SCI A possible ninth planet may be the reason for a tilt in our solar system

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...-system/ar-AAjasqv?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

A possible ninth planet may be the reason for a tilt in our solar system

The Guardian
Alan Yuhas in San Francisco
3 hrs ago

Astronomers presented new research on the possibility of a gigantic, unseen planet beyond Neptune on Wednesday, saying the hypothetical world may have set the solar system at a tilt.

Researchers first suggested a massive ninth planet in January, saying that although this putative world would be about 10 times the size of Earth, it could have escaped a telescope’s notice because of its extreme distance from the sun. One year on this planet, according to their calculations, would last 17,000 years on Earth, and it would travel as far away as 93bn miles from the sun, where it would take light a week to arrive.

On Wednesday, astronomers at the California Institute of Technology presented their new evidence in Pasadena, California, at the annual meeting of planetary scientists of the American Astronomical Society.

“The search for planet nine,” Caltech astronomer Mike Brown said, “is as much about understanding the effects of planet nine on the solar system, the physics of planet nine, as it is about understanding where it is.”

Brown said that his team had calculated how a hypothetical planet could be responsible for making the sun appear to tilt at an angle. Though the eight planets orbit in an essentially flat plane around the sun, the plane itself rotates at nearly a six-degree angle, making it look like the sun itself is angled. A giant planet with a strange orbit, about 30 degrees off the other planets’ plane, could account for that wobble, the scientists suggested.

“Because Planet Nine is so massive and has an orbit tilted compared to the other planets,” said Elizabeth Bailey, the study’s author, “the solar system has no choice but to slowly twist out of alignment.

“It’s such a deep-rooted mystery and so difficult to explain that people just don’t talk about it,” said Brown. “If you ask yourself where the sun is tilted in real life there’s where we predict it should be,” he added, noting that the calculations of mass and orbital angle had results of six degrees.

“The amazing thing is for these very standard [observations],” Brown said, “it tilts it nearly exactly correctly.

“At this stage we have so many lines of evidence that there’s a massive planet out there,” he added, “that if there’s not a massive planet out there it has to be that there was one there yesterday and disappeared.”

Brown suggested that scientists may be able to locate the planet, if it exists, in the next few years, and that his team’s work would be published in an upcoming issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

Another team of researchers, led by the University of Arizona’s Renu Malhotra, also shared new research suggesting a hypothetical planet – though they cautioned that it was by no means proof of the world.

They found that the four objects with the longest known orbits in the Kuiper Belt, the solar system’s distant ring of ancient rocks and dwarf planets, would be most easily explained by a mammoth new planet.

These “extreme” Kuiper Belt objects, which have elongated orbits that come very close to and stray very far from the sun, would probably not be affected by the large planets of the solar system, as the dwarf planet Pluto is affected by Neptune, for instance. The astronomers noticed that these four objects have “very simple orbital ratios”, said Malhotra, suggesting “they are in resonances with an unseen massive planet”.

The research narrows down the range where a hypothetical planet could be, Malhotra said, and fit with prior calculations about six Kuiper Belt objects whose orbits appear to be in small ratios with a massive planet.

“Our paper provides more specific estimates for the mass and orbit that this planet would have, and, more importantly, constraints on its current position within its orbit,” Malhotra said.

Brown and Malhotra both conceded that there are reasons to be skeptical, despite the former’s optimism for discovery. “There are observational biases all over the Kuiper Belt,” Brown said. “We always worry about them. we don’t think they’re affecting results.”
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
Planet X again, really?


The science in this story, if you can call it science, is ridiculous.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
Tenth planet. Tenth. Pluto is still a planet, its demotion was via subterfuge and therefore invalid. After the flyby and the deep detail of having an atmosphere and its own moon, there is no doubt that it is a planet. Pluto is even massive enough to have been gravitationally crushed into a sphere, like all the other planets.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Planet X again, really?


The science in this story, if you can call it science, is ridiculous.
No, the interpretation of it as some sort of "rogue planet" coming to destroy life on Earth is ridiculous; the math supporting one or more larger planets out beyond Pluto has been there since the 1930's.

My father as a young teen worked as a volunteer with the astronomer that actually did confirm the existence of Pluto and he told my Dad in the late 1930's the science and math suggested there was a least one more out there.

The "tilt" in the solar system is exactly the sort of thing astronomers look for when trying to determine if there is an object with enough gravity to cause the situation; especially with objects that are so far away.

Science has already realized there may be quite a number of "minor" planets hanging out around the edges of the know solar system; which is one reason Pluto was "downgraded" (though that was also part of a scientific "ego war" and may not stand up forever).

In any case, the idea of one or more large planets at the edges of the system; very difficult to find and hidden somewhat by the Kuiper Belt is a REAL scientific theory and has been investigated for 80 years or more.

