7 ms·

Pluto is planet nine. This is 'planet ten', it's called 'Nibiru', and the Babylonians, Sumerians and Akkadian among others have astronomical records of it over

by Cozumel 10y ago

Pluto is planet nine. This is 'planet ten', it's called 'Nibiru', and the Babylonians, Sumerians and Akkadian among others have astronomical records of it over 3,600 years ago. tin foil hat time I do wonder if that's why Pluto was demoted, so when the 'tenth' planet was found it'd actually be called the 'ninth' so nobody would be as concerned about all the doomsday myths surrounding it.

dalke 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm#Scientific_rejection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm#Scientific_re... If Pluto is #9, what numbers are Ceres, Sedna, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake? Ceres was considered a planet until the 1850s. Astronomers think there are a few hundred more such dwarf planets, with 2007 OR10, Quaoar, Sedna, Orcus, (307261) 2002 MS4 and Salacia as likely candidates. Which numbers are those? The hypothetical planet the New Yorker mentions has an orbital period between twelve and twenty thousand years. Sitchin says the Babylonian religious texts say the period is 3,600 years. These are not the same planet.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  >> If Pluto is #9, what numbers are Ceres, Sedna, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake? I don't care about them. This is a cultural issue. There is no fundamental principal governing how humans are to name space rocks. This is map making. Exceptions and one-off special rules are made all the time. We accept europe and asia as separate continents. If that can be a thing, then Pluto can remain a planet.
  - dalke 10y ago
    Then it's a good thing I was asking Cozumel, who does care and believes it to be significant, instead of someone who doesn't care.
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      You put them up to illustrate the consequences of a change to the planet-naming rule. I dismiss those consequences as irrelevant to the issue given how our culture is already so accepting of similar situation ... just in simpler words.
      - dalke 10y ago
        I was certainly not trying to do as you proposed. I put them up there to illustrate that the views stated by Cozumel were contradictory, and to give Cozumel a chance to re-think the validity of the proposed tin foil scenario. If Cozumel believes Pluto is really #9, then why does Cozumel not think that Ceres is a planet, making Pluto #10, which is the foretold doomsday planet X = Nibiru? Or if Cozumel prefers the fringe views of Sitchin's twelfth planet, then why don't Makemake and the other dwarf planets count while Pluto, according to Cozumel, does?
  - nkrisc 10y ago
    Or not remain a planet because it's all arbitrary anyway. The classification is not meant to align to some sort of cosmic ordering, but to classify things in ways that are currently useful to science.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  I don't like the classification of dwarf planet. The classification should be based on its size, shape, and make up. Instead they classified it based on the number of objects in its orbit, which is so arbitrary and weird. If hypothetically we cleared up the objects and dumped them in Earths orbit, Pluto would suddenly become a planet and Earth would lose its classification. Just bite the bullet and accept there are a lot of small planets in our solar system, or classify them based on size.
  - dalke 10y ago
    The odd phrase "clearing the neighborhood around its orbit" exists because people want to think of Ganymede (which is bigger than Mercury) as a moon, not a planet, which your proposal would do. If hypothetically we moved the Earth so it orbits Jupiter, then it would be a moon, yes? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood#Disagreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood#Dis... .
    - Houshalter 10y ago
      Yes I accept orbiting the sun and not another object, as a reasonable criteria of a planet. That's included in the old definition. The new definition goes well beyond that though. If there are asteroids and debris in it's orbit around the sun, it no longer counts as a planet. It's really weird, and it's only purpose is to exclude the newly discovered planets from that classification.
      - dalke 10y ago
        Yes, it is weird, but I disagree with your interpretation. You wrote: "If there are asteroids and debris in it's orbit around the sun, it no longer counts as a planet." That Wikipedia link I pointed to says: "As to the extent of orbit clearing required, Jean-Luc Margot emphasises "a planet can never completely clear its orbital zone, because gravitational and radiative forces continually perturb the orbits of asteroids and comets into planet-crossing orbits" and states that the IAU did not intend the impossible standard of impeccable orbit clearing.[2] It further lists a few attempts to define things more rigorously. You write: "it's only purpose is to exclude the newly discovered planets from that classification". The same page also points out "In 2015, a proposal was made to use the criterion in extending the definition to exoplanets". This is from the same Margot, whose proposed criteria can "categorise a body based only on its own mass, its semi-major axis, and its star's mass."
ChuckMcM 10y ago
Reminds me of the humorous article where Australia gets demoted to a dwarf continent, leaving only 6.
eivarv 10y ago
Do you have any sources to back up any of these assertions, e.g. that this is what Sumerians called 'Nibiru', or that they had astronomical records of this/an object? If I remember correctly, the "Planet X" / "Nibiru" stuff is largely tinfoil-hat territory (see the link dalke posted, as well as other articles [1-4]) - a hodgepodge of speculation, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and -history, and literal interpretation of myths - as made evident by a cursory search on Wikipedia. Planet Nine, though, seems to be something other [5] than this mess entirely. As for the doomsday myths, I find them equally ridiculous whether the planet in question would be number 9 or 10 on our somewhat arbitrary planet-system. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_beyond_Neptune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_beyond_Neptune [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calend... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine
- whybroke 10y ago
  Clearly all the evidence for the Sumerians, Lumerians and Brobdingnagians knowledge of Nibiru was covered up by the knights Templar in order to hide the fact the world is going to end next Wednesday afternoon just after the Sleestaks take over.
sevenless 10y ago
I adore outlandish conspiracy theories and this is an excellent one. Now, are the astronomers and government secretly working with the Nibiru aliens themselves to cover up the impending cataclysm? Could the sinister New World Order really be a Nibiru beach head? And were Erich von Daniken and David Icke right about everything?

