Planet X: Und er komm näher

Geschrieben von Scorp am 23. Oktober 2002 02:33:57:

aus dem Systemfehlerforum


Ein paar nicht unwichtige Neuigkeiten zum postulierten Planet-X

Mark Hazlewood schrieb am 21.10.02 (siehe Mailtext weiter unten) , Prof. McCanney habe ihn darüber informiert, dass die NYT am 15.10.02 einen wichtigen Artikel gebracht habe.
Darin sei eingeräumt worden, dass die Fachwelt noch immer nach einem Planeten X suche, der die Bahnabweichungen von Uranus und Neptun erklären könne.
Wieso das wichtig ist?
Nun, Anfang der 80er Jahre erschienen noch vergleichsweise regelmäßig Artikel über einen solchen zehnten Planeten. Ende 1983 meldeten mind. sechs renommierte Zeitungen, der US-Forschungssatellit IRAS habe ein Objekt entdeckt, das vermutlich ein sehr großer "inbound" Planet sei, der also in Richtung Sonnensysteminneres unterwegs sei. Einer der führenden beteiligten Wissenschaftler äußerte damals im Interview, man sei sich dieser Entdeckung so sicher, dass man nur noch über einen Namen für den Planeten nachdenken müsse.
Es folgte jedoch - Schweigen. Dann kam kurz ein merkwürdiges Dementi - man habe eine extrem weit entfernte Galaxie für einen relativ nahen Planeten gehalten - doch nach dieser nicht gerade glaubwürdigen Aussage war dann jahrelang Schweigen im Walde.
Verfechter der Theorie eines zehnten Planeten (P-X) wurden marginalisiert und lächerlich gemacht. Warum dieser extreme medial-fachweltliche Sinneswandel trotz weiterhin bestehender bester Gründe für dessen Postulieren?
In der astronomischen Fachpresse wurde dann EIN (!) Artikel plaziert, wonach man die Masse von Uranus und Neptun neu bestimmt habe. Durch die nun genauere Massebestimmung hätten sich die vermeintlichen Bahnabweichungen in Luft aufgelöst, damit sei die Behauptung der Existenz eines zehnten Planeten als unsinnig erwiesen. (Das ist aber laut McCanney simpel zu widerlegen, da sich P-X auf seiner postulierten ca. 3600 Jahre dauernden extrem elliptischen Umlaufbahn in einem Winkel zur Ekliptik bewege. Die gravitativen Störauswirkungen sind dann nämlich dazu teilweise orthogonal und also masseunabhängig!)
Diejenigen, die P-X weiterhin postulierten und u.a. darauf verwiesen, P-X sei 1983 doch bereits eingeräumt worden und die Regierungen wollten nur ablenken, um eine Massenpanik zu vermeiden, wurden - wie üblich - als kranke Verschwörungstheoretiker abgetan, die einem Hirngespinst nachhingen.

Nun, der aktuelle NYT-Artikel ist aber ein massives Indiz dafür, dass dieses nahezu völlige Verleugnen seitens des Establishments ein bloßes Ablenkungsmanöver gewesen sein könnte, dass die Gegenargumente keine echten waren.

Schon am 07.10.02 hat sich bei SPIEGEL ONLINE ( URL: http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltraum/ 0,1518,217221,00.html ) das erstaunliche Eingeständnis gefunden: "Schon lange suchen Astronomen jenseits der Neptun-Bahn nach einem postulierten zehnten Sonnentrabanten."
Als ob das völlig normal sei, und als ob solches nie ins Lächerliche gezogen worden wäre.

Der früher führende Astronom und Leiter des US Naval Observatory, Dr. Harrington, war von der Existenz eines Planeten X so überzeugt, dass er zur optischen Verifizierung im Jahr 1993 auf der Südhalbkugel (Neuseeland) ein Observatorium anmietete. Aufgrund seiner Berechnungen für den hierzu zu beobachtenden Himmelssektor, war er nämlich der Überzeugung, zur damaligen Zeit unterhalb der Ekliptik fündig zu werden. Auch eine Massenschätzung für P-X publizierte er Anfang der 90er in der astronomischen Fachpresse. Er starb jedoch etwas mysteriös kurz vor der Forschungsreise; seine Leiche soll noch nicht ganz kalt gewesen sein, da sei das Observatarium schon wieder abbestellt gewesen.

Sein sehr enger Mitarbeiter, Dr. van Flandern äußerte sich seither plötzlich nicht mehr dahingehend, dass er an die Existenz von P-X glaube, vielmehr sei dieser wohl vor langer Zeit explodiert!? Sollte da eine warnende Botschaft an ihn und andere Fachkollegen die Ursache für einen Sinneswandel gewesen sein?