My hunch is they are likely to fine one or more; and this is exciting news - it does mean they pose a risk to Earth anymore than Jupiter does...
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
I'm not disputing the math per se, but we have space telescopes that can see millions of light years out. Why, like the Loch Ness Monster, has Planet X never been found? Also, the math is not there to support a single planet that tilted our solar system...
 

Optimus Prime

Senior Member
But...but...but....Dennis, the Nibiru channel on YouTube has pictures and expert novice technical elementary extrapolations and everything!!!!!!!!
 

Digital Omnivore

Veteran Member
Planet Nine is a legitimate hypothesis by some well respected astronomers (including one who has discovered kuiper belt objects in the past, Mike Brown).

It's easy to confuse with Zecharia Sitchin/Nancy Lieder nonsense, but the details are very different.

Sitchin was proposing something larger with an orbital period of 3600 years that comes close to the inner planets of the solar system. We'd see something that close.

What mainstream scientists are considering is a neptune sized planet with an orbital period of 10,000 to 20,000 years. Any such object near it's furthest point would be difficult to detect.

The story regarding planet nine possibly tilting the planets came out just recently and is in plenty of mainstream outlets/websites.

This is an interesting one:

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/10/planet-nine-tilting-the-sun
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
I'm not disputing the math per se, but we have space telescopes that can see millions of light years out. Why, like the Loch Ness Monster, has Planet X never been found? Also, the math is not there to support a single planet that tilted our solar system...
Because if you look at the science of telescopes and radio telescopes especially; it is much easier to get indications of objects that are further away than those as "close" as the outer solar system; I know that's counter to what looks like "common sense;" but it really has to do with the types of technology that can be used for nearer and more distant objects.

I am not an astronomer but I am very interested and try to keep on on things from a lay person's perspective; I unfortunately don't have a link but I've seen this topic handled on a number of science documentaries - I don't have time to do a full google/NASA search right now but I'm sure that it wouldn't take anyone with a serious interest very long to get that information.

Also, someone here may work in astronomy or a related fields and can go into more detail on the differences between the types of telescopes - I know this came up once when the public was wondering why Hubble just couldn't be used to look for features on Mars - answer this issue with nearby/distant objects.

The Belt of "space junk" (natural) that is on the outer edges of the solar system also makes "hunting" more difficult - but I assure you Dennis this topic is hot on the science sites and it is not a case of woo-woo Planet X we are all gonna die.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
Thank you Digital, I was about to at least google the mainstream story sites because I knew I had seem this article earlier today on some of them - this is exciting SCIENCE; not to be confused with Ancient Aliens....(at least not outside of the realms of Science Fiction)...
 

OddOne

< Yes, I do look like that.
I'm not disputing the math per se, but we have space telescopes that can see millions of light years out. Why, like the Loch Ness Monster, has Planet X never been found? Also, the math is not there to support a single planet that tilted our solar system...

Single planets easily tip star axes, which is how we detect them outside our own system - the presence of an orbiting mass "wobbles" the star's axis. The math has actually been there for a long time to support at least one additional unknown planet-scale mass in our system (and more probably, one planet-scale mass and a handful of unseen planetoid-scale masses along the lines of Ceres - 250-500 or so miles across) and astronomers have been both discussing and looking for it for years.

If you want to burn some time, check this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size
 

tanstaafl

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Tenth planet. Tenth. Pluto is still a planet, its demotion was via subterfuge and therefore invalid. After the flyby and the deep detail of having an atmosphere and its own moon, there is no doubt that it is a planet. Pluto is even massive enough to have been gravitationally crushed into a sphere, like all the other planets.

All five of the currently listed dwarf planets are spheres. Which is why being a sphere is only ONE of the new criteria that defines a planet. Pluto doesn't meet the other new criteria. If you accept Pluto as a planet, then you pretty much have to accept the other four currently listed dwarf planets (Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris), not to mention any other spherical objects they later discover (and there are bound to be more like Sedna, Quaoar, Varuna, and miscellaneous cubewanos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Kuiper_belt_object)).

I have no problem with there being another planet out there, small or large. My problem are the "theories" that say it comes into the inner Solar System on a regular basis (which is where Niburu falls). From what I understand of it, the math that Tombaugh used to find Pluto turned out to be wrong and the actual discovery of Pluto was as much of an incredible freak accident as it was an actual scientific discovery. It's easy to dismiss it by saying we would have found it by now, but when you're that far out from the Sun there is a LOT of space to cover (and as far as I know most astronomers simply are not looking that "close" to the Sun). Especially if, as the OP says, the object is not in the plane of the other planets (which, by the way, Pluto is not).
 

tanstaafl

Has No Life - Lives on TB
It's worth remembering that Pluto has only made about a quarter-orbit of the Sun since its discovery and that Neptune (a monster-sized object compared to Pluto) only recently completed its first full orbit of the Sun since its discovery. No one is saying that Neptune should NOT be classified as a gas giant planet, and you'd think it would be easy to find something as big as a gas giant planet in our own solar system but it took awhile to find Neptune.

