the sun. A planet with metallic particles in its atmosphere...or even just a reflective surface. The reason it's only visible near the sun is because it only lines up that way depending on the position of the earth. Also, that maximizes the amount of light reflected. If you watch the video I linked about "comet" Elenin, you'll see what I mean. Someone should tie the location of "comet" Elenin to the different "two suns videos" chronologically to see it that's another match.

Nice change of subject though.

@Lou

Quote:

if 4 people saw a dog crossing a road and tell a 5th person, who then says it's a cat. That's how people telling me I saw something other than what I saw actually look like to me.

That comparison is somewhat wrong. I'd rather use another analogy: 4 people saw a red dog crossing a road and tell a 5th person: "We saw a red dog, it must have come from outer space". But that person says: "I don't believe it was a space dog, probably someone just painted it red".

As for ignoring details you can't explain: Care to say something about my "2 moons photo"?

@Lou

Which "Second sun" are you referring to?
Is it the reflection from two panes of glass? Or the sundogs? or the slightly out of focus pictures of Venus taken either early in the morning, or late evening?

These pictures have been getting posted since before 2003 as "proof" that nibiru is visibly on its way, however in the last eight years neither the earth, nor any of the other planets have changed their orbits in any way.

In November, when the comet that is the current candidate for "nibiru"passes, the prophets of doom and gloom will shift their focus back to Dec 2012. This will last until Jan 2013, when all of the evidence will get regurgitated again to prove some other date. The full details behind this new prophecy will be available in a book available for a mere $20.

I do not know who will write this book, or what "facts" it will reveal, but it will sell well because P. T. Barnum was right.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

I think you missed my theory earlier. I believe it's a reflection of an object behind the sun. A planet with metallic particles in its atmosphere...or even just a reflective surface. The reason it's only visible near the sun is because it only lines up that way depending on the position of the earth. Also, that maximizes the amount of light reflected. If you watch the video I linked about "comet" Elenin, you'll see what I mean. Someone should tie the location of "comet" Elenin to the different "two suns videos" chronologically to see it that's another match. Nice change of subject though.

Thanks for the update and yeah I missed your earlier theory.

If it's the reflection of an object behind the sun it's interesting that image is about 2/3 - 3/4 as big as the sun. One can measure the distance between a person that saw two sun and saw 1. Then we can measure the distance between both of these and the object (1 sun and the reflected sun). This could give an angle of viewing. This is parallax. Or perhaps the process of such - triangulation. It'd also tell us where this imaginary object is and is not. Have you seen or done any such mathematical calculations. Then of course there's the size of the viewed object.

@Nimrod

I didn't post pictures but videos. If you are going to make up explanations, atleast try to reference the source material correctly. It's the "explanations" that were billshut pictures...

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Thanks for the update and yeah I missed your earlier theory. If it's the reflection of an object behind the sun it's interesting that image is about 2/3 - 3/4 as big as the sun. One can measure the distance between a person that saw two sun and saw 1. Then we can measure the distance between both of these and the object (1 sun and the reflected sun). This could give an angle of viewing. This is parallax. Or perhaps the process of such - triangulation. It'd also tell us where this imaginary object is and is not. Have you seen or done any such mathematical calculations. Then of course there's the size of the viewed object.

As I also mentioned in another post, gravity has a way of bending light. Hence, when it bounces back around the Sun, you can't judge it's actual distance that way since the light beam is skewed as it bounces back around the Sun. It could even warp it to make it appear wider since the part of the beam passing back that it closer to the sun would get pulled even more so. http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/larger-image-pages/pic-journey-gravity.htm

So such effects can be observed 7 light years away, but far be it from anyone to observe it from 7 AU away...

@Lou

Ahh... Yet again no answer to my "second Moon" mysterious picture. Therefore I'll post it again:



And the full-res version here.

The question is: how come the Moon's humble mass can bend light just like the Sun does? And why Nibiru seems to be in the same phase as the Moon?

