Newly Discovered Object Revives Speculation of Planet X

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Xcathdra
Interesting all these newly found planets, objects on the heels of a NASA spokesman's recent statement (paraphrasing) "There is no conclusive evidence of the existence of Planet X".

Tell me again why we trust NASA?

Because the evidence gathered so far is indeed inconclusive.

Despite the popular media jumping on the Planet X bandwagon, one has to critically examine whether this new object warrants this hypothesis at all. From Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

Being a Trans-Neptunian object so far from the Sun with an observation arc less than 1 year, perihelion and aphelion have not been well established. It may or may not be a Sednoid.

en.wikipedia.org...

The sednoids' orbits cannot be explained by perturbations from the giant planets, nor by interaction with the galactic tides. If they formed in their current locations, their orbits must originally have been circular; otherwise accretion (the coalescence of smaller bodies into larger ones) would not have been possible because the large relative velocities between planetesimals would have been too disruptive. Their present elliptical orbits can be explained by several hypotheses:

1. These objects could have had their orbits and perihelion distances "lifted" by the passage of a nearby star when the Sun was still embedded in its birth star cluster.
2. Their orbits could have been disrupted by an as-yet-unknown planet-sized body beyond the Kuiper belt.
3. They could have been captured from around passing stars, most likely in the Sun's birth cluster.

On November 10, 2015, a third candidate sednoid was reported at a distance from the Sun of 103 AU, but it is currently classified only as a TNO since the observation arc is too short to confirm the point of perihelion is outside the influence of Neptune.

As you can see, there are several possible excplanations for the existence of this object so far out there. Research in the upcoming years will reveal more about it and its orbit. So stop gnawing at NASA and start paying attention to the astronomers.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Saint Exupery

Obviously, my point being it hasn't been scientifically proven otherwise nasa would validate the findings. Don't want smaller scientific communities to undermine nasa and announce true findings . Could be damaging to NASA'S image as pioneers.

No,

NO,

Just no.

You have it completely wrong.

It's not NASA's job to validate outside astronomer's findings. NASA is not some science Mafia. NASA is not even a monolithic agency the way - say, the Food & Drug Administration is. It is a confederation of scattered research and engineering centers. Sometimes they cooperate with each other, but often they compete with each other for funding. JPL, for example, specializes in unmanned space probes, and has from the beginning resented the money spent on manned spaceflight (we're looking at you, Johnson Space Center).

As such, they don't have any oversight over the American Astronomical Society (AAS), let alone the International Astronomical Union (IAU), nor do they want to, because that would stretch their limited funding even further. They do have a cordial working relationship, and cooperate on some projects - notably space telescopes, such as Hubble.

The AAS, IAU, AURA and others are not the minor players that you insinuate. NASA does not lord over them. Don't believe me? Visit an observatory. Talk to professional astronomers. Learn something.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Xcathdra

Just read about 2 other newly discovered objects...

...one of which (GJ 1132b) is not even in this solar system.

Interesting all these newly found planets, objects on the heels of a NASA spokesman's recent statement (paraphrasing) "There is no conclusive evidence of the existence of Planet X".

Tell me again why we trust NASA?

*Sigh* Once again... no, wait. Look, repeat the following statement 10... no, 20 times out loud. Print it, frame it, hang it on the wall above your computer monitor. Tattoo it to the inside of your eyelids, if you have to:

To a scientist,
"There is no conclusive evidence of (something)"
does not mean
"(Something) does not exist."

Not only are these two statements not sitting at the table together, they're not even in the same restaurant. In all probability, one is working-out at the gym while the other is drinking at a bar.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Pretty straight forward... A body located at over 100 AU's. Do we think planet X / small star is still waiting to be found or are we dealing with a routine scenario that is just new to us?

Personally I think something, star or planet, is out there..

Nice find Xcathdra

1 will not over-speculate if its the theorized PlanetX...
But through personal RV scans and Astral travel 1 has detected a few "things" out past PLUTO.
But I wonder why Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 didn't detect them or did they

NAMASTE*******

a reply to: Saint Exupery
I am aware of the small groups, but clearly not to the degree you do. I don't think I got the message across as I was supposed to. My point being if there was a discovery of a new planet wouldn't NASA want to be part of that discovery. I'm sure my lack of knowledge on the processes in the astronomer community must infuriate you but that is not my intention. If there truly was another rplanet in our solar system that will rewrite our current knowledge of our system wouldn't Nasa want to stick its badge on it like all pioneering businesses that need increased funding. This isn't like a newly discovered quasar in a remote location. This is groundbreaking stuff if remotely true.

a reply to: rossacus

Hardly ground breaking.

