Scientific Research on Solar System Brown Dwarf and Planet X.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Yep, people assume that because something has been found at a longer distance, then we should have already been able to find objects that are closer, and this is not the case because of such vast and distant areas we are dealing with. Not to mention, as already stated, there are objects that are closer and we haven't been able to detect because they are too dim and are too close to other stellar objects or areas that are too bright, which makes it so much harder to find these objects.

More and more data suggests that there is at least a super Earth sized object within the Solar System we have not been able to confirm visually yet. However, this data also seems to point out the possibility that there is also a sub-stellar object (brown dwarf) within the Solar System. We just haven't been able to confirm this visually, but indirectly there is data from many papers that point to the existence of such object/s.

could it be just a comet.
do we really need a big dwarf or a planet to cause changes on earth. like the time of noah there was a comet seen in the sky, not a planet.
the sumerians called it a star or a planet because it looked like the stars and planets. they did not know how big stars or planets are.
the scratch on Mars surface obviously caused mars to die, but it looks it was small as a comet or astroid 25 miles wide only, not a planet.
is the new comet approaching Mars now is only a comet few miles wide but durrounded by 2million miles wide dust and change

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yep, people assume that because something has been found at a longer distance, then we should have already been able to find objects that are closer

Can you provide a single counter-example that will falsify this assumption? You have rejected my "elephant in the room" analogy. Is there an historical example of scientists being unable to observe something near at hand that they were able to observe far away?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yep, people assume that because something has been found at a longer distance, then we should have already been able to find objects that are closer

Can you provide a single counter-example that will falsify this assumption? You have rejected my "elephant in the room" analogy. Is there an historical example of scientists being unable to observe something near at hand that they were able to observe far away?

sure. according to current understanding of red dwarf planet populations we should already be able to see planets around barnard's star, alpha proxima wolf 359 and ross 154 just to name a few. we have not detected planets around any of those stars let alone terrestrial planets even though these stars are all within 7 light years of earth with one as close as 4.26 light years.

two semi warm y dwarfs were found about 7. something light years away. thier "surface" temperatures are basically shortsleeve other factors not withstanding. when those were found by the WISE satellite articles were saying how hard it was to detect these types of failed star.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
You obviously did not even watch the video either. Why respond at all when obviously you haven't bothered to watch the video?

I don't like it when the whole thread's discussion is based on some video. I prefer to have a dialog with the actual posters on ATS, based on what they say here. (And even that can be challenging when there are pages and pages of long posts.)

WISE telescope team said that if Tyche (a trans-Neptunian planet proposed by a couple of astrophysicists) exists, it would show up in the data collected by WISE. After years of sifting through the data, Tyche was a no-show.

Since WISE surveyed the whole sky once, then covered the entire sky again in two of its infrared bands six months later, WISE would see a change in the apparent position of a large planet body in the Oort cloud over the six-month period.

I'm very positive that if there existed a brown dwarf in the outer Solar System, it would show up in WISE images. It would also have a much more identifiable gravitational effect on objects in the outer Solar System, and perhaps even the outer planets like Neptune and Uranus.

I could probably spend hours or days trawling through the papers and videos like the ones you linked, but what I've seen so far is summarised by me in the previous post: guesses and hypotheses based on too little data.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

sure. according to current understanding of red dwarf planet populations we should already be able to see planets around barnard's star, alpha proxima wolf 359 and ross 154 just to name a few. we have not detected planets around any of those stars let alone terrestrial planets even though these stars are all within 7 light years of earth with one as close as 4.26 light years.

Perhaps this is because they do not have planets.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Not to mention, as already stated, there are objects that are closer and we haven't been able to detect because they are too dim and are too close to other stellar objects or areas that are too bright, which makes it so much harder to find these objects.

Things in the Solar System orbit the Sun. They don't hang around in one particular area with respect to the stars or the Milky Way. Thus, a gas giant or a brown dwarf in our system would be seen in different parts of the sky at different times (although, granted, they would be moving very very slowly). The "disk" of the Solar System is angled at 60% with respect to the galactic plane, which means that bodies orbiting close to the ecliptic would cross from the bright part of the Milky Way into darker parts.

