Looks like there might be newly discovered planet in our solar system

Consider this: suppose a large celestial body is in an extremely alongated elyptical orbit that's perpendicular to the planetary plane, with the longest part of the orbit towards the Earth's south pole. That orbit would take a very long time to complete, say 3600 years or so, with said celestial body accelerating during its approach to the Sun as it slingshots around it and then deaccelerates for the long part of the orbit.

Now, it would be very hard to see this celestial body since basically to do so we'd have to either use a telescope located very near the south pole (the ones in Chile probably wouldn't work) or a telescope orbiting the Earth like Hubble. Even then, if said celestial body was observed while coming almost directly at us (alongated orbit perpendicular to the planetary plane, remember?) it would likely be confused with a star and promptly dismissed, at least as a planet, because it wouldn't seem to move in relationship to other stars.

Yes, I am aware that usually planets of a solar system are usually formed together and tend to align to the planetary orbit, but what about rogue planets captured by the Sun's gravitational pull?

Food for thought, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no astrophysicist but the guy I've got all this from is, Laercio Fonseca from Brazil.

a reply to: Deny777

Now, it would be very hard to see this celestial body since basically to do so we'd have to either use a telescope located very near the south pole

False. A celestial body "above" the south pole can be seen from anywhere in the southern hemisphere.

Polaris (the North Star) is "above" the north pole and can be seen from anywhere in the northern hemisphere.

You are in the southern hemisphere. The constellation Octans lies over the south pole. Can you see it? You may have to get away from city lights because it is not a very bright group of stars.
www.constellation-guide.com...

originally posted by: Deny777
Even then, if said celestial body was observed while coming almost directly at us (alongated orbit perpendicular to the planetary plane, remember?) it would likely be confused with a star and promptly dismissed, at least as a planet, because it wouldn't seem to move in relationship to other stars.

