Scientist Claims There's Even More Evidence of Planet Nine's Existence (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader cites an article on The Verge: More evidence is pointing toward a mysterious Neptune-sized planet lurking at the outer edges of our Solar System. One of the scientists who claimed in January to have found strong evidence for a ninth planet -- temporarily named 'Planet Nine' -- now says there are even more clues that support the world's existence. Mike Brown, a planetary astronomer at Caltech University, originally concluded that Planet Nine most likely exists after studying the behaviors of six objects in the Kuiper Belt -- the large cloud of icy bodies that orbit the Sun beyond Neptune. Now Brown is claiming that another Kuiper Belt object supports his theory. The object shares some of the same behavior as the other six Kuiper Belt bodies, suggesting it has also been pushed by a large planet that is between 200 and 1,200 times the distance from the Sun to Earth.

Comments

Inevitable

[SuperKendall]

There will always be nine planets. If you get rid of one of the planets, it is inevitable another will come along to fill the void.

Re:Inevitable

[jfdavis668]

That's why we need to invent the Death Star.

Re:Inevitable

[__aaclcg7560]

The Death Star would be Planet X with X being the location of the exposed exhaust port.

Re:Inevitable

[xleeko]

There will always be nine planets. If you get rid of one of the planets, it is inevitable another will come along to fill the void.

Always nine there are: The Master and the Apprentice, Gilligan, the Skipper, the Millionaire and his wife, the Movie star, the Professor and Mary Anne.

At least that is how I learned it in school. "My Angry Grandmother Serves Many Waffle Meals Per Month"

Re:Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Planet 9 was discovered in 1930. It's called Pluto.

Re:Inevitable

[beatle11]

Yup. Should be Planet Ten.

Re:Inevitable

[operagost]

Indeed. A planet is no moon.

Re:Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we need to invent the Death Star.

Please no.

We don't need ANOTHER Lucas/Disney movie with the same damn plot.

Re:Inevitable

[painandgreed]

Yup. Should be Planet Ten.

Actually, since reclassifying Pluto as a "dwarf planet", they've also started calling Ceres a dwarf planet also. If Pluto gets re-added to the list, they'll probably also re-add Ceres (as it was considered a planet for a number of years after discovery) making Pluto number 10 and this one number 11. Otherwise, this will be the ninth non-dwarf planet.

Re:Inevitable

[OakDragon]

Let's called it "Planet 9 from Outer Space."

Re:Inevitable

[OakDragon]

*call*

Preview does no good if you're convinced your write the first time.


(OK that was intentional.)

Re:Inevitable

[plopez]

no, it would be a small moon.

Re:Inevitable

[CrimsonAvenger]

(OK that was intentional.)

Which was intentional? The "write" or the "your"? Or both?

Re:Inevitable

[lastman71]

And there is also Eris that is like pluto. So if eris is planet 11, "Planet 9" should be Planet 12.

Re:Inevitable

[serbanp]

duh! the phonetically correct but badly spelled "you're right"

Re:Inevitable

[JesseMcDonald]

So if eris is planet 11, "Planet 9" should be Planet 12.

Make that Planet 14. Right now there are a total of five officially-recognized dwarf planets in the solar system, in addition to the eight proper planets: Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris.

Re:Inevitable

[nelk]

Let's called it "Planet 9 from Outer Space."

I say we call it 'Pltuo'. All the mnemonics that people have learned throughout the years to remember the names and order of the planets from the sun can then be reused, all kinds of hilarity could be had for years to come with auto correct sending people to the wrong information.

Re: Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

JarJar?

Re:Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's more important to make sure we never have ten planets, lest the Cybermen will invade.

Re: Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

That's no moon...

Re:Inevitable

[pjbgravely]

It doesn't matter what it is called, as long as its nickname is Rupert.

Re:Inevitable

[CanEHdian]

Planet Ten? Oh no! No way! I'm staying on Planet Seven. Planet Ten is just a little less worse (in one way) than Planet Eight point One, and a lot worse in other ways.

Re:Inevitable

[starbird56]

"Mrs. Venus Eats Many Juicy Steaks Using No Plates." I'm a bit confused by the letters used in "My Angry Grandmother..." How do these help you remember the planets?

What's the point of the publicity?

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how many more such bodies are found, the story won't be complete until and unless Planet Nine is actually observed and its orbital parameters calculated (I assume that precovery images will be located after the first observations).

Planet 9 ? Meh. . . .

[Salgak1]

. . . . it's Planet Ten, and the Red Lectroids that worry me. . . And no sign of Buckaroo Banzai OR the Hong Kong Cavaliers. . . .

plan 9 from outer space!

[Joe_Dragon]

plan 9 from outer space!

Re:plan 9 from outer space!

[tmjva]

That movie was first thing I thought of when I saw the title of this article. Good job!

Hold on to your wallets everyone ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... the last time they searched for the 9th planet the economy tanked!

Re:Planet 9 ? Meh. . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . . it's Planet Ten, and the Red Lectroids that worry me. . .

And no sign of Buckaroo Banzai OR the Hong Kong Cavaliers. . . .

John Big Bootie says ... No!