I just finished reading Arthur C. Clarke's "The Hammer of God" (1993). In it they do an interesting thing: they exploded a HUGE nuclear bomb in space that was designed to send out radar waves, with detectors placed all over the solar system to record the return waves. Now something like that would almost certainly find all the big objects (say, over 100 miles in diameter) in the solar system, although the radar waves would apparently degrade when they get far enough from the Sun. I have no idea how far that would be (maybe before they reached the OP object), but almost certainly long before they got halfway to the nearest extrasolar star.

Edited to add: And again I point out that the few astronomers who are looking are probably NOT looking too long above and below the plane of the planets orbits. There could be damned near anything in that massive volume of space and we won't know about it until someone looks in the exact right place at the exact right time.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.space.com/34455-planet-nine-discovery-coming-soon.html

'Planet Nine' Can't Hide Much Longer, Scientists Say

By Mike Wall, Space.com Senior Writer | October 20, 2016 08:55am ET

Planet Nine's days of lurking unseen in the dark depths of the outer solar system may be numbered.

The hypothetical giant planet, which is thought to be about 10 times more massive than Earth, will be discovered within 16 months or so, astronomer Mike Brown predicted.

"I'm pretty sure, I think, that by the end of next winter —*not this winter, next winter —*I think that there'll be enough people looking for it that … somebody's actually going to track this down," Brown said during a news conference Wednesday (Oct. 19) at a joint meeting of the American Astronomical Society's Division for Planetary Sciences (DPS) and the European Planetary Science Congress (EPSC) in Pasadena, California. Brown said that eight to 10 groups are currently looking for the planet. [The Evidence for 'Planet Nine' in Images (Gallery)]

planet-nine-160407a-02.jpg

http://www.space.com/images/i/000/052/737/original/planet-nine-160407a-02.jpg?1460060410

Researchers say an anomaly in the orbits of distant Kuiper Belt objects points to the existence of an unknown planet orbiting the sun. Here's what we know of this potential "Planet Nine."
Credit: by Karl Tate, Infographics artist


At the "next one of these [DPS-EPSC meetings], we'll be talking about finding Planet Nine instead of just looking for it," added Brown, who's based at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena.

That would be a pretty quick path from hypothetical planet to confirmed world. The existence of Planet Nine was seriously proposed for the first time just in 2014, by astronomers Scott Sheppard and Chadwick Trujillo, of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, D.C., and the Gemini Observatory in Hawaii, respectively.

Sheppard and Trujillo noted that the dwarf planet Sedna, the newfound object 2012 VP113 and several other bodies far beyond Pluto share certain odd orbital characteristics, a coincidence that would make sense if their paths through space had been shaped by an unseen, giant "perturber" in the region.

The researchers suggested that this putative planet is perhaps two to 15 times more massive than Earth and lies hundreds of astronomical units (AU) from the sun. (One AU is the Earth-sun distance, about 93 million miles, or 150 million kilometers.)

This interpretation was bolstered in January of this year by Brown and fellow Caltech astronomer Konstantin Batygin, who found evidence of a perturber's influence in the orbits of a handful of additional distant objects. This "Planet Nine," as Batygin and Brown dubbed the putative world, likely contains about 10 Earth masses and orbits on a highly elliptical path whose aphelion (farthest distance from the sun) is about 1,000 AU, the researchers said. (For perspective, Pluto gets just 49.3 AU from the sun at aphelion.)

Video

The evidence for Planet Nine's existence has continued to grow over the past nine months, as several different research teams have determined that the orbits of other small, distant objects appear to have been sculpted as well.

One team, led by Renu Malhotra of the University of Arizona, discussed four such objects at the DPS/EPSC meeting Wednesday. And Brown's team, led by Elizabeth Bailey of Caltech, announced at the meeting on Tuesday (Oct. 18) that Planet Nine appears to have tilted the orbits of all eight "official" planets by 6 degrees relative to the sun.

The ongoing Planet Nine research also includes efforts to pin down where the world might be in the sky these days. This is*a key part of the discovery effort, since a blind search for an object so far away, and with such a huge and elliptical orbit, has little chance of success in the near term, Brown has said.[Evidence Mounts for Existence of 'Planet Nine' (Video)]

It's likely that Planet Nine is currently at or near aphelion, located perhaps 1,000 AU from the sun, in a patch of sky measuring about 400 square degrees, Brown said. (For comparison, the full moon viewed from Earth covers about 0.5 degrees of sky.)