@recedent

Not any night-shining clouds that night ?

The high altitude clouds (50 km and higher), are rare, and not well known, but can cause unusual effects.

Also known as noctilucent clouds.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@recedent

I ignore your picture because this is something between the camera and the moon. How is that relevant to Nibiru, our Sun's binary companion? This could be a curtain in your window, I don't care. This is also a picture which can be photoshopped where as there are many 'two suns' videos of which:

-some of lens flare or reflection off of a window and explainable
-some are unexplainable and look legitimate, which happens to be one ones I concern myself with despite the ignorant people all lumping them with something explainable

Stay on the subject.

@Lou

Come over all sceptical all of a sudden? Tut tut. Recedent's photo is no more or less convincing than any of the evidence you've provided so far, you know.

The optical effects relating to the sun that you've shown us are explainable. In fact, they've been explained to you I think three times now. However, in each case you simply reject all reason and evidence that doesn't fit your pet theory.

For example, BrianK has just provided you with an explanation about how to use triangulation to determine the location of this supposed 'binary companion'. You have responded with some confused statement about gravity bending light and making it impossible to observe anything beyond the sun without resorting to pseudoscience and other woo.


To clarify, yes, gravity bends light. Surprisingly enough, science does actually know about this one too. In ideal circumstances, the process causes a phenomenon known as Einstein rings. These are very similar in appearance to the sundogs that explain most of your 'second sun' images, although they have a different cause. These gravitational lenses are galaxy clusters bending light over billions of light years to give a few arc-seconds of apparent displacement of objects behind them, from our point of view.

We don't see a gravitational lens effect due to our sun that is observable to the naked eye, though. Because it isn't big or heavy enough. And a proposed object 7AU away isn't far enough away anyway.


Also, just an aside: videos can be edited just as easily as photos these days, and sticking a second sun into a video or film is trivial. (Lucas et al, 1977) Or do you believe these sci-fi shows to be historical documentaries from the future/alternate timelines? It honestly wouldn't surprise me.

Last edited by T-J on 13-Apr-2011 at 11:54 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 13-Apr-2011 at 11:41 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

We don't see a gravitational lens effect due to our sun that is observable to the naked eye, though. Because it isn't big or heavy enough. And a proposed object 7AU away isn't far enough away anyway.

Or is the real reason: we've never had a heavenly body close enough to observe and know the effect when we see it and instead in our simple minds explain it away with terrestrial excuses...?

I gave a timeline. All we got to do is wait.

Quote:

Also, just an aside: videos can be edited just as easily as photos these days, and sticking a second sun into a video or film is trivial. (Lucas et al, 1977) Or do you believe these sci-fi shows to be historical documentaries from the future/alternate timelines? It honestly wouldn't surprise me.

Yes and if you have the time to do that over the course of 10 minutes of non-stop video where the sun moves consistenly and gradually as does the 2nd but at a slightly different arc and rate, including a bird flying across the whole screen not to mention cloud effects, then my next question is: who paid you? You don't just do that in your bedroom over night with leaving behind artifacts. That's why special effects takes a TEAM months. It's amusing how retarded some "explanations" are.

I will not be convinced with words. Show me the same effects in video as the videos I've linked but with documented reproductions. Otherwise, all your words might as well be horse dung.

http://spaceobs.org/en/2011/04/10/comet-elenin-continues-to-increase-in-size-and-another-close-approach-with-a-large-main-belt-asteroid/

What cracks me up is "Comet Elenin" is supposedly over 49,000 miles wide. Last time I checked, the earth is like less than 8k miles wide...that's one hell of a "comet"...

They have also shortened it's orbit down from 11.6M years to 600,000...
I wonder what the final #'s will be when it enters our inner solar system...


http://elenin.org/

Particularly interesting is how the real end date of the Mayan calendar is Oct 28, 2011 AND the HOPI Prophecy. Seems Leonard Nemoy was closer than everyone else.

