1015. In search of Vulcan: Planet X observed traversing the Sun since 1818

1015. In search of Vulcan: Planet X observed traversing the Sun since 1818

Dr. Claudia Albers, Planet X Researcher
The existence of planet Vulcan, a planet, which was supposed to orbit the Sun, inside the orbit of Mercury, was proposed by the French mathematician Urbain Le Verrier, in 1859. He proposed the existence of the planet because of an inconsistency in Mercury’s orbit, where its perihelion position advances by 0.02o per year, a tiny amount, which can be nearly be accounted for by the influence of the other known planets, in the Solar System, leaving a discrepancy of 0.004o per year, which could be explained by an additional intra-Mercurial planet. Le Verrier had made a similar proposal regarding Uranus’ orbit, which led to the discovery of the planet Neptune, an indication that the proposal was valid. 



Figure 1. Mercury’s orbit is quite eccentric and as a result of the planet never retraces its orbit exactly, an effect which is called perihelion advance, the perihelion position of the orbit changes with every orbit.

On March 26 1859, a French physician and amateur astronomer Edmond Modeste Lescarbault observed through his 3.75 inch refracting telescope a black dot, on the Sun, which he took to be a sunspot at first, but then realized that it was moving and thus thought he was observing the transit of a previously undiscovered body, as Mercury was not in a position, where a transit could be observed from earth. He wrote to Le Verrier, who then visited and interviewed him, and was satisfied that he had observed the planet Vulcan. However, another astronomer, Emmanuel Liais, later discounted that such an observation could have been made as he claimed to have been observing the Sun at the same time as Lescarbault and had not seen the transit.

However, various other reports started emerging of objects being seen traversing the Sun. Capel Lofft reported seeing a body traversing the Sun on 6 January 1818. Gruithuisen reported seeing 2 small spots on the Sun, which were round and black and one was larger than the other, on 26 June 1819. Pastorff observed a transit on 23 October 1822, on 24 and 25 July 1823, 6 times in 1834, once on 18 October 1836 and on 1 November 1836; and on 16 February 1837, he saw 2 objects, the larger was 3 arc seconds across and the smaller 1.25 arc seconds across. These observations would suggest that there was not just one small planet inside the orbit of Mercury, and not just two either, but several, as it is impossible to observe the same object traversing the sun two days in the row, or even two weeks apart.

Then, on 29 January 1860, F.A. Russel and 3 other people saw a transit of an object. The fact that 3 people observed the same thing makes this an undeniable observation but in addition, another astronomer, Richard Covington, also claimed years later to have observed a well-defined black spot traverse the Sun, in 1860, which gives this observation even more validity. Then, on 22 March 1862, another amateur astronomer, Mr. Lummis of Manchester, England, saw a transit and so did a colleague of his. Based on these two men’s observations, two French astronomers, Benjamin Valz and Rudolph Radau computed the orbital period of the object and obtained extremely low values. Valz calculated it to be 17 days and 13 hours, Radau calculated it to be 19 days and 22 hours, which would place the object at between 0.13 au and 0.14 au, i.e. at 13 million miles from the Sun, which is twice the distance from the center of the Sun to the edge of the Sun’s outer corona.


Figure 2. Illustration of the distance between the Sun, the edge of the Sun’s outer corona, Mercury and Earth, in terms of the Sun’s size. The Sun’s size is tiny in comparison with the distance between it and the Earth. The distance between the Earth and the Sun is about 100 times larger than the Sun’s diameter.  The distance between the Mercury and the Sun is about 40 % of the distance between the Earth and the Sun, or 0.4 au, where 1 au is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, in astronomical units. The Sun’s outer corona goes out to a distance which is 12 times the radius of the Sun, or 5.2 million miles, which is equivalent to 0.06 au and thus Mercury is well outside the Sun’s corona. The object observed traversing the Sun would be around where the blue arrow pointing to the edge of the Sun’s outer corona crosses the axis. It would be much much closer to the Sun than Mercury.

On 8 May 1865, another French astronomer, Aristiche Coumbary, observed an unexpected transit from Istanbul, Turkey. And, on July 29, 1878, 2 experienced astronomers, Prof James Craig Watson, the director of the Ann Arbor Observatory, in Michigan, US, and Lewis Swift, an amateur from Rochester, New York, US, both reported seeing a Vulcan type planet close to the Sun during a total solar eclipse. These two men were excellent observers, Watson had discovered 20 asteroids, while Swift had discovered several comets, which were therefore named after him, and both described the planet as red and close to superior conjunction; in other words, the planet was close to being a fully illuminated disk, with only one small portion darkened, on the right-hand side. Skeptics claimed that the two men had mistaken known stars for planets. But it would be illogical to expect two men to observe an object that is similarly red and approaching superior conjunction, and be mistaken, especially since they were such experienced and excellent observers. Skeptics are still around today and are usually similarly disadvantaged in terms of ability to think logically.


Figure 3. A planet inside the earth’s orbit called an inferior planet, is in superior conjunction when it is aligned with the earth and the Sun, but is on the opposite side of the Sun, and will thus be observed as a fully illuminated disk, from earth. A planet close to superior conjunction is a little to the right of the sun and thus a small part of the disk will be dark.