Astronomers have said Planet Nine is perhaps four times wider than Earth, and such an object would be easily visible with professional-grade equipment if it were relatively close to Earth, Brown explained. In addition, planets on highly elliptical orbits spend most of their time near aphelion, since they're traveling most slowly on this part of their path, he said.

An object four times bigger than Earth that's located at 1,000 AU would have a magnitude of about +25 on astronomers' brightness scale, Brown added.

"This is well within reach of the giant telescopes," he said. "The Subaru telescope, I think, on Mauna Kea, [in Hawaii] — the Japanese national telescope — is the prime instrument for doing the search. But there are a lot of other people who have clever ideas on how to find it, too, that are trying with their own telescopes."

So which research team will ultimately find Planet Nine? Brown said he isn't sure, and he stressed that getting credit for the historic discovery should be a secondary concern for astronomers.*

"There are a lot of people looking, and we are trying as hard as we can to tell people where to look," he said. "We want it to be found."

Follow Mike Wall on Twitter*@michaeldwall*and*Google+.*Follow us @Spacedotcom, Facebook*or Google+. Originally published on*Space.com.

Editor's Recommendations
'Planet 9' May Have Been Part Of A Cosmic Heist, If It Exists | Video
NASA Officially Cautious About 'Planet Nine' | Video
Dwarf World 2012 VP113 at Solar System's Edge: Photos and images
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/10/planet-nine-tilting-the-sun

Planet Nine may be responsible for tilting the Sun

How our possible rogue planet may be messing with our solar system

By Shannon Stirone *|* Published: Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Earlier this year an announcement raised a tantalizing possibility: a ninth planet lurking in the outer reaches of our solar system. The announcement turned the astronomy and planetary science world upside down.

Caltech astronomer Michael Brown and theoretical astrophysicist Konstantin Batygin found evidence for a possible 10 Earth mass planet that may be tilting long-orbiting dwarf planets on their sides and shepherding them into clusters far past the orbit of Neptune in highly eccentric orbits. In the last several months, more and more papers have been published about the possible planet and how it might prove an explanation for other strange things happening in our solar system.

At a press conference held this afternoon, at the AAS Division of Planetary Sciences annual meeting in Pasadena Ca, another announcement was made about Planet Nine’s effects on the spin-axis tilt of our Sun. This time, the paper titled Solar Obliquity Induced by Planet Nine is lead by Caltech graduate student Elizabeth Bailey, with Brown and Batygin as co-authors.

We’ve known that the Sun is tilted for about 200 years, but scientists have never known why. Only the catch here is, the Sun isn’t actually tilted at all. We are. To explain this oddity and what’s happening to our solar system we spoke with co-author and theoretical astrophysicist, Konstantin Batygin.
*
Astronomy Magazine: What’s happening with the alignment in our solar system?
*
Konstantin Batygin: When planetary systems form, they form from very flat discs. *The motion that everything in our entire planetary system forms in a very proto planetary flat disc is one of the basic principles of planetary formation theory. The planetary orbits themselves are fully consistent- If you look at how inclined the planets are with respect to each other they are only inclined by no more than one degree so the planets of the solar system are remarkably flat. *

AM: What about the Sun?

KB: The Sun's rotation was measured for the first time in 1850 and something that was recognized right away as that its spin axis, its north pole, is tilted with respect to the rest of the planets by 6 degrees. So even though 6 degrees isn’t much, it is a big number compared to the mutual planet-planet misalignments. So the Sun is basically an outlier within the solar system. This is a long-standing issue and one that is recognized but people don’t really talk much about it. Everything in the solar system rotates roughly on the same plane except for the most massive object, the Sun which is kind of a big deal.

P9_and_ext_obj_cropped2.png

http://www.astronomy.com/-/media/Im...10/P9_and_ext_obj_cropped2.png?mw=1000&mh=800
Hypothetical Planet 9, and 9 related eTNOs
WikiMedia Commons


AM: Why is there this misalignment between the Sun and the orbits of the planets?

KB: We asked ourselves, “what obliquity, what misalignment would Planet Nine induce in the solar system?” because it must induce some. We know that Planet Nine’s orbit in inclined. As a result, when Planet Nine torques the rest of the solar system, the two sort of act as two precessing tops. Planet Nine being in its own plane induced a precession on the remainder of the solar system as if the plane of the solar system was a flat top on the surface of a table.

AM: So Planet Nine’s gravitational influence is forcing the solar system to wobble?

