In Utah, birds have the right of way on a highway.
Other Amount:

Nibiru Estimated Arrival Date According to Physics? [In-depth]

Editor’s comment: It should be noted this was written before the whole Planet 9 announcement in January 2016 so NASA was well in full denial mode at that point. This is a long and in-depth read but highly recommended. As a matter of fact it may have to be read a few times to grasp some of the detailed science provided but not to worry it will be here for perusal at your convenience, and is well worth it in my humble opinion. Get comfy and dive into this one.

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 <>, 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:


But most significant are the words later on in the article:


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


Further on the article states:


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:


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 <>, 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 <> 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:


A short passage from that article states the following:


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:

<> [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 two-body 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 semi-major 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)


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 semi-major 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 semi-major and semi-minor 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

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.


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.

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.


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 fly-by in the context of a hush-hush 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 sooner-than-expected 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 <> [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 well-known 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 wide-spread 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].

© R.F.




© L. Scantamburlo –
Reproduced by permission.


  1. Doomsday Phil (DDP) says:

    Deleted it huh.

  2. The truth about Nibiru is that it rose up out of the southwest night skies. And I can tell you all about it if you wish to know the truth. No second sun no reflection no plasma roll and back drop of space. Just nibiru and four other planets.

Leave a Reply to stargazer



In Utah, birds have the right of way on a highway.
Other Amount: