Planet X / Nibiru Fear Mongers
are Creating Needless Panic
YOWUSA.COM, 22-April-03
Marshall Masters
 Over the last few months, the Nibiru-related
articles on the YOWUSA.COM web site have been accessed at an incredible pace. Everyone wants to know a guaranteed date as to when Nibiru will arrive, and what will happen next. Yet,
what everyone does not seem realize is that these questions are moot!
Knowing when Nibiru will arrive will do nothing to advance or slow the eventual date, nor will the knowing of it offer any
real advantage. This is because Nibiru will come to visit again as it has in the past and this time and either we will evolve one step forward, or de-evolve two steps backwards. In the meantime, the ZetaTalk web site has at least shown the decent honesty to openly discredit many of the fraudulent
Nibiru images being passed around the Internet these days by heartless fear mongers. In contrast to that, pyramid-schemer Mark Hazlewood has
announced an updated version of his popular (Nibiru for panic and profit) book, Blindsided to once again milk the issue for whatever the traffic will bear. Enough already.
If we take a practical look at the present search for Nibiru, what we have are four basic approaches:
 Ancient Texts: The
published works of noted scholar, Zecharia Sitchin show conclusive proof of
Nibiru’s existence in ancient Sumerian texts.
Prophecy: According to many who study prophecy, the return of Nibiru is predicated by noted visionaries such as Nostradamus, Mother Shipton and many others.
Precursor Events in Our Own Solar System: This is the method that YOWUSA.COM has chosen as a foundation for its reporting as it is based on actual observations by credible sources.
Orbital Calculations Based on Ancient Texts: Dutch Physicist Jacco van der Worp has examined the orbital calculations found on the web, and has labeled them the “the physics of fear.”
In terms of ancient text and prophecy, I invite you to conduct your examination of the voluminous amount of knowledge available on the Internet
, to include the folklore of surviving indigenous cultures. However, in terms of this article, let’s focus on the latter two categories, by first examining the “the
physics of fear” as Jacco van der Worp likes to call it.
The Physics of Fear
The core component of the orbital projections for Nibiru is the premise that the planet is in a long period, 3600-year elliptical orbit around our sun. In an
exclusive interview with YOWUSA.COM, Zecharia Sitchin, drove straight to the core of this assumption.
YOWUSA.COM, June 1, 2002
Will Nibiru Return in 2003?
Featuring an Exclusive YOWUSA.COM
Interview With Zecharia Sitchin
 ZECHARIA SITCHIN: Also, the assumption that the 3600 years, as a
perfect mathematical given, is also at all times the actual orbital period, is untenable: Even the orbit of Halley's comet, about 75 years, varies from 74 to 76 or so. All attempts to pinpoint a precise date
for future arrivals of the planet and/or of the Anunnaki are thus difficult questions.
 What Sitchin is telling us is that Halley’s comet has a 1
% to 2% change in its orbit for a variance of a few years. If we apply the same observed variance to Nibiru, the variance becomes that of several decades if not a half century or more.
However, the real discrepancies are actually in the math of these orbital projections. What Dutch Physicist Jacco van der Worp has noted when examining these projections
was that virtually all of these projections rely on a 2-object orbit method to calculate their orbital solutions for the following reasons:
- It is the easiest way to calculate an orbital solution.
- An exact solution can be derived.
Keep in mind that Jacco is also quick to point out that a 2-object orbit will provide a good approximation or the orbit, provided you fully understand the
location, mass and speed of the objects involved. Herein is where these so called orbital solutions encounter problems.
While we know the mass and speed of the sun in terms of its orbit through the Milky Way Galaxy, we do not know the same for Nibiru. Ergo, these
calculations, while being mathematically correct, are nonetheless built upon unknown and shifting sands.
Is it possible to increase the accuracy of a 2-object orbital solution based solely on the Sun and Nibiru? Yes, you can use a 3-object orbit method
instead. While the math involved with 3-object orbit method is vastly more complex, it does present a more accurate result in terms of how the universe
actually works, because it allows one to factor in the influence of other objects in space. For example, a 3-object orbital solution could factor in the
gravitational influences of one our gas giants, such as Jupiter. That being said, even the 3-object orbit method is subject to the same shifting sands
upon which the present 2-object orbital solutions are based. Regrettably, this is not the only fatal flaw Jacco is seeing in the 2-object orbital solutions presently orbiting the Internet.
As was pointed out above, it is necessary to know the actual location, mass and speed of any object that is to be a part of orbital solution. While we do
not know the actual location and mass of Nibiru, there is a recurring fatal flaw in the math as many of the orbital solutions presently orbiting the Internet
have Nibiru traveling so fast through space that it would be impossible for our Sun to draw it into its gravitational well. Ergo, Nibiru is a rogue object
destined to pass only once through our solar system, as opposed to orbiting our sun.
So this brings us to the question that seems to be on so many lips these days. Will it really be here next month? And is there any possible way to
apply some hard science to this? Yes!
Will There Be a Flyby In May 2003
Last January, I asked Jacco for a technical answer to a May 2003 orbital solution that was popular at the time on the Internet. So that our readers can
see a sample of the background word YOWUSA.COM has been doing on this, Jacco’s technical reply to me follows below.
Marshall,
A much more likely scenario would be the three-body approach. An
attempt at sketching such an orbit was first posted on Kent Steadman’s
Cyberspaceorbit page.
After some comments on the possibility and impossibility of such a scenario, a much
more credible view on the orbit structure of such a body’s path was presented.
There is one major drawback: thetimeframe used in this. It can
just not be done that fast. It can, by all means, happen along the path depicted, only not by May 2003. For that, it would have to be at Pluto’s distance by now to remain undetected to most
amateurs, a distance of 39.5 AU or 5.925e12 m to travel in 6 months. That would indicate an average speed of 5.925e12 meters in 1.57e7 seconds or 3.77e5 m/s. It is said to pass at 0.5 AU or
7.5e10 m from the Sun.
Every planet or star has an escape velocity attached to it at a given distance, given by the relation vesc = "(2GM/R), where G is the universal gravitational constant equal to 6.7e-11, M is the
mass of the planet or star, here the Sun, which is 1.989e30 kg and R is 7.5e10 m. That gives an escape velocity at that distance from the Sun of 5.96e4 m/s. A mass flying faster than
this speed at the distance it is calculated for will not be kept in orbit by the gravity of the Sun. In this case, Planet X would fly by the Sun once, never to return again. The 6-month scenario
from invisible to fly-by therefore will not happen.
That does not mean however, that Planet X will not come. It may
come in a few years, be detected with certainty in half a year but only fly past us in ten. It would, for example account for the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012. There are forces around
pushing the 2003 flyby to untold popularity waiting to see it fail and effectively kill the attention for the flyby, which will most likely come, but later, by pointing at the mis-prediction with emphasis.
The bottom line is this with the “physics of fear.” The numbers can and do lie, just like a cooked tax return. While the calculations on the return can be
perfect, the data is flawed. Hence, the IRS rips you a new one. When it comes to Nibiru, do we really want our final numbers to be as shaky as those on a cooked tax return?
On the other hand, there are signs…
|