Prof. McCanney unterrichtete früher an einer US-Universität Mathematik und Physik. Er vertrat Theorien, z.B. über Kometen, die sich nicht mit wissenschaftlichen Glaubenssätzen der NASA vertrugen. Kurzum: Er wurde im Establishment der USA geächtet, obwohl er zugleich in Russland als führender Kosmologe gelten soll.
McCanney glaubt an die Existenz von P-X, und er sagt, dass die massiven Energie- und Masseausstöße der Sonne in den letzten Monaten ein massives Indiz dafür wären. Er verwendet ein schönes Bild: Die Sonne verhalte sich wie ein Wachhund im Vorgarten, der in Richtung eines sich nähernden fremden Eindringlings belle. Das solare "Bellen" erfolgt natürlich in Form gewaltiger Sonnenwindausstöße. Diese konnte/kann man übrigens über die Bilder des Forschungssatelliten SOHO - finanziert von ESA/NASA - selbst via Internet beobachten und nachvollziehen.
Die Aktivität der Sonne auch nach dem letzten erwartungsgemäßen Aktivitätsmaximum während des letzten Sonnenfleckenmaximums im Jahr 2000 war so extrem, dass nicht nur die Fachwelt verblüfft staunte, sondern dies fand sogar Eingang in die Massenmedien (z.B. Spiegel Online vor wenigen Monaten).

Die zunehmend evidenten Auswirkungen der solaren/kosmischen Strahlung auf Erdklima und Erdwetter wurde dennoch weiterhin kaum diskutiert.
Nach dem Elbhochwasser im Sommer 2002 wurde allerorts thematisiert, wie schlimm doch der durch Menschen verursachte Treibhauseffekt sei. Praktisch nirgends ein Wort darüber, dass die Fachwelt von dieser Meinung zunehmend abrückt. Dennoch gibt es immer häufiger Fachartikel, die zum einen die Rolle von CO-2 und anderen Treibhausgasen im Vergleich zur Bedeutung solarer Strahlung sehr stark relativieren und zum anderen die Validität des "Treibhauseffekts" stark in Frage stellen. Siehe unten zwei Artikel vom 19.10.02, einer von BBC News (er verweist auf ein "German team, from the Max Planck Institute of Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg") einer in der englischen Online-Ausgabe der PRAVDA.

Warum wird dies nicht viel mehr in den Massenmedien diskutiert? Weil sonst gefragt würde, was die Ursache für die enorme Sonnenaktivität und die extremen Wetterkapriolen wäre? Weil die gemeinsame Antwort Planet X und die zunehmend katastrophalen Auswirkungen seines Näherns und seiner Passage sein könnten?

Hinzu kommt nun jedoch plötzlich ein echter Knaller im britischen TELEGRAPH vom 22.10.02, nämlich der Artikel "Does our Sun have a doomsday twin?" (siehe weiter unten)
Es wird darin für möglich gehalten, dass (a) unsere Sonne eine (dunkle) Zwillingssonne (Doppel- oder Mehrfach-Sternsysteme sind ohenhin im Universum der Normalfall) haben könnte UND zugleich dass es (b) einen kleineren Himmelskörper (Planet X) geben könnte, der für (erd)geschichtliche Massensterben verantwortlich zeichen könnte. Warum die plötzlichen neuen Töne, die plötzliche Offenheit diesem Thema gegenüber?
Nun, etliche Verfechter von P-X befürchten jedenfalls sein Herannahen binnen weniger Monate/Jahre (als frühester Termin kursiert im Internet der Zeitraum Mai/Juni 2003).

Vor diesem Telegraph-Artikel möchte ich noch eine Graphik in einer wissenschaftlichen Enzyklopädie (The New Illustrated Science and Invention Encyclopedia, 1987 Volume 18, page 2488) präsentieren, die genau dieses Szenario (dunkle Zwillingssonne plus Planet-X) bereits im Jahr 1987 in einer Skizze dargelegt hatte.