by Cozumel 10y ago

dalke 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm#Scientific_rejection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_cataclysm#Scientific_re... If Pluto is #9, what numbers are Ceres, Sedna, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake? Ceres was considered a planet until the 1850s. Astronomers think there are a few hundred more such dwarf planets, with 2007 OR10, Quaoar, Sedna, Orcus, (307261) 2002 MS4 and Salacia as likely candidates. Which numbers are those? The hypothetical planet the New Yorker mentions has an orbital period between twelve and twenty thousand years. Sitchin says the Babylonian religious texts say the period is 3,600 years. These are not the same planet.

sandworm101 10y ago
>> If Pluto is #9, what numbers are Ceres, Sedna, Eris, Haumea, and Makemake? I don't care about them. This is a cultural issue. There is no fundamental principal governing how humans are to name space rocks. This is map making. Exceptions and one-off special rules are made all the time. We accept europe and asia as separate continents. If that can be a thing, then Pluto can remain a planet.
- dalke 10y ago
  Then it's a good thing I was asking Cozumel, who does care and believes it to be significant, instead of someone who doesn't care.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    You put them up to illustrate the consequences of a change to the planet-naming rule. I dismiss those consequences as irrelevant to the issue given how our culture is already so accepting of similar situation ... just in simpler words.
    - dalke 10y ago
      I was certainly not trying to do as you proposed. I put them up there to illustrate that the views stated by Cozumel were contradictory, and to give Cozumel a chance to re-think the validity of the proposed tin foil scenario. If Cozumel believes Pluto is really #9, then why does Cozumel not think that Ceres is a planet, making Pluto #10, which is the foretold doomsday planet X = Nibiru? Or if Cozumel prefers the fringe views of Sitchin's twelfth planet, then why don't Makemake and the other dwarf planets count while Pluto, according to Cozumel, does?
- nkrisc 10y ago
  Or not remain a planet because it's all arbitrary anyway. The classification is not meant to align to some sort of cosmic ordering, but to classify things in ways that are currently useful to science.
Houshalter 10y ago
I don't like the classification of dwarf planet. The classification should be based on its size, shape, and make up. Instead they classified it based on the number of objects in its orbit, which is so arbitrary and weird. If hypothetically we cleared up the objects and dumped them in Earths orbit, Pluto would suddenly become a planet and Earth would lose its classification. Just bite the bullet and accept there are a lot of small planets in our solar system, or classify them based on size.
- dalke 10y ago
  The odd phrase "clearing the neighborhood around its orbit" exists because people want to think of Ganymede (which is bigger than Mercury) as a moon, not a planet, which your proposal would do. If hypothetically we moved the Earth so it orbits Jupiter, then it would be a moon, yes? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood#Disagreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood#Dis... .
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    Yes I accept orbiting the sun and not another object, as a reasonable criteria of a planet. That's included in the old definition. The new definition goes well beyond that though. If there are asteroids and debris in it's orbit around the sun, it no longer counts as a planet. It's really weird, and it's only purpose is to exclude the newly discovered planets from that classification.
    - dalke 10y ago
      Yes, it is weird, but I disagree with your interpretation. You wrote: "If there are asteroids and debris in it's orbit around the sun, it no longer counts as a planet." That Wikipedia link I pointed to says: "As to the extent of orbit clearing required, Jean-Luc Margot emphasises "a planet can never completely clear its orbital zone, because gravitational and radiative forces continually perturb the orbits of asteroids and comets into planet-crossing orbits" and states that the IAU did not intend the impossible standard of impeccable orbit clearing.[2] It further lists a few attempts to define things more rigorously. You write: "it's only purpose is to exclude the newly discovered planets from that classification". The same page also points out "In 2015, a proposal was made to use the criterion in extending the definition to exoplanets". This is from the same Margot, whose proposed criteria can "categorise a body based only on its own mass, its semi-major axis, and its star's mass."

ChuckMcM 10y ago

Reminds me of the humorous article where Australia gets demoted to a dwarf continent, leaving only 6.

eivarv 10y ago

Do you have any sources to back up any of these assertions, e.g. that this is what Sumerians called 'Nibiru', or that they had astronomical records of this/an object? If I remember correctly, the "Planet X" / "Nibiru" stuff is largely tinfoil-hat territory (see the link dalke posted, as well as other articles [1-4]) - a hodgepodge of speculation, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and -history, and literal interpretation of myths - as made evident by a cursory search on Wikipedia. Planet Nine, though, seems to be something other [5] than this mess entirely. As for the doomsday myths, I find them equally ridiculous whether the planet in question would be number 9 or 10 on our somewhat arbitrary planet-system. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_beyond_Neptune https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_beyond_Neptune [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calend... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_phenomenon [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine

whybroke 10y ago
Clearly all the evidence for the Sumerians, Lumerians and Brobdingnagians knowledge of Nibiru was covered up by the knights Templar in order to hide the fact the world is going to end next Wednesday afternoon just after the Sleestaks take over.

sevenless 10y ago

I adore outlandish conspiracy theories and this is an excellent one. Now, are the astronomers and government secretly working with the Nibiru aliens themselves to cover up the impending cataclysm? Could the sinister New World Order really be a Nibiru beach head? And were Erich von Daniken and David Icke right about everything?