When will Nibiru get here, according to physics?
When will Nibiru get here, according to physics?
INTRODUCTION BY LUCA SCANTAMBURLO
The following article <<When Will Nibiru Get Here According to Physics?>> – unpublished so far – is written by R.F., an American applied mathematician who lives in USA and is interested in discussing Nibiru’s approach. He contacted me by email a few weeks ago, after reading my articles in English language published on Internet. That’s why he sent me his writings. I know his first name and surname but he kindly asked me to spread his study only with his initials.
R.F was impressed by my <<detective work>> I have done in <<shedding light on the looming threat posed by Nibiru>>. He found my work <<fascinating and extremely useful>>. During our email exchange we discussed the possibility to spread his speculations with the main object of helping the general public to have a better opinion on this subject. Of course there is no garancy on these speculations, above all because we do not know all the astronomical data with enough throughness, and everything is based on clues come out in the course of the search for Planet X carried out by NASA, by U.S Naval Observatory and by other scientific institutions involved in the last century. The same existence of Nibiru beyond Neptune is not sure and accepted by modern Astronomy yet.
One of the most crucial astronomical parameters is – of course – the orbital period of the socalled Planet X, that many of us think is connected to the Nibiru myth. We do not know it with precision yet. There is also the possibility that the orbital period of Nibiru itself is proned to precession. In this case the Nibiru’s period would change at every revolution around our star, the Sun. At the moment our assumption is that the orbital period of Nibiru is roughly 3600 years (this is a Zecharia Sitchin’s interpretation), but we have to bear in mind that perhaps only the U.S. Military, the Russian Forces and the Vatican Secret Service – at their highest levels – could know the exact datum. Maybe even other scientific and military institutions of the world – belonging to other countries – could have classified information on this uncomfortable affair.
Moreover – for simplification reasons – the Author has decided to study a nbody problem with only the Sun and the presumed Nibiru planet as celestial bodies: the Sun as the larger central body, and Nibiru as just a small object (the orbiting body).
The Einstein’s theory of General Relativity and the perturbations coming from the other planets of the Solar System, are not considered here (as the Author himself explaines in his writing). Naturally, besides the orbital period T, there are other very important astronomical parameters (the elements of the orbit) which establish the orbit of a celestial body: T is the orbital period of the orbiting body, M is the mass of the larger central body (the Sun in this case), G is the Newton’s gravitational constant and a is the semimajor axis of the orbital ellipse. Other important elements which shape and define the size of the orbit are – for example – the eccentricity of the orbit e, the inclination i (the angle between the planes of the orbit and ecliptic), the longitude of the ascending node, ect. Of course the determination of the orbit of a planet needs the socalled six orbital elements, and the computation of these elements; everything is based on at least three observations of the celestial body from the Earth (right ascension and declination of the body).
Through this study by R.F, we cannot deduce if Nibiru is arriving or just is leaving the Solar System. Again, let’s assume that Nibiru is arriving, only for simplification. The study also is focused on the Epoch E of Nibiru, that is the time when the planet is at a certain point (usually the perihelion). So, the Author gives us a rough approximation of where it is now and where it could be in the past and where it will be at any future point in its orbit (the periehelion point is the most interesting for us, because it is the closest point to the Sun).
Having said that, I think this study is one of the first and clearest attempts – under the historical and astronomical point of view – able to give some possible answers to Nibiru’s approach and to his political and geophysical implications for our near future.
Luca Scantamburlo
August 19, 2014, www.angelismarriti.it
August 19, 2014, www.angelismarriti.it
Reproduction is allowed on the Web if accompanied by the statement
© L. Scantamburlo – www.angelismarriti.it
Reproduced by permission.
Reproduced by permission.
When Will Nibiru Get Here According to Physics?
by R.F.
Where Was Planet X When?
by R.F.
Where Was Planet X When?
The existence of a large body of some kind most often referred to as ‘Planet X’ that can account for the orbital irregularities of Neptune and Uranus has been the subject of research now for a century. The discovery of Pluto in 1930 occurred while astronomers were looking for this body, but they soon realized that Pluto is much too small to account for the observed deviations. With the changing political realities, there is no longer a fully credible information source regarding what exactly Planet X / Nibiru is, where it is now or where it might be at any future time, most importantly for the near term. Speculation, false assumptions and disinformation are rampant. Curiously, NASA now officially denies that Planet X even exists, although this was certainly not the case up to the mid 1980s. NASA seems to have gone completely silent on the idea in the early 1990s, maybe because Planet X might pose a danger to the earth at some point in its orbit, but the agency did provide a number of interesting details well before that time that can be used to piece together an approximate arrival time using that data together with classical text book orbital physics. Let’s begin with the published data.
One of the earliest articles describing NASA’s search for Planet X appeared in the November 1982 issue of Science Digest, written by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, professor emeritus of astronomy at Northwestern University [1]. The article stated that the orbital anomalies of Neptune and Uranus could be caused by either a planetary object 4 to 7 billion miles away or a much larger object such as a brown dwarf at a distance of about 50 billion miles. Dr. Hynek said that NASA believed that data coming from the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes, launched in 1972 and 1973 respectively, would allow scientists at NASA’s research site in Pasadena, Cal., the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), to determine which of the two it is. He also said that a telescope on board the satellite called IRAS would soon provide additional search capabilities:
?… planetary scientists at NASA’s Ames Research Center plan to use the Infrared Astronomy Satellite (IRAS) planned for launch next month, to try to find a brown dwarf in our solar system or even farther out in space.?
A diagram in the article depicts the solar system with both celestial objects and the two space probes, Pioneer 10 shown as heading nominally in the presumed direction of the two objects and Pioneer 11 heading in the opposite direction.
On January 30, 1983, The New York Times published an article entitled <<Clues Get Warm in the Search for Planet X>>, by John Noble Wilford [2], wherein John Anderson, at the time a senior research scientist at JPL with a long background of leading roles in the Mariner, Pioneer, and Galileo missions, is quoted as having said:
On January 30, 1983, The New York Times published an article entitled <<Clues Get Warm in the Search for Planet X>>, by John Noble Wilford [2], wherein John Anderson, at the time a senior research scientist at JPL with a long background of leading roles in the Mariner, Pioneer, and Galileo missions, is quoted as having said:
?Moreover, a brown dwarf in the neighborhood might not reflect enough light to be seen far away, said Dr. John Anderson ….?
But most significant are the words later on in the article:
?Its gravitational forces, however, should produce energy detectable by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite … Dr. Anderson said he was ‘quite optimistic’ that the infrared telescope might find it and that the Pioneer spacecraft could supply an estimate of the object’s mass?.
In fact that was exactly what NASA had in mind. The first official indication from NASA that a large distant celestial body well beyond the orbit of Pluto might actually be confirmed appeared in the Washington Post late the same year in December 1983, based on observations in January of that year by the IRAS satellite [3]. The article begins
?A heavenly body possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter and possibly so close to Earth that it would be part of this solar system has been found in the direction of the constellation Orion by an orbiting telescope aboard the U.S. Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS)…. The mystery body was seen twice by the infrared satellite as it scanned the northern sky from last January to November, when the satellite ran out of the supercold helium that allowed its telescope to see the coldest bodies in the heavens. The second observation took place six months after the first and suggested the mystery body had not moved from its spot in the sky near the western edge of the constellation Orion in that time.?
Further on the article states:
?The most fascinating explanation of this mystery body, which is so cold it casts no light and has never been seen by optical telescopes on Earth or in space, and that it is a giant gaseous planet as large as Jupiter and as close to Earth as 50 trillion miles.?
This number was corrected by the Post the following day to ?50 billion miles?, which is about 538 AU. The object was later declared to be a red dwarf and given the name M6V11825 (minoris), and yet shortly afterward it was mysteriously deleted from the official astronomical record without explanation.
In late 1986 the latest edition of the New Illustrated Science and Invention Encyclopedia for ’87 ? ’89 came out with a discussion about the NASA Pioneer probes that also contained information about Planet X [4]. On page 2488 a pictorial diagram shows the distance of the ?dead star?, that may form the binary companion of our own Sun and indicated on the diagram as being 50 billion miles from the earth, presumably the object observed twice by IRAS in 1983. In fact this diagram appears to be the very same one that appeared in the Science Digest article written by Dr. Hynek in 1982 with one small change. Text beside the object labeled as ‘Tenth Planet’ indicates a distance of 4.7 billion miles from earth, which may have been an inadvertent distortion of the likely source diagram, which showed a ?possible? tenth planet as being 4 ? 7 billion miles from earth. No information regarding who made the estimates, how or in what time frame is provided in the text or caption, but the source is obviously NASA’s disclosures from 1982 and possibly 1983 as well. Although the diagram clearly shows two objects, one at 50 billion miles distance and another mentioned explicitly and referred to as ‘Planet X’ at 4.7 billion miles away, this may have been no more than a repeat of the original diagram’s implied conjecture from the Science Digest article of two candidate possibilities for the perturbing object.
In June 1988, journalist John Wilford published another article in the New York Times about the Pioneer missions, which discussed the search for Planet X specifically [5]. This article revealed additional information regarding NASA’s plans to use both Pioneer missions to detect the presence of Planet X. JPL’s John Andersen again served as the spokesman for that search and said that the two craft were equipped to detect any gravitational anomalies that might be caused by Planet X, but that so far none had been detected. Andersen said that Pioneer 10 was about 45 AU away from the Sun at the time, mid year 1988, traveling at about 28,400 mi/hr or 12.6 km/sec, and in the article’s words:
?Over the last five years, scientists have also followed Pioneer’s extended mission for evidence of a 10th planet and for gravity waves such as those theorized by Einstein. The spacecraft is making the search in conjunction with its twin, Pioneer 11, which is journeying in another direction toward the edge of the solar system.?
In the late 80s NASA published the first results of a massive study effort led by senior scientist Dr. Robert Harrington, supervisory astronomer for the Naval Observatory at the time and since deceased, who dedicated a substantial portion of his last years pursuing the whereabouts of Planet X. The paper was titled <<The Location of Planet X>>, published in 1988 [6]. In that study Harrington claimed to believe in the existence of a Planet X having 3 to 7 earth masses that could account for the orbital perturbations of Neptune and Uranus, but it was clear he didn’t believe its orbit or location had been pinned down at that time, nor did he mention anything about a much larger object such as a brown dwarf being the possible cause. The main results of Harrington’s massive computer simulation involving over 170,000 computer runs was that based on the overall results a good working model for the planet was determined to be one in a highly elliptical orbit at an angle of some 30 degrees from the ecliptic with a long period of over 1000 years (implying an orbital major axis of at least 296 AU), and that the major portion of the orbit was in the southern skies in the constellation Libra. He died in 1993, having been committed to the search right up to the very end.
But if Planet X or a brown dwarf had been observed in 1983 as stated in the Washington Post article, then why was Harrington spending so much effort trying to determine its location and orbit? One problem was that IRAS had only made two observations of an ‘object’ separated in time, which is plenty for estimating its distance away using spectroscopy and red shift analysis, but not enough to determine its orbit. For that at least three observations are needed. That object was most likely not the illusive Planet X anyway, if its distance was actually 50 billion miles. Simply put, whatever it was that they had observed in 1983, whether Planet X and/or a brown dwarf, they still didn’t know where it was going then, and later indications were that there may well be a Planet X much closer and apparently a different object altogether than the one described in the Post article of 1983.
On September 28 1999 the BBC news Online posted an article about NASA’s Pioneer probe titled <<Old Spacecraft Makes Surprise Discovery>> by Dr. David Whitehouse [7]. This story described news about Pioneer 10, launched by NASA in 1972 towards Jupiter and beyond the solar system, and its apparent encounter in deep space with an object well beyond the orbit of Neptune, which the article stated had occurred in December 1992. The article cited researchers involved in the discovery as scientists from JPL / NASA and an Italian scientist named Dr. Giacomo Giampieri, from Westfield College in London. Dr. Giampieri said to the press:
?We are quite excited that we have found one of these events. It is a very neat signal!?.
A short passage from that article states the following:
?On 8 December, 1992, when Pioneer was 8.4 billion km (5.2 billion miles) away, they saw that it had been deflected from its course for about 25 days. The scientists have been looking for such an effect for years and are currently analyzing the data using several different methods to confirm their findings.?