Übrigens (auch noch vorab): Am 05.04.1997 sagte in einem Interview Pater Malachi Martin (Malachi Martin, eminent theologian, expert on the Catholic Church, former Jesuit and professor at the Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Institute, is the author of the national best-sellers Vatican, The Final Conclave, Hostage to the Devil, and The Jesuits. He was trained in theology at Louvain. There he received his doctorates in Semitic Languages, Archeology and Oriental History. He subsequently studied at Oxford and at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. From 1958 to 1964 he served in Rome, where he was a close associate of the renowned Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea and Pope John XXIII. Martin passed away late 1999) über den Hintergrund eines vatikanischen Observatoriums in Arizona folgendes:

Bell: However, The Vatican has the larger part of the control of this observatory..
Father Martin: Yes
Bell: looking at deep space things.
Father Martin: That’s right.
Bell: Now why would they have done that, Father?
Father Martin: Because the mentality, the attitude, mentality amongst those who at the higher levels, highest levels of Vatican administration and geo-politics, know that, erh now, knowledge of what’s going on in space, and what’s approaching us, could be of great import in the next five years, ten years.
Bell: Carefully and well chosen words, Father, thank you. Eerh, West of the Rockies, you’re on the air with Father Malachi Martin.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The New Illustrated Science and Invention Encyclopedia
1987 Volume 18, page 2488

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Does Our Sun Have
A Doomsday Twin?
By Paul Blakemore
The Telegraph - UK
10-22-2

In 1846, researchers noticed that Uranus was wobbling in a way that confounded Newton's Law of Motion. This meant they had two options: rewrite the most time-honoured of the laws of physics, or "invent" a new planet to account for the extra gravitational pull. Compared to Newton's reputation, an eighth planet seemed much less massive and Neptune was discovered.
Today scientists working in the University of Louisiana have discovered a statistical anomaly of similar proportions. Professors John Matese, Patrick Whitman and Daniel Whitmire have studied the orbits of comets for 20 years, and their recent findings have led to startling theories.
Intrigued by the work of two palaeontologists working for the University of Chicago, Prof Whitmire, along with Nasa colleague Dr Al Jackson, had earlier attempted to explain the amazing discovery that six apocalyptic events, including the extinction of the dinosaurs, have all occurred, like clockwork, every 26 to 30 million years. To try to explain this mass extinction cycle, they looked to the possibility that comet showers were to blame.
The latest effort of Matese, Whitman and Whitmire studies 82 comets from the huge cloud of comets, called the Oort cloud, that exists around our solar system. They took the aphelia of these comets, the points on their orbit that are farthest from our Sun, and plotted them on a globe. Expecting to find an even distribution, they instead found that a particular band of sky, about one sixth the total, contained more than one quarter of all the comets, and that about 25 per cent of the comets coming from this cloud have anomalous paths.
So what was affecting the orbits? They went on to theorise that the best explanation is the existence of a previously unknown body - that our solar system is made up of the Sun and a shadowy partner, either a brown dwarf or a massive planet, in a wide binary system. In effect, the solar system had two stars, the Sun and a dark companion, spinning around each other.
Now I know what you're thinking Surely I'd have noticed a second Sun in the sky? But, as Prof Whitmire explained, the process of assumption based on statistical anomalies has always been a cornerstone of scientific discovery. According to their current theory, he says, "the companion is a brown dwarf star or massive planet of mass between two and six times the mass of Jupiter". A brown dwarf is a star too small to sustain the nuclear fusion that powers our Sun, and so is relatively cool (surface temperature of less than 1500C) and so also very dim, being barely hot enough to give off light.
But it gets worse. Under their original theory, called the Nemesis theory, this small dark star, which lurks at around 90,000 times farther away than the Earth is from the Sun, may be on an orbit that, once every 30 million years, ploughs it into the densely packed inner cloud. Here its immense gravitational pull would drag out several of the Oort comets and give them the "kick" needed to send them towards the Sun on orbits perilously close to the Earth. This explains, in the professor's view, the ominous mass extinction cycle, due to regular periods of increased cometary activity every 30 million years.
However, before we head for the bomb shelters, we should take heed of the professor's words: "As a practical matter our models will never be generally accepted (and shouldn't be) until the actual object is found." However stressing that they are "sufficiently plausible to give incentives for others to look".
Today, their current paper has moved away from the Nemesis theory and proposed, on the basis of comet orbits, a less massive planet about three times the mass of Jupiter. None the less, with an explanation for the mass extinction cycle yet to be found, he has admitted that they may not be mutually exclusive; and that there could be two dark stars, one a failed partner to our own, and another one that is acting almost as an alarm clock for doomsday. Even so, he says: "I'm still hopeful that ultimately these might turn out to be the same object.".
"An original idea in science is often a gut instinct, but this should not influence the development of the idea," says the professor. "I always try to be my own worst critic". The scientific world remains intrigued but sceptical. However, the recent bombardment of Jupiter is a reminder that if the team is right, there may not be many around to hear them say: "I told you so."
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2002.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?view=


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


From: "planetx2003"
Date: Sun Oct 20, 2002 11:51 am
Subject: New York Times October 15th Tuesday Science Section D in back editorials

