Bring4th

Astronomers say a Neptune-sized planet lurks beyond Pluto

Presenting statistical evidence, these scientists believe there is another planet on a 15,000 year orbit within our solar system.

It made me think of this passage from Ra:

Quote:Questioner: Is there a planet behind our sun, opposite to us in orbit, that we do not know about?

Ra: I am Ra. There is a sphere in the area opposite your sun of a very, very cold nature, but large enough to skew certain statistical figures. This sphere should not properly be called a planet as it is locked in first density.

I wouldn't go so far as to say this vindicates Ra's statement. I always thought it was very strange that there would be a planet "opposite to us in orbit" that has the exact same orbit as Earth, thus evading our perception by anything but statistics. Ra seems to agree with Don that this is the case, though. A 15,000 year orbit is definitely nowhere close to having the same orbit as Earth.

My theory is that either 1) Ra was half right or "misunderstood" and it isn't actually sharing an orbit opposite of Earth, or 2) the scientists are on the right track but the statistics they have gathered aren't enough to show that this planet is actually sharing an orbit with Earth, or 3) this is a completely different planet than what Don and Ra are referring to.

I wonder what gave Don this idea to begin with?

I can see how this news will be seen to some as confirmation for existence of PlanetX/Nibiru. The planet itself is still yet to be found however, as scientists so far only discovered its path around the sun. When discovered what do you think it should be named after?

I hate you Austin... You beat me to it. This certainly is the biggest astronomical finding in my lifetime so far.

This is 100% legitimate (in the main stream) and not any kind of 'quackery'. One of the two scientists that found this is the guy who is directly responsible for declassifying Pluto as a planet. So he is extremely prominent in the astronomical community. Also, it has been peer reviewed in the Astronomical Journal.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/f...lar-system Wrote:Batygin and Brown inferred its presence from the peculiar clustering of six previously known objects that orbit beyond Neptune. They say there’s only a 0.007% chance, or about one in 15,000, that the clustering could be a coincidence.

They state that it won't be "confirmed" until they find it in a telescope. But even if they do manage to find it with an earth based telescope / the Hubble, it's just going to look like a blurry dot. Previous to the New Horizons spacecraft, the best photo of Pluto was just an extremely fuzzy white dot:



The closest orbit of Pluto is 30 AU (1 AU is the distance between the Earth and the Sun). The closest orbit of this planet is 200 AU and is estimated to range out to 1200 AU. So I highly doubt we will get a photo of this planet even remotely as good as the one of Pluto pre-New Horizons.

Actually http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...114539.htm


Law of One stated we're in a binary star system and that we may actually have two suns which is supported by wilcock

does this support that?

I think it does

you are a part of me i am a part of you, we are all extensions of each other representing the one infinite. there is no self, there is no other self, there is only one identity, the one infinite. we are all each other. we are all infinite consciousness, so Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! We're doing it!

(01-20-2016, 07:29 PM)BlatzAdict Wrote: [ -> ]Law of One stated we're in a binary star system and that we may actually have two suns which is supported by wilcock

I don't remember this anywhere in the LOO / Ra Material; do you have a quote you could provide?

@Parsons as expertly stated by austin


11.4 Questioner: Is there a planet behind our sun, opposite to us in orbit, that we do not know about?
Ra: I am Ra. There is a sphere in the area opposite your sun of a very, very cold nature, but large enough to skew certain statistical figures. This sphere should not properly be called a planet as it is locked in first density.

I hate to get into a semantics argument, but binary system refers to two stars.

binary star. noun. 1. a double star system comprising two stars orbiting around their common centre of mass.

If there was a star (even an extremely dim/small one), you would be able to see it from several light years away, let alone only a couple hundred AU away.

(01-20-2016, 08:21 PM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]I hate to get into a semantics argument, but binary system refers to two stars.

binary star. noun. 1. a double star system comprising two stars orbiting around their common centre of mass.