What people either don't know, ignore, or simply misunderstand, is there are a number of planets near Pluto which is closer than this newly discovered one.

We have (in order closest to the Sun)
Ceres 2.8au
Pluto 29au
Haumea 43.1au
Makemake 52.3au
Eris 96.4au

All are closer than this new dwarf planet.

Also take into account its estimated to be between 400-800 miles in diameter. Ceres is the smallest (at the moment) of being 590 miles in diameter.

So again, hardly groundbreaking.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13
But through personal RV scans and Astral travel 1 has detected a few "things" out past PLUTO.

Several astronomers have discovered many large objects out past Pluto in the past 10 or 20 years or so using telescopes, too. The Discovery of Eris (which may be larger than Pluto, and was also called Planet X when they found it) is what caused the International Astronomical Union to reclassify Pluto, and the similar objects beyond it, as "dwarf planets".

Along with Eris, Astronomers have used telescopes to discover other trans-Neptunian objects such as Sedna, Quaoar, Haumau, Makemake, Salacia, Orcus, and now this new object (V774104).

...But I wonder why Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 didn't detect them

or did they

First of all, the Voyager spacecraft are not telescopes, and they aren't even taking pictures anymore. A large telescope and the ability to compare multiple images to see one of them moving differently relative to the star background is how astronomers have found all of those other trans-Neptunian objects I listed above.

Secondly, the volume of space in the solar system past Pluto is huge. The Voyagers are way out past Pluto, but that doesn't mean they are in a part of the solar system that is close enough to V774104 to be able to see it.

a reply to: wildespace

While I appreciate your hard researching, respectfully, Wikipedeia isn't a reliable, factual, source.

a reply to: Saint Exupery

When you get get over your selfie, the relevance of one new find being out of the solar system has no merit to answer my question.

You made zero reference to the other INSIDE our system.

I am well aware of the English language and have a firm grasp on putting thought together.

My eyelids will remain sans tatoo.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: wildespace

While I appreciate your hard researching, respectfully, Wikipedeia isn't a reliable, factual, source.

Wikipedia can be used as a great resource if you know how to use it.

Wikipedia articles have citations and referenced that are all sourced at the bottom of the article. Those reference sources and other external links can be used to help ascertain independent verification of the information listed in the Wikipedia article, and can be further followed to check the methodologies used to find that information.

Which reference sources in that Wikipedia article are you taking issue with?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Who names a planet, Makemake?

I was aware of these other planets.

Pluto should now be reclassified as a planet, based on the decided criteria. Neptune should be a dwarf planet, if Pluto remains one.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

If you can edit Wikipedia at whim sans verified fact, it is unreliable.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Xcathdra

Just read about 2 other newly discovered objects.

1. V774104 - the most distant object in our solar system. Source

2. GJ 1132b - a Venus twin planet Source

Interesting all these newly found planets, objects on the heels of a NASA spokesman's recent statement (paraphrasing) "There is no conclusive evidence of the existence of Planet X".

Tell me again why we trust NASA?

What does an exoplanet like GJ 1132b have to do with finding Planet X in our solar system?

Along with GJ 1132b, we already know about the existence of 2000 other exoplanets (and have several thousand more that are candidates for being planets). However, finding GJ 1132b is by no mean evidence for a Planet X in our solar system.

Maybe Planet X (a planet-sized object in our solar system, larger than the several other objects that have already been found past Pluto) does exist, but astronomers have not yet found the evidence for them to say that it does.

This new trans-Neptunian object (V774104) isn't Planet X, and simply joins the growing list of other dwarf planets already found out past Neptune and Pluto.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

If you can edit Wikipedia at whim sans verified fact, it is unreliable.

But you can't edit the reference sources. I use Wikipedia as a repository of multiple reference sources on a given subject.

I read the Wikipedia article to get the general gist of the information, then go to each of the reference sources listed in the Wikipedia article to get more insight into the different pieces of information that Wikipedia so helpfully put in one article.

So if Wikipedia mentions that the dwarf planet Eris that lies out past Pluto, I can then follow links to scientific papers by the discoverer of Eris (Mike Brown) to get more detailed information about Eris. Other people can't change those scientific journal papers on a whim.