New York Times October 15th Tuesday Science Section D in back editorials

James McCanney has relayed me this information. In this editorial
Planet X was mentioned as still being looked for because of the
pertubations in Uranus and Neptune. Which goes against the piece of
disinformation being put out that more accurate size calculations have
now discounted these pertubations. James says that since the
pertubations are coming from off the elliptical plane that more
accurate size calculations wouldn't account for this.
This new piece also says that Pluto is not a planet but a dirty
snowball and got captured into our solar system at one point. James
refers to this as the creeping crud of NASA, they are having to update
their obvious outdated models of the solar system while still trying
to retain that the old models in some way to save face.
The old model says all planets formed in the solar system in the
beginnning and nothing happened since. James's model has a solar
system that most of the time begins with two large objects and as
other objects come into their electromagnetic field they temporarilly
turn into comets and pull in debris and build. At some point these
objects may get captured into the solar system and become planets.
So if they are saying Pluto is not a planet but a dirty snowball they
are saying it was captured into our solar system. The dirty snowball
is still part of the old BS but being captured is trying to account
for that in fact our solar system is ever changing and new planets do
get added now and then and objects coming through are possible future
forming planets.
Comets are objects that become highly charged traveling through the
eletromagnetic field of the celestial objects they travel near. They
pull in debris that hangs within that field and that builds their size
and forms the tail. Comets are not dirty snowballs that endlessly
throw off ice, otherwise they'd quickly lose size and dissapear.
Another significant thing, according to James, about this
editorial/article is that it is unsigned.

mh

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Saturday, 19 October, 2002, 12:36 GMT 13:36 UK
Cosmic rays 'linked to clouds'


The influence of clouds on climate change is poorly understood

By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent


German scientists have found a significant piece of evidence linking cosmic rays to climate change.
They have detected charged particle clusters in the lower atmosphere that were probably caused by the space radiation.

They say the clusters can lead to the condensed nuclei which form into dense clouds.

Clouds play a major, but as yet not fully understood, role in the dynamics of the climate, with some types acting to cool the planet and others warming it up.

The amount of cosmic rays reaching Earth is largely controlled by the Sun, and many solar scientists believe the star's indirect influence on Earth's global climate has been underestimated.

Some think a significant part of the global warming recorded in 20th Century may in fact have its origin in changes in solar activity - not just in the increase in fossil-fuel-produced greenhouse gases.

First evidence found

The German team, from the Max Planck Institute of Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, used a large ion mass spectrometer mounted on an aircraft.

Cosmic rays and clouds
The Sun's magnetic field and solar wind shield the Solar System from cosmic rays (very energetic particles and radiation from outer space)
Changes in solar activity will affect the performance of the shield and how many cosmic rays get through to Earth
Theory suggests cosmic rays can "seed" clouds
Some satellite data have shown a close match between the amount of cloud over Earth and the changing flux in cosmic rays reaching the planet
They say their measurements "have for the first time detected in the upper troposphere large positive ions with mass numbers up to 2500".

They conclude: "Our observations provide strong evidence for the ion-mediated formation and growth of aerosol particles in the upper troposphere."

The scientists report their findings in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

They support the theory that cosmic rays can influence climate change and affect cloud albedo - the ability of clouds to reflect light.

In and out

The importance of clouds in the climate system is described by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, at the UK's University of East Anglia (UEA). It says: "Clouds strongly influence the passage of radiation through the Earth's atmosphere.

"They reflect some incoming short-wave solar radiation back into space and absorb some outgoing long- wave terrestrial radiation: producing cooling and warming effects, respectively."

And UEA's Climatic Research Unit spells out the complexity of clouds' role in climate change. It says: "The cloud feedback may be large, yet not even its sign is known.

"Low clouds tend to cool, high clouds tend to warm. High clouds tend to have lower albedo and reflect less sunlight back to space than low clouds.

Confusion confounded

"Clouds are generally good absorbers of infrared, but high clouds have colder tops than low clouds, so they emit less infrared spacewards.


Clouds are crucial to climate change

"To further complicate matters, cloud properties may change with a changing climate, and human-made aerosols may confound the effect of greenhouse gas forcing on clouds.

"Depending on whether and how cloud cover changes, the cloud feedback could almost halve or almost double the warming."

Many scientists agree that the Earth's surface appears to be warming, while low atmosphere temperatures remain unchanged.

Missing link

Research published last August suggested the rays might cause changes in cloud cover which could explain the temperature conundrum.

The discrepancy in temperatures has led some scientists to argue that the case for human-induced climate change is weak, because our influence should presumably show a uniform temperature rise from the surface up through the atmosphere.

