It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Nibiru?? New planet to be discovered. Four times the size of Jupiter!

page: 20
142
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:20 AM

I think the word you missed here is"MAY" ^^

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:41 AM
Seems like a popular subject lately

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 11:43 AM

Lol, you seem confused. The first two methods could not of been used for this object because we have no probe data that far out or probe data of the object. The 2nd method you quoted could not be used to find the mass of a object , unless it was a object around another star and inline with our plane of view. What im trying to say is the data we have right now from these scientists is not good enough for us to know the exact mass , hence we cant know the exact orbit.

edit on 16-2-2011 by Draken because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:38 PM

Actually, here's the thing:

- If it's a planet, it doesn't matter how massive it is. No planet is going to be so large that its mass needs to be taken into account. Given that fact, the orbital period can be found by the formula I've posted several times now. Doing this, we can rule out the Nibiru possibility.

- If it's a star, its gravitational pull would produce a visible wobble in the sun's movement, and, from that, we could calculate the mass of the star causing that wobble (after cancelling out the effects of all other objects known to orbit the sun). This is how many extrasolar planets are detected.
Unless, of course, it's so distant that it doesn't produce any detectable wobble, in which case its orbital period doesn't matter...it never gets close enough to disturb the Oort cloud, so it doesn't fit with the Nemesis theory.

So, why do we have to know the mass of "Tyche" to calculate its orbit?

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 12:47 PM

According to Matese and Whitmire in This Paper, the mass was inferred to be between one Jupiter mass and four Jupiter masses due to observational data regarding the populations of comets in different parts of the Oort cloud.

The math they used to infer the mass based on comet populations in he Oort cloud is beyond me, but peer reviews have not yet cast any doubt on that math (as far as I know).

It should be noted that even in this paper, Matese and Whitmire still have some doubts as to whether this object exists. They noted some observational inconsistencies that could not be explained by the "Tyche" hypothesis. However, Tyche could still exist, and these other observational inconsistencies may still be explainable using some other reasons. This paper is only proposing the existence of Tyche as one explanation for the inconsistencies in the Oort cloud comet populations.

edit on 2/16/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 03:11 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Actually, here's the thing:

- If it's a planet, it doesn't matter how massive it is. No planet is going to be so large that its mass needs to be taken into account. Given that fact, the orbital period can be found by the formula I've posted several times now. Doing this, we can rule out the Nibiru possibility.

- If it's a star, its gravitational pull would produce a visible wobble in the sun's movement, and, from that, we could calculate the mass of the star causing that wobble (after cancelling out the effects of all other objects known to orbit the sun). This is how many extrasolar planets are detected.
Unless, of course, it's so distant that it doesn't produce any detectable wobble, in which case its orbital period doesn't matter...it never gets close enough to disturb the Oort cloud, so it doesn't fit with the Nemesis theory.

So, why do we have to know the mass of "Tyche" to calculate its orbit?

Im not talking about the Nemesis or Nibiru conspiracy theories. Ive learnt in my geology studies that it could be possible to have a Jupiter like planet near the edge of the solar system that nudged debris towards the inner solar system. This has nothing to do with the insane theories of active suns near our solar system or the planet some how entering the inner solar system.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Draken

Ive got a degree in geology, so im pretty aware on how planetary bodies form and get their orbits. Without knowing the exact mass and make up of planet X, we can not say anything about its orbit yet. The current info we have on the body is highly speculative. All that we know is that we MIGHT have another large body out near the oort cloud really.

Let alone it might be a dwarf companion star to the sun, making the orbit even more unpredictable.
edit on 15-2-2011 by Draken because: (no reason given)

Unless it's mass approaches a substantial fraction of the Sun's mass, it's mass doesn't figure into the calculation, In order for it's mass to make that approach, it would have to be hot, a brown dwarf at the least. If it were a brown dwarf, that close to the sun, it would likely have been found and confirmed long ago.

So then, the planet's mass doesn't count in the orbital calculations, the Sun's mass does.