The 4th sign is trains.
The 5th sign is the world wide web.
The 6th sign is freeways/highways.
The 7th sign is the BP oil spill.
The 8th sign ??? to me...
The 9th sign seems to be the "comet" Elenin...

@Lou

Quote:

Or is the real reason: we've never had a heavenly body close enough to observe and know the effect when we see it and instead in our simple minds explain it away with terrestrial excuses...?

No. We know how much light-bending occurs for a given amount of mass, and we know how much distance needs to be between the observer and the lens to allow this given amount of bending to be visible. We know that this mass has to be huge and the distance vast - the image you linked to shows the light from a galaxy 11 billion light years away being bent by a cluster of massive galaxies 7 billion light years away. The sun is orders of magnitude too small, and 7AU is orders of magnitude too close. It simply doesn't work within the current physics. I'll get back to that 'current physics' point later...

In short, this effect, and the huge masses and distances needed to cause enough of it for us to even notice, was predicted by Einstein's General Relativity and first observed in 1979 when an object previously misidentified as a 'twin quasar' located about 8 billion light years away was found to be a single gravitationally lensed object. It does not lend any support to the notion of Nibiru.

But again, you dismiss out of hand the rational explanation and substitute your fantasy.

Quote:

I will not be convinced with words. Show me the same effects in video as the videos I've linked but with documented reproductions. Otherwise, all your words might as well be horse dung.

Sun dogs! Now, I imagine you'll just say that this video looks nothing like what you've linked to, but I don't think that claim will stand up.

And now its your responsibility to provide evidence for your videos not being the optical effects that we have already explained them as. Especially the bit about how this object gets around the General Relativity, and the part that means you can't observe this thing from orbit. When you can describe a new physics that allows your proposed planet to exist in the form you suggest, and allows it to be observable due to gravitational lensing by the sun at 7AU, then you can ask me to disprove it.

To do this, all I have to do is try to use your new syetem to explain phenomenon that the current physics already explains reasonably successfully. I'm confident that you will have to warp the rules of nature so drastically to shoehorn Nibiru as you describe it into them that you won't be able to predict the Earth's orbit with your system, let alone the movement of galaxies or the behaviour of light.

But at the moment? You simply don't have any evidence worth a damn for me to dispute. Just some shaky videos of optical refraction.

Quote:

What cracks me up is "Comet Elenin" is supposedly over 49,000 miles wide. Last time I checked, the earth is like less than 8k miles wide...that's one hell of a "comet"...

What cracks me up is that you've confused the 'Coma' with the 'Comet'. The coma is a tenuous dust 'atmosphere' that surrounds a hard core, the comet proper. Comet Elenin's coma is approximately 80,000km across, the comet itself is estimated at 15km across by Leonid Elenin, its discoverer.

It is interesting to note that a comet having a huge coma is nothing particularly odd. Really quite spectacular, but not odd. For example, in 2007, Comet 17P/Holmes had a coma that was larger than the sun. Now if I remember rightly, and I might be mistaken here but bear with me, I don't think the world came to an end in 2007...

Last edited by T-J on 14-Apr-2011 at 02:31 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 14-Apr-2011 at 02:02 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 14-Apr-2011 at 02:00 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 14-Apr-2011 at 01:58 AM.

@Lou

Quote:

As I also mentioned in another post, gravity has a way of bending light. Hence, when it bounces back around the Sun, you can't judge it's actual distance that way since the light beam is skewed as it bounces back around the Sun.

Actually we know how much light the sun bends. This bending can be used to calculate the mass of the other imaginary object. We can then coorelate the mass to the size. Side by side like the photo and video? Bending at that point is small to non-existent.

However, I think you'll find that through triangulation the '2nd sun' is a mirage, a reflection, and does not exist.

Quote:

What cracks me up is "Comet Elenin" is supposedly over 49,000 miles wide. Last time I checked, the earth is like less than 8k miles wide...that's one hell of a "comet"...