Although researchers have proposed that changes in cloud cover could help to explain the discrepancy, none had been able to account for the varying heat profiles.

But the study suggested that cosmic rays, tiny charged particles which bombard all planets with varying frequency depending on solar wind intensity, could be the missing link.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Pravda.ru

18:18 2002-10-19


Kyoto Protocol Is Not Worth a Thing

A Russian ecologist says that there is no greenhouse effect at all

The ecologists, who watch the situation with the global climate, have been recently shocked with a piece of news from the UN intergovernmental committee. The committee stated that the economic losses of the humanity double every ten years due to the global warming. It was also said that the economic losses would reach $150 billion during the coming decade.

Why was that information shocking? Studying the climate on planet Earth with the help of scientific methods proves that the so-called greenhouse effect can not actually be found. World leaders of 156 countries gathered for a conference back in 1992 in Rio. They signed the convention for the climate change. This document was then turned to the well-known Kyoto protocol of 1997.

The world community was deeply concerned about the global warming of the climate. It was even decided to limit the emission of the so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in order to cool the planet.

This trouble is coming from the Russian Arkhangelsk region. This region is celebrated for its wonderful results in the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. There has been a briefing held there recently to discuss the climate questions. Young ecologist Alexander Shalarev dared to say the thing, which Moscow scientists were afraid to say. He declared that there was actually no greenhouse effect at all. Shalarev added that the Kyoto protocol was simply a far-fetched idea, a political action that was meant to show the “care” for the climate of the Earth.

The young ecologist believes that the Kyoto protocol was signed without a deep scientific analysis of the climate issue. The Kyoto protocol was basically singed and promoted on the ground of political goals of the American democratic administration (as it was back in those days). America used to love grand ecological problems with the maximum participation of the federal government in them. As soon as the US administration became a republican one, the USA refused from the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

The Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta has recently published an article that was written by two Russian climate scientists, Sergey Dobrovolsky and Vyacheslav Naydenov. The article was called “The Warming That Never Existed.” Here’s what they wrote.

“Pursuant to the Kyoto protocol, the level of emission that was permitted for the period of 2008-2012 made up 100% for Russia and 93% for the USA (vs.1990). Russia’s carbon dioxide emission in 1990 was maximum. It made up 540 million tons. Nowadays, Russia emits 400 million tons. Thus, there is an opportunity to talk about selling the quotas for the emission of industrial gases for $30 - $50 per ton. This can allegedly bring a lot of profit.

“We would like to mention that the Kyoto protocol was formally based on the fundamental research of the Intergovernmental committee for climate changes. Thousands of world’s most respectable scientists took part in that research. However, neither the conclusions of the research, nor science as it is can support the measures of the Kyoto protocol. The document particularly runs that industrial emissions (greenhouses gases) were the main reason of the negative influence on the global climate system. However, the report of the intergovernmental climate change committee stated another conclusion. It was said there that the results of the up-to-date climate research could not be considered as convincing evidence to prove the cause-and-effect relation between the man-caused affect and the changes of the surface temperature on the Earth.

“One shall assume that the scientific opinion on the subject has not changed much since the signing of the Kyoto protocol. The Climate Change report of the year 2001 did not present any convincing evidence to prove the man-caused reasons for the global temperature changes over the recent ten years. The biggest part of the global temperature raise of 0.6 degrees happened during the period 1910 – 1945 (temperature was raised by 0.53 degrees). Industrial emissions were not that large back in those years. However, according to the greenhouse theory, the temperature on the planet should have raised during the last decade of the past century. We would like to point out another important factor. It is not really possible to fix the man-caused greenhouse effect without a profound research and observations. The quantity of the warmth that is needed to warm up the atmosphere by one degree is three times as less as the quantity of the warmth that goes into space due to the emanation from the upper levels of the atmosphere.”

Young ecologist from the Russian Arkhangelsk region Alexander Shalarev has actually expanded the scientific opinion. First of all, is the atmosphere getting warmer? No global changes of the troposphere temperature have been registered since the start of the satellite surveillance. Secondly, are climate forecasts reliable and trustworthy? There was a special alternative ecological movement formed in America, which was called “The True State of the Planet.” The people of that movement treated all those forecasts as absolutely useless work. Alternative ecologists doubted about the conclusions from official intergovernmental bodies, saying that the scientific research rejects the existence of the greenhouse effect.

As a matter of fact, the ecological scandal that started in the Arkhangelsk region of Russia is likely to grow on and on.

Andrey Mikhailov
PRAVDA.Ru

Translated by Dmitry Sudakov


hehehe und der himmel fällt uns doch auf den kopf

grüsse scorp


Antworten: