Originally posted by GoldenFleece
There sure are a lot of posts and calculations based on the assumption that this object is orbiting our sun.
Since the majority of stars are binary or even trinary, these are premature and risky assumptions and IMO, you guys sound way too
Do you really believe that the contributors to this thread took the time to learn the math needed to describe orbital mechanics but don't have the
common sense to use solid data?
Once again all of this has been understood for literally hundreds of years now. In orbital mechanics you are referring to the barycenter...
Here is a nifty graphic from NASA that explains the definition in the simplest terms anyone is going to get..
Whats a Barycenter?
You do understand that the guy who started all the Nemesis business in the 80's is the same person quoted in the OP who predicts the mass of the
hypothetical object a 4 Jupiter masses? If your going to embrace the theory you also have to accept the data used to make the prediction which in this
case is 4MJ.
4MJ is not anywhere close to being any kind of sub stellar object. It is a planet, physics say so. The point is inarguable.
Even if it were a stellar mass object the means of predicting orbital behavior has been well understood for a long time now...
In classical mechanics, the two-body problem is to determine the motion of two point particles that interact only with each other. Common examples
include a satellite orbiting a planet, a planet orbiting a star, two stars orbiting each other (a binary star), and a classical electron orbiting an
atomic nucleus (although to solve this system correctly a quantum mechanical approach must be used).
I think we can agree that a second mass would require discovery before we start worrying about a trinary companion but just to humor you, if a third
stellar mass were discovered Sir Isaac Newton had it covered in the Principia, first published in.....1687.
The n-body problem is the problem of predicting the motion of a group of celestial objects that interact with each other gravitationally. Solving this
problem has been motivated by the need to understand the motion of the sun, planets and the visible stars. Its first complete mathematical formulation
appeared in Isaac Newton's Principia (the n-body problem in general relativity is considerably more difficult). Since gravity was
responsible for the motion of planets and stars, Newton had to express gravitational interactions in terms of differential equations. Newton proved in
the Principia that a spherically-symmetric body can be modeled as a point mass.
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
If anyone wants to place blind trust in a profession and government agency that doesn't even agree on the definition of a planet and can't find a
massive object 4X the size of Jupiter in our own solar system, that's up to you, but I won't be joining you.
Your kidding right? NASA hasn't been any part of the conversation but if I had to guess I'd say your one of the folks still upset by pluto's
demotion. Out of curiosity what do you suggest be the criteria for what constitutes a planet?
What is your definition of blind trust? The math doesn't lie and is a tool freely available to anyone willing to make the effort so you don't have
to rely on anyone's trust, you can easily check for yourself.
That last dig is actually smearing egg on your own face. It might be wise to familiarize yourself with the basics like conceptualizing the distances
involved before taking on classical physics. If you don't understand the difficulties of making a direct observation of our mystery planet your not
understanding the monumental distances involved for a gas giant planet with a low libido to stay lost.
Lets put it like this, if the earth were the size of a classroom globe pluto would be the size of a baseball 180 km away.
Wow, that's a long way at that scale (remember at this scale the earth is only 16 inches in diameter)
The inner edge of the oort cloud would start approximately 22,000 km away from the 16 "globe, over half way around the equator.
That's just a start. The outer oort cloud where our mystery planet is predicted to reside would be a quarter million km away, over halfway the
distance to the moon.
At this scale Jupiter would be roughly 15 ft. in diameter.
Are you still having trouble understanding the difficulty involved finding something impossibly far away that possibly doesn't exist? Make sure to
check out the links, wiki had some neat GIF's describing a lot of this.
From earlier in this thread..
Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
If some of you truly interested in the subject spent a fraction of the time learning some of the science (and the physics supporting that science)
rather than taking fantastical guesses based on internet rumors your returns would be many fold. You could not only help others understand the
workings of the cosmos, you would also have the tools to more easily discern fact from fiction and could reach your own conclusions independent of the
rhetoric and hyperbole that always surrounds these type of claims.
I cant help but chuckle at the irony, I haven't seen one of the scientific naysayers produce anything other than wild guesses that "sound right".