Earth is about 7925 miles. The sun is 870K miles. Let's assume the Coment Elenin is the 2nd sun. The image shows something that's roughly 3/4 the size but let's take it a bit smaller to be safe and say it's 2/3. If the 2nd sun was side by side our sun it's diameter is ~ 570K miles. Now let's further assume you're right and it was a reflective object on the other side of the sun. Using a bit of knowledge of optics we therefore know that the object had to be even larger. The measures of Coment Elenin and the 2nd sun are far enough out of alignment to conclude that they aren't the same object. (And that's still accepting both exist.)

Last edited by BrianK on 14-Apr-2011 at 02:35 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 14-Apr-2011 at 02:30 AM.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @Lou Quote: Or is the real reason: we've never had a heavenly body close enough to observe and know the effect when we see it and instead in our simple minds explain it away with terrestrial excuses...? No. We know how much light-bending occurs for a given amount of mass, and we know how much distance needs to be between the observer and the lens to allow this given amount of bending to be visible. We know that this mass has to be huge and the distance vast - the image you linked to shows the light from a galaxy 11 billion light years away being bent by a cluster of massive galaxies 7 billion light years away. The sun is orders of magnitude too small, and 7AU is orders of magnitude too close. It simply doesn't work within the current physics. I'll get back to that 'current physics' point later... In short, this effect, and the huge masses and distances needed to cause enough of it for us to even notice, was predicted by Einstein's General Relativity and first observed in 1979 when an object previously misidentified as a 'twin quasar' located about 8 billion light years away was found to be a single gravitationally lensed object. It does not lend any support to the notion of Nibiru. But again, you dismiss out of hand the rational explanation and substitute your fantasy.

You don't know how much light bends when it's so close to another star because the nearest 2 stars observed are light years away. Being in close promitiy changes the math as gravitational pull is related to distance hence you'll see a greater effect especially when the 3 points (observation point, and the 2 light sources) are so close to a straight line alignment. One thing that is observed in the legit videos is the red shift. Your "sun dogs" do not have that.

Quote:

Quote: I will not be convinced with words. Show me the same effects in video as the videos I've linked but with documented reproductions. Otherwise, all your words might as well be horse dung. Sun dogs! Now, I imagine you'll just say that this video looks nothing like what you've linked to, but I don't think that claim will stand up.

Absolutely not the same thing observes in the videos I linked.

Quote:

And now its your responsibility to provide evidence for your videos not being the optical effects that we have already explained them as. Especially the bit about how this object gets around the General Relativity, and the part that means you can't observe this thing from orbit. When you can describe a new physics that allows your proposed planet to exist in the form you suggest, and allows it to be observable due to gravitational lensing by the sun at 7AU, then you can ask me to disprove it. To do this, all I have to do is try to use your new syetem to explain phenomenon that the current physics already explains reasonably successfully. I'm confident that you will have to warp the rules of nature so drastically to shoehorn Nibiru as you describe it into them that you won't be able to predict the Earth's orbit with your system, let alone the movement of galaxies or the behaviour of light. But at the moment? You simply don't have any evidence worth a damn for me to dispute. Just some shaky videos of optical refraction.

Shaky videos are tough to edit. You have failed to convince me of anything. You can continue trying. I love watching people waste their time.
I also don't see a red shift like the videos I linked have. Once again: epic fail!
You also choose to ignore reports from Australia...

Quote:

Quote: What cracks me up is "Comet Elenin" is supposedly over 49,000 miles wide. Last time I checked, the earth is like less than 8k miles wide...that's one hell of a "comet"... What cracks me up is that you've confused the 'Coma' with the 'Comet'. The coma is a tenuous dust 'atmosphere' that surrounds a hard core, the comet proper. Comet Elenin's coma is approximately 80,000km across, the comet itself is estimated at 15km across by Leonid Elenin, its discoverer. It is interesting to note that a comet having a huge coma is nothing particularly odd. Really quite spectacular, but not odd. For example, in 2007, Comet 17P/Holmes had a coma that was larger than the sun. Now if I remember rightly, and I might be mistaken here but bear with me, I don't think the world came to an end in 2007...