If there was a star (even an extremely dim/small one), you would be able to see it from several light years away, let alone only a couple hundred AU away.

http://spherebeingalliance.com/blog/does...ry-or.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ-P81uj...e&t=47m17s ?? this also  

http://www.kurzweilai.net/astronomers-fi...bling-star another.


and another

10.16 Questioner: Only one, other than what we can do to make the instrument more comfortable. I have only one other question. I would like to have brief information of the word you use, “galaxy.”

Ra: I am Ra. We use the term known to your people by the sound vibration complex “galaxy.” We accept that some galaxies contain one system of planetary and solar groups, others containing several. However, the importance of the locus in infinite time/space dimensionality is so little that we accept the distortion implicit in such an ambiguous term.

10.17 Questioner: Then would nine planets and our sun we have here in our system, would you refer to that as a solar galaxy?

Ra: We would not.



-------------------------------------------------------------------
This sort of infers further leverage of the same information, rather the law of confusion due to the prevailing belief would contradict that conclusion, meaning the vast majority of the peoples at the planet had not discerned the notion of another star. hence preventing the utmost sto group from outright confirming it.

that's what i feel.

I'm at work so some of your links are blocked; I will have to take a look at them later.

This link is not blocked:

(01-20-2016, 08:31 PM)BlatzAdict Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.kurzweilai.net/astronomers-fi...bling-star another.

The star they are talking about may have been created from the same cloud of dust that our system was. They are not referring to a binary star system. Their concept of a "solar sibling" is a totally different concept.

Quote:The solar sibling his team identified is called HD 162826, a star 15 percent more massive than the sun, located 110 light-years away in the constellation Hercules. The star is not visible to the unaided eye but can be seen with low-power binoculars, not far from the bright star Vega.

It is very far away when compared to this new planet they are referring to in the OP. The planet from the OP is 200-1200 AU / 0.0031625 light years away, while the star they are referring to is 6.957e+6AU / 110 light years away. We are basically comparing milometers to kilometers in terms of relative distance.

---

Actually, they directly state in the article I linked that it can't be a star:

Quote:Brown got his first inkling of his current quarry in 2003, when he led a team that found Sedna, an object a bit smaller than both Eris and Pluto. Sedna’s odd, far-flung orbit made it the most distant known object in the solar system at the time. Its perihelion, or closest point to the sun, lay at 76 AU, beyond the Kuiper belt and far outside the influence of Neptune’s gravity. The implication was clear: Something massive, well beyond Neptune, must have pulled Sedna into its distant orbit.

That something didn’t have to be a planet. Sedna’s gravitational nudge could have come from a passing star, or from one of the many other stellar nurseries that surrounded the nascent sun at the time of the solar system’s formation.

Since then, a handful of other icy objects have turned up in similar orbits. By combining Sedna with five other weirdos, Brown says he has ruled out stars as the unseen influence: Only a planet could explain such strange orbits.

Hmm, I'm giving the star theory very slightly more credence since I didn't realize brown dwarfs could emit light below the visible spectrum (infared). However, NASA has scanned the entire sky with an instrument designed specifically to scan the sky for brown dwarfs. They mention this in the article I linked:

Quote:At first blush, another potential problem comes from NASA’s Widefield Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), a satellite that completed an all-sky survey looking for the heat of brown dwarfs—or giant planets. It ruled out the existence of a Saturn-or-larger planet as far out as 10,000 AU, according to a 2013 study by Kevin Luhman, an astronomer at Pennsylvania State University, University Park. But Luhman notes that if Planet X is Neptune-sized or smaller, as Batygin and Brown say, WISE would have missed it. He says there is a slim chance of detection in another WISE data set at longer wavelengths—sensitive to cooler radiation—which was collected for 20% of the sky. Luhman is now analyzing those data.

I just find it really odd that they found a new planet in our own backyard.
I own volume one of the channelling archives and they mention quite a few times and object that will be seen in our skies...
Could this be it?