Yup; they are finally fessing up to Nibiru.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's freaking about time. :)

It's not a friggin' theory!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a hypothesis, you unscientific lump of garbage. Try to keep up and not look like a total moron.

Re:It's not a friggin' theory!

[mmell]

Ordinarily I don't waste my time on A/C's, but here goes (and what follows is a very abbreviated description) . . .

Observe a phenomenon. Think about a possible explanation for the phenomenon. Congratulations, you've postulated a hypothesis.

Gather data which will support your hypothesis. If the evidence does not support your hypothesis, reformulate and try again. If the evidence does support your hypothesis, you now have a theory.

Make a prediction based on your theory. Ensure that your theory is the only possible explanation for the prediction. Run an experiment and test your theory. You're on your way to elucidating a scientific fact.

Re: It's not a friggin' theory!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, that's not how it works. Laws, theories, and hypotheses are all supported by observational evidence. They differ in scope. The existence of a tenth planet is a hypothesis because it's a very limited scope. Hypotheses do not become theories. Please learn how the scientific method works.

Caltech University??

[Anonymous Coward]

Ain't no such thing.

Re:Caltech University??

[macraig]

Why has this gone unnoticed or at least unchallenged by all but a single anonymous coward? There is no "Caltech University", although there is a suspiciously similar California Institute of Technology, which every so often is referenced by the abbreviation CalTech....

They mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Planet IX, right?

Re:They mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Many machines on Ix. New machines...

Re:They mean

[jfdavis668]

Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.

If they hadn't demoted Pluto

[Black Parrot]

it could be called Planet X.

Re:If they hadn't demoted Pluto

[jfdavis668]

Or Planet XI, if they hadn't demoted Ceres in 1860.

Re:If they hadn't demoted Pluto

[Anonymous Coward]

There would only be one appropriate name for a tenth planet. That name is Mondas.

Re:If they hadn't demoted Pluto

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's called Nibiru.

Re:If they hadn't demoted Pluto

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 informative

Re:If they hadn't demoted Pluto

[HiThere]

You mean as in "Fire Maidens From Planet X"? That's one of the candidates for worst movie ever.

Re:New Horizons

[wonkey_monkey]

What's that got to do with this?

Useful

[Anonymous Coward]

A far out planet could be useful for gravitational assists to the outer solar system. We probably won't be going that far out until the foundation of the 2nd or 3rd Trump Reich, but we will inevitably be going there at some point. The God Emperor's dominion must be expanded at all costs! I would willingly sacrifice myself and my family for the honor of serving his greatness!

Re:Useful

[Locke2005]

"Far out!" -- John Denver

Re:Useful

[legRoom]

A far out planet could be useful for gravitational assists to the outer solar system.

Pedantically speaking... An actual gravity assist from the planet itself would be worth little - certainly not enough to justify the 1,000+ year diversion (not exaggerating) required to actually take advantage of it.

Getting a gravity assist is analogous to bouncing off of the assisting body. If the body is moving quickly and in an appropriate direction, the spacecraft can pick up a lot of speed (relative to the rest of the solar system) in the process. These conditions would certainly not apply to the hypothetical planet discussed above though:

1) A planet orbiting at that altitude would have an orbital velocity no more than ~7% that of Earth - maybe much less. A gravity assist cannot boost the velocity of the spacecraft by more than the velocity of the assisting body.

2) Achieving a worthwhile gravity assist requires waiting for the orbital phase of the assisting planet and the actual destination to line up right. This could be a loooonnnnggggg wait given that the planet in question would have an orbital period between about 3,000 and 40,000 years...

Having said that, if the planet just so happened to be in roughly the right place already, it might still be worth swinging by it for two reasons:

A) If it had a large moon in a relatively low orbit that was roughly aligned with the plane of the ecliptic, that moon might provide the gravity assist which the planet itself could not.

B) The point of closest approach to the planet may be a good place for an engine burn, to take advantage of the Oberth Effect (which is distinct from a true gravity assist).

Of course - all this "orbital ballet" gravity assist stuff is only necessary because our current propulsion technology is inadequate; any realistic plan for humans to explore the outer solar system would require an upgrade.

Re: Useful

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerbal space eh?

Re:Useful

[angel'o'sphere]

. A gravity assist cannot boost the velocity of the spacecraft by more than the velocity of the assisting body.
That is wrong.

The gravity assist comes from the difference of duration "falling" to the body "from behind" versus escaping the gravity field when "in front" of the body.

While both is related to the speed of both bodies, the addition is "energy" and/or "momentum", and the result is a much higher speed increase then just the speed of the "pulling body".

The rest of your logic is right. Nice "upgrade" link though.

Re:Useful

[legRoom]

Note: For simplicity, I shall assume a Newtonian two-body system (meaning the only significant force, is the gravitational pull of a single massive planet upon a passing spaceship).

That is wrong.

