NASA's WISE Survey Finds Thousands of New Stars, But No 'Planet X'

I haven't heard the Planet X (or Nemesis, or Tyche) discussed here lately, and this new article from JPL just reminded me that there are still theories, possibilities, alternative views, etc.

NASA's WISE Survey Finds Thousands of New Stars, But No 'Planet X'

After searching hundreds of millions of objects across our sky, NASA's Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) has turned up no evidence of the hypothesized celestial body in our solar system commonly dubbed "Planet X."

This recent study, which involved an examination of WISE data covering the entire sky in infrared light, found no object the size of Saturn or larger exists out to a distance of 10,000 astronomical units (au), and no object larger than Jupiter exists out to 26,000 au. One astronomical unit equals 93 million miles. Earth is 1 au, and Pluto about 40 au, from the sun.

I wonder what is the distance limit for a Mars-sized body.

Looks like, while there are still many distant stars and brown dwarfs to be found, the survey excludes the possibility of Sun's binary companion or a gas giant. What do you think?

reply to post by wildespace

NASA's WISE Survey Finds Thousands of New Stars, But No 'Planet X'

You do know your about to get the old...

" Even if they did they wouldn't tell you." answer.

Oh, damn I just did it myself.

Interesting article, thanks.

Great avatar btw.

wildespace
I haven't heard the Planet X (or Nemesis, or Tyche) discussed here lately, and this new article from JPL just reminded me that there are still theories, possibilities, alternative views, etc.

NASA's WISE Survey Finds Thousands of New Stars, But No 'Planet X'

After searching hundreds of millions of objects across our sky, NASA's Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) has turned up no evidence of the hypothesized celestial body in our solar system commonly dubbed "Planet X."

This recent study, which involved an examination of WISE data covering the entire sky in infrared light, found no object the size of Saturn or larger exists out to a distance of 10,000 astronomical units (au), and no object larger than Jupiter exists out to 26,000 au. One astronomical unit equals 93 million miles. Earth is 1 au, and Pluto about 40 au, from the sun.

I wonder what is the distance limit for a Mars-sized body.

Looks like, while there are still many distant stars and brown dwarfs to be found, the survey excludes the possibility of Sun's binary companion or a gas giant. What do you think?

The article said that a Jupiter-sized planet could have been detected 26,000 astronomical unit away (that's about 2 trillion, 400 billion miles), which is better than 1/3 of a light year. Going by the capacity of the relative area of a Mars-sized body to reflect infrared light, such a planet should have been detectable out to about 1625 AU, or about 150 billion miles.

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by wildespace

 

NASA's WISE Survey Finds Thousands of New Stars, But No 'Planet X'

You do know your about to get the old...

" Even if they did they wouldn't tell you." answer.

Oh, damn I just did it myself.

Interesting article, thanks.

Great avatar btw.

Or...They never miss anything right?

Char-Lee

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by wildespace

 

NASA's WISE Survey Finds Thousands of New Stars, But No 'Planet X'

You do know your about to get the old...

" Even if they did they wouldn't tell you." answer.

Oh, damn I just did it myself.

Interesting article, thanks.

Great avatar btw.

Or...They never miss anything right?

Right -- maybe it does exist and was missed. However, until some real evidence for the existence of "Nibiru" is discovered, we can't say that Nibiru actually does exist.

People can hypothesize about its existence all they want, but the fact still remains that NO physical evidence of its existence (including its gravitational force showing hints of its existence) has ever been found.

Really, you think if they found it and it was going to affect Earth they would tell everyone or keep it a secret? They can't even bring themselves to tell us the truth about Roswell, Kennedy, 911......

We is saved, hallelu-jah. '

That's for those who didn't know that already.

So, finally, the Planet X myth is stabbed through the heart. Good, about time. thanks for the very good thread.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

How would it affect Earth?

Oh, you mean when it comes into the inner solar system? Well, see, we know that can't happen. Not on a regular basis anyway. Here's what we could expect if it happened once.

reply to post by Phage



Wrong. If Planet X was a regular occurrence in the solar system, it is a part of the solar system and by definition the system is already in equilibrium, or would have tended to equilibrium over millions of years, (and we all know a system in equilibrium is stable) and any effects that would take place would be minor gravitational perturbations, nothing on a grand scale but enough to cause havoc to our delicate technologically dependent world.

