It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Two Teams of Astrophysicists Postulate Inclination of the Solar System Could be Caused by Planet 9

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax

There is not. Just people playing with orbital mechanics.


wow... that's your argument?... So, in your opinion only chance is causing the inclination of the Solar System, and the argument of perihelion close to 0 which all the ETNOs we have studied so far share?

That's not really an answer. Something with a large mass has to keep them there. They can't just be there by chance. These scientists aren't just "playing with orbital mechanics." BTW, plenty of planets were discovered by the effects they had on other planets' orbits.



originally posted by: Astyanax
And what, pray tell, is an ‘etnos’?



Extreme trans-Neptunian objects lead the way to Planet Nine

Extreme Trans-Neptunian Objects. Objects with a semi major axis greater than 150 AU and a perihelion greater than 30 AU is an ETNO.


edit on 25-7-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.




posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 05:17 AM
link   
ok sure

a reply to: tsurfer2000h



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


wow... that's your argument?...

It’s not an argument, it’s a fact.


So, in your opinion only chance is causing the inclination of the Solar System, and the argument of perihelion close to 0 which all the ETNOs we have studied so far share?

I haven’t the faintest idea. Neither does anybody else.

This is one possible explanation. Why do you think it’s correct? Is it because you haven’t heard of any others?

Possible causes of the tilt, and other mechanical peculiarities in planetary motion, can be derived from planetary tidal forces, the irregularity of orbiting bodies (none of them are true spheres and many of the smaller ones are drastically asymmetrical, which tends to mess up the calculations) and so on. Large undiscovered masses are only one, and among the less likely, of possible explanations.

But the truth is nobody really knows. And it will be a long, long time — if ever — before scientists are sure of the answer.

Mind-expanding speculation is good. But prematurely embracing it as truth is a good way to lose touch with what is real.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
oh but there's a rogue planet out there


a reply to: tsurfer2000h


You wrote "rogue planet" a couple of times. What would make this planet "rogue"? Couldn't it just be a normal planet of the non-rogue variety?

I mean, if this planet is out there, it might have been out there for 4.5 Billion years (since the beginning of the solar system) and thus had a hand in forming the solar system as we know it today.

Not necessarily "disruptive", but maybe formative, at least in part -- just like Neptune, Uranus, and all of the other planets have a hand in making the mechanics of our solar system what it is.

edit on 2016-7-25 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

You accuse me of a bias towards one explanation, and on the same response you show a total bias towards your own explanation. From claiming your argument is a fact, to claiming "other large undiscovered masses is the least likely explanation to be true". Why, because you say so?

In case you haven't noticed more and more astrophysicist are siding towards the theory that another large planet or two exist within our solar system. Links to the evidence which supports my argument can be found in this same thread and the other thread I linked here.
Scientific Research on Solar System Brown Dwarf and Planet X.

My argument is based on the evidence we have found so far and I have presented evidence to back that argument.
But you want to claim this is not possible and something else must be causing it without presenting any factual evidence. Ironic isn't it?


edit on 25-7-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jul, 25 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
yes you are right. I was talking like the people who try to hype things up and of course it always has to hit the Earth. thing is it is probably dragging a couple moons around it and not only that but that would also account for the electrical scarring and processes we see throughout the solar system and are depicted by ancient cultures. I always wondered how Martian meteorites found their way over here. Think comets make an entrance? Imagine a fuh--keeng planet with moons lighting things up? maybe even vaporizing our atmosphere like what happened on Mars when the Anunnaki colony was destroyed?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People



posted on Jul, 26 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

My argument is based on the evidence we have found so far and I have presented evidence to back that argument.
But you want to claim this is not possible and something else must be causing it without presenting any factual evidence. Ironic isn't it?



The way I read the posts by 'Astyanax', he never said Planet 9 "isn't possible". He simply said that there is no hard evidence for it, and other explanations exist for the obliquity of the solar system.

And he's right -- maybe the existence of Planet 9 is the cause of obliquity of the solar system, but just because mathematical models show that this may be the case does not necessarily make it the case. More information is required, and/or Planet 9 needs to be found. And as Astyanax pointed out, this latest mathematical model may have narrowed down the places to find it.



edit on 7/26/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Yes, but the fact that there is other evidence to indicate the existence of Planet 9 (and that evidence points to a similar conclusion with respect to mass and distance from the Sun) gives this research significantly more weight. I suspect that this planet does exist, and that it will be discovered within the next five years (and probably sooner).



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


You accuse me of a bias towards one explanation

Not at all. I merely pointed out that you favour one of many. Are you now saying you don’t?


you show a total bias towards your own explanation.

Which explanation would that be? I offered two different ones, remember: tidal effects and rotational asymmetry.


In case you haven't noticed more and more astrophysicist are siding towards the theory that another large planet or two exist within our solar system.

No, I haven’t noticed. Who are these astrophysicists? What percentage of the astrophysics community ‘sides with this theory’? Where does, for example, Brian May stand on it?


My argument is based on the evidence we have found so far and I have presented evidence to back that argument.