The probe’s distance away then corresponded to 56 AU, which implies that since Pioneer 10 had detected nothing prior to that point, and that whatever was causing the anomaly at the time was apparently further away yet. This implies that if the cause had been Planet X then distance of Pioneer 10 at that time can be used as a lower bound for the planet’s distance away at later times as well.
Earlier in 1992, before Harrington passed away, NASA had made a related press release, that almost certainly originated with Harrington, that stated the following:
?Unexplained deviations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune point to a large outer solar system body of 4 to 8 Earth masses on a highly tilted orbit, beyond 7 billion miles from the Sun.? [8]
This is probably the most explicit statement about Planet X’s distance from the Sun NASA ever made publicly.
So there we have it: the science community believed they knew approximately how distant Planet X was at least at two points in time: 5.2 or as much as 7+ billion miles away in 1992 according to NASA statements and presuming the number is credible, 4.7 billion miles away in 1987 that according to a US/ British science encyclopedia with an unidentified source, which was most likely NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab. This number may actually derive from 1983 IRAS satellite imagery, which it almost had to be since there really was no other similar observations reported in that time frame, or it may have been a simple error in adapting the diagram published in a ?Science Digest? article from 1982. If the data did actually come from IRAS, the closer numbers as being of greater concern, the first number at 5.2 billion is clearly 56 AU and the 4.7 billion miles seems to correspond to 50.5 AU, although the Italian journalist Luca Scantamburlo has noted that the 4.7 billion miles might actually have been referring to nautical miles instead of statute miles, since Pioneer 10 was being perturbed by ‘something’ further out at 56 AU as reported in late 1992. With that change in units the 4.7 billion miles corresponds to 58 AU.
Interestingly, if Planet X was coming towards us from a distance of 58 AU in 1983 with a period of 1000 years or more, its orbital velocity at that point would be in the range of 5 km/sec, which means the planet would be about 9.8 AU closer to us after elapse of the nine year interval from 1983 to 1992, which equates to about a distance of 50.4 AU in 1990 and 48.2 AU in 1992. This is roughly equivalent to the 56 AU distance away of Pioneer 10 when the anomaly with its motion was announced by NASA in 1992, although in the wrong direction. Pioneer had just encountered its disturbance in late 1992, which means if that was the cause, then Planet X should have been even further away at that time, and in fact NASA’s press release from 1992 stated that the planet was quite a bit further out then ? in fact more than 7 billion miles away from the Sun in total, which corresponds to 75.3 AU. This would imply that the Pioneer anomaly was experienced when Pioneer was some 19 AU from Planet X, quite a distance and a bit difficult to accept, but on the other hand the gravitational deviation experienced was also extremely small. The net of this is that the distance of Pioneer 10 disturbance is more credible than the encyclopedia’s curious chart from 1986.
Given all this it seems reasonable that Planet X was most likely at least 50 AU away from the Sun in 1990 and possibly much farther away. This is my ‘lower bound case’ but any number of other possibilities can easily be evaluated as well using the following approach from celestial mechanics.
Orbital Dynamics
If we know how far away Planet X was from the Sun at some known point in time in the past, even approximately, we can use Kepler’s Laws to provide a rough approximation of where it is now and at any future point in its orbit. Interestingly, we don’t even have to know the mass or speed of the planet to do the calculations. Orbits follow very strict rules. The analysis doesn’t take into account the motions of the other planets or other perturbing influences, and so the predictions are therefore only approximate, but it does give an idea of expected transit times over long time intervals. The general solution to this twobody problem is provided in the standard text Fundamentals of Astrodynamics by Bate, Mueller and White [9], which I have adapted for this study (see also [10]). The following is their approach together with several specific arrival scenarios based on NASA’s data and other sources, some of which most likely also originates with NASA. A detailed sample problem has been worked out so that anyone who wants can generate any other desired cases of interest using only a hand calculator, which is what I used. For those wishing to skip the math and get to the bottom line, tables of results and a discussion section at the end provides a brief summary.
From Kepler’s third law, we know that the period T of an elliptical orbit of a small object around a much larger one satisfies the relationship:
T2 = GM 4 p2 a3 where
T is the orbital period of the orbiting body,
M is the mass of the larger, central body,
G is the Newton’s gravitational constant and,
a is the semimajor axis of the orbital ellipse.
