Mysterious 'Planet Nine' gets more evidence from weird space rock

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
it got confusing two years ago but like Zaph said but there is this anomoly with the spin directions on jupiters moons and neptune spins at an angle

the moons....i read....numbers 8, 9 and 11 and 12 orbit backwards....idk i just read it.....the 12 moons i guess

The moons of Jupiter that have retrograde orbits are thought to be asteroids that were caught in the gravity well of Jupiter after Jupiter formed, rather than being like the Jupiter's major moons (and others) that likely formed in orbit abound Jupiter as Jupiter formed.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

But the retrograde rotations (not orbits) of Venus and Uranus are pretty weird, no? Uranus' axial tilt is pretty odd, too, and it is thought it collided with something with some mass at some time.

Add the hypothesized Mars catastrophe and the mess that happened creating the asteroid belt, whatever that was, and the notion something wicked comes careening through our little system isn't so daft.

The questions are what, when and will it again? Maybe it was that near miss with Sholtz's star 70,000 yrs ago? Maybe the Sumerian records were somehow sorta accurate, give or take some terminology and thousands of years? The fact there seems to be another vast planet out there makes me a bit (note the "bit") less likely to laugh off Sitchen completely, though.

Maybe Velikovski and Sitchen will have reps as visionaries before their times ... just before we're knocked back into the stone age for the umpteenth time.



eta: tho it's true that the orbits don't show something coming through the inner system every 3600 years. Just playing devil's advocate... as if it's needed!

who decided that the mysterious 'planet 9' is a physical sphere/orb...
the mysterious gravitational 'force' way out there on the very edge of our Solar System boundary might be Dark Matter which is also thought to shroud the area around the Outer Edge of each Galaxy

a reply to: Baddogma

The rotational axis of both Venus and Uranus are local events (read that as: something happened to them individually, and not from some very large force that would have had an effect on the entire solar system, re - star passing through).

Venus is the only one who has a "retrograde" axial spin. Uranus is laying over on it's side. Both are thought to have been caused by very large impacts. Both are thought to of happened a few billion years ago when the solar system was still pretty young and much more crowded with object.

Mars is also thought to be a localized event, and with such close proximity to the inner asteroid belt, not too surprising, and that is a giant impact in it's northern hemisphere, again a few billion years ago.

Asteroid Belt: common misconception is that it's made up of a "shattered planet", when in fact there is not enough mass within it to make up a decent sized planet at all. Many people seem to think that our inner asteroid belt looks like something from the 2nd Star Wars movie where the Millennium Falcon was having to dodge big rocks all over the place.

Truth is the inner Asteroid Belt doesn't look like that at all, with large asteroids being separated by thousands to millions of miles, and very spread out.

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: Zaphod58

Can't we say the state of the current orbits are a result of it's last pass and attribute the Floods/Pangaea and other disasters to it's last pass ?

Planet 9's orbit would not come any closer than about 20 AUs out.

Did you mistakenly leave off a second zero? Just asking. You seem to have a good handle on Planet 9....Neptune’s average distance is 30 AUs out. 20 AUs is like really off so I’m assuming it was typo or something.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: eriktheawful

Are you possibly talking about a red dwarf based on the unlikely pull it may have?

[Erik -- step in if you'd like since this was originally directed to you]...

I think you, ''allaroundyou', may be thinking of the possibility that our Sun has a brown dwarf (not red dwarf) companion lurking in the far reaches of the extreme outer solar system.

However, a brown dwarf is warm -- much warmer than a hypothetical Planet Nine should be -- and thus would have shown up in the survey done by the WISE (Wide-Infrared Survey Explorer) spacecraft, a survey that was spefically looking for (among other things) brown dwarfs, and most likely should have found such a brown dwarf companion to our Sun if one existed. Or red dwarf, for that matter.

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

Uranus' axial tilt is pretty odd, too, and it is thought it collided with something with some mass at some time.

originally posted by: Cravens

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: Zaphod58

Can't we say the state of the current orbits are a result of it's last pass and attribute the Floods/Pangaea and other disasters to it's last pass ?

Planet 9's orbit would not come any closer than about 20 AUs out.

Did you mistakenly leave off a second zero? Just asking. You seem to have a good handle on Planet 9....Neptune’s average distance is 30 AUs out. 20 AUs is like really off so I’m assuming it was typo or something.

Oops...yah, I meant to say 200 (I believe it's more like 50 to 100, but off the top of my head I was thinking 200).

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

No problems.

Yah, the survey's they've done looking for red and brown dwarfs, any orbiting our star would have stood out like a sore thumb.

WISE would have detected a Jupiter sized brown dwarf up to a lightyear away I believe.

Right now, astronomers are pretty sure there might be a very large rocky planetary body that is in a far orbit around our sun that is causing small changes in Kuiper Belt objects (those are small bodies and dwarf planets in orbit well past Neptune).

The reason that it's orbit would not take it any where near into our solar system is because those changes in the Kuiper Belt are SMALL.

a reply to: skunkape23

I am so glad someone else "hears" my inner 7th grade monologue when writing... thanks Skunk.

a reply to: eriktheawful

All true enough, and one of the reasons why I am not quivering in fear of Nibiru!

Though it's all educated hypothesis, not settled dogma, and I didn't say the asteroid belt was evidence of a whole shattered planet, just that Sitchen's (possibly creative) translations give a plausible explanation for the system we see today ... like Earth being what remains of the larger planet that was there (Tiamut was it?), and the asteroids being the rest of it, if memory serves.

I will say it's been a lifelong suspicion that we go through periodic catastrophes. Whether the source(s) are more random or on some periodic timetable is wide open due to a paucity of hard data, but uniformitariansim always had less evidence than catastrophism (sp on both likely wrong) from my perspective.

Catastrophism just got entwined with religious dogma due to the biblical flood, and so was sidelined in the 1800s.

Whether this proposed new planet has anything to do with catastrophes remains to be seen... a periodic disturbance in the Oort cloud could raise some dust on the inner planets, if the icy rocks are nudged the wrong way.

Guess we'll see!

S&F. Great post and great follow up discussion. Let’s get ATS back to this.

originally posted by: Baddogma


Though it's all educated hypothesis, not settled dogma, and I didn't say the asteroid belt was evidence of a whole shattered planet, just that Sitchen's (possibly creative) translations give a plausible explanation for the system we see today ... like Earth being what remains of the larger planet that was there (Tiamut was it?), and the asteroids being the rest of it, if memory serves.

But wouldn't this have all happened prior to recorded history? Hell, it would have happened prior to humans or animal life on Earth in general.

Even if there was a cataclysmic world-shattering event that happened in the inner solar system near Earth, but not directly involving Earth, sometime during human civilization, I think Earth's orbit today would still show telltale signs that the planets changed recently (and the time of humans on Earth is extremely, extremely recent on cosmic scales), but Earth's orbit -- and the rest of the known solar system -- seems too stable and orderly for there to have been such an event so recently.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

There is no planet 9. The heliospherical current emitted from the equator of the sun is the strongest part of the solar wind. The heliospherical current pushes the planets away from the sun's equator while gravity tries to pull the planets towards the equator. The result is the invariable plane. Other solar systems with a heliospherical current should have an invariable plane.