Planet X/Brown Dwarf found

[Rukas]

Astronomers Find Dwarf Sun Beyond Pluto - Planet X

They found a Brown Dwarf just past Pluto which makes our solar system a binary star system.

It's also on an elliptical orbit, and has other planets orbiting it.

Kind of weird how it fit's the Nibiru theories pretty spot on.

NASA has denied it's existence for awhile now. Looks like they were proven wrong.

 

[_carmi]

that's cool? right?

 

[Jokerman]

That article is total nonsense and misinformation. It's not a brown dwarf, it's the remnant of a supernova. It's not close to Pluto, it's 25,000 light-years away and not moving. It has a radius of 1.3 light-years, a size no star could ever have, let alone a dwarf. It's expanding because that's what remnants do. There's nothing for NASA to deny.

 

[Rukas]

That article is total nonsense and misinformation. It's not a brown dwarf, it's the remnant of a supernova. It's not close to Pluto, it's 25,000 light-years away and not moving. It has a radius of 1.3 light-years, a size no star could ever have, let alone a dwarf. It's expanding because that's what remnants do. There's nothing for NASA to deny.

Well.... Okay then.

 

[Flipmo]

Joker, for a minute I was hoping the end of the world was coming and I could see a great light show. Why do you always have to ruin everything... lol

 

[Rukas]

Joker, for a minute I was hoping the end of the world was coming and I could see a great light show. Why do you always have to ruin everything... lol

Fear not, there is still hope! Jokerman's post has errors in it.

 

[Rukas]

That article is total nonsense and misinformation. It's not a brown dwarf, it's the remnant of a supernova. It's not close to Pluto, it's 25,000 light-years away and not moving.

It's actually only 60AU's away, 1AU is the distance from Earth to the Sun. 1 light year is 63240AUs so you're saying it's 1,581,000,000AUs away? You're about 1,580,999,940 AUs off there.

It has a radius of 1.3 light-years

Light years are a messurment of distance, not size. This brown dwarf is 1.9MJs.

, a size no star could ever have, let alone a dwarf.

Nothing could have the size you mentioned, because it doesnt exist.

A brown dwarf is a failed star, it is smaller than the sun because it didnt have the mass to ignite (13MJ), but bigger than a planet.

It's expanding because that's what remnants do. There's nothing for NASA to deny.

NASA has apparently known about this dwarf for 25 years and studied it in the 80s but then silenced all studies.

 

[Jokerman]

You're getting your info from that article, which is misinformation. It's the equivalent of we didn't go to the moon, or 911 conspiracy theories. This Starviewer Team is not a legitimate astronomical organization. Light-years is a measurement of length, which is also used to measure distance. NASA doesn't control astronomical knowledge nor are they the ones gathering this knowledge. Astronomers and astrophysicists use NASA's equipment to do research. David Green at the University of Cambridge first discovered this in 1985, using the Very Large Array (VLA) to take radio images of it. It was identified as a supernova remnant. Not much more info could be gathered on it until 2007 when the Chandra telescope took X-ray images of it. They confirmed it as a supernova remnant with the radius and distance I gave. They also found that it had gone nova about 140 years ago, making it the earliest known supernova in our galaxy. It wasn't noticed in the sky 140 years ago because it's close to the center of the galaxy and obscured by a lot of gas and dust.

A supernova remnant consists mostly of gas and dust. It's this gas and dust, which is continuously expanding from the explosion that has a 1.3 light-year radius. Another famous supernova remnant, the Crab Nebula, has a radius of about 6 light years. It exploded about 1,000 years ago (our time).

You can read about it here:

NASA - Chandra Uncovers Youngest Supernova in Our Galaxy

Discovery Of Most Recent Supernova In Our Galaxy.

 

[Rukas]

You're getting your info from that article, which is misinformation. It's the equivalent of we didn't go to the moon, or 911 conspiracy theories. This Starviewer Team is not a legitimate astronomical organization.

They said that about Kopernik once too.

Light-years is a measurement of length, which is also used to measure distance. NASA doesn't control astronomical knowledge nor are they the ones gathering this knowledge. Astronomers and astrophysicists use NASA's equipment to do research. David Green at the University of Cambridge first discovered this in 1985, using the Very Large Array (VLA) to take radio images of it. It was identified as a supernova remnant. Not much more info could be gathered on it until 2007 when the Chandra telescope took X-ray images of it. They confirmed it as a supernova remnant with the radius and distance I gave. They also found that it had gone nova about 140 years ago, making it the earliest known supernova in our galaxy. It wasn't noticed in the sky 140 years ago because it's close to the center of the galaxy and obscured by a lot of gas and dust.

A supernova remnant consists mostly of gas and dust. It's this gas and dust, which is continuously expanding from the explosion that has a 1.3 light-year radius. Another famous supernova remnant, the Crab Nebula, has a radius of about 6 light years. It exploded about 1,000 years ago (our time).

You can read about it here:

NASA - Chandra Uncovers Youngest Supernova in Our Galaxy

Discovery Of Most Recent Supernova In Our Galaxy.

That may very well be right, but there is Nasa evidence to suggest something big behind Pluto based on gravitational wobbles and this discovery, if it is that, does fit the bill.

Apparently more information including it's orbit will be released in Feb '10.

You shouldnt be so quick to dismiss everything that goes against what you read on Wikipedia .

 

[Duke]

They said that about Kopernik once too.




That may very well be right, but there is Nasa evidence to suggest something big behind Pluto based on gravitational wobbles and this discovery, if it is that, does fit the bill.

Apparently more information including it's orbit will be released in Feb '10.

You shouldnt be so quick to dismiss everything that goes against what you read on Wikipedia .

So far the only ones believing that it's a brown dwarf is the team that claims it's a brown dwarf.

There is no support at all for this from the rest of the astronomy community.

You shouldn't be so quick to believe everything that you read outside Wikipedia


Also, the article itself stands just as skeptical towards the brown dwarf idea. At the very least, your "Planet X/Brown Dwarf found" thread title is very misleading and suggestive.

 

[Rukas]

So far the only ones believing that it's a brown dwarf is the team that claims it's a brown dwarf.

There is no support at all for this from the rest of the astronomy community.

You shouldn't be so quick to believe everything that you read outside Wikipedia

Every discovery is made by one person or one group of people and then verified.

We'll see, it is a possibility, I am not saying that it IS what they are saying what it is. But it's a possibility certainly. Something is there, NASA even said so in the 80s, there's a shit load of southern hemisphere telescopes pointed at this thing if it was just nothing.

But, it could very well be nothing. Im just not quick to dismiss either theory and think it's foolish to do so.

Last year it would have been a crackpot theory to say there was water on the moon and now look...

Also, the article itself stands just as skeptical towards the brown dwarf idea. At the very least, your "Planet X/Brown Dwarf found" thread title is very misleading and suggestive.

Well... Yes it is. I just presented their theory and left it open for discussion which we are doing now

 

[S O F I]

Why would NASA deny this?

 

[Duke]

Last year it would have been a crackpot theory to say there was water on the moon and now look...

No. We've thought this was the case for decades and we've known for years.

 

[Jokerman]

Last year it would have been a crackpot theory to say there was water on the moon...

Not really. Most planetary scientists thought there should be water on the moon for a while now. However, this brown dwarf thing would be the equivalent to saying there is cheese on the moon.

You shouldnt be so quick to dismiss everything that goes against what you read on Wikipedia .

Even if I wrote what's on Wikipedia? :?:lol:

 

[Jokerman]

Why would NASA deny this?

To protect us.