Einige Ungereimtheiten in den Aussagen der Zetas über Nibiru?
Geschrieben von Georg am 12. September 2002 09:03:09:
Hallo Fories
In einem Newslettermail von Gerhard Zimmel (planetx@amanita.at) heist es diesbezüglich nach einem russischen Wissenschafter:
Prof. Sergey Smelyakov von der Militäruniversität Kharkov, ein befreundeter Astrologe, hat zum Planeten X einige Berechnungen angestellt, siehe unten.
Manfred Zimmel
http://beam.to/nibiru
-----------------------------
I have intently studied a series of works devoted to the planet X. Of course, they shocked me. I may divide their content into two spheres – “conceptual” and “numerical”.
As to the “conceptual” sphere, I may say the following. I would not like to discuss the correctness of the ZetaTalk forecasts, though I know many men and women who may predict the future with the use of their internal sight, but all their forecasts were more or less valid for the individuals only, and never – for the worldwide events.As far as the most part of the forecasts associated with the Planet X are based on the astronomical data assigned to it, and I am used to analyze the situation with the use of numbers, let us consider the basic conclusions that follow from the “numerical” parameters of the planet X.
1. There are some errors in terminology and misuse of the accepted concepts. E.g. in a paragraph devoted to the coordinates of the Planet X, Right Ascension is given, as usually, in hours but considered in degrees; the end of the Mayan calendar is shifted to the year of 2003.
2. In a paragraph devoted to distance, we read: ‘Planet X is circling on a long elliptical orbit around the Sun and its dead companion which lies at a distance some 18.724 times the length the Sun to Pluto. It is not a long distance to be traveled in 3657 years”
Hence, the larger half-axis of the planet X orbit is approximately to be
a=1/2 (Pluto’s orbital radius by 18.724)=1/2 by 39.4 astronomical units (au)=369 au.
As far as it circles on an elliptical orbit, it must follow (at least in the Solar system) the 3rd Kepler’s Law that states that the planetary period of revolution (in Earth’s years) is to be
Tx = square root of (369x369)=7084 (years)
That is twice the period of 3600 years that is assigned to the planet X.Reversibly, the half/axis for the period of 3657 years is to be
a=cubic root of (Tx multiplied by Tx)=237 au
the latter value makes only 2 being multiplied by 6 Pluto-Sun distances (viz, 12 Sun/Pluto distances) for the “Sun/dead companion” instead of the stated 18.724 Sun/Pluto distances.3. There is also great discrepancy between the size/mass/density parameters specified by ZetaTalk (they are also slightly different in different articles). For instance, in http://wwwdetailshere.com/niburu.html ,the paragraph “some facts about our Earth”, we read: “considering Niburu is 5 times the size of earth, has 25 times the mass, and is 100 times more dense than earth”. Let R, V, M, D and r, v, m, d be the radius, volume, mass and density of the planet X and Earth, respectively.
Then, from the School courses of elementary geometry and physics we see that if R=5r then V=125v and density equals D = M/V = 25m/125v = 0.2m/v = 0.2d, viz. the planet’s X density must be 5 times less, and not 100 times greater than the density of the Earth! The discrepancy makes 5by100=500 times!!
4. The above discrepancies show that:
(i) the declared orbital parameters of the planet X are absolutely inconsistent and we cannot rely upon them;
(ii) the “exactness” in distance (18.724 Pluto’s orbital radii) and period (3657 years) being specified by 4-5 digits is actually an “inexactness” as these values are not match each other by 2 times in average.
5. I cannot understand how it is possible to calculate the exact time (viz. May 15, 2003) and geographical distribution of Poles and other effects, if neither the orbital parameters are known (See the above paras 3 and 4), nor the Ephemeris of the Planet X (or object 2001 KX76) are given. The presented “exact coordinates” may probably be used for observation of the object on the celestial sphere, but they are absolutely insufficient for determining the exact Ephemeris of the Planet X that only may allow us to estimate the possible time and geographical effects.
Nevertheless, I'll be very much obliged to you if you will let me know about some really new data relative to the planet X, especially if it be the Ephemeris.
I wish you good luck,
Sergey