What cracks me up is that you are confused.
...as usual...
Everytime it gets closer, they realize it's bigger and has a shorter orbit. It's a comet with other objects around that aren't so bright. There is alot more mass heading this way. You can also run the trajectory plotter yourself to see how it aligns with the Chile, New Zealand and Japan events. At 6AU it caused Japan's quake. There is more mass behind this comet.

@tomazkid

Nah, just a double paned window and carefully chosen angle. As soon as I'll have similar conditions I'll post a video (yet again, made with my cellular so it should be nice, grainy and flaky - just like the ones Lou really likes).

Last edited by recedent on 14-Apr-2011 at 08:19 AM.

@Lou
Two years ago I got fined £50 and three penalty points on my driving license for exceeding the speed limit. The authorities worked out my speed by taking two photographs of my car at a known time interval as I drove over a set of lines drawn on the road. Using the same method I put forward two videos quickly trawled from the interweb, one in 2008, the other this year.

Watching both of these videos with prejudices switched off the following details will be noted.
1. The "object" is always only visible when the sun is low in the sky
2. The "object" changes apparent size on a day to day basis, while remaining consistent in size and position over a four year period.

This shows that the "object" is approaching rapidly while also retreating rapidly while standing still.
I then cross checked these observations by looking out of the window this morning. There was no visible companion to the sun. Perhaps it got bored and wandered off. I haven't posted video evidence of this as I dont want you to take my word for it. Try it for yourself. Go outside, with nothng between you and the world, not even a window and have a look. Count the sun.

The other video "evidence" showing the "two suns" further apart was shot from between two panes of glass on a bus, and carries its own discreditation as none of the commuters on board were in any way perturbed by the sudden appearance of a new sun, nor did the new sun alter any of the shadows in the background scenery.

Your reference to the alignment of "nibiru" causing massive earthquakes is quite frankly ridiculous. We have in the sky an object called the moon. It orbits the earth and has a gravitational effect on the earth. This pull is not sufficient to cause earthquakes, however it does lift quite a lot of water. This is so common that we have a word for it, it is called "tide". Anything that had a gravitational pull capable of producing earthquakes of such magnitude would create a preceding high tide that would make the japanese tsunami look like a ripple.

Your evidence for Nibiru is as follows

"Translations" of public source material that does not reference accredited sources, by a man with no accepted training or recognised knowledge of the subject.

Pictures of arcaeological excavations of giants that have been shown to be something entirely different.(Entries to a competition)

Crystal skulls that are not available for peer review. The only occasion that somebody else was permitted to look closely, the item was withdrawn as soon as HP disagreed with the owner about the possible nature of the item.

Ooparts. Out of place artifacts. The so called Baghdad battery( a storage jar) and Noahs Ark (Gets found every couple of years or so half way up Ararat.) I notice T-J stopped that one before you embarrassed yourself with VonDanikens pottery.

As I have already said, I've been here before.

Frequently.

Please stop regurgitating the same old scare story that "they" don't want me to know, with the claim that this time it's real.
It wasn't before. It isn't now. It won't be next time.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

You don't know how much light bends when it's so close to another star because the nearest 2 stars observed are light years away. Being in close promitiy changes the math as gravitational pull is related to distance hence you'll see a greater effect especially when the 3 points (observation point, and the 2 light sources) are so close to a straight line alignment. One thing that is observed in the legit videos is the red shift. Your "sun dogs" do not have that.

Can't we figure this out? Afterall we see Mercury and Venus as they past around the sun. They aren't light sources but do reflect light. Venus is earth sized (well about 5% less). Therefore we do have two 'heavenly bodies' and can observe and use as baselines to obseve such effects.

