12/18/02 12:00:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
Kent, I am going through the abstracts and trying to find the original publicated articles. I am going to provide you with some snippets from some of them that point to some conclusion of Planet x.. Anything I find interesting I am going to forward you. Please pick and choose what you want. This information my be a bit fragmented as I am pasting stuff as I find it.
This abstract was published in1996.
While the ephemerides of Uranus and Neptune seem to have no unexplained problems, the ephemeris of Pluto does have problems. The observations span only a small portion of the planet's full period and they are prone to systematic zone errors in the catalogues. Furthermore, there is a large bias which can not be removed from the residuals by a mere orbit adjustment; its cause is presently unknown though it probably is the result of inhomogeneous data reductions. Such problems become especially important for navigational concerns with the Pluto Fast Flyby Mission.
There is now known to be a mass concentration of significant size in the outer solar system - 1992 QB1. In comparison to any of the major planets, though, this object is miniscule. For the meridian circle observations, there is still no evidence which requires or even indicates the existence of any planet-sized object; there remains no need to hypothesize the existence of a tenth planet in the solar system. I thought this one^^ was interesting as he states there is a concentration of mass of significant size but then disqualifies it as a possible Planet X.
This is an article dated 4/92 telling where PlanetX might be found.
abstract dated 10/91 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1991plas.rept...53H&db_key=AST&high=3dfb8d08cc19696
The observation of the region of the sky in which it is believed Planet X should now be, based on perturbations observed in the motions of Uranus and Neptune, was determined, and there was no reason to update that determination. A limited area of that region was photographed, and that will be continued. A given area is photographed with the twin 20 cm astrograph in New Zealand on two successive nights near the time that area is in opposition, and these plates are blinked in Washington to identify anything that has moved. The predicted region is in the south, which requires observations from a southern station, and it is in opposition in the April to June period, which means observations have not yet started for the year. Blinking will be done as soon as the plates are received in Washington.
Notice the bold area. He is saying there is no need to change previous determined location.
What I found interesting about this one is that the magazine it was originally printed in no longer has this article in its archives.
This article exists here http://skyandtelescope.com/ but you have to pay for it. It is from this abstract. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1991S%26T....81..360T&db_key=AST&high=3dfb8d08cc19696
This article exists here http://skyandtelescope.com/ but you have to pay for it. It is from this abstract. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1989S%26T....78..596L&db_key=AST&high=3dfb8d08cc19696
The present consideration of the systematic residuals which emerge when Uranus and Neptune observations are compared to their theories will proceed from the supposition that these discrepancies are due to an unknown 'planet X'. An effort is accordingly made to ascertain the ideal region, rather than a specific position or positions, in which the existence of such a planet will account for the systematic residuals. The problematic relationship of the probable albedo of a planet X to the mass it must possess, in view of the present calculations, is assessed.
It is proposed that the systematic residuals in the positions of Uranus and Neptune may be due to an unknown planet: Planet X. Using the weighted-least-squares method, the orbit and mass of Planet X were computed from the residuals of Uranus. It is concluded that, if it exists, Planet X will be the tenth planet. However, it may not be the tenth from the sun since the computed semimajor axis is a little less than Pluto's. Planet X's perihelion, like Pluto's, is inside the orbit of Neptune
This one gives a hint of how large it is. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1988MNRAS.235..593J&db_key=AST&high=3dfb8d08cc19696
Four test orbits of a trans-Plutonian planet have been integrated forward for four million years in order to determine the effects of such a body on the stability of the Neptune-Pluto 3:2 resonance. Planets beyond Pluto with masses of 0.1 M and 1.0 Earth masses in orbits at 48.3 and 75.5 AU, respectively, do not disturb the 3:2 resonance. Test planets of 5 Earth masses with semimajor axes of 52.5 and 62.5 AU disrupt the four million year libration of Pluto's argument of perihelion.
Observed positions of Uranus and Neptune along with residuals in right ascension and declination are used to constrain the location of a postulated tenth planet. The residuals are converted into residuals in ecliptic longitude and latitude. The results are then combined into seasonal normal points, producing average geocentric residuals spaced slightly more than a year apart that are assumed to represent the equivalent heliocentric average residuals for the observed oppositions. Such a planet is found to most likely reside in the region of Scorpius, with considerably less likelihood that it is in Taurus. Full article located here: http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988AJ.....96.1476H
An extensive analysis of the planet X model is presented. Unlike prior analyses, it takes into account the fact that only those comets scattered directly into the zones of influence (ZOI) of Saturn and Jupiter can contribute to a shower whose duration is in agreement with observation. It is predicted that some of the comets scattered directly into ZOI of Uranus and Neptune wiwll evolve on time scales of about 100 million years into the steady state flux of short-period comets. The absolute numbers of shower and steady state comets were found to be comparable with the known terrestrial cratering rate, assuming the existence of long-lived extinct comet cores. Canonical planet X model parameters are given, and it is suggested that planet X, in its present orbit, can create the requisite density gradient of comets near perihelion and aphelion during the lifetime of the solar system. It is concluded that the existence of planet X and the comet disk can explain the origin of the steady state flux of short-period comets over a wide range of parameters.
The dynamical evidence for a planet beyond the orbit of Neptune is reviewed. Three years of radio tracking data from Pioneer 10 can be fit to the noise level with no evidence for unmodelled acceleration at a level higher than 5 x 10 to the -14th km/sq s. The evidence does not place severe limits on the Planet X model, but does place a firm limit of five earth masses on a hypothetical comet belt just beyond the orbit of Neptune
The discovery that Pluto's mass is insufficient to explain the discrepancies in the motions of the outer planets has led to the prediction of a tenth planet (planet X) of mass about 1-5 earth masses beyond the orbit of Pluto. Further, the existence of a belt or disk of comets beyond the orbit of Neptune has been proposed in connection with some theories of the origin of the Solar System as a possible source of short-period comets and indirectly as a source of long-period comets. Here it is pointed out that the existence of both planet X and the comet disk at their expected distances may explain not only the observed planetary motions and the origin of comets, but also the recently reported 28-Myr periodicity in terrestrial cratering and in mass extinctions. The cratering period is associated with the precession of the perihelion of planet X caused by the perturbations of the outer planets.
Date: 12/18/02 4:21:43 PM Pacific Standard Time
In case you didn't catch this I want to point this out.
Harrington believed that Planet X (comet cluster) was coming in from the opposite direction than what the ZetaTalk ppl say. It is in his papers.
No accusing anyone here, but my own thoughts on this. It is very likely Planet X isn't coming in May but at a late date(?). Meanwhile the disinformation ppl put out the idea of the may passing. Then of course when it doesn't show, the whole thing is chalked up to BS. Everybody stops looking. Meanwhile, its still on it's way.
I've scoured the net looking for anything I can find on this and many other topics. One source claimed that planet X(comet cluster) would come in 2008. Then 4 yrs later pass back by again in 2012. Of course , 2012 is the time of the Galactic convergence, when we are back to point Zero. At that time we will pass from the negative side of the galactic plane to the positive side. Since the universe is one big electrical entity, heaven knows what will happen when we cross over. Lots of theories out there.
Meanwhile, the passing of Planet X will cause alot of things to happen that are predicted in many places, including revelations, Sumerian texts, egyptian glyphs, Torah, verdic, plus lots more I'm sure.
I got something interesting on Crop circles I want to send you too from Linda Howe. Listen here : http://www.unknowncountry.com/media/?cur=109 her article here:
http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=443&category=Environment refer to her article as you listen to clip.