Then in 1915, Einstein proposed his theory of General Relativity, a theory of gravity which identifies gravity as curvature of space, which supposedly causes light waves to follow curved paths. This theory was used to explain the last tiny discrepancy in Mercury’s perihelion advance. However, Einstein’s theory is obviously incorrect as the very idea that space is curved is illogical. Space and frames of reference are mathematical constructs used to determine the position of matter, or of an event involving energy flow, or energy transformation, in the universe. They are not real, only matter and energy are real substances, in the universe. So, it should not be surprising that Einstein’s theory of gravity can easily be shown to be incorrect with one simple example. According to Einstein’s theory gravity curves space and all matter follows a path through this curved space, as if it is a straight line, i.e. the closest distance between 2 points in a curved space is like the closest distance between two points on a spherical surface. You cannot move through the surface, so you are forced to follow a curved path on the surface.


Figure 4. Curvature of space in Einstein’s theory is like being forced to move on a curved surface, the closest position between two points is a curved path because it is not possible to move through the solid surface.

So, according to Einstein’s theory space is curved around a massive object, and that is why spacecraft follow a curved path around it, the curved path is the closest distance between two points. But then a rope stretched between two spacecraft, one following close behind the other, in the same orbit, should be curved as well, as the curved path is supposed to be the closest possible distance between the two spacecraft, but it clearly is not. Common sense tells us that we can stretch a rope between the two spaceships and it will follow a straight line, not the curvature of the orbit, which shows that space is not curved; space is flat everywhere, thus completely falsifying Einstein’s theory of gravity.


Figure 5. Left: A cable stretched between two spacecraft would be in a straight line, and would not follow the curvature of the orbit, which shows that gravity cannot be due to the curvature of space. Right: Two dimensional illustration of a three dimensional curved space as used in General Relativity.

However, even if Einstein’s theory had been correct, the explanation of the discrepancy in Mercury’s orbit, cannot, in any way, do away with the huge number of credible observations of objects traversing the Sun. Theory is falsifiable but observation is not. The very idea that it can, is illogical. Theory is supposed to help us understand the universe, observation gives us information about the universe we live in, observation cannot be done away with and theory should not be able to even be done without it as it has to strictly adhere to it in order to be valid and credible. But this is exactly what has been done, in this case, observation was suppressed and ignored in a favor of a theory, which is completely illogical and contrary to observation. But, the bolstering of wrong and illogical theories in order to cover up the truth seems to be something that is done over and over again, in scientific circles, which has caused humanity’s knowledge base to be filled with lies and illogical inconsistencies. See Article 936: Birch Bay extreme low tide not due to a spring tide [1], where I show through a simple calculation that the time honored explanation about the Sun’s role in Spring tides is impossible and thus a complete lie.

It seems that a special effort has therefore been made, on this planet, to hide the truth about gravity and Planet X, which was what all those Vulcan observations seem to have been about. And, much more recent Planet X observations actually reveal that gravity is a creative force and that there is continuous matter creation all over the universe, as a result, something which the astronomer Halton Arp showed many years ago, and for his efforts had his papers blocked from publication and was refused time at the telescopes, which clearly shows that an effort has been made to hide the truth (see Article 126: White Holes instead of Black Holes at the Center of Galaxies, Article 987: Trovants: rocks that grow: core matter, water and human consciousness and Article 988: Trovants, Planet X and how planets continuously grow in size) [2, 3, 4].

In the case of the Vulcan observations, we have clear observational evidence, from 1818, of objects traversing the Sun and being very close to the Sun. The observations reveal that it could not just have been one, there was clearly more than one. What were these objects? They were Planet X Stellar Cores, the name I gave to the system of cores, from destroyed planets and stars (see Article 785: Planet X is here but what is it exactly?) [5] that seem to have started affecting our planet at the time of the Flood, and that were responsible for the cataclysm that then occurred, and that are responsible for the cataclysm, which is now unfolding, on earth, and that will imminently reach a pinnacle of severity, which is likely to be just as cataclysmic as the Flood event but without completely flooding the earth. Instead, there will be extensive surface reformation, lava flows, volcanic eruptions, and cataclysmic earthquakes and thus tsunamis accompanied by increasingly severe weather events (see Article 986: Planet X induced cataclysmic Pole Shift about to occur) [6].

In conclusion, there is clear observational evidence of objects inside of Mercury’s orbit traversing the Sun, and not just of one of them, but at least several. So, what started as the search for one small planet, named Vulcan, ended up giving extensive and credible observational evidence for the existence of Planet X Stellar Cores, the energy depleted cores of the destroyed Planet X planets and stars, near the Sun. In addition, it seems clear that extraordinary efforts have been made to hide the truth regarding the existence of Planet X and the truth regarding the gravitational interaction, which is, in fact, a creative force, leading to matter being continuously created all over the universe.


References:
[1]          Albers, C. (2019). Article 936: Birch Bay extreme low tide not due to a spring tide.
[2]          Albers, C. (2019). Article 126: White Holes instead of Black Holes at the Center of Galaxies.
[3]          Albers, C. (2019). Article 987: Trovants: rocks that grow: core matter, water and human consciousness.
[4]          Albers, C. (2019). Article 988: Trovants, Planet X and how planets continuously grow in size.
[5]          Albers, C. (2019). Article 785: Planet X is here but what is it exactly?
[6]          Albers, C. (2019). Article 936: Birch Bay extreme low tide not due to a spring tide.


Popular posts from this blog

1026. NASA’S deception mission: hide Planet X and the true universe

991. Huge fissure and earthquakes in California: ocean ridge forming

932. Smoldering volcano in Los Angeles: underground explosions

961. Demon face in France heat wave weather forecast

Physicist Report 442: Galactic Structure Manifests the Wave Nature of Gravity