KB: If you imagine that the Sun and the planets were co-planar, meaning they were locked into the same plane 4 billion years ago, and allow the clock to run forward in the presence of Planet Nine, then 4 billion years later the Sun would have been apparently tilted by exactly it’s current obliquity, or 6 degrees. But what’s actually going on is that the Sun is staying put in its fixed reference frame and it’s the planetary orbits that are being tilted by Planet Nine. So Planet Nine has tilted the entire disk of the solar system by 6 degrees and because we live on that disc … to us it looks like the Sun is tilted, but it’s actually the other way around.

AM: How could Planet Nine have that much influence on our entire solar system when it’s so far out?

KB: Here’s why: Planet Nine is only 10 Earth masses as compared to Jupiter’s 300 Earth masses, but its orbit is huge. So it’s an argument that is basically like an asymmetrical see-saw or a dolly. Planet Nine has a really long orbit so it can assert quite a bit of torque on the inner planets without having to apply so much force. Planet Nine has as much angular momentum as the entire solar system combined, because it’s orbit is so big.

AM: Have there been other theories about how this tilt may have happened before your theory of Planet Nine?

KB: I actually had theorized this in 2012 and wrote about it and the theory was almost exactly the same, except for it wasn’t Planet Nine doing the torqueing but a companion star. I theorized that a young star was bound to the Sun, and tilting the entire proto-planetary disc from which planets form. It’s believed that most stars are born binary but most of them lose their companions by the time they come out of the birth cluster.

AM: Does this help us better understand planet formation or solar system formation?

KB: It does help us understand planet formation because planet formation theory dictates that all things must start out co-planar, in the same plane. The fact that the Sun is tilted with respect to the rest of the solar system is almost a violation of that very fundamental principle, so understanding what’s going on there is important. But there’s also a second component to why this calculation is interesting. We very quickly realized that Planet Nine must do something, it must tilt the solar system by some angle and we thought to ourselves what if this angle was really big? What if the Sun was tilted by 40 degrees in our calculations? That would actually be evidence against Planet Nine, instead we got this beautiful agreement of the theory.

AM: Has this new data helped with your search for Planet Nine?

KB: What we’ve found is that the direction into which the Sun is tilted by Planet Nine is intimately related to the orbit of Planet Nine itself. *This is more or less a consistency check, it doesn’t help us or really provide too much new information but it gives us more confidence that we are actually barking up the right tree.


2 comments

Most recent | Oldest to newest
Added 16 hours ago

GERALD STEIN
Wonder what it will take to image planet 9?
Added 16 hours ago

Nick McVicker
Sounds like Walter Cruttenden's "Lost Star of Myth and Time" book (published in 2005). He's thoughts on angular momentum and precession are two topics that are spot on with this "new" research coming to light. Perhaps, in time, astronomers will find that "Planet 9" is actually on a 24,000 year orbit around the sun corresponding with cycle of the zodiac calendar.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
It's worth remembering that Pluto has only made about a quarter-orbit of the Sun since its discovery and that Neptune (a monster-sized object compared to Pluto) only recently completed its first full orbit of the Sun since its discovery. No one is saying that Neptune should NOT be classified as a gas giant planet, and you'd think it would be easy to find something as big as a gas giant planet in our own solar system but it took awhile to find Neptune.

I just finished reading Arthur C. Clarke's "The Hammer of God" (1993). In it they do an interesting thing: they exploded a HUGE nuclear bomb in space that was designed to send out radar waves, with detectors placed all over the solar system to record the return waves. Now something like that would almost certainly find all the big objects (say, over 100 miles in diameter) in the solar system, although the radar waves would apparently degrade when they get far enough from the Sun. I have no idea how far that would be (maybe before they reached the OP object), but almost certainly long before they got halfway to the nearest extrasolar star.

Edited to add: And again I point out that the few astronomers who are looking are probably NOT looking too long above and below the plane of the planets orbits. There could be damned near anything in that massive volume of space and we won't know about it until someone looks in the exact right place at the exact right time.

I recall a while back someone posted an article here at TB2K that went into astronomers going back into the libraries of photo plates from the beginning of the observatory collections, feeding them into scanners and analyzing those images in comparison to what we have from now looking for stuff they missed.
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
I'm not disputing the math per se, but we have space telescopes that can see millions of light years out. Why, like the Loch Ness Monster, has Planet X never been found? Also, the math is not there to support a single planet that tilted our solar system...

There's a thread here from about two years ago when they did in fact get a view of it, and this the article above it was totally dismissed.
 

TheSearcher

Are you sure about that?
All five of the currently listed dwarf planets are spheres. Which is why being a sphere is only ONE of the new criteria that defines a planet. Pluto doesn't meet the other new criteria. If you accept Pluto as a planet, then you pretty much have to accept the other four currently listed dwarf planets (Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris), not to mention any other spherical objects they later discover (and there are bound to be more like Sedna, Quaoar, Varuna, and miscellaneous cubewanos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Kuiper_belt_object)).

