How To Calculate The Orbit Of Niribu

[CH1]

if it was a comet orbiting us, or in our solar system, chances are we would know about it now. especially one of that immense size.

and im not sure about that Thunderbolts of the gods site. ill need to read more into that, not sure of its credibility or those authors.

Absolutely, though much ancient human history has yet to be revealed. I sometimes wonder if the presume size of Nibiru being a comet might be associated with the coma expanding?

Thunderboltz of the Gods, seems quite convincing, hmm?

[TheSearcher]

And this leads you to your conclusion, without looking to the source of what conjured up this Nibiru? Perhaps redirecting your focus to Sumerian history, an archaeologist (or Paleographer) may be a more suitable and accurate candidate to once shed some light on the word or definition of Nibiru actually might be or represent?

I'm quite aware onto what conjured up Nibiru. A fraud called Sitchin. He is the only one that makes these fabulous claims about it. As to shedding some light on the word or definition of Nibiru, or what that word actually might be or represent, I did actually check that, info from archeologists.

I use the below because its of easy access, here on the net, but it is none the less accurate :

General Meanings of Occurrences Outside Astronomical Texts

Word meaning, of course, is determined by context. “Nibiru” (more technically and properly transliterated as “neberu”[5]) can mean several things. I have underlined the form of nibiru for the reader:

“place of crossing” or “crossing fee” – In the Gilgamesh epic,[6] for example, we read the line (remarkably similar to one of the beatitudes in the sermon on the Mount): “Straight is the crossing point (nibiru; a gateway), and narrow is the way that leads to it.” A geographical name in one Sumero-Akkadian text, a village, is named “Ne-bar-ti-Ash-shur” (“Crossing Point of Asshur”). Another text dealing with the fees for a boatman who ferries people across the water notes that the passenger paid “shiqil kaspum sha ne-bi-ri-tim” (“silver for the crossing fees”).

“ferry, ford”; “ferry boat”; “(act of) ferrying” – For example, one Akkadian text refers to a military enemy, the Arameans: “A-ra-mu nakirma bab ni-bi-ri sha GN itsbat”[7] (“The Arameans were defiant and took up a position at the entrance to the ford [gate, crossing point]”). In another, the Elamites are said to “ina ID Abani ni-bi-ru u-cha-du-u” (“[to] have cut off the ford [bridge, crossing way] of the river Abani”).

I think the “root idea” of the nibiru word group and its forms as meaning something with respect to “crossing” is clear, and so we’ll move on.[8]

Nibiru as Referring to an Astronomical Body

The following chart represents a complete listing of the word “nibiru” in astronomical texts and/or astronomical contexts. If one wants to know what Nibiru as an astronomical body is - according to the Mesopotamians - one is dependent on these texts, unless, like Zecharia Sitchin, one makes up meanings to prop up a theory. One either lets the texts tell you what Nibiru is, or one willfully ignores the scribes in favor of Sitchin. I have, in these cases, given (a) the Mesopotamian text where the word occurs; ( a Sumero-Akkadian transliteration; © a brief translation; (d) the page references to English translations of the Mesopotamian text in which the word occurs, so the reader can check the context and study further. (Note as well that in Section Three I discuss each occurrence in more detail and in context). In the following chart, several features of Sumerian-Akkadian transliteration[9] bear explaining - and they are important:

* superscripted “d” = the cuneiform sign for “god” (Dingir), and so “neberu” may refer to a god (recall that Sumerians and Mesopotamians associated heavenly bodies with deities)

* superscripted “MUL” = the cuneiform sign for “star” (and so “neberu” is a star – the texts tell us this point blank)

* subscripted numbers = the numerical reference number for Sumerian signs that can stand for more than one syllable. This is a scholarly convention for keeping such overlapping signs distinct so the texts can be read accurately.

At the risk of some redundancy, you will notice quickly that Nibiru is preceded by both “d” and “MUL”, and so is referred to as a deity and a star. As Sitchin himself notes on various occasions (and this is common knowledge to ancient near eastern scholars), ancient people often identified the stars or planets as gods, as though the stars were deified beings. This is one reason why even in the Old Testament the sons of God are referred to as stars (cf. Job 38:7-8). In the texts that follow, Nibiru was regarded as a planet (specifically, Jupiter, but once as Mercury), a god (specifically, Marduk), and a star (distinguished from Jupiter).

If you’re confused, you aren’t alone. This tri-fold (fourfold if you count Mercury) designation for Nibiru is why scholars of cuneiform astronomy have not been able to determine with certainty what exactly Nibiru is. We’ll go into the problem more in later sections. One thing is certain from the texts, though: Nibiru is NEVER identified as a planet beyond Pluto.