The only way Planet X/Nibiru could cause the effects in your "hypothetical" video would be if Planet X/Nibiru were not already part of the solar system and thus not in equilibrium with it.

Phage
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

 

How would it affect Earth?

Oh, you mean when it comes into the inner solar system? Well, see, we know that can't happen. Not on a regular basis anyway. Here's what we could expect if it happened once.

edit on 3/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

That makes it seem kind of silly to think even if some nibiru-like body is discovered that it could actully be nibiru.

nibiru has already been defined to be something that can not be.

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

The only way Planet X/Nibiru could cause the effects in your "hypothetical" video would be if Planet X/Nibiru were not already part of the solar system and thus not in equilibrium with it.

If Nibiru did what it is claimed to do there could be no equilibrium.
That's the point. The Solar System could not exist as it does if Nibiru entered the inner regions.

Minor gravitational effects. I see, and those affects would not affect the orbits of the planets, just their surfaces?

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE

any effects that would take place would be minor gravitational perturbations, nothing on a grand scale but enough to cause havoc to our delicate technologically dependent world.

Like strong enough to cause earthquakes but too weak to affect the tides?

PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by Phage

 

Wrong. If Planet X was a regular occurrence in the solar system, it is a part of the solar system and by definition the system is already in equilibrium, or would have tended to equilibrium over millions of years, (and we all know a system in equilibrium is stable) and any effects that would take place would be minor gravitational perturbations, nothing on a grand scale but enough to cause havoc to our delicate technologically dependent world.

The only way Planet X/Nibiru could cause the effects in your "hypothetical" video would be if Planet X/Nibiru were not already part of the solar system and thus not in equilibrium with it.

Apparently, even after all the debating back in 2012 on here, you just demonstrated with the above post that:

You have no idea how Orbital Mechanics works.

Nor do you seem to understand Gravitation.

That apparently when it comes to those things, you know better than Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler when it comes to how gravity and planetary motion works.

Okay then. Since this is the Space Exploration forum, which is science based, please provide your work showing how they are wrong and how a high mass body is able to enter the inner solar system on a repeated basis and not change anything.

Use math to show us how a large mass body is able to avoid causing any changes to small mass bodies in orbit about the sun.

For literally centuries now, the observational data by many, many, many astronomers have verified Kepler's Laws of planetary motion.

You on the other hand are saying they are wrong. Please show your work.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Every Red Dwarf Hosts at Least One Exoplanet

Think all stars have planets.

Unity_99

Think all stars have planets.

That may not be quite correct.

Our sun is at least a third-generation star -- i.e., it is made of raw materials from two earlier generations of stars that had exploded, spewing those raw materials into space. So our solar system (and other solar systems with planets) formed from dust clouds and stellar nebulae that had enough and various raw materials to create a star and planets, some rocky.

Other stars may have formed form a less varied and less dense cloud of stuff -- maybe clouds of just hydrogen. Those stars may have formed in locations that did not have enough raw materials for planet-building.

reply to post by Unity_99

Think all stars have planets.

Maybe. We know of many that do.
Not sure what that has to do with the topic though.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Well now you've just opened yourself to the next step in the Nibiru Argument From Ignorance. First is the classic, "If they actually found it do think they would tell us?" Then when physics is brought up you get the standard, "We don't know everything about the universe so..."

It amazes me how many times you can have the same discussion with the same person on this site and yet nothing ever changes.

Thank-you for this posting. An interesting article. I have a question about the results, which is why do they only go out to 26,000 au? I know that is ridiculously far in real terms, but I understand Pluto is about 40,000 au - and the the outer limits of the Oort cloud around 50,000 au (if these are bad estimates I apologize in advance, I am no expert). So is there some reason that the Tyche hypothesis wan't just completely eliminated by analyzing WISE data all the way out to the absolute edges of the solar system?

reply to post by Nightspore

but I understand Pluto is about 40,000 au

40 au.

26,000 au is the greatest distance that an object the size of Jupiter would be detectable. A larger object would be detectable at a greater distance.


26,000 au is a very long way away. An object orbiting the Sun at that distance would have a "year" lasting 4 million Earth years.

reply to post by Phage


oh my, very embarrassing. I think I m getting the picture a lot more clearly now though, Thank you Phage.