I have no problem with there being another planet out there, small or large. My problem are the "theories" that say it comes into the inner Solar System on a regular basis (which is where Niburu falls). From what I understand of it, the math that Tombaugh used to find Pluto turned out to be wrong and the actual discovery of Pluto was as much of an incredible freak accident as it was an actual scientific discovery. It's easy to dismiss it by saying we would have found it by now, but when you're that far out from the Sun there is a LOT of space to cover (and as far as I know most astronomers simply are not looking that "close" to the Sun). Especially if, as the OP says, the object is not in the plane of the other planets (which, by the way, Pluto is not).

From the Wiki page on the topic of Planetary criteria:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet

The definition of planet set in Prague, Czech Republic in August 2006 by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) states that, in the Solar System, a planet is a celestial body which:

1.is in orbit around the Sun,
2.has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
3.has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.
It starts with that, then uses an additional artificial criteria of mass outside of the three established criteria above, coupled with a supposed dissatisfaction of criteria #3, to demote Pluto. It has been pointed out that really NONE of the planets have "cleared the neighborhood" and will be in the process of clearing their neighborhoods for the effective lifecycle of the Solar System. As such, criteria #3 is immediately invalid, because it beyond the ability of any planet to satisfy.

In short, the IAU tried to re-define what a planet is, in order the make a whole slew of new sub-definitions upon which to base whole new specialist careers and subfields for its membership. When it found itself in a quandary over the obviously impossible task to make such definitions, in a fit of pique the Pluto-demotion coalition tricked its opposition into leaving the voting venue and just voted on Pluto's status without them.

It's disgraceful, but along with the intellectually bankrupt so-called "science" of AGCC and so forth, such illogical behavior is also altogether more and more common.
 
Last edited:

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
I recall a while back someone posted an article here at TB2K that went into astronomers going back into the libraries of photo plates from the beginning of the observatory collections, feeding them into scanners and analyzing those images in comparison to what we have from now looking for stuff they missed.

Yes, and they were finding all sorts of interesting stuff, especially in systems further away .
 

Oilpatch Hand

3-Bomb General, TB2K Army
From the Wiki page on the topic of Planetary criteria:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet

It starts with that, then uses an additional artificial criteria of mass outside of the three established criteria above, coupled with a supposed dissatisfaction of criteria #3, to demote Pluto. It has been pointed out that really NONE of the planets have "cleared the neighborhood" and will be in the process of clearing their neighborhoods for the effective lifecycle of the Solar System. As such, criteria #3 is immediately invalid, because it beyond the ability of any planet to satisfy.

In short, the IAU tried to re-define what a planet is, in order the make a whole slew of new sub-definitions upon which to base whole new specialist careers and subfields for its membership. When it found itself in a quandary over the obviously impossible task to make such definitions, in a fit of pique it tricked their opposition into leaving the voting venue and just voted on Pluto's status without them.

It's disgraceful, but along with the intellectually bankrupt so-called "science" of AGCC and so forth, such illogical behavior is also altogether more and more common.

I think there's something to this. For decades there was the ninth planet Pluto, and a few other assorted rocks floating about in various places in the Solar System. But since the 2006 IAU redefintion of the term "planet," we now have a whole host of subclasses of these non-descript hunks of rock floating around in space, most of them primarily being distinguished from the others by where their orbits lie in relation to other "planets."

Nowadays, you don't just got your planets, your asteroids, your comets and your satellites. Now you got your Centaurs, which apparently are some kind of hybrid between asteroids and comets. You got your Jupiter Trojans. You got your Cis-Neptunian objects and Trans-Neptunian objects, which apparently include something called Neptune Trojans (despite the fact that Roman god of the sea, Neptune, never had much connection to the City of Troy. Neither did Jupiter, for that matter. ;) ) You got your Sednoids, your Kuiper Belt Objects other than Pluto and its companions, your planetesimals, plutoids and plutinos. Way, way out there...you got your Oort Cloud objects. You got your Small Solar System Bodies, which is apparently some kind of catch-all classification for the bits of floating rock that don't neatly fit into any of the other categories. (Seems strange to me that Pluto isn't a planet anymore, but it has lent its name to two new classes of these celestial objects.)

It's all starting to look like academic "make-work" for astronomers, to be honest about it. The one thing all of these objects have in common is that they are inhospitable hunks of rock wandering around out there in space. Some are larger, some are smaller, and they all have unique locations in space. But they're all remote, uninhabitable hunks of rock all the same.