Regarding the possibility of a brown dwarf (or even a red dwarf, as proposed by some), I go by what Wikipedia says: en.wikipedia.org...

The Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) failed to discover Nemesis in the 1980s. The 2MASS astronomical survey, which ran from 1997 to 2001, failed to detect an additional star or brown dwarf in the Solar System.

Using newer and more powerful infrared telescope technology, able to detect brown dwarfs as cool as 150 kelvins out to a distance of 10 light-years from the Sun, results from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE survey) have not detected Nemesis. In 2011, David Morrison, a senior scientist at NASA known for his work in risk assessment of near Earth objects, has written that there is no confidence in the existence of an object like Nemesis, since it should have been detected in infrared sky surveys.

In particular, if Nemesis is a red dwarf star or a brown dwarf, the WISE mission (an infrared sky survey that covered most of our solar neighborhood in movement-verifying parallax measurements) was expected to be able to find it. WISE can detect 150 kelvin brown dwarfs out to 10 light-years. But the closer a brown dwarf is the easier it is to detect. Preliminary results of the WISE survey were released on April 14, 2011. On March 14, 2012, the entire catalog of the WISE mission was released. In 2014 WISE data ruled out a Saturn or larger-sized body in the Oort cloud out to ten thousand AU.

is it possible that changes in weather were caused by comets or the sun.
do we really need a dwarf or a incoming planet x to cause problems.
how about a 400 meter wide size astroid? it could do more damage than a passing planet.
i heard that at time of noah a small fragment from a comet hit a mountain in china and caused a water lake the size of black sea to spring out from siberia ice, and caused all that.


i dont think a planet can counter the power of the sun just like the magnet capture pebbles of iron, any pebble has no powere to affect another pebble

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: stormbringer1701

sure. according to current understanding of red dwarf planet populations we should already be able to see planets around barnard's star, alpha proxima wolf 359 and ross 154 just to name a few. we have not detected planets around any of those stars let alone terrestrial planets even though these stars are all within 7 light years of earth with one as close as 4.26 light years.

Perhaps this is because they do not have planets.

statistically that would be very strange. consider there are at least seven of these withing ten light years. and no less than 60 percent have a planet. and up to 100 percent have planets when all types of planet are considered.

.. Alpha Centauri 3
4.22 Proxima Centauri M5.5 Ve 0.123 Centaurus Flare star; brown dwarf b?

5.96 Barnard's Star M3.8 Ve 0.17- Ophiuchus V2500 Ophiuchi, old star


7.78 Wolf 359 M5.8 Ve 0.092-0.13 Leo CN Leonis, flare star
8.31 Lalande 21185 M2.1 Vne 0.46 Ursa Major Flare & thick disk star; 3 planets?

8.72 Luyten 726-8 A M5.6 Ve 0.10-0.11 Cetus BL Ceti, flare Star
8.72 UV Ceti M6.0 Ve 0.10 Cetus Flare star, a=5.5 AUs, e=0.62
9.68 Ross 154 M3.5 Ve 0.17 Sagittarius V1216 Sagittarii, flare star

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Not to mention, as already stated, there are objects that are closer and we haven't been able to detect because they are too dim and are too close to other stellar objects or areas that are too bright, which makes it so much harder to find these objects.

Things in the Solar System orbit the Sun. They don't hang around in one particular area with respect to the stars or the Milky Way. Thus, a gas giant or a brown dwarf in our system would be seen in different parts of the sky at different times (although, granted, they would be moving very very slowly). The "disk" of the Solar System is angled at 60% with respect to the galactic plane, which means that bodies orbiting close to the ecliptic would cross from the bright part of the Milky Way into darker parts.

Regarding the possibility of a brown dwarf (or even a red dwarf, as proposed by some), I go by what Wikipedia says: en.wikipedia.org...

The Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) failed to discover Nemesis in the 1980s. The 2MASS astronomical survey, which ran from 1997 to 2001, failed to detect an additional star or brown dwarf in the Solar System.

Using newer and more powerful infrared telescope technology, able to detect brown dwarfs as cool as 150 kelvins out to a distance of 10 light-years from the Sun, results from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE survey) have not detected Nemesis. In 2011, David Morrison, a senior scientist at NASA known for his work in risk assessment of near Earth objects, has written that there is no confidence in the existence of an object like Nemesis, since it should have been detected in infrared sky surveys.

In particular, if Nemesis is a red dwarf star or a brown dwarf, the WISE mission (an infrared sky survey that covered most of our solar neighborhood in movement-verifying parallax measurements) was expected to be able to find it. WISE can detect 150 kelvin brown dwarfs out to 10 light-years. But the closer a brown dwarf is the easier it is to detect. Preliminary results of the WISE survey were released on April 14, 2011. On March 14, 2012, the entire catalog of the WISE mission was released. In 2014 WISE data ruled out a Saturn or larger-sized body in the Oort cloud out to ten thousand AU.

meh. if they are easier then why is it that a pair of y types were not detected until a couple of years ago even though they are just over 7 light years away?

My thanks to ElectricUniverse for posting a link to that video chat by several astronomers. It was a very interesting debate. However, it was stated in the video that the WISE data (an astronomical satellite that has mapped the entire sky in the mid infrared wavelengths) has narrowed the "detection range" with respect to the size and distance of objects in the outer Solar System. In short, anything the size and reflectivity of Jupiter would have been seen within 27000AUs of the Sun, and anything similar to Neptune (should) have been detected within maybe 3000AUs. That being the case, the chances of a brown dwarf (an object that is both more massive and warmer than Jupiter) remaining undetected in the outer Solar System is effectively zero. If an undiscovered planet is indeed responsible for maintaining the orbits of Sedna, 2012 VP113 and other objects in the outer Solar System, then it is much more likely to be closer to the size and mass of Mars or Earth at a distance of 200-300AUs.

It's worth pointing out here that any object with the mass of Earth at that distance would almost certainly be significantly larger than our planet, because the density would be lower (since it would be made more of rock and ice rather than rock and nickel-iron).

a reply to: Mogget

Thanks for watching the video and posting some of the points mentioned there. Could you please give some time mark in the video where they are talking about this?

P.S. found it

a reply to: stormbringer1701

statistically that would be very strange.

You are drawing on a very limited data set. If they don't have planets, that would change your data set considerably, which, in turn, would change your calculated probabilities... but this is off topic.

Having mentioned the low probability of the existence of a brown dwarf based on the WISE data, I am curious to know just how extensive the searches have been. Single snapshots aren't good enough for detecting unknown Solar System objects in a dense stellar field, but I am not familiar with the WISE data collection process. Were multiple infrared photos of the entire sky obtained (thereby permitting identification of parallax motion)? I guess what I am trying to say here is.....do we know for certain that the entire sky has been checked for large, distant Solar System objects, or only those areas of the sky where major perturbers are expected to be?

a reply to: Mogget

There have been several infrared surveys: IRAS, Spitzer and Herschel as well as WISE. By comparing star fields imaged at different times, planetary objects can be found. I do not know the specific methodology of any of the groups working on discovering planetary bodies. Presumably, the will concentrate principally near the ecliptic.

a reply to: Mogget
Those were all-sky surves, covering the whole of the sky. Don't know about the other surveys, but WISE covered the whole sky several times.

originally posted by: DJW001

Can you provide a single counter-example that will falsify this assumption? You have rejected my "elephant in the room" analogy. Is there an historical example of scientists being unable to observe something near at hand that they were able to observe far away?

Plenty of examples exist. For example do you have any idea how many near Earth meteors we haven't been able to detect until they were right on top of us? Want a more specific example? The meteor that exploded over Russia on Feb 2013 and we did not detect.