Link to source

But don't think that's the only thing I consulted. There is also the "Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie" (it's in german so that might be a bit hard for some, but translations should be available.)

There is also the fact that the MUL.APIN (Mul.Apin is a general compendium that deals with many diverse aspects of Babylonian astrology. Good explanation here), states:

"When the stars of Enlil have been finished, one big star – although its light is dim – divides the sky in half and stands there: that is, the star of Marduk (MUL dAMAR.UD), Nibiru (né-bé-ru), Jupiter (MULSAG.ME.GAR); it keeps changing its position and crosses the sky."

Conversely, Tablets K.6174:9’ and K.12769:6’ refer to it as Mercury: "If Mercury (MULUDU.IDIM.GU4) divides the sky and stands there, [its name] is Nibiru."

See I don't need to redirect anything, the fact I didn't mention all this, is because it has been discussed ad nauseum and usually Sitchinites refuse to believe their prophet is wrong anyway. The conclusion leads me to the same, the word "Nibiru" either refers to a crossing (or similar) or to either Jupiter or Mercury, it does not however refer to a comet or to "wandering" planet. This much has been established by 99,9 % of archeologists.

Is there a Nibiru as described by the woman from Zetatalk or Sitchin? No there isn't.

Are there comets or asteroids that could be dangerous to earth? Yes of course, without any doubt.

Absolutely, though much ancient human history has yet to be revealed. I sometimes wonder if the presume size of Nibiru being a comet might be associated with the coma expanding?

Thunderboltz of the Gods, seems quite convincing, hmm?

The Youtube clip is quite interesting, granted, but plays on the fact, that people don't really know how science works. It's a way of showing things that I find a tad deceiving. Since we know that science is static, it's not fixed, that's why most of it is formulated in theories, instead of laws. The fact that some theories change, is nothing new, nor is it surprising.

Is there any other place that the same info can be actually read, instead of briefly glanced over on youtube?

[Agent. Mulder]

The Youtube clip is quite interesting, granted, but plays on the fact, that people don't really know how science works. It's a way of showing things that I find a tad deceiving. Since we know that science is static, it's not fixed, that's why most of it is formulated in theories, instead of laws. The fact that some theories change, is nothing new, nor is it surprising.

Is there any other place that the same info can be actually read, instead of briefly glanced over on youtube?

well, there are sites where people dont like it that much.

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/28596-electric-universe-model.html

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=71145

just other forums, but you get some differing veiws on it basically.

[digitalartist]

I really hate to do this, digitalartist; I also think the idea of Nibiru is pretty stupid, but that math is not correct.

The orbital velocity of any planet - especially one in a highly elliptical orbit - is not constant.

You are correct that the `average speed' of this planet would put it only 1.5 AU from us (1 AU = distance from Earth to Sun).

But in fact if you do the full math, assuming Nibiru is supposed to get as close as the asteroid belt, and will do so on Dec. 21, 2012, then right now (2009 12 08, that is) it is between 19.7 and 20.0 AU away (roughly at Uranus).

Unfortunately, it is also approaching us from the rough direction of the Sun (between 31.7 and 56.5 degrees from the Sun at the Equator) and therefore would be hard to spot by anyone without access to space-based telescopes.

(I say unfortunately because I originally crunched the numbers in the hopes of being able to tell Nibiru believers exactly where to point their telescopes and see... nothing.)

It is still preposterous that such a huge object could be whizzing through the solar system without any of the numerous astrophysics professors, post-docs, and graduate students noticing anything, of course.

--------------------

KennyB: I redid the calculations with the proper mass and size, it doesn't really change the numbers very much.

I didn't base my calculations (rough as they are) on the closest approach being the asteroid belt but on a close approach to or actually colliding with the Earth as many Nibiru sites seem to claim. That's why I have a closer distance for the non-existent planet. I really should have been more precise in my previous post about that and that's my fault.

One question about it's approach from the direction of the sun. I assume you mean at this time but 6 months from now or 6 months ago the sun would not have been an obstruction to earth based telescope viewing of the supposed planet. Am I correct in this?

[digitalartist]

Ancients don’t have to be right and our perception may not be accurate.

Based on your comment, The ancients may have been wrong and Nibiru doesn't actually exist.

[KennyB]

sepulchrave, I would assume that 5 times the size of Jupiter would mean 5 times the diameter. I'm glad you decided to do this math exersize, but I'm not saying I believe in the Star Nibiru, just that it's a possibility. KennyB

[KennyB]

digitalartist, The only evidence I can give you is what I remember reading in Sitchin's book. I believe it said that Nibiru would approach from the South. From that, I would guess he meant from the direction of one of the Southern constellations. He said it would cross the plane of the Sun at the 'place of the crossing'. He identified that as the asteroid belt. (the hammered bracelet.) A don't recall any specific date given except that it had an orbit of appx 3600 years. I don't know who came up with 2012. That's all I know and I'm not sure of that. I'll try to find out. KennyB

[digitalartist]

Some things I'm trying to get straight in my head.