However, the existence of all these new types of remote, uninhabitable hunks of rock creates the need for additional federal funding to "study" them. We have to know more about these remote, uninhabitable hunks of rock, don'cha know? :lol:

























Meanwhile...65 million years ago, in an area that would later become the northern Yucatan Peninsula:

Sam the Stegosaurus: Trixie...do you think the Earth qualifies as a "planet" in the sense that it has cleared the neighboring region of planetismals?


....Whooooooosssssshhhhhh...........KABLOOEY!

Trixie the Triceratops: Uhhh...doesn't look like it to me. :lol:
 

Ozarkian

Veteran Member
Tenth planet. Tenth. Pluto is still a planet, its demotion was via subterfuge and therefore invalid. After the flyby and the deep detail of having an atmosphere and its own moon, there is no doubt that it is a planet. Pluto is even massive enough to have been gravitationally crushed into a sphere, like all the other planets.

I agree 1000%!
 

tanstaafl

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Another oddity about Pluto, which as far as I'm concerned brings into question its being a planet, is that while it does have a moon (in fact, it has more than one), Charon and Pluto rotate around a common point in space rather than Charon (the supposed moon) orbiting around a point located inside Pluto (the alleged-by-some planet). Which makes Pluto/Charon far more of a binary object rather than a planet with a moon. I also again point out that Pluto doesn't even orbit in the same general plane with the rest of the planets. Not to mention that whole thing about being INSIDE Neptune's orbit part of the time.

I believe there have been a few discoveries of objects based on going back over those old photographic plates. As I said in another thread, that's why God created grad students.

Despite all the fine talk, I would be mildly surprised if there were more than fifty astronomers scattered over ten observatories on the entire planet actually looking for Planet X (or in that general region of space). I expect a MUCH smaller subset would be those looking significantly above and below the plane of the ecliptic. I think most astronomers are either looking for asteroids or at things measured in distances of multiple light years away, with some of them not bothering to look at anything smaller than an entire galaxy.

Solar system trivia: as far as I know, Jupiter orbits around a point in space OUTSIDE the Sun, while the other seven planets orbit around points located inside the Sun.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
The real science question is: Are there one or more LARGE planets out beyond Neptune and Pluto and the math since the 1930's suggests that yes there are; today modern equipment combines with older photos (taken by some of those same telescopes) and even re-created 19th century ones (we have one here at Birr Castle and it does real scientific work, some things the mirrors do better than radio or lasers and rural Ireland has very little light pollution) is helping to search for them.

Again, the areas of space are huge; the extra "big" boys and girls may not be on the "ecliptic plane" (which helps cause the distortion) and as I mentioned before; at the moment you can't use the same technology on "near" objects as you can with say looking for potential planets around more distant stars.

As someone also mentioned; these "giants" if they exist (and they probably do) will have "orbits" of hundreds and maybe even thousands of years; again that has nothing to do with "Nibru" or other silly stuff; it just makes them very hard to track even with modern technology at least until you actually spot one. Then the course can be charted (or at least predicted) and regular observations taken by the next four generations or so until the orbit is well established.

My one hope is they don't name these objects something totally stupid and difficult to pronounce; the "PC army" exists in science too - the world has accepted a mostly Grecco-Roman template for the major planets; I'd prefer to see either that theme continue or at least something that make sense - while I could live with Planet Quetzalcoatl (because people are aware of the name and everyone will just call it Planet Q) I'd prefer not to deal with say Planet Mictlantecuhtli (Aztec God of Death and not nearly as well known; besides we have Pluto already).
 

Dreamer

Veteran Member
Around two decades ago in my Solar System class at MIT we discussed this issue. The indicators we use to successfully find planets around other stars suggest a massive planet far out and out of plane with the rest of our planets. It was a secret to discover if you followed the path into planetary science. Many scientists HATE discussing what they don't know, so publicizing a big unknown when they don't have a good way to track it down it not something most like to do. In other solar systems, the distance lets a telescope look at a large are with relatively little movement because it is so far away. Looking for this planet is like trying to find a distant object in an unknown path through binoculars while on the teacup ride at Disneyland. Then add in the cost of telescope time, and it starts to make sense why this has taken so long to search for with no results to date.
 

tanstaafl

Has No Life - Lives on TB
My one hope is they don't name these objects something totally stupid and difficult to pronounce ...

The discoverer of 2003 UB313 nicknamed his discovery Xena and its companion moon Gabrielle. Sadly for American pop culture, they were actually named Eris and Dysnomia, respectively. The official naming committee decided that fictional popular mythology doesn't count! :) By the way, Eris is just a few kilometers smaller than Pluto (1,163 vs. 1,187 -- for awhile there I think they thought Eris was BIGGER than Pluto), and I think that played a part in prompting the change to the definition of what a planet is. Because if Pluto is a planet, then Eris being so very similar would ALSO have to be a planet.

