So. Do we dare discuss Planet X?

You could be right. I definitely agree that of all the many different things being said about it out there, not everything being said can possibly be true!

Uh-oh----

That was my 666th post----

I better make another post right away!!!!!!!

LOL

I have done a little digging, and would need to do some calculations on the information I have, but it should be possible to calculate the diameter and mass of a theoretical object that would be necessary to be able to blot out the sun (solar eclipse) while the moon is in a natural lunar eclipse. The object does not need to be able to eclipse them both, if the earth is eclipsing the moon.

The distances between the sun and earth; and the moon and earth are known. The diameters of all three are known.

The gravitational effects of the moon (1.1 x 10^-7 gees) and the sun (.52 x 10^-7 gees) on the earth are known. One could speculate the additional gravitation on the earth needed to cause catastrophic 'natural' disasters at an additional 1 x 10^-7 gee and use that value to obtain the mass of the object. Trigonometry and algebra could be used to approximate the diameter of the object.

Maybe someone could post the dates of the next several 'natural' lunar 'blood moon's?

My preliminary calculations are based on the following:

for comparison:
Moon's polar radius = 1737.1 km
Earth's Polar Radius = 6356.8 km
Venus' mean radius = 6052 km
Mars' polar radius = 3376.2 km
Jupiter's polar radius = 66,854 km
Saturn's polar radius = 54,364 km
Neptune's polar radius = 24,341 km
Pluto's mean radius = 1190 km
Sun's radius 695,700 km
polar radius is used to get a shadow large enough to cover pole-to-pole

Theoretical Object's Radius = to be calculated - will vary depending on the distance from the earth, to make the shadow large enough to cover the earth from pole-to-pole.

distance from earth to moon = 362,600 - 405,400 km
distance from earth to sun = 147,095,000 - 152,100,000 km

The moon can be eclipsed by the earth providing a scenario where the theoretical object does not have to try to eclipse both the sun and the moon. Regardless of the variations of distance (perihelion/aphelion) between the earth and the sun; the object's size would still have to be proportional. BTW, knowing what time of the year lunar eclipses were expected would simplify determining how far from the sun, the earth is.

Generally speaking, the further from earth the object is, the larger it must be to project a big enough shadow. This is exemplified graphically by having a hollow cone facing sideways, with the large opening on the right representing the sun, the small opening on the left, representing the earth, and somewhere in the middle is the object.

For a down-and-dirty idea of how large an object is necessary, I assumed it would be outside the moon's orbit (which also varies). Since the moon's orbit ranges from 362,000 km to 405, 400 km, I selected a distance of 600,000 km for the object, to demonstrate how small it could get away with being.

At 600,000 km away from earth, the object would only need to have a radius of 9168 km. The object size goes up from there. To compare the Object to the planets above, you would need to first calculate the diameters and then compare. 

I would speculate at this point that the gravitational field would have the largest effect on the earth, due to Newton's universal gravitational force equation

F= Gm₁m₂/r² , and F=m₁a... G is a constant, the radius is minimally 600,000 km, m₁ is the mass of the earth, m₂ is the mass of the object and 'a' is the gee force applied to the earth by the object. (see my last post about the effect the moon has and the sun has for comparison)

Substituting the F with m₁a in the first equation lets you calculate the mass of the object, because the substituted m₁ value cancels out (it's on both sides of the equation).
It should be possible to compare the average density of a comet, an asteroid, and several of the planets to the value calculated as the mass of the Object, when the gee force 'a' is assumed to be approximately the same as what the moon causes (1 x 10^-7 gees).

Given the 'minimum' size calculated: The Object is either a mid-sized planet, or a 'miracle' (Direct Act of God - deliberate violation of the physical laws).

Hi Yardstick! Welcome! I'm not any kind of a math whiz, so I can't help with those calculations. If anyone can learn more I'd love to know whether the object would need to be the size of a planet or the size of a small star. The theory I've heard is that it could be a brown dwarf or some small star that appears invisible until it gets close. What if it had seven planets circling it and ten moons circling the planets!?!

Thanks for your inputs.

My calculation estimates show it should be a medium-sized planet - smaller than Saturn and larger than Earth. Compare its minimum size to that of the sizes of the other planets. Remember that the size is proportional to distance. I do not think it is a star. The density would be too high, IMHO. That high a density would have massive gravitational effects, far beyond what is Biblically described. We're talking 'tear the planet apart' effects.

Regarding Newton's universal law of gravitation (which I was not able to elaborate on last night - too tired) the key factor that has the most impact is in fact, the distance between the two objects, because that value of 'r' is squared. That means as the distance between the objects increases, the gravitation (gees) influence is reduced by using a square root. The next significant factor is the mass of the Object on the earth.

So the key question is "How far from the Earth does the Object have to be, to create a fixed value gee force upon the earth (which we are arbitrarily taking as 1 x 10^-7 gees)? Once the distance is determined, the Object size can be calculated.

I would expect to see some min-max range.

If a brown dwarf ever got close to Earth, it would fling us out of our orbit, either freezing or burning us up. If it got as close as Nibiru conspiracy theorists think, that would happen, not Revelation.