Furthermore, since the article says that it's currently 15,000 AU away, and if we assume that it is at it's farthest point away from the sun in it's orbit, and we further assume that the other side of it's orbit (closest approach to the sun) comes inside the Earth's 1 AU orbit, there are a few constants in celestial mechanics which will apply:

All planets are in elliptical orbits. In an elliptical orbit, the barycenter of the orbit is at one focus or the other of the ellipse. In the case of all the known planets, that barycenter is inside the sun, because of the wide discrepancy between the solar mass and the planetary mass. To put it simply, the planets just don't have the mass to sling the sun around,

Now, in order for this planet to orbit to within one AU of the sun, the barycenter MUST be within that one AU distance from the sun. That means that they CAN'T be of anything approaching equal mass, but the planet must in fact have FAR less mass than the sun. If it's mass were greater, and the barycenter farther out, it would never approach that closely to the sun. they would orbit a common barycenter "out there".

Furthermore, since it is currently 15,000 AU away, and the barycenter, being one of the focii of it's elliptical orbit in obedience to celestial mechanics, the orbit would HAVE to be a very tight, narrow ellipse, with the other focus at the other end of it. For it to travel that 15,000 AU from "there" to "here" in ta time frame consistent with this 2012 Nibiru nonsense, it would have to travel several times faster than a comet, and break all the laws of orbital mechanics.

Therefore, whatever it is, it cannot be this mythical Nibiru, and in all likelihood has a far wider orbit, which will NEVER approach Earth.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Draken

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Elemental composition has nothing to do with it, mass is everything. Gravity doesn't care if it is a Jupiter mass worth of hydrogen or solid iron, it will be the same.

Now sure how you come up with that. To know the mass of any object in space, you need to know the composition of the object.

No you don't. Mass is mass. Let me ask you - which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?

Composition only enters the equation if you're trying to find density, and then only in a peripheral way. Density is mass divided by volume. Note that density will vary by volume, but mass will remain the same.

MASS is what counts in orbital calculations, and then it's only the mass of the PRIMARY that counts, unless the two bodies approach one another to a significant degree in mass. Note that for that to be so, this body would have no doubt been found long before now, as it would have to be self-luminous, a star. We can detect Proxima Centauri, a red dwarf 4.25 light years (that's 268770 AU) away, but we can't find one right in our comparative back yard, only 15,000 AU away (that's about 18 times closer)? We can detect brown dwarves in the Orion complex, but can't find them THOUSANDS of times closer?

No, the mass of this body is insignificant in the orbital calculations, and composition figures in not at all in that regard. It's nowhere near a star, substantially smaller than even a brown dwarf, if it exists at all.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:58 PM
This is all very great.

When Pluto was discovered they said there was still a planet X. If this really is it then we will have to include the ORT cloud in the real solar system. The kids are gonna have to remember a whole lote more planets than we ever did!

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:32 PM
Brown dwarf stars are so cold, only a few degrees above absolute zero, that they can not be seen with the naked eye or even conventional high powered telescopes. That would mean that it absorbs light and does not allow the light to reflect back. To the naked eye it would just appear as a big super black circle. The only way a backyard astronomer is going to see the Destroyer is if they notice a black circle that seems to be blocking the stars from behind it. Once it gets much closer to the Sun, the interaction between the two may cause it to become visible

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:33 PM

or about i dont really give a damn...there is no such thing as nibiru

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Draken

Originally posted by CLPrime

Actually, here's the thing:

- If it's a planet, it doesn't matter how massive it is. No planet is going to be so large that its mass needs to be taken into account. Given that fact, the orbital period can be found by the formula I've posted several times now. Doing this, we can rule out the Nibiru possibility.

- If it's a star, its gravitational pull would produce a visible wobble in the sun's movement, and, from that, we could calculate the mass of the star causing that wobble (after cancelling out the effects of all other objects known to orbit the sun). This is how many extrasolar planets are detected.
Unless, of course, it's so distant that it doesn't produce any detectable wobble, in which case its orbital period doesn't matter...it never gets close enough to disturb the Oort cloud, so it doesn't fit with the Nemesis theory.

So, why do we have to know the mass of "Tyche" to calculate its orbit?

Im not talking about the Nemesis or Nibiru conspiracy theories. Ive learnt in my geology studies that it could be possible to have a Jupiter like planet near the edge of the solar system that nudged debris towards the inner solar system. This has nothing to do with the insane theories of active suns near our solar system or the planet some how entering the inner solar system.