Edit to add:

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: TerryDon79

Who names a planet, Makemake?

It's pronounced "mahkee mahkee", and is named after an ancient Easter Island god. Many trans-neptunian objects and dwarf planets are named for ancient deities (Quaoar, Haumea, Pluto, Eris, Sedna, etc).

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: TerryDon79

Who names a planet, Makemake?

I was aware of these other planets.

Pluto should now be reclassified as a planet, based on the decided criteria. Neptune should be a dwarf planet, if Pluto remains one.

I love some of the names sometimes.

Pluto has a diameter of 1,430 miles.
Neptune has a diameter of 30,598 miles.
So by size it's kind of a dwarf anyway lol.

Here's the 3 basics that make a planet a planet.

1, It orbits the sun, not another body.

2, It has enough mass that its own gravity molds it into a spherical or near-spherical shape.

3, It has cleared large objects out of its path (large objects will either collide with it, or be hurled away from it).

Dwarf planets are the first 2, but not the third.

Hence why Neptune is still a planet and Pluto isn't.

Hopefully that's cleared it up a smidge for you

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: wildespace

While I appreciate your hard researching, respectfully, Wikipedeia isn't a reliable, factual, source.

It is when it references scientific data, such as at JPL, Minor Planet Center, and institutes/universities/observatories. If anything, it's a good first-stop place to get a low-down on the subject and research further using the references and links provided.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Here's the 3 basics that make a planet a planet.

1, It orbits the sun, not another body.

2, It has enough mass that its own gravity molds it into a spherical or near-spherical shape.

3, It has cleared large objects out of its path (large objects will either collide with it, or be hurled away from it).

Dwarf planets are the first 2, but not the third.

Hence why Neptune is still a planet and Pluto isn't.

The "cleared its orbit" can also be understood as "is gravitationally-dominant in its orbit", meaning that the planet is the gravitational "boss". Pluto crosses Neptune's orbit, but Neptune got it locked in a 2:3 orbital resonance with it (meaning Pluto completes two orbits in the time it takes Neptune to complete three). This, at least as I see it, firmly establishes Neptune as a planet, and Pluto as a "minor planet" or "dwarf planet" that is subject to influence from Neptune.

Interesting bit from Wikipedia:

The dwarf planet Pluto is following an orbit trapped in a web of resonances with Neptune. The resonances include:

* A mean-motion resonance of 2:3
* The resonance of the perihelion (libration around 90°), keeping the perihelion above the ecliptic
* The resonance of the longitude of the perihelion in relation to that of Neptune

One consequence of these resonances is that a separation of at least 30 AU is maintained when Pluto crosses Neptune's orbit. The minimum separation between the two bodies overall is 17 AU, while the minimum separation between Pluto and Uranus is just 11 AU (see Pluto's orbit for detailed explanation and graphs).

The next largest body in a similar 2:3 resonance with Neptune, called a plutino, is the probable dwarf planet Orcus. Orcus has an orbit similar in inclination and eccentricity to Pluto's. However, the two are constrained by their mutual resonance with Neptune to always be in opposite phases of their orbits; Orcus is thus sometimes described as the "anti-Pluto".

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Xcathdra

I really wish they'd make up their minds. When I was a kid, we were taught that Pluto was discovered because they were looking for something bigger. Pluto wasn't large enough to account for the gravitational effects observed. That seemed very straightforward to me, yet then we had that survey you mention claiming there was no other planet out there. Sounds like sloppy work, if you ask me! There has to be something, and I hope this new data helps them locate it.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

but astronomers have not yet found the evidence for them to say that it does.

I sure hope they don't find the evidence 24 hours before impact from PX or its debris in tow.

Doesn't exist until they tell us it does.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

but astronomers have not yet found the evidence for them to say that it does.

I sure hope they don't find the evidence 24 hours before impact from PX or its debris in tow.

Doesn't exist until they tell us it does.

Why does the existence of PX necessarily mean that it's on a collision course with us? If it does exist out there (beyond the orbit of Pluto) it's more likely on a normal orbit around the Sun and won't ever come anywhere near us.

If it is on a collision course (or just a very close fly-by), it would have been detectable by amateur astronomers months or even years in advance, and visible to the naked eye long before it would get to us, too. Planets don't pop out over our planet out of nowhere, they follow orbits or trajectories that obey the celestial mechanics.