Indeed it is; I forgot a factor of two: the actual limit is twice the assisting body's speed. That's just the theoretical maximum, though; getting close to this in practice requires:

1) A massive assisting body (many moons are too small to be useful)

2) A very close approach (the need not to collide with the body limits this parameter)

3) Precise timing (as I mentioned in my previous post)

4) Proper alignment of the trajectories of the spaceship, the assisting body, and the destination

The gravity assist comes from the difference of duration "falling" to the body "from behind" versus escaping the gravity field when "in front" of the body.

This is incorrect; Newtonian two-body non-intersecting free fall trajectories are always symmetrical in both time and space across an axis drawn through the periapsis (point of closest approach) and the other body. This is the basis for Kepler's laws, which state that all such trajectories are conic sections with the massive body at the focus.

(You can benefit from escaping faster than you fell in - if you do an engine burn at periapsis to accelerate your escape. But then you're using the Oberth Effect, not just a gravity assist.)

A spaceship receiving a gravity assist follows a hyperbolic trajectory. From the planet's frame of reference, the spaceship doesn't actually acquire any additional energy or momentum from the encounter at all; what happens instead is that the direction of the spacecraft's motion is changed, but its speed upon leaving the planet's sphere of influence is the same as it was upon entry (the speed up while falling is exactly cancelled out by the slow down while escaping).

Nevertheless, from an outside frame of reference - such as that of the Sun - the spaceship may gain substantial speed/energy/momentum from the encounter. How? I'll just let the Wiki explain this part:

"A close terrestrial analogy is provided by a tennis ball bouncing off the front of a moving train. Imagine standing on a train platform, and throwing a ball at 30 km/h toward a train approaching at 50 km/h. The driver of the train sees the ball approaching at 80 km/h and then departing at 80 km/h after the ball bounces elastically off the front of the train. Because of the train's motion, however, that departure is at 130 km/h relative to the train platform; the ball has added twice the train's velocity to its own."

If that's confusing and unintuitive - consider giving Kerbal Space Program a try (or just watching some tutorials on YouTube). That's what made this stuff finally "click" for me...

Re: Useful

[legRoom]

You caught me. ;-)

(In particular, the bit about a large moon in a low orbit being useful, even if the planet itself is not, is something I don't recall every seeing pointed out in any of the "serious" discussion I've read on this topic - but should be rather obvious to anyone who's experimented much with gravity assists in the Jool system.)

Re:Useful

[angel'o'sphere]

The gravity assist comes from the difference of duration "falling" to the body "from behind" versus escaping the gravity field when "in front" of the body.

This is incorrect;

No it is not ;D pfffft. As you explained so eloquent and quoted wikipedia:

"A close terrestrial analogy is provided by a tennis ball bouncing off the front of a moving train. Imagine standing on a train platform, and throwing a ball at 30 km/h toward a train approaching at 50 km/h. The driver of the train sees the ball approaching at 80 km/h and then departing at 80 km/h after the ball bounces elastically off the front of the train. Because of the train's motion, however, that departure is at 130 km/h relative to the train platform; the ball has added twice the train's velocity to its own."

From the point of view of the sun, it is exactly as I explained above. You fly quicker out of the "gravity well" then you needed time to enter it.

I agree that your explanation is better, though.

Re:Useful

[legRoom]

From the point of view of the sun, it is exactly as I explained above. You fly quicker out of the "gravity well" then you needed time to enter it.

Sorry, but no. Such a thing would be possible under Relativity, but in Newtonian mechanics all observers must agree about the timing of events (provided that they are truly being asked the same question).

In the train example, an observer on the platform and one on the train will both give the same answer to the following questions:

1) How much time passed from the point at which the ball was 10 meters from the front of the train, until it hit the train?

2) How much time passed from the point at which the ball hit the train, until it was again 10 meters from the front of the train?

In the same way, the time for a spacecraft receiving a gravity assist to "enter" and to "fly ... out" are both defined based on the craft's altitude above the assisting body, which is moving from the Sun's perspective. The motion of the body synchronizes with that of the craft in such a way as to make the time-line consistent, regardless of whether you observe it from the Sun's perspective, or the assisting body's.

Re:Useful

[angel'o'sphere]

Sorry, but no.

Your explanation left aside: Sorry, but yes.

1) How much time passed from the point at which the ball was 10 meters from the front of the train, until it hit the train?

x seconds

2) How much time passed from the point at which the ball hit the train, until it was again 10 meters from the front of the train?

x-dV seconds

The ball gains momentum from the train in an elastic collision. The train loses momentum.

Or in other words: in the second question the ball is faster than in the fist question and the train is slower. Hence the time to be 10 meters away is shorter in case 2) than in case 1)

You seem to be very good at physics but I don't get why you don't grasp that an gravity sling shot is just a kind of an elastic collision in space ... albeit with a bit weird "vectors of movement".

Re:Useful

[legRoom]

The ball gains momentum from the train in an elastic collision. The train loses momentum.

Or in other words: in the second question the ball is faster than in the first question and the train is slower.

Let [mA] be the mass of the smaller object.
Let [mB] be the mass of the larger object.
Let [vA0] and [vB0] be the pre-collision velocities of the two objects.
Let [vA1] and [vB1] be the post-collision velocities of the two objects.

Let [AB] = [mA] / [mB], which is the ratio of the lesser mass to the greater.
With a little algebra: [mB] = [mA] / [AB]

By the law of conservation of momentum: [mA]*[vA0] + [mB]*[vB0] = [mA]*[vA1] + [mB]*[vB1]
By substitution: [mA]*[vA0] + ([mA] / [AB])*[vB0] = [mA]*[vA1] + ([mA] / [AB])*[vB1]
By subtraction: [mA]*[vA0] - [mA]*[vA1] = ([mA] / [AB])*[vB1] - ([mA] / [AB])*[vB0]
By division: [vB1] - [vB0] = ([mA]*[vA0] - [mA]*[vA1]) / ([mA] / [AB])
Simplified: [vB1] - [vB0] = [AB]*([vA0] - [vA1])

Let [dvB] = [vB1] - [vB0] and [dvA] = [vA1] - [vA0]
By substitution: [dvB] = -[AB]*[dvA]
By division: [dvB] / [dvA] = -[AB]

From the above, we can see that the ratio of change in velocity for the train versus the ball, or the spacecraft versus the planet, is equal to the (negated) ratio of the smaller mass to the greater mass:

A large train weighs in excess of 10^6 kg. A tennis ball weighs less than 0.06 kg. Thus:

[AB] = [6*10^-2 kg] / [10^6 kg] = [6*10^-8]
[dvA] = [-130 km/h] - [+30 km/h] = [-160 km/h]

[dvB] = -[AB]*[dvA]
[dvB] = -[6*10^-8]*[-160 km/h] = [9.6*10^-6 km/h]

So technically, yes the train slows down - by an immeasurably small amount that is completely irrelevant for any purpose other than ensuring conservation of momentum. #1 takes a mere 0.45 seconds, but #2 also needs an extra 54 nanoseconds.

I would approve your answer here as pedantically correct... except that the application you have attempted to make of it to gravity assists is just dead wrong:

x-dV seconds

That's obviously invalid, and not helpful at all. x and dV are specified in different types of units (time versus speed), so one cannot be directly subtracted from the other like that. Repeating the math from above, but now for the gravity assist case:

A truly gigantic manned spacecraft (required for such a long journey) might weigh 10^7 kilograms, while an ice giant like the theorized "Planet Nine" might weigh 10^26 kg (like Neptune). The maximum plausible velocity change for the spacecraft from the gravity assist would be around 4 km/s.

[AB] = [10^7 kg] / [10^26 kg] = [10^-19]
[dvA] = [4 km/s]

[dvB] = -[AB]*[dvA]
[dvB] = -[10^-19]*[4 km/s] = [-4*10^-19 km/s]

Now that we know roughly how much "Planet Nine" could be slowed down by an encounter with our spaceship, we can calculate how much faster the ship will escape the planet's gravity well as a result. We'll use Neptune's Hill Sphere radius as a reasonable (and lazy) approximation for the size of the well.

[ship speed] = [2 km/s] Note: As in the train case, from the planet's frame of reference, the ship does not (in net) speed up; it only changes direction.
[planet dV] = [-4*10^-19 km/s]
[Hill radius] = [1.16*10^8 km]

[inbound time] = [Hill radius] / [ship speed]
[inbound time] = [1.16*10^8 km] / [2 km/s] = [5.8*10^7 s]
[outbound time] = [radius] / ([ship speed] + [planet dV])
[outbound time] = [1.16*10^8 km] / ([2 km/s] + [-4*10^-19 km/s]) = [5.8*10^7 s] + [1.16*10^-11 s]

The above formula is grossly oversimplified (since, unlike an actual elastic collision, this acceleration is far from instantaneous) - but should nevertheless

Re:Useful

[legRoom]

Minor correction:

[5.8*10^7 s] + [1.16*10^-11 s]

That should obviously be a minus in the middle, not a plus; the escape is faster, not slower.

there is simply NO WAY that taking an extra 1/100th of a nanosecond to escape

Again, this should be "taking one 1/100th of a nanosecond less to escape", not "more".

I should really proof-read this stuff more carefully - but in this case it does not change the ultimate conclusion at all.

Re:Planet 9 ? Meh. . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Boo-tay-tay-TAY!

Proof the universe hates Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Anonymous Coward]

Who can blame it?

Scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

If by "9" they mean "10", then ok.

Re:New Horizons

[Anonymous Coward]

We may be able to divert it to get a closer look.

Public vote for naming IX...

[ihtoit]

I vote for Planety McPlanet.

Re:Public vote for naming IX...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't that be Planety McPlanetface?

Re:Public vote for naming IX...

[ihtoit]

fuck off, this is my joke.

Re:Public vote for naming IX...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not unless your only exposure to a 15+ year old meme is in its most recent incarnation being circulated among the youngest and most naive of netizens, and you feel that the only worthy invocation of a pop meme is to parrot it around verbatim, correcting anyone who shows the slightest signs of individuality.

Re:Public vote for naming IX...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at this memelord right here.

A master is most definitely out.

Technically it's not

[sshir]

It's more evidence for a weird phenomenon where a bunch of bodies behave in a very non-random, coincidental way. But we already knew about that admittedly interesting thing. In another words: It's like postulating that red lights cause traffic accidents and then, later, pointing that additional evidence for that hypothesis is that more red lights were observed around town.

Re:Technically it's not

[religionofpeas]

It's more evidence for a weird phenomenon where a bunch of bodies behave in a very non-random, coincidental way.

If a bunch of bodies in space move in a very non-random, coincidental way, there must be a mass pulling on them. There's no other remotely credible explanation.

Re:Technically it's not

[Anonymous Coward]

If a bunch of bodies in space move in a very non-random, coincidental way, there must be a mass pulling on them. There's no other remotely credible explanation.

Yes, the mass of those bunch of bodies in space moving in very non-random ways are pulling on the mass of those bunch of bodies.

It's called orbital mechanics, and once you go beyond 3 bodies things can and do get strange and unexpected.

Re:Technically it's not

[rahvin112]

What that mass is doesn't necessarily mean a large Neptune sized body. It could have just as easily been the effect of numerous small ort cloud objects or even the interplay between the all or collisions between them.

He's got a solution in look for evidence, personally I prefer evidence that's explained by a solution. All too often people that have answers and are looking for data to back up their answer are wrong.

It's called Pluto

[Anonymous Coward]

We already know that

My name

[operagost]

MikeBrown'sNotPlanet

Re:New Horizons

[Anonymous Coward]

We may be able to divert it to get a closer look.

Things in space are really far away from each other. I wouldn't expect New Horizons to be anywhere near it.

Re:New Horizons

[Anonymous Coward]

You may need to update your mental map of the solar system and the distances between planets, especially with such large orbits. Chances are, the closest the New Horizons probe will ever get to "planet 9" was before it left Earth's atmosphere.

Re:New Horizons

[Anonymous Coward]

We may be able to divert it to get a closer look.

Yes, just pull the handbrake, stomp the gas pedal, and Tokyo Drift that bitch.

Red lectroids drool

[Anonymous Coward]

Lord John Whorfin: Where are we going?

The Red Lectroids: Planet Ten!

Lord John Whorfin: When?

The Red Lectroids: Real soon!

Re:Red lectroids drool

[jnork]

My only regret is that I have no mod points to mod you up for the BB reference.

Re:Planet 9 ? Meh. . . .

[plopez]

I'd like to go there real soon.

Re:Planet 9 ? Meh. . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

He must still be fighting the the World Crime League.

It will remain 8 planets

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a Republican Congress, which means that no vacancies will be filled to make nine. We'll have to make do with eight until at least the next election.

Re: It will remain 8 planets

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank God. Some planets are best not being part of the solar system.

Actually, it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzzt. It is falsifiable, there is empirical evidence to support it, it has not been disproven. Ergo it's a theory.

Re:Actually, it is.

[Immerman]

No, that's a hypothesis with some supporting evidence.

A scientific Theory is a *well-confirmed* explanation of nature - i.e. has solid supporting evidence and commonly widespread acceptance within the field. It differs from a scientific Law primarily in spelling and historical timing - Law having fallen out of common use as we came to accept that our understanding of the universe is far shakier than we once imagined.

Suggestion for the new planet's name:

[mmell]

Pluto.

Re:Suggestion for the new planet's name:

[coldsalmon]

It should at least start with P so that we can bring back "My Very Educated Mother Just Showed Us Nine Planets."

Gravitational disturbances

[ThatAblaze]

So.. the orbits of several comets were disturbed by something large moving through our solar system at some point in the past. While I grant that a large planet is the most mundane explanation.. this could also be caused by either a rogue planet falling into our sun, or.. dare I say.. a very large alien craft moving though our system at some point in the past.

Re:Gravitational disturbances

[Anonymous Coward]

Comets? Although considering that this is slashdot, it's not surprising that you are so ill-informed.

Re:Gravitational disturbances

[DanielRavenNest]

The categories of "asteroid" and "comet" are accidents of history, and how they were first discovered. In reality, most every object beyond the "frost line" has lots of water ice and other compounds we consider frozen gases (ammonia, methane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc.). The frost line is the distance from the Sun where water can remain frozen, and thus could condense out of the Solar Nebula. Closer than that and you get dry objects. It happens to be at 2.8 AU, which is the middle of the Asteroid Belt.

If any of these icy bodies from the outer Solar System get too close to the Sun, they become a comet when the ices evaporate. So ThatAblaze wasn't really wrong calling these Scattered Disk objects "comets", any more than it's wrong to call Halley's Comet not a comet in it's current frozen state. He's wrong about everything else, though.

Re:Gravitational disturbances

[DanielRavenNest]

> So.. the orbits of several comets were disturbed by something large moving through our solar system at some point in the past.

Actually, by repeatedly disturbing the orbits of these Scattered Disk objects, so their orbital parameters are opposite the proposed planet. In that location, the planet doesn't disturb them any more, so they stay put. A single pass of a rogue planet would not change the orbits of *anything* that much, and once that one pass was done with, the Scattered Disk Objects would drift away from their anti-alignment.

We see other examples of this "gravity shepherding". For example, Pluto and the Plutinos stay in a 3:2 resonance orbit with Neptune, because Neptune's gravity keeps them there.

