Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Planet IX?! Is it not still Planet X?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,933

    Planet IX?! Is it not still Planet X?

    As in unknown?

    Mike Brown recently published a Planet Nine video about his discovery where he says, "everybody's been wrong for 170 years, but we're right," and I chuckled.

    Of course, Planet 9 hasn't been detected directly, even while four candidates turned up in a recent citizen science project. None the less, I couldn't help but revisit some questions and curiosities. Assuming it's there, a large perturber in the outer system would seem to answer or add to multiple questions:

    -sun's axial tilt.
    -solar system's angular momentum
    -long-period cometary "wakes" and periodic bombardment
    -retrograde and resonant motions
    -Uranus on its side
    -Pluto having the same retrograde motion as Triton while also intersecting Neptune's orbit.

    There are probably others but these readily come to mind.

    I wonder if the putative perturber will be found to have satellites, or assuming there's one, could there be more?
    Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,543
    In what way does Pluto have "the same retrograde motion as Triton"?

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  3. #3
    The amusing thing about this potential planet being called Planet 9 is once found using Roman numerals we will be searching for Planet X again, a label which Planet 9 was designed to avoid. The name Planet 9 worked, but only as long as Planet 9 remains a mystery.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,001
    I don't care what they call it. In fact, I sort of won't mind too much it they DON'T find it, in a way. If it's not there, then there's another mystery to solve to figure out observations in the Kuiper Belt.

    CJSF
    P.S.
    OK, yeah, I do hope the find it, really.
    "A scientific theory
    Isn't just a hunch or guess
    It's more like a question
    That's been put through a lot of tests
    And when a theory emerges
    Consistent with the facts
    The proof is with science
    The truth is with science"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Science Is Real"


    lonelybirder.org

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    10,669
    I thought that X was simply a designation for unknown. Presumably, if we find a planet 11, we will still be on the lookout for Planet X.
    Solfe, Dominus Maris Pavos.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    My own private Nogero
    Posts
    174
    Pluto does not intersect Neptune's orbit. Yes, Pluto's perihelion is closer to the sun than Neptune, but at the points where the orbits "cross", they're separated by several AU. And due to the 2:3 resonance between their orbits, the two bodies never get closer to each other than about 17 AU.

    This resonance, BTW, does not need any special explanation, nor does the "crossing" orbit. Pluto is not the only body in such a resonance with Neptune; something like 25% of known Kuiper Belt objects are in 2:3 resonant orbits with Neptune. And the orbits of these other bodies (called plutinos) often "cross" that of Neptune in the same way. Similar resonances happen in other parts of the solar system. There's several asteroids that are in resonance with the Earth, for example. And it's likely that some of, if not all, the TNOs that suggest there's a Planet 9 are in some kind of resonance with that body.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    In what way does Pluto have "the same retrograde motion as Triton"?

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    My mistake: Pluto rotates on its axis retrograde while Triton orbits Neptune retrograde. Indeed, these are not the "same retrograde motion."
    Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    I thought that X was simply a designation for unknown. Presumably, if we find a planet 11, we will still be on the lookout for Planet X.
    Yes, precisely my point. When Pluto was a planet, X doubled as Ten, but it's Unknown if Planets stop with Nine.
    Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by dtilque View Post
    Pluto does not intersect Neptune's orbit. Yes, Pluto's perihelion is closer to the sun than Neptune, but at the points where the orbits "cross", they're separated by several AU.
    ...
    And it's likely that some of, if not all, the TNOs that suggest there's a Planet 9 are in some kind of resonance with that body.
    Yes, KBOs and Plutinos too, I'd bet.

    And you're correct, my use of "intersect" was inexact. Pluto's inclined eccentric orbit simply brings it closer to the sun than Neptune; it does not actually cross Neptune in its orbit.

    Planet X (heh), if it's there, could help explain Pluto's inclined eccentric orbit and retrograde rotation, and I think it's likely with some sort of resonance.
    Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    11,492
    Sock puppet posts removed.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    My own private Nogero
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by A.DIM View Post
    Yes, KBOs and Plutinos too, I'd bet.
    No, it doesn't work that way. Plutinos are already in resonance with Neptune. They can't be in resonance with Planet 9 too. Ordinary cubewanos, that is, KBOs in circular orbits, do not show any sign of being in resonance with another object. Their orbits are too regular. Possibly some of the Scattered Disk objects are, but we won't know until we discover Planet 9.