Look, friend. You are no scientist. Neither, despite the advantage of a scientific education, am I. Certainly neither of us is a specialist in orbital mechanics. So all we can do is take the word of those more knowledgeable than ourselves.

My post was made to point out that there are more explanations than one for the inclination of the solar equator to the ecliptic, not to tell you that your favoured explanation is wrong. Develop a sense of proportion, for Heaven’s sake.

When people behave in stupid ways, one concludes that they are stupid. This kind of behaviour does your credibility as a bearer of scientific news no favours at all.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
So I postulate, that we would have seen it, at some point already.

You can't hide something that big if its orbit brings it anywhere near the Sun.

You just can't. You could point any number of instruments at that general area and find what was there, either via IR, or whatever else.

~Tenth



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
So I postulate, that we would have seen it, at some point already.

You can't hide something that big if its orbit brings it anywhere near the Sun.

You just can't. You could point any number of instruments at that general area and find what was there, either via IR, or whatever else.

~Tenth

"Anywhere near the Sun" is the key phrase here.

Most astronomers agree that a planet-sized body (with a mass 10X that of Earth) can be out there undetected, because "out there" is so far away. Calculations put this planet at an orbit that is 20 times further out than Neptune, and Neptune itself is pretty darn far out there (for example, Neptune is more than 3 times further out than Saturn, which mean that this planet 9 would be 60 times further out than Saturn).

That's far. If this Planet 9 is relatively rocky and relatively small, then it would be sou far away from the Sun that it would be both extremely dim and extremely cold. It would be so dim that it would be very hard to see its visible light with our telescopes. Even in IR, it would be small and cold and leave only a very minuscule IR signature as seen from here. You would almost need to know EXACTLY where to look in either visible light or IR light to be able to hope to find it among the background of stars.

Consider the case of the dwarf planet "Eris" for example. It's the same size as Pluto, but because its orbit can be almost twice as far out as Pluto, it took another 75 years longer after Pluto was discovered to discover Eris.

edit on 8/11/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I postulate that a planet at that distance is not massive enough to cause the tilt of the entire solar system including the sun.

The more likely scenario (and this is me chewing the fat with not much proof but an article I may have perused a couple years ago somewhere on the interweb): the Milky Way is huge and gobbled up a dwarf galaxy that included what we call the solar system. The plane of the Milky Way is near vertical at times. It is my contention that the cross over between the MW plane and the Zodiac (precession of the equinox) is what gave way to stories of gods (i.e., the foundation of religious belief).

That would make Earth the alien to the Milky Way--we, humans, are the aliens of the Milky Way. One of these days I will do some research on these strange beliefs of mine and try to present them as a cohesive whole story. It involves myth, religion, astrology, and astronomy (the last two were the same until around Chaucer's time when they were split) but it makes sense in a twisted TEOT world view kind of way.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

Yeah I do understand the whole distance portion, but it's orbit would have to take it around the sun at some point right?

And since most orbits ( as far as I know ) are elliptical, and not round, generally one time or another it would be closer to the sun than it would be to the outskirts of the solar system.

Unless I'm wrong cause I don't know astro physics all that well.

~Tenth



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
They say there is probably already a thread on that subject on ATS!

Found it! This is probably where the seed of the idea came from (RE: previous posting). The rest is pure conjecture based upon myth (Joseph Campbell, so not too much a slouch) and the evolution of story telling with some cosmology thrown in just like how Graham Hancock does it!

ATS Fragile Earth (??) - We’re Not From The Milky Way Galaxy! We’re Sagittarians, Say Scientists! What Of Earth's Future.

So if we are truly from a dwarf galaxy outside the Milky Way the inclination of the solar system makes more sense as being caused by being ingested by the Milky Way.



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Yeah I do understand the whole distance portion, but it's orbit would have to take it around the sun at some point right?

And since most orbits ( as far as I know ) are elliptical, and not round, generally one time or another it would be closer to the sun than it would be to the outskirts of the solar system.


You are correct that Planet 9's predicted orbit is extremely elliptical, but you are wrong in assuming that this would mean that it can get close to the Sun at some point. The perihelion distance (closest approach to the Sun) of this hypothetical Planet 9 is estimated to be at least 200AUs (that's 200 times further from the Sun than Earth, and seven times the distance of Neptune). The aphelion would be something like 1200AUs!
edit on 12-8-2016 by Mogget because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Mogget

Quite correct.

The calculated orbit of this potential "Planet 9" does not bring it inside the orbits of the other planets. Even at its closest calculated distance from the Sun, it would remain far out beyond Neptune, and even beyond some of the Kuyper Belt objects such as Pluto and Eris.

So...it isn't Niburu.



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Has anybody mentioned that you can easily get into near solar polar orbit WITHOUT an 'attractor' above the ecliptic? We put the Ulysses probe into an 80 degree inclined solar orbit with a swingby trick. It could easily happen by accident given patience and a few billion rolls of the dice.

en.wikipedia.org...(spacecraft)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join