Quote:

At 6AU it caused Japan's quake. There is more mass behind this comet.

Jupiter is roughly 5AU from the Sun. So from us it's anywhere from 4 to 6AU. Jupiter is has roughly 320x the mass of earth. Jupiter causes no earthquakes. Gravitational force follows the inverse square law. Certainly we can figure out how much mass would be required to move the crust. If so we then can caluclate what that mass would be if it was located at 6AU. If the comet is massive enough to cause a shift in the crust at 6AU it's way bigger than Jupiter.

The question I have is why were lighter objects such as water and geosynchronous satellites unimpacted by this mass?

@Lou

Quote:

You don't know how much light bends when it's so close to another star because the nearest 2 stars observed are light years away. Being in close promitiy changes the math as gravitational pull is related to distance hence you'll see a greater effect especially when the 3 points (observation point, and the 2 light sources) are so close to a straight line alignment. One thing that is observed in the legit videos is the red shift. Your "sun dogs" do not have that.

BrianK has already demolished your confusion over how much light bends when passing by an object of known mass. But I'd like to address a separate point of confusion: red shift.

You don't know what red shift is, do you?

If Nibiru is red-shifted, its absolutely nothing to worry about even if it did exist, because that would mean it was doing an impressive fraction of the speed of light, heading away from us.

If you're going to try to use scientific terms to argue with me, you could at least learn what they actually mean.

Quote:

What cracks me up is that you are confused. ...as usual... Everytime it gets closer, they realize it's bigger and has a shorter orbit. It's a comet with other objects around that aren't so bright. There is alot more mass heading this way. You can also run the trajectory plotter yourself to see how it aligns with the Chile, New Zealand and Japan events. At 6AU it caused Japan's quake. There is more mass behind this comet.

Yep, you've got the difference between the comet atmosphere and its nucleus mixed up, and I'm the one who's confused. Sure, right, OK.

First thing, as I've already pointed out, you Nibirists simply fudge your sums to *make* your comet line up with whatever disasters happen to occur at around the right sort of time. Which is known as fraud.

Second, earthquakes cannot be linked to the movement of fictional planets that don't exist. They can't even be linked to the gravitational effect of real planets that do exist, because gravity obeys the inverse square law. As has been pointed out time and time again to you, anything big enough to cause earthquakes would also cause super-tides that would dwarf the recent tsunami. Clearly, the government must have covered them up.

And third, Elenin is a completely ordinary comet and does not have 'a lot more mass heading this way'. Its not even the most impressive comet to blow through over the past few years. You haven't come up with any answer to the fact that Comet Holmes was briefly the largest object in the solar system in 2007, yet still didn't destroy the Earth.

Anyway, let's make a bet - if the world hasn't been destroyed by Nibiru by the 1st of January 2012, and if we're not all dead or enslaved by alien gods, you owe me £5.

Quote:

Absolutely not the same thing observes in the videos I linked.

@all

Told you he'd say that, didn't I?

Well, whatever. I invite everyone else to compare the two videos I linked and decide for yourselves.

Last edited by T-J on 14-Apr-2011 at 12:57 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 14-Apr-2011 at 12:55 PM.

Some VERY interesting info with regard to "comet" ELEnin:

http://spaceobs.org/en/2011/04/10/comet-elenin-continues-to-increase-in-size-and-another-close-approach-with-a-large-main-belt-asteroid/

"the forming rarified external coma is also visible in the image. It’s diameter exceeds 1 minute of arc, or 80,000 km!"

"At the time the image was obtained, the distance between the comet and the 6-km asteroid was just 1,495,000 km (0.01 AU), which is only 3.9 times the average distance between the Earth and Moon (LD). Closest approach of the two objects was several hours earlier; they were only 1,120,000 km apart (0.008 AU)."

If you don't trust the source, look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2010_X1

Last edited by MikeB on 14-Apr-2011 at 02:44 PM.