No, but other people are. My response applies to all theoretical objects within or beyond the Oort cloud (well, any object, in general, really, but those aren't the issue here), and this includes "a Jupiter like planet near the edge of the solar system that nudged debris towards the inner solar system."

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Truth3r
Brown dwarf stars are so cold, only a few degrees above absolute zero, that they can not be seen with the naked eye or even conventional high powered telescopes. That would mean that it absorbs light and does not allow the light to reflect back. To the naked eye it would just appear as a big super black circle. The only way a backyard astronomer is going to see the Destroyer is if they notice a black circle that seems to be blocking the stars from behind it. Once it gets much closer to the Sun, the interaction between the two may cause it to become visible

Negative. Brown Dwarves are hot, up to 2800 degrees or so. The are detected by the infrared emissions from that heat, which are stronger than the visible light produced.

posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Draken

Im not talking about the Nemesis or Nibiru conspiracy theories. Ive learnt in my geology studies that it could be possible to have a Jupiter like planet near the edge of the solar system that nudged debris towards the inner solar system. This has nothing to do with the insane theories of active suns near our solar system or the planet some how entering the inner solar system.

In that case, it's mass STILL doesn't effect it's orbit, it only effects the gravitational energies it produces to fling things at us.

Composition and density are still not factors in that.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:05 AM

Also, due to Tyche's distance from the sun it would seem more likely to me that it would have a very elliptical orbit. It might even be orbiting the sun around the outer solar system at its closest point. There's alot we still don't understand yet or, at the very least, aren't being informed about for some reason.

Think about some of the other unexplained mysteries of the solar system.

What happened to Neptune? Why is its composition so uniquely different than that of Jupiter or Saturn?

We still can't even explain how our own solar system was formed yet. We think we know the general concept which is that planets formed over long period of time through the process of gravitational accretion from a proto-planetary disk of gas and dust. However, the idea that the outer planets were formed by gravitational accretion alone has been tossed out because it doesn't explain the size, mass, and composition of the outer planets based on what we know about how accretion works.

Perhaps one of the reasons scientists have never been able to accurately model the formation of our solar system with computers is because they've been missing key "Factors" or "pieces of the puzzle" all along (Tyche being one of those missing pieces).

But what is Tyche's relationship with the Oort Cloud? Is Tyche really just a giant formation of ice and dust? Where did all of earth's water come from? If it came from comets, where did all of that water come from?

There's still alot we don't understand about our own solar system. The more we can learn, the more we can apply that knowledge to looking for earth-like planets around other stars.

There are alot of really bizarre mathematical oddities/coincidences going on in our Solar System. For example, "Bode's Law" (click to see my thread about it).

-ChriS

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:27 AM

Actually, with the techniques that astronomers have been using to detect extrasolar planets, it is easier for us to detect extrasolar planets than those in our own solar system.

What we know is that there is alot we don't understand about the formation of solar systems, planets and galaxies. We haven't even been able to create computer models of the formation of our own solar system and noone knows why.

Regardless of Tyche's mass vs size ratio, it's overall "wobble" creating influence on the sun would be anywhere between minimal to non-existent because of its distance from the sun. However, it is possible Tyche has a highly elliptical orbit. If Tyche has been the sun's twin all along, it would inevitably be a gas giant that never had enough mass to undergo nuclear fusion within its core.

The theory goes that binary star systems are stars that have formed from the same gas and dust clouds rather than the other, far more remote possibility of a parent star gravitationally "capturing" another. In the case of our sun, it is possible Tyche formed from the same gas and dust cloud. If that's the case, it would've directly affected the end-result composition, mass, and size of the entire system. It would also help explain why, in our solar system, the largest planetary bodies are in the outer solar system. Tyche may have formed much closer to the sun too. We'll just have to wait and see what information NASA has forthcoming.

Also, we still don't understand why the heliosphere is weakening/shrinking. Perhaps it is because Tyche is traveling inwards towards the sun on its elliptical orbit. It's definately one possibility. In any event, the discovery of a planet like Tyche is huge because it helps to explain not only the shrinking of the heliosphere but the creation of the solar system in general. It would inevitably be one of the missing factors in the equation.

Perhaps there really are other extremely distant planetary bodies orbiting the sun too. There might be more of an effort to find those kinds of worlds once more information about Tyche is disclosed.