Many comets have such orbits. Granted, they get identified as comets due to their fuzzy appearance, but they do move with respect to stars, even when they are practically heading straight towards the inner Solar System. The Earth's orbit around the Sun helps with this, as there's a certain amount of parallax produced. The planet would also get brighter as it gets nearer to the Sun.

~~~

P.S. I find it cute how "armchair experts" are trying to educate amateur astronomers on what is or isn't happening in space.

originally posted by: Deny777
Even then, if said celestial body was observed while coming almost directly at us (alongated orbit perpendicular to the planetary plane, remember?) it would likely be confused with a star and promptly dismissed, at least as a planet, because it wouldn't seem to move in relationship to other stars.

That would depend on how long we are able to observe it. If we observe it for any more than a couple of months, then we WOULD see it move against the background of stars -- because the Earth itself is moving around the Sun.

As the Earth moves around the Sun we would see this object from different points of view, and the object's relative position among the background stars would appear different from those different points of view.

This is called parallax, and is one method astronomers use to calculate the distance of stars. It works for stars that are relatively close -- and the effect would be very noticeable for something as close to us as in our own solar system.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
As the Earth moves around the Sun we would see this object from different points of view, and the object's relative position among the background stars would appear different from those different points of view.

This is called parallax, and is one method astronomers use to calculate the distance of stars. It works for stars that are relatively close -- and the effect would be very noticeable for something as close to us as in our own solar system.

To add to my post above, here is an illustration (not to scale) that might be helpful:

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Cool reply, thanks. So of course for someone to notice it they would have to care enough to watch that particular area for a certain period. I wonder if anyone in the south hemisphere is actually looking, going to email Sonear observatory and ask.

originally posted by: Deny777
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Cool reply, thanks. So of course for someone to notice it they would have to care enough to watch that particular area for a certain period. I wonder if anyone in the south hemisphere is actually looking, going to email Sonear observatory and ask.

There are amateur astronomers all over the world who spend much of their time hunting for comets by scanning the skies through their telescopes. They compare images taken at intervals for objects that are moving against the background stars. Most comets are discovered in this manner.

So if it is in fact Nibiru we should be scared right? because of all the disasters it will come along with it?

originally posted by: nito92
So if it is in fact Nibiru we should be scared right? because of all the disasters it will come along with it?

There is no evidence that it will come swooping through the inner solar system like the alleged "Nibiru", but If you're asking if we should be worried IF (huge "IF") this were the real Nibiru that was going to come swooping past the orbit of the Earth, then yeah -- that would be bad.

However, this planet might not be Nibiru but still be a real honest-to-goodness planet that exists far out there way past Pluto. But just because this planet may really exist out there, that doesn't mean there is anything to worry about.

I mean, if it's been out there in the far far outer solar system doing its thing for perhaps billions of years without us noticing it, then I doubt it would suddenly start causing catastrophes here on Earth simply because we now have knowledge of its existence.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I suppose you are right and I hope you are! and I think in the worst of scenarios we do have enough time to figure something out (I think?) But makes me wonder how ancient civilizations knew the existance of planets past Pluto. There is so much to be discovered...

originally posted by: nito92
I suppose you are right and I hope you are! and I think in the worst of scenarios we do have enough time to figure something out (I think?) But makes me wonder how ancient civilizations knew the existance of planets past Pluto. There is so much to be discovered...

More planets in space than those that can be easily seen? Lucky guess.
Vast underground realms within the Earth harboring strange animals, people and plants? Unlucky guess.

originally posted by: nito92
I suppose you are right and I hope you are! and I think in the worst of scenarios we do have enough time to figure something out (I think?) But makes me wonder how ancient civilizations knew the existance of planets past Pluto. There is so much to be discovered...

originally posted by: Blue Shift
More planets in space than those that can be easily seen? Lucky guess.

True. Even our modern civilization "guessed" about other planets around other stars before any were ever found.

Science fiction had been full of stories about other planets around other stars for over 100 years, yet none were ever positively detected until 1995. That didn't stop Science Fiction author such as Heinlein, Niven, Asimov, Clarke, etc from writing about other planets -- nor did it stop pop culture movies and TV shows, such as Forbidden Planet, Star Wars, or Star Trek from doing so.

Ancient civilizations relied on their knowledge of the skies in order to tell them what seasons were approaching, among other things. That knowledge of the sky led also them to learn about the visible planets, which moved differently against the background stars. I bet every so often, a comet would appear in the sky -- a previously unseen visitor, which may have led them to the conclusion that there are probably other unseen bodies and or planets out there.

a reply to: MamaJ

Speculation means no evidence. We have evidence of the effects of this planet's mass on ETNOs. What's more, I will tell you that they are bound to find something bigger, and not just a planet. A planet with 5-10 Earth masses is not enough to cause some of the anomalies we are seeing such as the secular increase of the AU (Astronomical Unit). There is a force within our solar system that is attracting all known planets/planetoids making them increase in distance at much faster rates than should be possible. A mere planet, even one with a size of 10 Earth masses is not enough to cause this.

I hope they find the really bigger find which will be the sub-brown dwarf/brown dwarf, the failed star sister to our Sun. This new planet 9 is orbiting around the failed star.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Got any published evidence to support all this? It's the first time I'm hearing about the AU and other planets' distances from the Sun increasing.