Another example already mentioned here is the planetoid 2012VP113 which was first seen in 2012 but there is always need for more data to confirm such findings. Meanwhile before the first sighting or confirmation of this latest planetoid discovered in the Solar System we have been able to find galaxies, and even planets around other galaxies for many years which are much further away from us than these objects in our own Solar System.

Most discoveries of new planets orbiting other stars are done because we are searching the particular areas where these objects are. Sometimes by luck we find some sub-stellar objects, but what we have found so far is nowhere near to what exists out there. As far as we know, we have only been able to detect about 4% of the universe. Granted it is believed that most of the 96% of the Universe we don't know much about, and haven't been able to find probably exists as either dark matter or dark energy. But still these figures are only our best guestimates.

We haven't even been able to explore our own Earth completely, not yet. So how likely do you really think that we have been able to find every object that exists within the Solar System if we haven't been able to explore our own Earth completely?

Even when we don't have visual confirmation, data can indirectly tell us if there is something else within the Solar System which for whatever reason we just haven't been able to confirm visually. When data in paper after paper tells us that there are gravitational anomalies that can only be explained if there is an object, or objects, with enough mass to influence planetoids in the Oort cloud, comets, incomic cosmic radiation, and apparently is even affecting the length scale of the entire Solar System it can't be a fluke. Is it possible that all these anomalies are not connected? Yes, it is possible, but it is unlikely.

Is the physics within the Solar system really understood?
C. L¨ammerzahl1, O. Preuss2, and H. Dittus1
1 ZARM, University of Bremen, Am Fallturm, 28359 Bremen, Germany
2 Max–Planck–Institute for Solar System Research, Max-Planck-Str. 2,
37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
February 7, 2008
...
8.2 Other anomalies?
There is one further observation which status is rather unclear bit which perhaps may fit into the other observations. This is the observation of the return time of comets: Comets usually come back a few days before they are expected when applying ordinary equations of motion. The delay usually is assigned to the outgassing of these objects. In fact, the delay is used for an estimate of the strength of this outgassing. On the other hand, it has been calculated in (44) that the assumption that starting with 20 AU there is an additional acceleration of the order of the Pioneer anomaly also leads to the effect that comets come back a few days earlier. It is not clear whether this is a serious indications but a further study of the trajectories of comets certainly is worthwhile.

arxiv.org...

Whatever is causing the gravitational anomalies at around 20AU is giving an additional acceleration to comets.

If the planetoids in the inner Oort cloud we have found so far didn't have similar characteristics in their orbits, and if their orbits were more randomly distributed, then this would indicate a highly magnetized cloud as the most likely culprit. But instead these planetoids that we have been able to find so far, 12 of them, at a distance greater than 150 AU share similar orbital characteristics and they are all clustered around 0 degrees. This correlates with the real possibility that an object/s with a very strong gravitational pull is keeping them in their orbits.

Oh and btw, the planetoid 2012PV113, which is closer to us, was discovered after Sedna was discovered which is farther away from us.

Just because an object is closer to us it doesn't mean we should have discovered it earlier. Likewise just because a super Earth sized planet, or even a brown dwarf haven't been confirmed yet it doesn't mean they just don't exist within the Solar System.

originally posted by: wildespace
I don't like it when the whole thread's discussion is based on some video. I prefer to have a dialog with the actual posters on ATS, based on what they say here. (And even that can be challenging when there are pages and pages of long posts.)


...

So pretty much what you are saying is that you would rather make a comment completely in the dark than actually looking at the data.

BTW, what NASA said specifically is "the WISE survey had ruled out any object as they had defined it". So in other words as defined by the scientists the data ruled out such an object. The object can have different characteristics than those defined by the planetary scientists and still exist.

originally posted by: DJW001

Perhaps this is because they do not have planets.

That would only be possible if the star, or sub-stellar object was a rogue. It would be extremely unlikely if it had a stable orbit. Eventually during the lifetime of such objects they encounter matter which is attracted into an orbit around the star or sub-stellar object.