Re:Gravitational disturbances

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it could be caused by the non existence of the "Kupiter Belt", and these fucked up propagandists are doing what they always do: Try to fit an observation into the "established" understanding rather than question whether their understanding is wrong. Too bad we don't have many space scientists anymore, just cheerleaders for the unfounded "dirty snowballs" hypothesis.

Hint: The comets we've been to are hard, dry, hot (when near the sun) and irregular shaped bodies of rock, apparently not products of aeons of collisions (which would have rounded them) and clearly not aggregations of ice covered with dirt. Cometary tails are formed by charged particles that glows due to the same process that causes the Aurora Borealis.

Re:Gravitational disturbances

[khallow]

Or it could be caused by the non existence of the "Kupiter Belt"

It's a bit late to bring up that concern. We already have observed numerous members of that belt.

Re:Gravitational disturbances

[RockDoctor]

A large planet - similar to other planets seen in the Solar System and other planetary systems - odds are in the 50-50 range.

A "rogue planet" (as in, one not gravitationally bound to any star) in that part of the Sun's environment, in a relatively short (few thousands of years) period of time is from first principles much less likely. But it wouldn't produce this pattern of orbits (with the appropriate KBOs at different parts of their orbit then and now) anyway.

A putative spacecraft would literally have to be planetary mass. No real world materials are known which are strong enough to hold a planetary mass into a non-spherical shape. So your spacecraft is now a planet. Even if it is artificial. So you're reduced to one of the previous tow options you raised.

Re:Gravitational disturbances

[RockDoctor]

We see other examples of this "gravity shepherding". For example, Pluto and the Plutinos stay in a 3:2 resonance orbit with Neptune, because Neptune's gravity keeps them there.

Trojan "moons" (or "asteroids" ; pick a category) might be better examples. Much better established, with the math having been accepted for several centuries now.

Re:Gravitational disturbances

[ThatAblaze]

Your explanation makes the whole "9th planet theory" seems increasingly less plausible. If they are postulating a planet because a few cherry picked examples happened to be orbiting the sun on the same side of the solar system then they are fools. Anyone can cherry pick 8 objects which indicate something when taken in isolation of everything else in the solar system.

where are all the Nibiru cranks?

[Pax681]

I have been laughing my ass off at the thought of these morons whop are such big fans of that TOTAKL CRACKPOT and bullshitter ,Zacharia Sitchin.
And that other bullshitting crackpot Erik Von Danniken and his wee fanyboy asshole, Giorgio A. Tsoukalos - the idiot you see on Ancient Aliens (and I mean that he was/is the chief of Dannikens fan club and is now somehow an expert???).. BUT the hilarious thing is this.....
Michael Heiser , an actual Mesopotamian language scholar says to debunk Sitchin and co
and the whole thesis debunked by Chris White https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and http://ancientaliensdebunked.c... and http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/
Using this you can have a shed load of fun with these morons!

Re:where are all the Nibiru cranks?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize the Scientists here are now saying pretty much the same thing Sitchin had been saying since 1976. They're just 40 years to the party and coming from a different direction.

Re:Planet 9 ? Meh. . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter WHERE you go.... there you are.

Re:Planet 9 ? Meh. . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"Boo Tay" Microsoft's chat bot for teens

Re: Why do those Republicans...

[Sand_Man]

That's true, Texans always blame the Clinton WH.

just waiting for you merkins to

[Anonymous Coward]

Either at least declare a cold war and an arms race or an out and out shooting war against them!

its a dwarf planet!

[anwyn]

Because of the planet's eccentric orbit and long period, it is unlikely that it clears its orbit. That is right a planet the size of Neptune, and its a dwarf planet.

This is what happens when you write naming conventions in order to "get" a planet for political reasons!

Re:its a dwarf planet!

[legRoom]

in order to "get" a planet for political reasons!

Out of curiosity - what were these "political reasons"? Was Pluto threatening to run as a third party candidate or something?

Re:its a dwarf planet!

[Hognoxious]

It was planning to trade oil in Euros.

Re:its a dwarf planet!

[legRoom]

Ha ha. Very funny. I'm not that dumb. Pluto has been politically marginalized - not "liberated" by the military.

My fellow Americans, it is with sadness and righteous anger that I make this address to you tonight, for new intelligence indicates that Pluto is not a democracy. This great crime against humanity and the American people must not go unavenged!

Furthermore, Pluto has maintained a cold, indifferent silence in the face of all demands to publicly denounce Al Quaeda and the Islamic State. No response has been received to our request to join our Coalition of the Willing.

Taking into consideration its massive stocks of carbon monoxide - a potential chemical warfare agent - it becomes clear that Pluto represents an imminent, existential threat to the security of the American People and the American Way of Life, justifying a pre-emptive military intervention. (But I will direct any legal challenges to this doctrine to the United Nations Security Council, whose formal resolutions we respect.)

Therefore, effective immediately, I am launching Operation Democracy Export So That Rights are Observed, Yeah. The first wave of autonomous B83 military advisors are en route as we speak.

Re:its a dwarf planet!

[RockDoctor]

This is what happens when you write naming conventions in order to "get" a planet for political reasons!

If you, for whatever reasons you have, think that is what happened, then nothing short of full-blown ECT is going to argue you out of it.

If you're actually interested in what happened, then here's some information for you. The discovery of Eris (by Mike Brown a.k.a @PlutoKiller and team) which was probably bigger than Pluto and clearly had not in any sense "cleared it's orbit," then it became obvious that the definition of "planet" needed firming up. There were several proposals as to how to do that, and a wording was settled. What exactly that wording means isn't so clear.

Hal Levison (if I need to write a potted biography of him, then you clearly need to strengthen your planetary science) wrote up his "hand-waving" version a while ago at SWRI, which uses an argument balancing the effects of accretion and ejection. There are other ways of expressing the discussion though - there were a couple of papers on Arxiv a month or so ago about search possibilities for "Putative" (otherwise known as "Planet9".

Well except Haumea shouldn't count

[NotSoHeavyD3]

because it isn't a sphere. I mean it is an ellipsoid or something but it's not close to a circle in shape.

Re:Well except Haumea shouldn't count

[harperska]

"Spherical" is not a part of any official definition. The term is "hydrostatic equilibrium", which only means spherical when the object isn't rotating. In fact, planets are often (always?) non-spherical due to their rotation, even Earth. Haumea is rotating really fast, which has pulled it into the odd football shape. If it wasn't in hydrostatic equilibrium, it wouldn't have even gotten a "dwarf planet" designation.

Re:Well except Haumea shouldn't count

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not an odd football shape, it's an odd amphibious landing craft shape.

Odd is justified in both cases, since it isn't shaped like either.

Re:Well except Haumea shouldn't count

[NotSoHeavyD3]

So it's basically like Jupiter except it's just rotating faster? I did not know that.

Orbital Attitude

[mwehle]

More evidence is pointing toward a mysterious Neptune-sized planet lurking at the outer edges of our Solar System.

If no one has directly observed this planet how can we know it's lurking? Perhaps it's sauntering. Maybe walking assertively? Skipping? Where is the evidence for lurking?

I'm thinking Kobold...

[Grog6]

There's a Pak protector out there with a small sphere of Neutronium, holding a small personal planetoid together with proper gravity. :)

He told Larry Niven everything while wasted in a bar, and modern SF was born. :)

No Because KBO?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought all the dark forces arrayed against Pluto as a planet, basically said there couldn't be any more planets outside Uranis's orbit? That all such would be Kuiper Belt Objects and that 'everyone knows' a KBO cannot be a planet. Because it's an Object I guess.

Yeah, yeah, I know. They piled on a bunch of additional justifications, like a planet had to be round due to gravitation, and had to clear it's orbit. However they clearly took offence to Pluto's eccentric orbital path and excursions into the Kuiper Belt.

By this logic, no matter the size of Planet 9, and no matter how clear it's orbital path is, it is a KBO and not a planet.

Re:No Because KBO?

[RockDoctor]

They piled on a bunch of additional justifications, like a planet had to be round due to gravitation,

That was one of the proposed criteria. If you believe that it was one of the accepted grounds, then you either haven't followed the actual science (highly likely), or you've been listening to really poor press reporting (of which there is a lot) and misunderstood the science.

For what it's worth, I argued for the roundness criterion (sometimes described by the orbits and dynamics people as "a materials science argument," which considerably misstates the point). But since I haven't earned my chops as a planetary scientist (just another geologist), I didn't get a vote, and would have lost anyway. Roundness is not a criterion for whether or not something is a planet.

Caltech is not a university.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an institute of technology.

We may "hear" it instead

[dbIII]

With gravity wave detection happening now it may be possible to find something like this in a few decades with a really long baseline on the gravity detector/s. There's already suggestions to network three at points very widely separated around the world (effectively providing a baseline the size of Earth plus an indication of a direction) and offworld detectors on the moon or far beyond may lead to being able to detect something like a Pluto sized planet from it's gravity.

Re:We may "hear" it instead

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that you're off by many orders of magnitude as to the sensitivity of such a detector.

Re:We may "hear" it instead

[dbIII]

Hence a baseline orders of magnitude larger than the current first try. Did you even read past the first sentence?

Re: We may "hear" it instead

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I did. Unfortunately.

James Webb Space Telescope useful here?

[MtViewGuy]

I think with the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope in 2018, this may be the instrument that could find that supposed large object--based on its infrared signature--orbiting a long distance from the Sun, possibly taking around 10,000 years to orbit our Solar System.

But is it a gas giant planet as now proposed? Is it possible the object may actually be a faint brown dwarf star, one that is much smaller than our gas giant planets but with a diameter a couple times that of Earth itself? If it's a brown dwarf, that might explain the strong gravitational influence on our Solar System.

Re:James Webb Space Telescope useful here?

