Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Can a medieval tapestry help find Planet Nine?

29 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Minimalists

Oh boy! Doomers will be on this like buzzards at a road kill! Even though its yet to be found and is no danger to Earth.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bison

I was wondering just how the timings of the perihelions of these comets could be used to test the planet nine hypothesis.  The articles  don't go into too much detail about this.

The Kuiper belt objects that seem to cluster about similar perihelion positions, opposite the proposed position of planet nine are relatively straightforward. With comets that pass near enough the Sun to be readily visible, it seems that the gravitational effects of the planets would affect the timings and confuse the issue.

If this problem is not too serious, perhaps they will find comet apparitions clumped together in time, with positions opposite the Sun, to that of the supposed-to-be planet.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo

They kinda know the area of the sky to look at so it's just a matter of time before they find it.....if it does exist, which the evidence says it does.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dyna

C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS), or �K2,
Be here 2022

Closest 12-21-22 

PDF

http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~jewitt/papers/2017/HJC17.pdf

Edited by Dyna
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Curious. Hope this pans-out... would be interesting news.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I was very skeptical of the article till I read that it actually was about looking for comets, to see if simulations were correct... That I can see being scientific. Looking for circles on Medieval tapestries and calling them Niburu, I don't think is scientific.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I was very skeptical of the article till I read that it actually was about looking for comets, to see if simulations were correct... That I can see being scientific. Looking for circles on Medieval tapestries and calling them Niburu, I don't think is scientific.

Quote

Looking for circles on Medieval tapestries and calling them Niburu, I don't think is scientific.

Thats the **SNIP** and Ancient Aliens crowd shouting that crap.....I wonder how long it will be after the discovery of this planet we will have to start debunking doomsday scenarios?

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
1 hour ago, Alien Origins said:

Thats the **SNIP** and Ancient Aliens crowd shouting that crap.....I wonder how long it will be after the discovery of this planet we will have to start debunking doomsday scenarios?

Please don't resort to insults, no matter how much you disagree with an opposing point of view.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Monk
3 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

Thats the **SNIP** and Ancient Aliens crowd shouting that crap.....I wonder how long it will be after the discovery of this planet we will have to start debunking doomsday scenarios?

Ancient Aliens is on tonight on Blaze (channel 80). I often watch it on a Saturday night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twin

If they find it, they should name it Twin. No reason, just sayin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom the Photon

Because, as everybody knows, medieval tapestries record the exact details of every comet and every other celestial body, especially location, size, velocity, direction, distance, etc.
Have a read through Dr Cesario's blurb at https://pure.qub.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/marilina-cesario(82fd19a5-7adb-44f9-b4fd-94337114ef2a).html
It sounds like she's carved out a nice little niche for herself, writing b******s that nobody will ever question. This is one of the 'scientists' doing the research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
12 hours ago, Tom the Photon said:

Because, as everybody knows, medieval tapestries record the exact details of every comet and every other celestial body, especially location, size, velocity, direction, distance, etc.
Have a read through Dr Cesario's blurb at https://pure.qub.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/marilina-cesario(82fd19a5-7adb-44f9-b4fd-94337114ef2a).html
It sounds like she's carved out a nice little niche for herself, writing b******s that nobody will ever question. This is one of the 'scientists' doing the research.

What a load of ignorant, anti-science drivel.

Many comets (including Halley's comet on the Bayeux Tapestry) and supernovae have been accurately dated using historical documents and illustrations. This is not a case of a "scientist" making a niche for themselves, this is a case of someone dismissing science they seem to know nothing about.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scorpius

It is arrogant as a species to assume that humans are the only living thing in this universe with high intelligence.  When we even find life in the harshest of environments on earth.  

As far as this planet, how about we open ourselves to the possibility rather than the lack thereof.

Edited by Scorpius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
18 hours ago, Tom the Photon said:

Because, as everybody knows, medieval tapestries record the exact details of every comet and every other celestial body, especially location, size, velocity, direction, distance, etc.
Have a read through Dr Cesario's blurb at https://pure.qub.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/marilina-cesario(82fd19a5-7adb-44f9-b4fd-94337114ef2a).html
It sounds like she's carved out a nice little niche for herself, writing b******s that nobody will ever question. This is one of the 'scientists' doing the research.

