A theory

hey guys i kinda have this theory that on the opposite side of the sun there could be another planet. Is this possible?

reply to post by SpaceBoy97

Well the planets orbit the Sun so yes sometimes all the planets can be on the opposite side of the Sun to our point of view
But do you mean another planet besides the ones we know of?

reply to post by SpaceBoy97


There is one. but it is small. Can't recall the name, I saw the file years ago. It is synchronized and Earth can never see it.
But, I repeat, it is small. Like a trojan asteroid. (Google Trojan asteroids).

reply to post by SpaceBoy97

hey guys i kinda have this theory that on the opposite side of the sun there could be another planet. Is this possible?

No; its gravity would perturb the orbits of Venus and Mars and make all of the orbits of near Earth asteroids unstable.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SpaceBoy97

 

hey guys i kinda have this theory that on the opposite side of the sun there could be another planet. Is this possible?

No; its gravity would perturb the orbits of Venus and Mars and make all of the orbits of near Earth asteroids unstable.

That is a profound statement. Could you show me the math on that?

reply to post by SpaceBoy97


You should watch Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun, or Doppelganger (its lesser known title).

It was made in 1969 and tells the story of a joint US/European mission to investigate a planet discovered on the far side of the Sun. It turns out to be a mirror image of Earth!

en.wikipedia.org...(1969_film)

Its a good story, Jerry Anderson produced it. From 1969.

As per your theory I suppose its possible, I would have thought we could have detected a large body by now due to the wobble it would give the Sun.

Originally posted by emberscott


That is a profound statement. Could you show me the math on that?

1=1.

There are such things as earth Trojan asteroids that move around in earth orbit.
From time to time they move "ahead" of earth in its orbit, getting further away until they catch up from "behind", before slowing down and letting the earth catch up again.
Midway, they would run clean into the other opposite earth.

Of course that is a rather extreme example, but there are thousands of asteroids known, some of which do indeed pass very close to where your hypothetical planet would be... and are not changed in their orbit.


And in other arguments, wikipedia says...

...space probes sent to Venus, Mars and other places could not have successfully flown by or landed on their targets if a Counter-Earth existed, as it was not accounted for in navigational calculation.

It must also be noted that the Earth's orbit is not a circle but an ellipse, and in respect of Kepler's second law, a planet revolves faster when it is close to the star. So if the Counter-Earth followed the Earth on the same orbit with half a year of delay, it would sometimes be visible from Earth.

Any planetary sized body at Earth's L3 point should have been visible by the NASA STEREO coronagraphs during the first half of 2007. The separation of the STEREO spacecraft from Earth would give them a view of the L3 point during the early phase of the mission.

reply to post by alfa1


Yeah, that's it. What is the asteroid's size?

reply to post by emberscott

That is a profound statement. Could you show me the math on that?

Certainly:



archive.org.../n7/mode/2up

Click the right arrow three times and start reading.

What a book? An antiquated one at that?

You made a statement that would indicate you had some formal knowledge in the area of astrophysics. I ask for math and you come running back with an old dusty tomb in hand accompanied by a smile of successful achievement on your face.

It would appear I am in err at this moment due to an overestimated confidence in your, clearly displayed, superior intellectual capacities. I mean how dare I hold to hope even in the slightest to be blessed with the magic of arithmetic and mathematics bestowed on the back page of an obscure message board buried deep within the internetzwebzworldz.

I will admit that while I expected a comprehensive composition comprised of the combined works of newton, nordtvedt, maxwell and einstein not once did I even remotely imagine I would be presented with the likes of some dusty of tomb, digitally archived for the sole sake of preserving history, as recompensing proof.

In light of this newly discovered revelation you offered, I will admit my error and respectfully bow out of the discussion.

reply to post by emberscott

The point opposite the Earth in the same orbit is called the third Lagrangian point. It is an orbitally unstable location. No object can remain there. You can find the math here:

The real, positive eigenvalue spells disaster for Planet X. Its orbit is exponentially unstable, with an e-folding time of roughly  = 150 years. While there can be no Planet X, the long e-folding time makes L3 a good place to park your invasion force while nal preparations are made...

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

There is also the fact that there are two spacecraft now peering at this region. Nothing there.
stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov...

reply to post by emberscott

What a book? An antiquated one at that?

You made a statement that would indicate you had some formal knowledge in the area of astrophysics. I ask for math and you come running back with an old dusty tomb in hand accompanied by a smile of successful achievement on your face.

The math is in the book. It may be 300 years old, but it is as good today as it was the day it was printed. Einstein has improved upon it a bit, but it is still the fundamental source for understanding planetary motions. Here's the basic math:

F= G(mm'/r^2)

Any body orbiting on the far side of the Sun would attract other planets as it passed by. This effect is not observed. (It is also why that point would be unstable.) If you want to understand the math, read the book.

reply to post by artistpoet


I mean one we dont know of that is is the same orbit as earth.

reply to post by alfa1


Justa theory mate. Only wondering if its possible