http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/n...10727.html
Is this what was described in this question.
11.
4 Questioner: Is there a planet opposite our sun, in relation to us, 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.
Very insteresting if this the revelation being described.
I think you are onto something here
An asteroid could be described as "locked in first density". That makes sense.
Probably not, as a 300m object would not skew anything. I'd say it'd have to be much larger, and probably actually spherical (as a gravitational consequence).
This quote is still very open to possibilities. Opposite the sun when viewing from the earth (this may be assumed in the question)? Opposite the sun on the day the question was answered? Each of the known planets orbits at a different rate and angle from that of the earth. Chances are that the body in question did not stay in that position in relation to Earth(?) for long, as the planets, moons and asteroids keep orbiting at their own paces. From what I read about the asteroid, it could fulfill the criteria outlined in the question at certain points in its orbit. But was it the object referred to in the question? If it was in an orbit very close to Earth's, could it be described as cold? Maybe without an atmosphere it might not hold heat as our planet does. Many interesting discoveries keep popping up now
I thought the second sun was the brown dwarf they found on the outskirts of the solar system? This can't be it coz this orbits earth, not the sun, and it is by far too small imo
(07-29-2011, 04:22 AM)Nyu Wrote: [ -> ]I thought the second sun was the brown dwarf they found on the outskirts of the solar system? This can't be it coz this orbits earth, not the sun, and it is by far too small imo
Hi,
I don't believe that Ra was talking about a Sun.
Questioner: Is there a planet opposite our sun, in relation to us, 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.
It sound to me like some kind of giant comet or large asteroid so even if this Trojan asteroid isn't the sphere locked in 1st density the fact that it is there implies that there are more and therefore the possibility of us finding it is strong. Also I have always imagined the sphere as being something like Io or Encludeus some kind of large rocky world covered in ice. Though if it was opposite the sun AND on our orbit wouldn't it be too hot to be so cold. So maybe it is like nyu suggested the massive object thought to be orbiting our sun beyond Pluto. Also I don't remember reading that the object beyond Pluto was a brown dwarf star I thought it was suggested as being a Humongous gas giant like Jupiter?
Thanks,
Conifer16
Adonai Vasu Borragus
I heard about the brown dwarf thing AGES ago, before ever reading Ra, BUT of course now I can't find any credible info confirming such so maybe I am mistaken? NASA talks about 2 planet finds beyond Pluto though, one called Eris and one called Sedna?
(07-29-2011, 05:05 PM)Nyu Wrote: [ -> ]I heard about the brown dwarf thing AGES ago, before ever reading Ra, BUT of course now I can't find any credible info confirming such so maybe I am mistaken? NASA talks about 2 planet finds beyond Pluto though, one called Eris and one called Sedna?
Hi,
I think that the two planets found beyond Pluto are actually considered dwarf planets or the moons of Pluto? And this is what I was referring to earlier.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...204429.htm
Also I disagree with the supposition that there is no evidence for cyclical mass extinction's especially as we are in one now. Just look at how many animals and plant life has gone extinct in the past few decades and it can't all be because of humans there is just too much.
Thanks,
Conifer16
Adonai Vasu Borragus
Ps. I just realized that I didn't specify(Sp?) what I am referring to with the mass extinction and that you might get confused as to what I talking about. There was a statement that studies show that there is no evidence for Mass Extictions in the paragraph talking about how this hypothetical planet was named.
They are dwarf planets.
tbh I have a hard time believing most "scientific theories" anymore. not until there is a complete overhaul in the darwinian mode of thinking.
(07-29-2011, 06:18 PM)Nyu Wrote: [ -> ]tbh I have a hard time believing most "scientific theories" anymore. not until there is a complete overhaul in the darwinian mode of thinking.
Is tbh a typo? And if not what does it mean? Also I concur(Sp?)
(07-29-2011, 10:07 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: [ -> ]to be honest?
Ok Thanks 3dmonkey.