This is my theory about Nibiru or what I will call Star X.
The idea of Planet X the way it is described by people on Youtube is pretty much an impossibility. Also I would like to make clear that any reference to 2012 as the year of its return is also bogus. Yet the Star X clearly exists and here is why.

Our solar system has two very distinct features that can only be explained by existence of a companion star or Star X. First is the existence of an orbital plane or the fact that all our planets orbits are on the same plane and not independent of each other and second is the existence of a sheer edge in our solar system or a sharp ending where no objects, even dust are present. There are also other phenomenon such as Great Year and heliospheric shift which can only be explained by a binary star system of which we are a part of.

The theory goes like this: Our sun (solar system) is on an elliptical orbit with Star X and its planetary system. Both stars have elliptical orbits with the cylcle corresponding to the Great year (25,000 years). When the stars meet the gravitational (or gravimagnetic) force between the two stars moves all orbits in one line or plane, (think straight line between TWO points). At the same time the collisions that occur at the edges of both solar systems "shave" each other off to create sheer edges in both solar systems.

When stars go around each other they accelerate before departing in what is called a "slingshot effect". This slingshot effect is what creates a heliospheric shift in our planets orbits. Meaning the sun is slightly off center when it accelerates and decelerates in relationship to planets orbits, as it first 'drags' the planets and then the planets overshoot it a little when it slows down, there is also a phase in the cycle when there is no heliospheric shift. ( helioshperic shift affects the weather, the greater the shift the greater the difference is between summer and winter temps.)

Now the reason the current Planet X theory is wrong is because if it was true it would destroy the orbital plane by throwing all planets off that plane and eventually creating a spherical looking solar system. Going even further I will claim that even without Planet X or Star X or any other major influence our solar system would eventually become spherical just by planets mutual attraction and affects of their moons, they would throw each other off little by little until there would be no more orbital plane. This phenomenon is called "spherical harmonics" and this is how all planets and stars form into a ball or spheres, on different scale though. Ever see astronauts spill stuff in the cabin? It always turns into little spherical "drops' when it stops moving. Even galaxies will eventually turn into spheres. The older ones are more spherical then younger ones. The only way anything in space can be flat is either by having TWO objects pulling it apart or by spinning fast enough to flatten itself. Clearly our planets don't spin that fast around the sun to maintain that position. Even with the mainstream theory of "angular momentum" and accelerating center it is not completely flat it is a 3D vortex like our galaxy. Its not really flat at all.

This is what happens with our solar system. Now if you say our solar system is not completely flat it is true but there is a slight variance which is suppose to happen within the cycle of a binary system. Once the Star X comes back around it will reset it back to flat.

Now that I got this out of the way I will tell you that as far as Star X affects on Earth the catastrophic events still apply. Orbits will shift or accelerate and collisions will probably occur making stuff fly all over the solar system and potentially hit Earth and other planets and moons. There is also a possibility that some planets, maybe even Planet X, will jump from one system to another creating havoc. And of course space travel between the two systems becomes much easier because of relatively short distances. So the Sumerian tradition still lives. As far as 2012 its not going to happen but considering that our current history runs about what 10-15 thousnad years we are a some 10 thousand years away from that catastrophy.

Now I would like to ask all of you who agrees with me to share this with everybody and anybody you can since im too lazy to write books and go on promotional tours. Im not a scientist or an astronomer and have no time or ambition to become one, I just read stuff and make my own conclusions. Just mention my nickname when spread the word.

Im Rush and Im out.


PS I forgot to mention the significance of 2012. Our solar system will cross the "equator" of our galaxy the Milky Way in 2012. Galaxies have their own magnetic fields and polarity. What will happen is hard to tell but it may reverse Earths magnetic field as well and it could possibly mess things up. Who knows maybe it is the end of the world if all electrical systems fail or Earths magnetic field fails. Maybe we will all get switched off or rebooted.

Unfourtenatly, should your theory be true, your Star X may not be as far off as you say. When you say we've been around that long, you jump to say it shouldn't be due for another 10 thosand years. However, unless you have poof it came through right before Man evolved, there's no telling when it's due back or when it last came (After all, there would be nothing that couldrecord the event that we know of). However, people do believe our Sun is in bianry orbit. Of course, they believe in a Brown Dwarf called, not Planet X or it's many aliases, but Nemesis. It is believed Nemesis is an "evil twin" of our sun and now shares a binary orbit with it. I'm not sure if they have a due date for it, but it will essentialy kill us all should it come through our solar system. Also, do you know what kind of star your Star X is? Is it a Brown Dwarf? Is it even a star at all?

rush wrote:Our solar system has two very distinct features that can only be explained by existence of a companion star or Star X. First is the existence of an orbital plane or the fact that all our planets orbits are on the same plane and not independent of each other

To be exact and a bit pedantic, the planets are not on the same plane. Never-the-less, singular star solar systems are observed to have orbital planes just as ours does. This is not the suggestion of a binary system from what I know about astronomy and physics. The nature of how solar systems and galaxies form is what manifests orbits of that are close to the same plane.

rush wrote:and second is the existence of a sheer edge in our solar system or a sharp ending where no objects, even dust are present.

I would say that the "edge" of our solar system is anything but sheer. There is plenty of debris in the outer reaches of our solar system that fades appropriately with conventional astrophysics. Furthermore, who defines where the edge of the solar system is?

Our orbital plane is not completely flat with a minor variance. This variance is the norm within the binary cycle and if left unchecked would get wider and wider. When Star X will come around next time it will reset all orbits back to flat and the cycle will repeat itself.