Sweetie, she's a PhD. At least four people read her dissertation to get that. She's also got 16 -- sixteen -- published articles, every one of which will have been reviewed by at least three experts in her field before it was deemed suitable for publication in a scholarly journal. I am in her field and have heard of/read her work, and can attest it is highly scholarly, thorough in its review of data, and with a solid methodology.

How many advanced degrees do you hold?

How many books or articles have you had published again?

Maybe... just maybe... your opinion on the matter is of little relevance and moment.

--Jaylemurph

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar
On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 6:00 PM, Dyna said:

C/2017 K2 (PANSTARRS), or �K2,
Be here 2022

Closest 12-21-22 

PDF

http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~jewitt/papers/2017/HJC17.pdf

what a bummer. The numerology on that date = 10 so we will really be getting the alarmist predictions about it when this gets out further. Stock up on popcorn :( 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seanjo
17 hours ago, Almighty Evan said:

Look to the future,...

MV5BM2ExMmQ5ZjItODZjOC00ODE0LThhNzQtMDkwMWI4NmJhNDE5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjQ3MjU3NTU@._V1_.jpg

That's a hollow asteroid generational spaceship, not a planet...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom the Photon
23 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

What a load of ignorant, anti-science drivel.

Many comets (including Halley's comet on the Bayeux Tapestry) and supernovae have been accurately dated using historical documents and illustrations. This is not a case of a "scientist" making a niche for themselves, this is a case of someone dismissing science they seem to know nothing about.

You mention Halley's comet, so let's examine that one first.  There is indeed an illustration of a comet-like object embroidered on the cloth.  But what can scientists tell from that?  Does it show anything useful about the size, location or direction of this object?  It is not even portrayed at the correct time - it's been placed several months early to emphasise the belief that it's a sign of God's wrath following Harold's coronation.  

Dr Cesario is not a scientist.  I'm sure she's a perfectly nice person who spends a lot of time on her "work focused on a textual and cultural analysis of two groups of prognostic texts, one concerning the interpretation of the sun and wind during the twelve nights of Christmas, and the other the Revelatio Esdrae, a type of divination based on astronomical calculations" and all her other projects.  But she is not a scientist. 

To attack me without offering any useful, constructive defence of the article, reveals a lot more about your ignorance than mine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
On 5/8/2018 at 1:30 PM, Tom the Photon said:

Dr Cesario is not a scientist.  I'm sure she's a perfectly nice person who spends a lot of time on her "work focused on a textual and cultural analysis of two groups of prognostic texts, one concerning the interpretation of the sun and wind during the twelve nights of Christmas, and the other the Revelatio Esdrae, a type of divination based on astronomical calculations" and all her other projects.  But she is not a scientist. 

Dr. Cesario doesn't claim herself to be a scientist. She's an historian.

The headline of the UM article refers to "scientists" in general, but does not call her a scientist. Nor does the LiveScience article the UM bot is citing.

You're the only one calling her a scientist, so I guess you're just angry at yourself. I teach undergraduates critical reading skills so they can understand effectively how to read articles like these. You clearly need a little brushing up on it, so let me know if I can help.

--Jaylemurph

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom the Photon
On 10/05/2018 at 1:47 AM, jaylemurph said:

Dr. Cesario doesn't claim herself to be a scientist. She's an historian.

The headline of the UM article refers to "scientists" in general, but does not call her a scientist. Nor does the LiveScience article the UM bot is citing.

You're the only one calling her a scientist, so I guess you're just angry at yourself. I teach undergraduates critical reading skills so they can understand effectively how to read articles like these. You clearly need a little brushing up on it, so let me know if I can help.

--Jaylemurph

First may I say - it’s desperately sad to learn that there are people who reach undergraduate level (and even gain places at universities!) without being able to read and critically assess articles like this; we can all be grateful there are people like you out there to help these unfortunates and I hope they are few in number.

A great many scientists around the world have a keen interest in the theoretical planet 9 and are using the latest equipment, the finest precision and powerful computers to analyse complex data.  The results produced so far have failed to convince anyone either way, not least Batygin and Brown who devised this hypothesis in 2016.  This gives a good indication of the difficulties faced trying to search for objects so far away.  Every published detail of this purported planet is purely speculative, such as its mass (five to twenty times Earth’s), its distance from the Sun (200 to 1200 times Earth’s) or its orbit (10 000 to 20 000 years).