Nibiru is supposedly a brown dwarf 5 times the size and 15 times the gravity of Jupiter.

Jupiters gravity is said to have an effect on the entire solar system so Nibiru should have a similar or greater efect at a far greater range.

Now does 15 times the gravity also mean 15 times the mass? If yes don't brown dwarfs fuse deuterium if they are 15 times the mass of jupiter? If yes again how could we miss a burning sun hurtling towards us? If I am incorrect on the mass to gravity correlation or the fusing of deuterium in brown dwarfs could someone please correct me.

Edited December 9, 2009 by digitalartist

[sepulchrave]

Now does 15 times the gravity also mean 15 times the mass? If yes don't brown dwarfs fuse deuterium if they are 15 times the mass of jupiter? If yes again how could we miss a burning sun hurtling towards us? If I am incorrect on the mass to gravity correlation or the fusing of deuterium in brown dwarfs could someone please correct me.

You are right on target there.

Saying `15 times the gravity and 5 times the size of Jupiter' is a rather vague statement, but there are only a few possible interpretations.

1. Nibiru is 5 times the diameter and 15 times the mass of Jupiter. In that case Nibiru has a density of 0.16 g/cm³, far too small. If that were the case Nibiru would basically be a cloud of gas, and would either disperse completely or condense into a much smaller ball.

2. Nibiru is 5 times the diameter and has 15 times the surface gravity of Jupiter. In that case Nibiru has 375 times the mass of Jupiter, far too large for a brown dwarf. Nibiru is then probably a white dwarf. Nibiru also has a mass that is 35% of the Sun's, so Nibiru has a HUGE effect on the other planets and the Sun - most notably the fact that the Sun doesn't stay in one spot relative to the planets; it orbits a spot that is roughly 25% of the distance between the Sun and Nibiru.

3. Nibiru is 5 times the volume and 15 times the mass of Jupiter. In that case Nibiru has a density of 3.98 g/cm³, roughly the same as Mars.

4. Nibiru is 5 times the volume and has 15 times the surface gravity of Jupiter. In that case Nibiru is 43.9 times the mass of Jupiter. Nibiru also has a density of 11.6 g/cm³, just a bit greater than the density of lead.

Basically all of the options on this list are preposterous if we actually believe that Nibiru is a stable planet in our solar system. Option 1 is not stable, option 2 represents a highly visible star, and option 4 represents some quasi-neutron star - again bright enough to show up.

Option 3 is the only slightly believable one, but even there it is far too dense for a planet that size. This would suggest that Nibiru was a main sequence star that burnt off all the hydrogen/deuterium fuel, and in that case would be a red dwarf, not a brown dwarf, and still quite visible.

[TheSearcher]

I just reread some of the Sitchin material and realised the following, Sitchin’s original prediction of the appearance of Nibiru does not coincide with the 2012 date, according to Sitchin, Nibiru is not due to return until 2085.

Talk about irony.

[StarLord]

Searcher,

yes, I believe he "updated" the arrival. Fancy that.

Solid scientific driven dates, for a change.

Rather than loose all that revenue after 2012 because the fake, er, allegedly fake celestial object does not make it's appearance, one simply changes the dates in later books.

This equates to a scientific accounting of 73 more years of possible book sales (God Help Us). His forte finally shows, Money.

One does not even have to be adept at screwing up translating ancient languages to make lies connect when cashing checks at the bank.

I've finally figured out two of the biggest mysteries concerning Nibiru. Common sense really, no great leap in mental prowess. It delivers perfect answers for the conundrums concerning Gold and Nibiru not being visible.

For a moment there, I was worried I'd have to dust off my abacus, or call Harte in, to prove the math for this one.

The Gold plundered from the Earth those thousands of years ago, powers the cloaking device.

Edited December 12, 2009 by StarLord

[TheSearcher]

Searcher,

yes, I believe he "updated" the arrival. Fancy that.

Solid scientific driven dates, for a change.

Rather than loose all that revenue after 2012 because the fake, er, allegedly fake celestial object does not make it's appearance, one simply changes the dates in later books.

This equates to a scientific accounting of 73 more years of possible book sales (God Help Us). His forte finally shows, Money.

One does not even have to be adept at screwing up translating ancient languages to make lies connect when cashing checks at the bank.

I've finally figured out two of the biggest mysteries concerning Nibiru. Common sense really, no great leap in mental prowess. It delivers perfect answers for the conundrums concerning Gold and Nibiru not being visible.

For a moment there, I was worried I'd have to dust off my abacus, or call Harte in, to prove the math for this one.

The Gold plundered from the Earth those thousands of years ago, powers the cloaking device.

A bit like the woman from Zetatalk, she changed the date as well, I think it was supposed to be first May 2003, then 2010 and then 2012. A bit convenient I would say.

At least Sitchin picked a date that can't be verified before his death, I guess he is the smarter of the two con artists.

Edited December 14, 2009 by TheSearcher

[CH1]

Greetings, I’ve been in hibernation. Though, very interesting latest news discoveries. In any case, perhaps this new discovery is being discuss elsewhere? Let me know.

"However, many of these signatures are likely to be something other than a planet, and have caused much head-scratching at Nasa. Two mystery objects were also announced at yesterday's meeting.

The two heavenly bodies circle their own stars but are too hot to be planets and too small to be stars.

'The universe keeps making strange things stranger than we can think of in our imagination,' said Jon Morse, head of astrophysics for NASA.

The new discoveries don't quite fit into any definition of known astronomical objects, and so far don't have a classification of their own"

My link

[Mattshark]

Greetings, I’ve been in hibernation. Though, very interesting latest news discoveries. In any case, perhaps this new discovery is being discuss elsewhere? Let me know.

"However, many of these signatures are likely to be something other than a planet, and have caused much head-scratching at Nasa. Two mystery objects were also announced at yesterday's meeting.

The two heavenly bodies circle their own stars but are too hot to be planets and too small to be stars.

'The universe keeps making strange things stranger than we can think of in our imagination,' said Jon Morse, head of astrophysics for NASA.

The new discoveries don't quite fit into any definition of known astronomical objects, and so far don't have a classification of their own"

My link

Very interesting

Don't think these have anything to do with the silliness that is Niribu though. Since these are way too hot and waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to far away.

[NatureBoff]

Based on the giant comet fly-by which caused uplift, earthquakes and liquefied mud to entomb the 'Berezovka mammoths' averages out at a date of around 41,000 B.P. If the first chinese observation of a huge comet event in 1,150 B.C is assumed to be Niribu, then one can calculate that given the rough figure of 3,600 years orbit, a more accurate figure of 3622 years is attained. The next fly-by would be due in 3622-1150 or the year 2472, 460 years time. Phew! Niribu

I've discovered the origin of Niribu; Netptune's moon Triton had a twin super-Earth which got flung out into space when Neptune captured Triton How Neptune snagged a passing moon.

FINALLY, a plausible explanation for how Neptune captured its errant moon Triton. It seems that Triton was wandering through space locked in the gravitational embrace of a companion when the pair happened to pass by Neptune. The gravity of the giant planet extricated Triton from its partner, flinging one into deep space and keeping the other as a moon.

About 40 per cent larger than Pluto, Triton moves through its tilted orbit in the opposite direction to Neptune's rotation. This is the hallmark of a captured body, rather than one formed in situ, but astronomers have never been able to work out how Neptune managed to capture Triton.

The problem has always been that Triton must have lost energy on its way into orbit round Neptune, but nobody could work out how. Hitting an existing moon would have slowed Triton down, but there were problems with that idea. If the moon was small, Triton would not have been captured, while smashing into a big moon would have shattered Triton too. Then there were the thousand-to-one odds against Triton hitting any moon in the first place.

Triton must have lost energy on its way into orbit round Neptune, but nobody could work out how

Happily, no collision is necessary in the new theory by Craig Agnor of the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Douglas Hamilton of the University of Maryland in College Park because Triton's companion carries the excess energy away. "It's like Triton brings a retro rocket with it," says Hamilton (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature04792).

Their calculations show that as Triton and its partner drew close to Neptune, the giant planet's gravity overwhelmed the attraction between the pair with little regard for the size difference between the companions or the precise distance of the encounter. In the resulting interaction, Triton effectively cast off its partner for the planet.

"The dynamics of three-body encounters are well studied, usually for three objects of similar mass but this scenario sounds plausible to me," says Richard Nelson, a planetary formation expert at Queen Mary, University of London.

Neptune's high heat is due to Triton's counter orbital rotation and dark matter cores!

[Mattshark]

I've discovered the origin of Niribu; Netptune's moon Triton had a twin super-Earth which got flung out into space when Neptune captured Triton How Neptune snagged a passing moon.

Neptune's high heat is due to Triton's counter orbital rotation and dark matter cores!

And where exactly does that article mention niribu?

[TheSearcher]

And where exactly does that article mention niribu?

I just read the article and it does not. This is the same MO as usual with Smugfish. Not surprising.

[Sabbath]

If only Niburu existed, then all of this would make some sense.

[TheSearcher]

If only Niburu existed, then all of this would make some sense.

hence the word nonsense is often used when talking about Nibiru