-ChriS

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:50 AM
After reading as many posts as I could and I mean as many as I could mentaly tolerate...

I have to say that it is my personal opinion... that none of you KNOW anything about blackholes...

You all have theories. And you all have your OWN way of UNDERSTANDING theories...

But none of you actually KNOW. Every post I read contradicted another post, leading me, the reader, into an utter loop of misinformation mistakenly understood as possibly right.

Am I upset at it? No, I enjoyed the debates but after taking as much as I could, I've come to realise that this is a subject with no real outcome because:

No one knows if Nibiru is real, regardless of being a skeptic or a believer.
No one knows how a blackhole operates because everything thought is a theory.
Every picture is an artist's rendition of what things actually look like and therefore are mental literations.
I don't understand how something can come from inside of something but not come from that 'something'.

Although my suggestion will forever dissapear into the ignorance of the curious mass that populates this planet... I will still say it:

"Try to focus on our own planet, before we even get to galactic theories that can't even be proven false or true. We dropped everything and rushed to get to the moon, and now we're rushing even more trying to get passed it, without ever even figuring out own planet. If aliens do exist, they are probably ashamed to share a universe with us, the species who, like children at the drop of a hat, don't even care what happens here as long as we know what happens elsewhere. You want a wake up call? Here it is. Less than 5% of our ocean has actually been explored. The other 95% is considered UNSEEN / UNEXPLORED by the world. Yet here we are... wanting to know what the next farthest thing from us is in space. Like it's going to somehow affect our way of life..."

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:10 AM

All I'm saying that rationally, there is ZERO evidence that thing exists.

I'm sure I won't be the first to say this, but.. uh.. Could it be that data has been withheld? You think it's easier to find data proving the existence of planets that are tens of thousands of light years away, and yet they haven't known about this 'ninth planet' in our very own solar system?

The data regarding THIS 'hitherto unknown' object has been screened, and may be released once they are prepared to either counter all the Nibiru questions, or when they are ready to disclose that maybe Sitchin wasn't quite as barmy as they made him out to be. Could it be that they have data indicating other 'hitherto unknown' objects - perhaps data that fits the 'Nibiru model' more closely - but are choosing to withhold that data for the moment?

What annoys me is that you've started latching the 2012 speculation into this.

Nibiru (as posited by Sitchin and various others) would have an orbit in the region of 2900-3600 years. Not scheduled to arrive here yet for several centuries. I haven't read his 'End of Days' book, so I don't know whether the skeptic accusations - that he changed his orbital predictions to fit the 2012 hype - is accurate, or if it is simply another tool to mislead the masses.

Either way, the pseudoskeptics love any excuse to pour faeces onto the memory of a man who did the world a service in making people rethink the origins of humanity.

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 06:29 AM

You do know that the guy who came up with the Oort cloud hypothesis was disappointed in the way people started using the theory? That he never intended it to be the 'cop-out' it has become - an 'excuse generator', increasing the likelihood that people will accept BS half-hearted theories about the far reaches of our solar system?

"Yes.. Something funny going is on out there, but it's a bit foggy, and we can't see the mechanics of what's happening too clearly..."

"Why?"

"Well... It's the Oort cloud you see. It does mysterious things. We're all wrapped up in a little cosmic bubble of mystical Oorty goodness, and there is nothing to fear."

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 07:47 AM

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Truth3r
Brown dwarf stars are so cold, only a few degrees above absolute zero, that they can not be seen with the naked eye or even conventional high powered telescopes. That would mean that it absorbs light and does not allow the light to reflect back. To the naked eye it would just appear as a big super black circle. The only way a backyard astronomer is going to see the Destroyer is if they notice a black circle that seems to be blocking the stars from behind it. Once it gets much closer to the Sun, the interaction between the two may cause it to become visible

Negative. Brown Dwarves are hot, up to 2800 degrees or so. The are detected by the infrared emissions from that heat, which are stronger than the visible light produced.

Right. Plus, the composition of a brown dwarf would not necessarily make it unable to reflect sunlight. If a brown dwarf was in a spot in our solar system where a normal planet would be able to reflect sunlight, then the brown dwarf would also be able to reflect sunlight.

It would not necessarily absorb light any differently than a gaseous planet.

top topics

142