If a is expressed in astronomical units (AU’s) and T is in years, then the constants can be suppressed and we have simply T2 = a3. For an orbital period of T = 3600 years, as Nibiru is supposed to have, the semi major axis is therefore
a = ( 36002 )1/3 = 234.892 AU or about 235 AU, where 1 AU = 149,600,000 km.
For any elliptical orbit, the instantaneous velocity of a small orbiting object at a distance r from the larger body obeys the following relationship, formally known as the ?vis viva? equation:
vs 2 = GM ( 2 / r ? 1 / a )
(not needed for the travel time calculations but useful anyway)
where:
vs is the orbital speed of the smaller body measured along the elliptical arc
r is the distance between the two bodies
a is the length of the semimajor axis of the orbital ellipse
G is the gravitational constant and
M is the mass of the central body, in our case the Sun.
If a and r are measured in AU’s and M is the mass of the Sun, then two useful forms for vs become the following:
vs = 29.80 ( 2 / r ? 1 / a )½ measures vs in km/sec, and
= 6.28 ( 2 / r ? 1 / a )½ measures vs in AU /yr.
The main goal of the following is to come up with a simple way to calculate how much time it takes for a planet to approach various points near the Sun from great distances away for orbits of our own picking. Here is how that occurs using Kepler’s second law.
The general equation for an ellipse is (x / a)2 + (y / b) 2 = 1, where a and b are the semimajor and semiminor axes respectively (see the figure below), and x and y are the horizontal and vertical distances from the ellipse’s center to an arbitrary point on the ellipse. From this equation we also have the following (see figure on the next page):
y = b (1 ? (x / a ) 2 ) ½ assuming x and y are both positive, which they always are for cases here
r = ( (e a ? x) 2 + y 2 ) ½ instantaneous distance between the two bodies, with e the orbit’s eccentricity
P = (1 ? e) a perihelion, the distance of closest approach to the Sun.
e = ( 1 ? (b / a ) 2 ) ½ the eccentricity of the orbital ellipse, or equivalently
= 1 ? P / a the form used in the calculations below
If wo and wf are the distances away from the Sun to the planet measured along the orbit’s major axis, the primary inputs of interest to the calculations then are the starting distance away from the Sun and the final distance away. In both cases the distance is measured along the main (x) axis of the orbital ellipse. The formulation below always calculates the time to travel from the input distance away to perihelion, therefore to calculate the time to travel between two arbitrary points on the orbit, the time interval is simply the difference between the two times to arrive at perihelion.
wo = a ? P ? xo = e a ? xo presuming the time of interest is from this initial point to perihelion
wf = a ? P ? xf = e a ? xf presuming the time of interest is from this point to perihelion. The time to travel from wo to wf is then the difference between the above two times.
Study of the Planet X Orbit – by R.F., 2014
With this setup, the calculations proceed as follows:
n = 2p / T the average angular velocity of the planet during one orbit,
sin E = y / b = (1 ? (x/ a ) 2) ½ the angle E is called the ‘eccentric anomaly’ (measured in radians)
= (1 ? ( (e a ? w)/ a ) 2) ½ the form used in the calculations below, where x = e a ? w.
Accordingly, we have the simple equation for the elapsed time from w to perihelion:
t = (E ? e sin E ) / n time for the planet to go from wo to perihelion or vice versa, or equivalently
= (E ? e sin E ) T / 2p, the form used in the calculations. Note that E has to be in radians.
Note that to calculate the time for the planet to travel from any point on the orbit to any other, the above equations are used to calculate the two individual times to perihelion and then the desired time interval is simply the difference between the two times. The calculations given below assume that only two bodies are involved, the Sun and Planet X, and that no perturbing effects on Planet X’s orbit are caused by the other planets, an unrealistic but necessary assumption given the nature of the study.
Example: To make all this completely clear, let’s work out an example step by step to calculate the time it takes to go from 50 AU from the Sun to an assumed perihelion at 3.2 AU in the asteroid belt’s orbit. Accordingly, let
T = 3600 years P = 3.2 AU w = 50 AU (starting distance of Planet X from the Sun).
And so we can compute the transit time of interest as follows:
a = ( 36002 )1/3 = 234.892 AU or about 235 AU
e = 1 ? P / a = 1 ? 3.2 / 235 = .9864
sin E = (1 ? ( (e a ? w)/ a ) 2) ½ = (1 ? ( (.9864 x 235 ? 50)/ 235 ) 2) ½ = .63363
E = arcsin ( sin E ) = .68623 radians (recall that this number has to be in radians)
t = (E ? e sin E ) T / 2 p = ( .68623 ? .9864 x .63363 ) x 3600 yrs / (2 x 3.14159 ) = 35.07 yrs
A number of cases for Planet X approaching the Sun with different starting and ending distances from the Sun are provided below. Most of the cases presume a 3600 year period, but a few have a period of 1020 years, which is close to Harrington’s model case from 1988 although with a more elliptical orbit assumed. Note that ‘tx’ in column five is the elapsed time for the planet to travel from wo to wf. Where both of these quantities as mentioned are measured along the main elliptical axis.
wo