A brown dwarf (or sub dwarf) would be far more massive than the hypothetical "Planet 9", and therefore affect the orbits of the ETNOs to a much greater extent. The mass of "Planet 9" has been calculated based on the orbits of those distant objects, so how come these astronomers have not detected the presence of the much larger (and more gravitationally significant) brown dwarf?

Incidentally guys and girls: remember my thread about space science needing to work on a mission to go to sol's gravitational lensing point (at about 500 AU and greater?) Well now in this planet we have a rational for going almost that far and if the probe mission profile is designed as a fly by then a meaningful secondary mission would be to snap pics at the lensing point some time after the probe flies by this planet.

Also notice that this planet orbits well outside the heliopause which is considered the boundary of the solar system under our current definition. So like they did with the definition of Pluto (alack and alas) the community needs to redefine the solar system boundary.

originally posted by: wildespace
Got any published evidence to support all this? It's the first time I'm hearing about the AU and other planets' distances from the Sun increasing.

Gave a link to all that research in here

But here is that particular research you asked me about which is found on the first page of the thread i gave above.

Secular increase of the astronomical unit and perihelion precessions as tests of the Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati multi-dimensional braneworld scenario
Lorenzo Iorio JCAP09(2005)006 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2005/09/006


PDF (313 KB) | HTML | References | Articles citing this article



Lorenzo Iorio
Viale Unità di Italia 68, 70125, Bari, Italy
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract. An unexpected secular increase of the astronomical unit, the length scale of the Solar System, has recently been reported by three different research groups (Krasinsky and Brumberg, Pitjeva, Standish). The latest JPL measurements amount to 7 ± 2 m cy−1. At present, there are no explanations able to accommodate such an observed phenomenon, either in the realm of classical physics or in the usual four-dimensional framework of the Einsteinian general relativity. The Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati braneworld scenario, which is a multi-dimensional model of gravity aimed at providing an explanation of the observed cosmic acceleration without dark energy, predicts, among other things, a perihelion secular shift, due to Lue and Starkman, of 5 × 10−4 arcsec cy−1 for all the planets of the Solar System. It yields a variation of about 6 m cy−1 for the Earth–Sun distance which is compatible with the observed rate of change for the astronomical unit. The recently measured corrections to the secular motions of the perihelia of the inner planets of the Solar System are in agreement with the predicted value of the Lue–Starkman effect for Mercury, Mars and, at a slightly worse level, the Earth.

www.iop.org...

The attraction force doesn't seem much, but remember that whatever is doing this is also competing against the attraction excerpted by our sun. So there is no way that a planet with 10 Earth masses could be causing this. It has to be a dead star, which is also located within the Oort cloud.

Also do notice that the possible explanation given above is a multi-dimensional model of gravity.

To show another example which testifies that this supposed planet of just 10 Earth masses cannot be the culprit of the anomalous secular increase in the distance (AU) between our planets, and moons, here is another research which looks into the anomalous secular increase of the eccentricity of the orbit of Earth's Moon.

arXiv:1102.0212v3 [gr-qc] 21 Feb 2011
On the anomalous secular increase of the eccentricity of the orbit of the Moon

Lorenzo Iorio1
Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Universit`a e della Ricerca (M.I.U.R.). Permanent address for correspondence: Viale Unit`a di Italia 68, 70125, Bari (BA), Italy

[email protected]

...
Within the Newtonian framework, we considered the action of a circular massive ring modeling the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt of Trans-Neptunian Objects, but it does not induce secular variations of e. In principle, a viable candidate would be a putative trans-Plutonian massive object (PlanetX/Nemesis/Tyche), recently revamped to accommodate certain features of the architecture of the Kuiper belt and of the distribution of the comets in the Oort cloud, since it would cause a non-vanishing long-term variation of the eccentricity.Actually, the values for its mass and distance needed to explain the empirically determined increase of the lunar eccentricity would be highly unrealistic and in contrast with the most recent viable theoretical scenarios for the existence of such a body. For example, a terrestrial-sized body should be located at just 30 au, while an object with the mass of Jupiter should be at 200 au.
...

arxiv.org...

The object causing this secular increase in the Astronomical Unit throughout the Solar System cannot be this planet which is only 10 Earth masses at most. Because to be affecting the Earth's Moon alone this planet would have to be at a distance of around 50 au, and it isn't found at this distance. So there is something else within our Solar System with a much bigger mass which we haven't discovered yet. We can observe the effects of this sub-stellar object, but we haven't been able to pinpoint it's location, and much less observe it. At least not yet.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I mean, if it's been out there in the far far outer solar system doing its thing for perhaps billions of years without us noticing it, then I doubt it would suddenly start causing catastrophes here on Earth simply because we now have knowledge of its existence.

I don't know Green, most hermits are fine until their presence
becomes known. Then when they begin to feel their privacy might
be threatened. That's when they become agitated and start hyper-
ventilating, twitching and flatulating, vomiting. Kind of like
contaminated fish for dinner.



Just try'n a light'n things up in here.
You're all so serious about something you can't even control.

a reply to: randyvs

Objects bound gravitationally revolve around each other around a common barycenter. The barycenter between the Earth and the Sun is encompassed by the immense size of our Sun which makes it look like only the Earth is revolving around the Sun (similar with the other 7 known planets). The center of mass is always closer around the most massive body, which is the sun, plus as i wrote the huge size of our sun's corona hides their common barycenter(common center of mass between the objects). But, the sun bound to a failed star would have a common barycenter that is much farther out. Making their orbits more elliptical. The perihelion between both the sun and the sub-brown dwarf/brown dwarf would explain such a secular increase becoming more and more apparent.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Why do you think the increase in AU has to be caused by a very massive body in the outer Solar System rather than some other mechanism?

Interestingly, Wikipedia says that "the measurements of the secular variations of the astronomical unit are not confirmed by other authors and are quite controversial." en.wikipedia.org...