10th planet [Archive] - Divine Cosmos Discussions

View Full Version : 10th planet

Tarzan

07-16-2002, 06:58 AM

<table>
>Yo math people,
>
>This quote here...
>
>
>This discrepancy suggests that [b]there must be at least one more planet in the Solar System that we have not yet found. 
>[end quote]
>
>...and the numbers in the Specific Angular Momentum, as discussed in Chapter 7, with regard to the sun's placement disprepancy, could provide some clues as to what size/weight the supposed 10th planet may be? All other variables are known; only the x-factor--the10th planet--is not known, thus the value of the10th is determinable mathematically, yes? Whip out your calculators, gentlepeople.
>
>Seth

sol72us

07-17-2002, 12:52 PM

This seems complicated,
momentum as a product of
mass and velocity in addition
to size being a function of
density. So larger velocity
yeilds smaller mass for the
same momentum. It may be that
the size is broken up into
peices that are below our
resolution limits. So the
possibility exists that there
are many small highly dense
and fast peices that account
for this discrepancy, we just
can't see them.
Pat

--- In asc2k@y..., "Tarzan" <tarzan@n...> wrote:
> Yo math people,
>
> This quote here...
>
> [begin quote]
> This discrepancy suggests that there must be
> at least one more planet in the Solar System
> that we have not yet found.
> [end quote]
>
> ...and the numbers in the Specific Angular
> Momentum, as discussed in Chapter 7, with
> regard to the sun's placement disprepancy,
> could provide some clues as to what
> size/weight the supposed 10th planet may be?
> All other variables are known; only the
> x-factor--the 10th planet--is not known, thus
> the value of the 10th is determinable
> mathematically, yes? Whip out your
> calculators, gentlepeople.
>
> Seth

sol72us

07-17-2002, 01:53 PM

Another possibility came to mind.
That is, the mass estimates neglected
a spinning magneto-gravitic component,
mechanism of these anti-gravity machines,
and that component causes the mass
estimates to be low. In this case
all the missing momentum is disguised
within the known objects, varying in
degree to the magnetization of the
object and it's rotation. Pat

--- In asc2k@y..., "Tarzan" <tarzan@n...> wrote:
> Yo math people,
>
> This quote here...
>
> [begin quote]
> This discrepancy suggests that there must be
> at least one more planet in the Solar System
> that we have not yet found.
> [end quote]
>
> ...and the numbers in the Specific Angular
> Momentum, as discussed in Chapter 7, with
> regard to the sun's placement disprepancy,
> could provide some clues as to what
> size/weight the supposed 10th planet may be?
> All other variables are known; only the
> x-factor--the 10th planet--is not known, thus
> the value of the 10th is determinable
> mathematically, yes? Whip out your
> calculators, gentlepeople.
>
> Seth

David Wilcock

07-17-2002, 10:36 PM

> --- In asc2k@y..., "Tarzan" <tarzan@n...> wrote:
> > Yo math people,
> >
> > This quote here...
> >
> > [begin quote]
> > This discrepancy suggests that there must be
> > at least one more planet in the Solar System
> > that we have not yet found.
> > [end quote]
> >
> > ...and the numbers in the Specific Angular
> > Momentum, as discussed in Chapter 7, with
> > regard to the sun's placement disprepancy,
> > could provide some clues as to what
> > size/weight the supposed 10th planet may be?
> > All other variables are known; only the
> > x-factor--the 10th planet--is not known, thus
> > the value of the 10th is determinable
> > mathematically, yes? Whip out your
> > calculators, gentlepeople.
> >
> > Seth

From: "sol72us" <sol72us@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=rCbL18NgOjc2-3Y31n1SLGlrWO4kvGJ7cpwypRjO2FU96dLaIFuJp7dxPWKq3lD 9ydLNgjud6Q)>

> This seems complicated,
> momentum as a product of
> mass and velocity in addition
> to size being a function of
> density. So larger velocity
> yeilds smaller mass for the
> same momentum. It may be that
> the size is broken up into
> peices that are below our
> resolution limits. So the
> possibility exists that there
> are many small highly dense
> and fast peices that account
> for this discrepancy, we just
> can't see them.
> Pat

DW: If you go back and read Dr. Smelyakov's entire paper on the Auric Time
Scale that is referenced in the supplemental to Divine Cosmos, he discusses
the hypothetical orbit of "Persephone." Based on the harmonics, i.e. the
"proper" positions for planets due to the wavelengths, there are only
certain orbits that would work - but then you'd need to factor in the number
of hypothetical moons around each planet.

Orbital perturbations in the outer Solar System clearly have shown that
something is out there, the scattered disclosures of which the Nibiru crew
has eagerly snapped up. However, this Schuster's Hypothesis equation is
based only on angular momentum, not on the size or density of the body. It
is certainly possible that by comparing the data from the perturbations with
the available harmonics data that an orbit may be discerned - but it
certainly is not about to careen into the vicinity of the Earth next May,
i.e. the Nibiru 2003 hoax. It is possible, however, that if it can be
narrowed down enough that it may be able to be spotted with the proper
optics, such as the Hubble.

Peace be with you -

- David

sol72us

07-18-2002, 09:19 AM

The possibility of a magneto-gravitic
component throwing off planetary
mass estimates would be possible if
the effect is independant of
orientation, that is the mass just
seems less than it actually is.
Or maybe the component is direction
sensitive and the planetary motions
so slow variing that deviations are
unseen.

Can flying saucers fly upside-down,
or are they orientation sensitive?
Do free energy machines work in
any orientation, or do they need
to align to the gravity vector?

Outer planetary perturbations could
be caused by close transit of
some yet unseen 10th planet.
That possibility exists.

I do recall mention in Divine Cosmos
that an outer planet pole shifted.
If this mechanism is dependant upon
a spin vector, and that spin vector
is interrupted by an event such as
a pole shift, than I would imagine
that the apparent mass could change,
causing perturbations in orbit.

Were the perturbations in conjunction
with the pole shift?

Just amusing myself with possibility.
Pat

--- In asc2k@y..., "sol72us" <sol72us@y...> wrote:
> Another possibility came to mind.
> That is, the mass estimates neglected
> a spinning magneto-gravitic component,
> mechanism of these anti-gravity machines,
> and that component causes the mass
> estimates to be low. In this case
> all the missing momentum is disguised
> within the known objects, varying in
> degree to the magnetization of the
> object and it's rotation. Pat
>
> --- In asc2k@y..., "Tarzan" <tarzan@n...> wrote:
> > Yo math people,
> >
> > This quote here...
> >
> > [begin quote]
> > This discrepancy suggests that there must be
> > at least one more planet in the Solar System
> > that we have not yet found.
> > [end quote]
> >
> > ...and the numbers in the Specific Angular
> > Momentum, as discussed in Chapter 7, with
> > regard to the sun's placement disprepancy,
> > could provide some clues as to what
> > size/weight the supposed 10th planet may be?
> > All other variables are known; only the
> > x-factor--the 10th planet--is not known, thus
> > the value of the 10th is determinable
> > mathematically, yes? Whip out your
> > calculators, gentlepeople.
> >
> > Seth