P

wf

a

tx

T

Vs(wo)

e

Comments

50 AU

3.2 AU

3.2 AU

235 AU

35.07 yrs

3600 yrs

5.63 km/sec

0.9864

Pluto’s orbit to perihelion at asteroid belt orbit

50 AU

3.2 AU

5.0 AU

235 AU

31.25 yrs

3600 yrs

5.63 km/sec

0.9864

Pluto’s orbit to Jupiter’s orbit along the way

50 AU

3.2 AU

9.0 AU

235 AU

29.37 yrs

3600 yrs

5.63 km/sec

0.9864

Pluto’s orbit to Saturn’s orbit along the way

50 AU

3.2 AU

15.0 AU

235 AU

26.17 yrs

3600 yrs

5.63 km/sec

0.9864

Pluto’s orbit 6 AU before Saturn along the way

50 AU

5.0 AU

5.0 AU

235 AU

39.75 yrs

3600 yrs

5.63 km/sec

0.9787

Pluto’s orbit to perihelion at Jupiter’s orbit

50 AU

3.2 AU

3.2 AU

101 AU

36.49 yrs

1020 yrs

5.17 km/sec

0.9683

Pluto’s orbit to perihelion at asteroid belt orbit

50 AU

3.2 AU

5.0 AU

101 AU

32.66 yrs

1020 yrs

5.17 km/sec

0.9683

Pluto’s orbit to Jupiter’s orbit along the way

56 AU

3.2 AU

3.2 AU

235 AU

40.71 yrs

3600 yrs

5.28 km/sec

0.9864

Point of Pioneer anomaly to perihelion

56 AU

3.2 AU

5.0 AU

235 AU

36.90 yrs

3600 yrs

5.28 km/sec

0.9864

Point of Pioneer anomaly to Jupiter along the way

56 AU

3.2 AU

9.0 AU

235 AU

35.02 yrs

3600 yrs

5.28 km/sec

0.9864

Point of Pioneer anomaly to Saturn along the way

56 AU

3.2 AU

15.0 AU

235 AU

31.82 yrs

3600 yrs

5.28 km/sec

0.9864

Pluto’s orbit 6 AU before Saturn along the way

56 AU

3.2 AU

30.0 AU

235 AU

22.06 yrs

3600 yrs

5.28 km/sec

0.9864

Point of Pioneer anomaly to Neptune along the way

75 AU

3.2 AU

3.2 AU

235 AU

60.48yrs

3600 yrs

4.46 km/sec

0.9864

7 billion miles away to perihelion

75 AU

3.2 AU

5.0 AU

235 AU

56.67 yrs

3600 yrs

4.46 km/sec

0.9864

7 billion miles away to Jupiter along the way

The above cases may seem somewhat random but there are a couple of key trends that they show in addition to the specific transition times. Long period orbits with small perihelia have very common characteristics. Notice that it takes about 31 years for an orbiting object to go from the outermost range of Pluto’s orbit at 50 AU to Jupiter’s orbit at 5 AU and only a year more if we reduce the period by a factor of three. This is largely due to the fact that the orbital velocity of the planet 50 AU away from the Sun varies hardly changes at all when we change the other orbital parameters as can be seen in column 7.
Discussion
To know approximately where Nibiru will be soon (2015) and at specific future times we used the same equations essentially in reverse. The following table examines three possible cases that all derive from the data. These cases all assume the same basic model orbit of P = 3.2 AU, a = 235 AU, and T = 3600 years. These are the current ‘best’ assumptions, but as data becomes available other orbits can be easily examined. The basic difference between the scenarios examined here is where the planet is assumed to have been at some particular point in the past based on the information sources described above. In the first case we assumed Planet X was just beyond Pluto’s orbit at 50 AU in 1990, basically because astronomer Harrington hadn’t pinned down its location by then by his own admission and surely he would have found it if it had been several times bigger than the earth and inside Pluto’s orbit [11]. This is not a likely scenario but it pretty well sets a near term bound in time for the planet’s arrival, assuming of course the assumptions are valid. Also, in 1988 Pioneer 10 at 45 AU in the southern skies had detected no presence of a large gravitating object in its long journey, so with virtual certainty we can say it was further out than 45 AU in 1988.