There is no fadeout our solar system ends abruptly.

As far as other planetary systems with orbital planes, I don't know of any. Short while ago no one could even locate a single planet let alone multiple planets on an orbital plane. Planets don't emit light only reflect it so we can't see them directly we have to extrapolate their existence through anomalies we see on that star. If you know something different please let me know.
And last how can anybody judge that a planetary system is not binary if it takes tens or hundreds of thousands of years to complete those orbits?

I welcome your response.

Do you know what kind of star your Star X is? Is it a Brown Dwarf? Is it even a star at all?[/quote]


I don't know what kind of star it is but I would venture to guess that it is an active star larger then the sun due to the fact that the Jovial planets (Jupiter Saturn) are located away from the sun. When the stars meet they sort of "fight" each other for common mass pulling it toward themselves so the stronger one will pull more mass toward itself. Plato and Uranus on the other hand could be "jumpers". Also that other star X should travel on the same plane as our orbital plane because it shapes it. This makes it easier to identify for all of you astronomers out there.

rush wrote:Our orbital plane is not completely flat with a minor variance. This variance is the norm within the binary cycle and if left unchecked would get wider and wider. When Star X will come around next time it will reset all orbits back to flat and the cycle will repeat itself.

You do understand that this is contingent upon direct contradictions of well substantiated astrophysical models right? I'm not discrediting you because of that, it doesn't mean you're wrong. I'm just curious if you're aware that this theory of yours is in direct contradiction to conventional understanding. An object swinging by and "reset"[ing] the planetary orbits is not physically possible by any understanding of physics that we have.

rush wrote:There is no fadeout our solar system ends abruptly.

If by abrupt you mean billions and millions of miles or arguably light years, then yes I suppose you could use that word. Point being it's a bit of semantically battle.

rush wrote:As far as other planetary systems with orbital planes, I don't know of any. Short while ago no one could even locate a single planet let alone multiple planets on an orbital plane. Planets don't emit light only reflect it so we can't see them directly we have to extrapolate their existence through anomalies we see on that star. If you know something different please let me know.

I'm looking for examples, but I was referring to an article I read several months ago that was talking about extrasolar planets and their orbital planes. I'll try and locate it.

rush wrote:And last how can anybody judge that a planetary system is not binary if it takes tens or hundreds of thousands of years to complete those orbits?

Because we can rather accurately quantify the orbits of all the planets within our solar system and our current understanding of gravity corroborates these figures with astounding accuracy. Have you heard about Mercury's advancing of perihelion? Essentially, if the objects in our solar system were under the gravitational influence of a second star, the planets would have characteristics of motion that could not possibly be corroborated our calculations without the inclusion of such a star in these gravitational calculations.

Of course I understand it is not a conventional theory. But its not really contradictory.

What do you think will happen if a planet gets caught between two gravitational fields? Disregard any kind of movement for a second. Just two stationary stars of equal size and a planet between them lets say 45 degrees below them forming an imaginary triangle. The planet would not move toward either star it would move straight up and get firmly locked right in middle of both stars forming a staight line. Like two girls pulling on a jumprope. Now if one star is larger then the other then the planet would move up and closer to the larger star. If you disagree with this let me know why.

Same thing should happen when two stars rotate around each other all object caught in between will be pulled into a straight line. What is so contradictory about this?

Now the last part about other "solar" systems with orbital planes lets clarify. One planet doesn't make up a plane its just one orbit. If you have more then one orbit in the same plane then it is an orbital plane. Thats what I meant.

What is contradictory? For argument sake lets say everything is stationary. Two stars of equal size and a planet gets caught between two gravitational fields at 45 degrees below the stars, forming an imaginary triangle. I say that the planet will move straight up and will get firmly locked between two stars forming a straight line. If you disagree let me know why.

As I just mentioned to someone that perhaps might be dropping in, it never ceases to amaze me how folks will be so forward as to expect their Richard Dawkins-esque "Middle World" brains to be up to the task of emulating so great a calculation. We are inherently confused by how gravity works because it has been has historically been nothing more than, "what makes things go down." And that primitive insight is still wet behind the ears considering how long the universe has existed.

First of all the very premise of your thought experiment is somewhat of a misnomer as I assume you indicated with you preface, "for the sake of argument". Given the understanding of how galaxies and solar systems form, it is not as if 2 stars and a planet simply appear. They literally coalesce from the matter in the area based on this matters' density distribution or perhaps theoretically in correlation with the pretense of dark matter and dark energy or other sources of gravitational influence. Furthermore, binary star systems orbit/revolve around each other, especially two stars of equal mass. This complicates a gravitational interaction far beyond my comprehension. Both of these conditions, i.e. "were they've been" are just as important as "where they are" in an example like this. Even furthermore, the notion of "firmly locked" is rather silly when we're talking about something as relativistic as in position interstellar space.

I honestly don't know what a planet caught in your thought experiment would do. My guess would be that it would bounce above and below the midpoint of a line segment between Star A and Star B until reaching some sort of equilibrium.

Look my friend this is really very simple grade school stuff of which you are not aware.

No matter what the force behind it is, it could be a jump rope for all I care, when one object pulls another object the outcome will inevitably be the shortest possible distance between the two objects. When two objects pull on a third object the outcome will inevitably be that the third object will find the shortest distance between itself and every other object. And so on for as many objects as you want. It so happens that the shortest distance between the two objects is a straight line.

Please clear all mumbo jumbo out of your head and go back to basics.