While astrophysicists Brown and Batygin from Cal-Tech and youthful colleagues have been releasing confessions of the existence of a contender for the title of Planet X ("Planet Nine" in their post-Planet Pluto view of the solar system) in dribbles via peer-reviewed journals and the MSM, their admissions may be beginning to align themselves a bit more with the current understanding of the Px truth-seeking community (which some would admit has not reached consensus, but rather an increasingly more open dialogue in which our state-of-knowledge is becoming pieced together somewhat coherently).
We've seen the evolution of Cal-Tech's testimony over the past few years, as summarized here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG58idb6HuANew Horizons (satellite) is heading in the wrong direction. Cassini is the only game in town.
~Konstatin Batygin, Cal-Tech astrophysicist
First, we were told that the existence of "Planet 9" (Px?) was only "suspected" or inferred.
Then the media focused upon only either the estimated aphelion or mean (not the same thing) distance of the object, leaving the public to assume that it was constantly at a great distance from us simply by the omission of the fact that it eventually arrives at perihelion. Most recently, Batygin and Brown have hypothesized a perihelion of 300 AU and an aphelion of 600, but this does not specify whether it may be orbiting a second sun, nor whether other outlying objects orbiting "Planet Nine" may come even closer in astronomical units. For comparison, Jupiter is around 5 AU from the sun. However, such units of distance do not measure the electromagnetic interference with planets in our solar system, nor with the sun itself, and that may be the figure of greater consequence to us.
Then the elliptical orbit and >10,000 year orbital period were deduced and the eccentricity or angle to the solar plane refined from greater to less eccentric (less perpendicular than first assumed), although this updated diagram depicts other unlabeled objects as sharing or having their own separate eccentric orbits. What are they?
Not everyone in the Px truth-seeking community is satisfied with this diagram's depicted estimation of Brown and Batygin's contender for Px as being 5xEarth (mass, not size), but if we bear in mind the degree of confusion that exists in the dialogue throughout our greater community conflating Nibiru and Nemesis, then Brown and Batygin's hypothesis might fit in.The tilting of all of the major bodies in the solar system, coupled with the 6
o tilt of the sun itself and the heating of the large outer planets, are further evidence of Planet Nine / Px's approach, they admit. Not to mention that the orbits themselves have also been affected, or the recent corralling of all the bodies in our system on one side of the sun as if by force rather than happenstance.
However, in their estimate of the size of Planet Nine / Px as being only several times the mass (not size) of earth, they may be neglecting to acknowledge a potentially even more massive second (possibly dying) sun around which the "9th planet" primarily orbits, as that sun (Nemesis, the black [hole] star, brown dwarf,...) and Sol do their stellar dance with one another.
And that may not be a cover-up; it may simply be that the star, as opposed to its orbiting objects, is not easily visible as deduced by Croft. Batygin and Brown hope it will be clearly filmed within the next few years. Meanwhile, are the objects already being caught by webcams and others actually Px or at least outlying members of that system and its captive bodies?
And are these admissions of the mainstream astronomical community complete, or just a ploy to persuade the public that what has already arrived in full view is not the same as the prophesied and anticipated object(s)? Is it all part of the same entourage?
Peer-reviewed papers showing the evolution of Batygin and Brown's hypothesis of Planet 9:
January, 2016:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22January, 2019:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037015731930047XReferred by:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxT0qoeFGlE
At some point, Px must be given an astronomical catalogue number, as done for other so-called "comet-planets" that may be contenders for the name of Px, given that the objects behave as both a comet and a planet - that is, when they behave predictably at all according to known celestial mechanics. While Kostelac refers to the main planet and sun of the Px system by Catalina catalog numbers, Batygin and Brown regard the object or system separately and use the nomenclature in this image depicting the revised estimate of its eccentricity / angle in relation to our solar system's orbital plane:https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-worlds-extraordinary-orbit-points-to-planet-nine-20180515/