To know approximately where Nibiru will be soon (2015) and at specific future times we used the same equations essentially in reverse. The following table examines three possible cases that all derive from the data. These cases all assume the same basic model orbit of P = 3.2 AU, a = 235 AU, and T = 3600 years. These are the current ‘best’ assumptions, but as data becomes available other orbits can be easily examined. The basic difference between the scenarios examined here is where the planet is assumed to have been at some particular point in the past based on the information sources described above. In the first case we assumed Planet X was just beyond Pluto’s orbit at 50 AU in 1990, basically because astronomer Harrington hadn’t pinned down its location by then by his own admission and surely he would have found it if it had been several times bigger than the earth and inside Pluto’s orbit [11]. This is not a likely scenario but it pretty well sets a near term bound in time for the planet’s arrival, assuming of course the assumptions are valid. Also, in 1988 Pioneer 10 at 45 AU in the southern skies had detected no presence of a large gravitating object in its long journey, so with virtual certainty we can say it was further out than 45 AU in 1988.
In the second case we assumed Planet X was at 56 AU in 1992, corresponding to approximately where the Pioneer 10 probe was when it first began to experience its gravitational anomaly. The planet was almost certainly further out, but again this case sets a near term bound which is based on a specific NASA announcement.
The last case is based on NASA’s press release of 1992 stating that indications at the time were pointing to an object ?beyond 7 billion miles from the Sun?, which is about 75 AU. Pioneer would have been about 19 AU away from it and so the gravitational tug would have been extremely small, and according to NASA it was.
The numbers associated with each year listed is the distance away Planet X is from the Sun at that point in time. The distance away from the Sun at to measured along the elliptical major axis is given in the column labeled wo.
to

wo

2015

2020

2025

2030

Vs(wo)

Comments

1990

50 AU

17.2 AU

7.7 AU

3.2 AU

7.7 AU

1.18 AU/yr

? Gets to Jupiter in 2021, perihelion in 2025 then turns back
? Would already be passed both Neptune and Uranus by 2015

1992

56 AU

28.5 AU

20.9 AU

12.8 AU

4.8 AU

1.11 AU/yr

? Gets to Jupiter in 2029 and perihelion in 2032
? Would be very near the orbit of Neptune in 2015

1992

75 AU

51.5 AU

45.9 AU

40.1 AU

34.2AU

0.94 AU/yr

? Gets to Jupiter in 2048 and perihelion in 2052
? Would still be beyond the orbit of Pluto in 2015