I personally am delighted that a scientist and an historian have teamed up in this innovative venture, but – whilst I wish them well – I do believe, for reasons articulated previously, the records will not contain sufficient information to contribute meaningful data to this debate.

However the first line of the UM article is extremely misleading for several reasons that deserve critical attention.

“Scientists have been looking to the past to help them determine the whereabouts of the elusive ninth planet.”

First – the ninth planet is described as elusive.  In its most common context this word means difficult to locate, implying all that is needed is more data and it will be found.  The adjective used does nothing to suggest that planet 9 may not even exist.  (The next paragraph refers to planet 9 as enigmatic.  For most people this would imply puzzling, mysterious or even unknowable, none of which are adjectives that can accurately describe an object that science has not yet agreed exists.  The entire question over planet 9’s existence is not referred to until the 64th word of the text.)

Secondly – ‘to help them determine the whereabouts’: this adds credence to my previous point.  In stating this the author leads the reader into supposing that the location of planet 9 is determinable, implying it’s out there just waiting to be found. 

Thirdly – a point raised previously: ‘scientists’ implies that more than one scientist is working on this project, yet the article only names one.  It is of course possible that Dr Lacerda has fellow scientists working with him on this project, but if so they must be content to remain anonymous as the article clearly states “(t)his latest study… is being conducted by medievalist Marilina Cesario and astronomer Pedro Lacerda”.

Sorry if this reply is rather long, but I felt that such an articulate post, from someone as erudite as you, deserved a thorough response.

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
krone

Tom, you're the one who scoffed at the idea that ancients could accurately measure or depict the movements of the heavens, so you're not one to talk about the lack of knowledge on this board. How can you possibly suggest anyone on this discussion knows less than you do when you're blissfully ignorant of the fact that the ancient people who (for example) designed Stonehenge were able to accurately trace the movements of the stars, sun and moon? Why wouldn't we avail ourselves of the records people from a few centuries ago kept of the heavens when people thousands of years older were so spot on in their measurements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
krone
On 5/7/2018 at 10:15 PM, Waspie_Dwarf said:

What a load of ignorant, anti-science drivel.

Many comets (including Halley's comet on the Bayeux Tapestry) and supernovae have been accurately dated using historical documents and illustrations. This is not a case of a "scientist" making a niche for themselves, this is a case of someone dismissing science they seem to know nothing about.

Yeah, but Tom's whole MO seems to be less about finding facts than it is about showing off his knowledge. Whether that knowledge is worth showing off is irrelevant. His comments are ego-driven, not fact-driven.

Edited by krone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom the Photon
1 minute ago, krone said:

Tom, you're the one who scoffed at the idea that ancients could accurately measure or depict the movements of the heavens, so you're not one to talk about the lack of knowledge on this board. How can you possibly suggest anyone on this discussion knows less than you do when you're blissfully ignorant of the fact that the ancient people who (for example) designed Stonehenge were able to accurately trace the movements of the stars, sun and moon? Why wouldn't we avail ourselves of the records people from a few centuries ago kept of the heavens when people thousands of years older were so spot on in their measurements?

What on Earth are you talking about?

Nobody is talking about movement of the stars, the Sun or the Moon.  This hasn't been mentioned anywhere in this thread.  That's because it's not in the slightest bit relevant.

The article is talking about comets.  "We have a wealth of historical records of comets..."  "We can take the orbits of comets currently known..."  "We can use the medieval comet sightings to..."  I thought that most people reading this would know what comets are, or at least have the mental agility to do a bit of research online before shooting off their mouths and looking ignorant.

Only one person so far has offered a single piece of testable evidence to contribute to this discussion.  That was Waspie_Dwarf's suggestion that the depiction of Halley's Comet on the Bayeux Tapestry could offer evidence to inform the debate.  Yet people seem ready to jump to attack me when I quickly discredited that suggestion?

I'm not saying there isn't a ninth planet out there.  It's just there's no proof for it (yet), and you're not going to find anything useful in medieval records of comets.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.