People may remember the day in 2005 (July 29th) when no less than THREE new discoveries of large bodies beyond Pluto were announced. It caused major confusion here on TB2K and the world in general, and I don't doubt there are still people who think they were all the same object. Eris/2003 UB313/"Xena," Makemake/2005 FY9/"Easterbunny," and Haumea/2003 EL61/"Santa" were all rushed to announcement as the scientists involved heard rumors and thought someone was trying to steal their thunder. The actual discoveries and the announcement year aren't necessarily the same as astronomers usually spend a lot of time confirming their observations first (it takes multiple photos separated by months and years to calculate an orbit).
 

tanstaafl

Has No Life - Lives on TB
This story was a link from a story in Earth Changes about some new asteroid finding software, but I thought this was the more interesting story. Above I pointed out that a lot of astronomers aren't looking close enough to our solar system to see another planet in the outer solar system, but apparently they CAN use those mega-light year observations of galaxies for things closer to our galactic neighborhood. I would have thought the focus on the telescopes was all wrong, but that assumption may not be valid -- maybe it has something to do with how almost all professional astronomy is more digital these days rather than purely optical.

If this becomes more common then perhaps there will be the added benefit that they may be looking at galaxies NOT in the same plane our planets orbit in. They may spot something the astronomers looking only at the plane the planets orbit in (which is, after all, where the overwhelming vast majority of asteroids and comets generally are located) would never see. The OP theory is that a ninth planet would NOT be in the plane of the ecliptic.

I also love that this astronomer indirectly supports my snark above about why God created grad students (although in this case it was visiting undergrads) -- give them data no one else is looking at and maybe they'll find something interesting. And these visiting undergrads did!

-----

A Friend For Pluto: Astronomers Find New Dwarf Planet In Our Solar System

by Joe Palca
Heard on Morning Edition
October 11, 2016

Scientists in Michigan have found a new dwarf planet in our solar system.

It's about 330 miles across and some 8.5 billion miles from the sun. It takes 1,100 years to complete one orbit.

But one of the most interesting things about the new object, known for the time being as 2014 UZ224, is the way astronomers found it.

David Gerdes of the University of Michigan led the team that found the new dwarf planet. Gerdes describes himself as "an adult-onset astronomer," having started his scientific career as a particle physicist.

He helped develop a special camera called the Dark Energy Camera that the U.S. Department of Energy commissioned to make a map of distant galaxies.

A few years ago, Gerdes had some undergraduates visiting him for the summer. He decided to give them a project: He asked them if they could find some solar system objects lurking in the galaxy map.

How do you find solar system objects in pictures taken of the sky looking for galaxies? Well, you look for things that move: "Objects in the solar system, when you observe them at one instant and then a little while later, they appear to be in a different place in the sky," Gerdes says.

Stars and galaxies are so far away, they're basically stationary. But a planet or asteroid will be in a slightly different position from night to night. It will appear as a dot of light that seems to be moving across the stationary backdrop of stars.

Connect the dots night after night and you can begin to calculate the object's orbit around the sun.

But the images Gerdes had from his galaxy map weren't taken night after night.

"We often just have a single observation of the thing, on one night," he says. "And then two weeks later one observation, and then five nights later another observation, and four months later another observation. So the connecting-the-dots problem is much more challenging."

But they were able to develop software that can do just that.

The dwarf planet that Gerdes and his colleagues have found isn't the first distant dwarf planet astronomers have found in recent years. Sedna, Eris and Makemake have all been discovered in the past decade or so. Add to that Pluto, which used to be a planet until it was demoted when the definition changed.

It's also possible some astronomers might argue that the object Gerdes found is too small to be considered a dwarf planet, but for now, he says the term applies.

This new dwarf planet is pretty exciting if you're into dwarf planets, but there's a much bigger prize astronomers are searching for. They think there's a planet 10 times more massive than Earth hiding in the outer reaches of the solar system.

A scientific paper earlier this year described the orbit of this so-called Planet Nine. Astronomers have since been scouring the parts of sky where the orbit says Planet Nine might be, but so far, no one has seen it.

Gerdes says it's quite possible that one of the images taken for his galaxy map may actually contain a picture of it.

"I'm excited about our chances of finding it," he told me when we me last month in a conference room along with several of his student collaborators. I asked him if "our" meant him and his team, or astronomers in general.

"I'm excited about the chances of the people in this room finding it. Of course I'm happy for humanity if someone else finds it, it would be the most exciting astronomical discovery in our lifetime, I think."

No luck so far, but as Gerdes says: "The hunt is on."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ers-find-new-dwarf-planet-in-our-solar-system
 
Top