In this picture – taken by L. Scantamburlo in his study – you may see on the desk some prints and photographic prints of a couple of images sent to Luca Scantamburlo in the year 2006 by an European insider who wanted remaining anonymous.
These images had already been printed before, in the years 1999 and 2000, on the Italian magazines Dossier Alieni (1999) and Hera (2000). It was a leak of information coming from another insider, still anonymous so far.
According to Luca Scantamburlo’s source, they would portray an unknown planet, probably the Tenth Planet (Nibiru?), photographed by the space probe Pioneer 10
during a flyby in the context of a hushhush extended mission,
carried out after the official NASA mission.
Photos and caption by Luca Scantamburlo © Photo 2013
Presuming that NASA’s assessments from the early 90s that Planet X was further away, maybe considerably so, than 50 AU from the Sun in 1992 were accurate as stated at the time, then we should be able to use 50 AU from the Sun in 1990, two years prior to 1992, as a presumed ‘lower bound’ for the desired estimation. Under that assumption we only need two other parameters to do the estimation: the period of the Planet X orbit, which we take as 3600 yrs, and the closest point of approach to the Sun, the perihelion, which we assume to be near the asteroid belt at 3.2 AU, but both parameters can be readily changed to consider other possibilities. Using the above set of assumptions and calculations, we see that for Planet X to reach Jupiter starting at 50 AU from the sun requires almost 30 years as indicated in the above table, the time that major havoc in the solar system would likely begin, which corresponds to about 2020 at the earliest, presuming that NASA’s distance estimates applied to 1990 at the very earliest (later observation dates only move Nibiru’s arrival at Jupiter’s orbit out later in time). Perihelion at 3.2 AU is then reached three years later in 2023. Notice that the time to get to perihelion and to pass Jupiter is very insensitive to the length of the orbit as long as it’s fairly large. And even if we shorten perihelion to 2 AU, the time to reach Jupiter is only reduced about a year.
If Planet X was at least 56 AU from the Sun in 1992 as evidence seems to indicate because this is the point where Pioneer 10 began experiencing its course deviation anomaly, then the planet would arrive at Jupiter no sooner than about 35.5 years later in the year 2027. Notice that this is also somewhat on the soonerthanexpected side since Pioneer had experienced no gravitational tugs on the way out which indicates that Planet X was still farther away at the time.
The point of all this is that catastrophic events may be several years further out than many suspect, so the fact that nothing cataclysmic happens for a while shouldn’t be too surprising but it certainly doesn’t mean that catastrophe is not already well on its way.
One other possibly useful piece of data was provided by researcher/ writer Marshall Masters, who has long studied and written about Planet X. In a video from 2013 entitled<<Planet X 101 Series, part 1 ? Who, What, When, Where, Why and How>> [12], Masters claimed to have been given some bootlegged data and photos from an anonymous source with web name Nibirushock2012, who had gotten it from an insider at the South Pole Telescope observatory in Antarctica. Using this information Masters makes the assertion that in March 2008 Nibiru was ?in the Kuiper belt well beyond the orbit of Pluto?.
Even if we assume that Nibiru was right at the boundary of Pluto’s outer orbit at 50 AU at that time, then knowing that to get to Jupiter from 50 AU away is a 30 year journey implies that Nibiru will arrive at Jupiter in 2038 at the earliest, assuming Marshall’s evidence is valid. This is later than the above case 2 estimate by almost a decade but well before the case 3 estimate. An interesting connection with Masters’ data is that NASA’s announcement in 1992 that Planet X at that time was greater than 7 billion miles away then, 75 AU. At normal orbital speeds this would equate to about 59 AU away in 2008, the date corresponding to Masters’ pirated data, which was certainly well beyond the orbit of Pluto. The arrival of Nibiru at Jupiter where Earth’s problems begin in dire earnest using all the available evidence I’m aware of therefore seems to be logically estimated at between 2029 and 2048 based on this analysis.
As an interesting side note, the wellknown psychic Silvia Browne gives rough time frames to the calamities she predicts are coming, which are largely consistent with some of the above estimates. She states in her book from 2008 ?End of the World? that she ‘sees’ the earth’s atmosphere and geophysical conditions beginning to degrade in 2018 and to worsen considerably in the 2020s with monsoon rains on the eastern seaboard of North and South America and widespread tidal waves in the 2025 to 2030 time frame. She also predicts that a pole shift will come about, although she never mentions Planet X or any other cosmological source for these events [13].