(01-21-2016, 01:09 AM)Parsons Wrote: [ -> ]Hmm, I'm giving the star theory very slightly more credence since I didn't realize brown dwarfs could emit light below the visible spectrum (infared). However, NASA has scanned the entire sky with an instrument designed specifically to scan the sky for brown dwarfs. They mention this in the article I linked:

Quote:At first blush, another potential problem comes from NASA’s Widefield Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), a satellite that completed an all-sky survey looking for the heat of brown dwarfs—or giant planets. It ruled out the existence of a Saturn-or-larger planet as far out as 10,000 AU, according to a 2013 study by Kevin Luhman, an astronomer at Pennsylvania State University, University Park. But Luhman notes that if Planet X is Neptune-sized or smaller, as Batygin and Brown say, WISE would have missed it. He says there is a slim chance of detection in another WISE data set at longer wavelengths—sensitive to cooler radiation—which was collected for 20% of the sky. Luhman is now analyzing those data.

Wise already discovered this object years ago. Dr. Mainzer spoke briefly about it during a press conference when a viewer called in.
Oh and yes, it's Nibiru. The coldness of the sphere is caused by its gold radiation shielding, thus rendering it difficult to image outside the IR spectrum.

Here, found it..from around 4:10 in the video. Watch her face.

(01-20-2016, 05:20 PM)Bring4th_Austin Wrote: [ -> ]My theory is that either 1) Ra was half right or "misunderstood" and it isn't actually sharing an orbit opposite of Earth, or 2) the scientists are on the right track but the statistics they have gathered aren't enough to show that this planet is actually sharing an orbit with Earth, or 3) this is a completely different planet than what Don and Ra are referring to.

I wonder what gave Don this idea to begin with?

This idea seems to be old, called "Counter-Earth".

From Wikipedia:

"The Counter-Earth is a hypothetical body of the Solar system hypothesized by the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Philolaus (c. 470 – c. 385 BC) to support his non-geocentric cosmology, in which all objects in the universe revolve around an unseen "Central Fire" (distinct from the Sun which also revolves around it). The Greek word Antichthon (Greek: Ἀντίχθων) means "Counter-Earth."

In modern times a hypothetical planet always on the other side of the Sun from the Earth has been called a "Counter-Earth",[1] and has been a recurring theme in fiction, science fiction[2] and UFO claims."

If Ra did give correct information and there is a so called "Counter-Earth", locked in our orbit, always on the other side of the sun, then it seems like this is another planet.

(01-20-2016, 07:29 PM)BlatzAdict Wrote: [ -> ]Law of One stated we're in a binary star system and that we may actually have two suns which is supported by wilcock

I haven't seen Ra stating anything like that, on contrary, they seem to say that our sun is the center. In regards to their usage of the word "galaxy", Don and Ra did clear up this misunderstanding between them in later sessions:

"16.34 Questioner: Would you define the word galaxy as you just used it?

Ra: We use that term in this sense as you would use star systems.

Category: Definitions: Galaxy

16.35 Questioner: I’m a little bit confused as to how many total planets then, roughly, does the Confederation that you are in serve?

Ra: I am Ra. I see the confusion. We have difficulty with your language.

The galaxy term must be split. We call galaxy that vibrational complex that is local. Thus, your sun is what we would call the center of a galaxy. We see you have another meaning for this term.

Category: Definitions: Galaxy"

If i recall Ra said that most stars are binary and this is confirmed by Modern science, Wilcock put the data together in an article around the time of 2012 with references to the new science, Law of One and other hidden sources like the symbolism of freemasonry.

David Wilcock makes reference to this planet (black sun) while speaking about the Mars Migration (Gaia TV, Wisdom Teachings, Episode 149). While he gives a considerable amount of quotes from Ra, they all seem to refer to the 25,000 year cycle, specifically 9.4 - 9.6. He does refer the viewer to the documentary The Great Year by Walter - also on Gaia, but I have not watched it yet.