[RockDoctor]

I think with the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope in 2018, this may be the instrument that could find that supposed large object--based on its infrared signature--orbiting a long distance from the Sun

I think there has already been some work on that and the expected dimensions (therefore surface area) and temperature (assume it formed similarly to Uranus and Neptune, but received less solar irradiation ; deduce a plausible range of temperatures) put it outside the likely sensitive range for current IR space telescopes and ground-based telescopes. I'm not so sure about the JWST though. I'm sure I read a couple of papers on this in the "Planet-9 kerfuffle" of early this year, but I can't find them now.

Doing a "can this telescope possibly see this target?" analysis is a routine thing. Saves a lot of wasted time.

It is probably too late in the JWST's design and construction programme to develop a sensor specifically for this task. Whether the already-planned sensors can do it is, I'm sure, under consideration.

Re:James Webb Space Telescope useful here?

[MtViewGuy]

The infrared sensor on JWST may not be able to find a gas giant planet that far out from the Sun. But it may find my proposed small brown dwarf (which may have a fairly significant heat signature) orbiting around the Sun in a very elliptical orbit that at its closest pass is still well beyond the orbit of Pluto--probably beyond the orbit of Sedna, too.

My suggestion makes more sense given that binary star systems are a lot more common than people think.

Re:James Webb Space Telescope useful here?

[RockDoctor]

But it may find my proposed small brown dwarf (which may have a fairly significant heat signature) orbiting around the Sun in a very elliptical orbit that at its closest pass is still well beyond the orbit of Pluto--probably beyond the orbit of Sedna, too.

That, a brown dwarf, would be a minimum of about 80 Jupiter masses by current (reasonably accurate) astrophysics. We do things like blow up bombs which probe the physics of this behaviour - we're reasonably sure that those masses are reasonably accurate. Let's be generous and put a 50% error bound on that mass, so that the lower bound for a "brown dwarf" is 40 Jupiter masses. That's around 40*318=)12720 Earth masses, or around 1272 times as big as the Brown-Batygin proposal for Planet9. You're talking about a different object.

Such a large object would have far larger gravitational effects than what we have seen. Essentially, it would have scattered most of the observed population of Kuiper Belt objects. The more eccentric the orbit, the greater the range of KBOs it would have scattered. We observe these KBOs because they exist, therefore your brown dwarf does not exist. Sorry - beautiful hypothesis slain by ugly fact and all that jazz.

Could a smaller gas giant (well below the deuterium-burning limit that defines "brown dwarf") exist out there, and not have been seen yet? Well, since Jupiter is still radiating more heat than it receives from the Sun (due to internal differentiation, principally the settling of helium and "metals" (astrophysics meaning) into it's core from it's mantle, releasing gravitational energy), then we can be sure that anything of Jupiter mass would be radiating so much infrared that we'd have detected in all-sky surveys of the 1980s. Neptune mass planets (17 earth masses) - their detection is much more dubious. We might detect some with current detectors, but that is still being assessed. Whether to assign telescope time from existing projects to searching for this (putative) planet, and how much time to assign, with what instruments and which telescopes, at which times of year ... are active matters of discussion.

My suggestion makes more sense given that binary star systems are a lot more common than people think.

Binary and other multiple star systems are indeed far more common than most people think. with all due respect, I've been interested in astronomy for around 4 decades now, and for almost all (3.8 to 3.9 decades) I've been well aware that around 50% of star systems in this galaxy are binaries (e.g. the Sirius A+B system, the brightest star in our sky and only 8 light years away), a couple of percent are ternaries (e.g. our closest known neighbour, the Alpha-Beta-Proxima Centauri system), and a small fraction are higher multiples, with the highest well-known one being 6-fold. Working out the numbers, for 100 systems, that's about 65 singletons, 60 in binaries, 9-12 in ternaries, and maybe another 5 in higher-multiple systems. total of 134 to 137 stars with 47-46% of them singletons. Most people might not know this ; anyone who has devoted more than a couple of months of after-school study to this knows this. Despite the failure of the Slashdot aspiration to be "news for nerds", here you've got a far higher probability of meeting people who have this level of knowledge than in the general population.

Your suggestions are reasonable. And most of them have been reasoned through decades ago. And most of them shown to be not true. But they were reasonable suggestions to consider.

Re: James Webb Space Telescope useful here?

[Anonymous Coward]

JWST is not a survey telescope.

Pluto

[Anonymous Coward]

Pluto is Planet 9, dumbass.

Pseudoscience Fakery

[MTeam7Wizards]

Yeah, sure! Because these astrophysicists have been always right, right? No, most of their theories are blown. Including the formation of the solar system and all it's objects. So you read: ***concluded*** ***most likely*** ***after studying the behaviors of six objects***. This is pseudoscience crawling it's way to de facto science. And keep the money flowing please... we need a new kitchen, and wife wants to visit Paris. People are so brain limited, they might as well send the money.

195Nine!

[EricTheO]

Old News.... Ed Wood proved in 1959 that Planet Nine existed.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

Re:195Nine!

[EricTheO]

Old News.... Ed Wood proved in 1959 that Planet Nine existed.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

Well... Ok, Plan Nine.

Duh...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called Pluto, we have some lovely photos of it.

Re:Planet 9 ? Meh. . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

no no no that's AFTER the Lectroids