    Planet X (heh), if it's there, could help explain Pluto's inclined eccentric orbit and retrograde rotation, and I think it's likely with some sort of resonance.
    It's Planet 9, not Planet X. Planet X was a planet hypothesized by Percival Lowell to explain supposed irregularities in Neptune's orbit. The X stood for unknown, not for any number. And it turned out that Pluto was not Planet X because there was no need for such a planet. The irregularities were caused by erroneous measurements of Neptune's position.

    As for Pluto's axial tilt (i.e. the retrograde rotation), I'd say that it's much more likely to be the result of a collision, probably the one that formed Pluto's satellites, rather than gravitational effects of a quite distant planet. Pluto's eccentric orbit is likely the result of it being pushed around by Neptune until it fell into resonance with that planet. Once in resonance, its orbit doesn't change.
    Last edited by dtilque; 2017-Apr-17 at 03:24 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by dtilque View Post
    No, it doesn't work that way. Plutinos are already in resonance with Neptune. They can't be in resonance with Planet 9 too. Ordinary cubewanos, that is, KBOs in circular orbits, do not show any sign of being in resonance with another object. Their orbits are too regular. Possibly some of the Scattered Disk objects are, but we won't know until we discover Planet 9.

    It's Planet 9, not Planet X. Planet X was a planet hypothesized by Percival Lowell to explain supposed irregularities in Neptune's orbit. The X stood for unknown, not for any number. And it turned out that Pluto was not Planet X because there was no need for such a planet. The irregularities were caused by erroneous measurements of Neptune's position.

    As for Pluto's axial tilt (i.e. the retrograde rotation), I'd say that it's much more likely to be the result of a collision, probably the one that formed Pluto's satellites, rather than gravitational effects of a quite distant planet. Pluto's eccentric orbit is likely the result of it being pushed around by Neptune until it fell into resonance with that planet. Once in resonance, its orbit doesn't change.
    If Planet X (it's unknown!) exists, it seems certain we'll have to revise formation models for Neptune, Pluto et al. It is, after all, an inferred perturber in the outer solar system. But you're right, we won't know until it's discovered. And when it is, whether we like it or not, we'll still be hypothesizing Planet X.
    Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,933
    Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,504
    Quote Originally Posted by A.DIM View Post
    ....we won't know until it's discovered. And when it is, whether we like it or not, we'll still be hypothesizing Planet X.
    Well, there are certainly things about a perturber I won't be hypothesizing about, but everytime that subject comes up, everyone gets in trouble.


    So nevermind.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,703
    I'm still holding hope it will be found to be a captured object, since then it would be "planet 9 from outer space."

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,504
    Darn you Ken G....I can't think of a better come back.

    Good one...
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    34,619
    At least it's not the planet Ix. They make forbidden machines there.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,703
    Ah, that's a good one too.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    I'm still holding hope it will be found to be a captured object, since then it would be "planet 9 from outer space."
    Good plan!


    Mine is to wait and see if either are discovered, the Mars sized planet at 60 au and the 10 Earth mass planet at 600 au, and then maybe start calling them by "mythological" names.
    Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,001
    I think when they find the one farther out, they should name it Fraus, after the Roman goddess of treachery (and daughter of Orcus and Nyx). Treachery is also the 9th Circle of Hell in Dante's Inferno. But that would be awkward if it's found after a Mars-sized one closer in!

    CJSF
    "A scientific theory
    Isn't just a hunch or guess
    It's more like a question
    That's been put through a lot of tests
    And when a theory emerges
    Consistent with the facts
    The proof is with science
    The truth is with science"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Science Is Real"


    lonelybirder.org

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,933
    Well, there's New evidence in support of Planet Nine hypothesis, but it's all Planet X to me...

    ""Assuming that the ETNOs are dynamically similar to the comets that interact with Jupiter, we interpret these results as signs of the presence of a planet that is actively interacting with them in a range of distances from 300 to 400 AU," says De la Fuente Marcos. "We believe that what we are seeing here cannot be attributed to the presence of observational bias.

    ...

    De la Fuente Marcos explains that the hypothetical Planet Nine suggested in this study has nothing to do with another possible planet or planetoid situated much closer to us, and hinted at by other recent findings. Also applying data mining to the orbits of the TNOs of the Kuiper Belt, astronomers Kathryn Volk and Renu Malhotra from the University of Arizona (USA) have found that the plane on which these objects orbit the sun is slightly warped, a fact that could be explained if there is a perturber of the size of Mars at 60 AU from the sun.

    "Given the current definition of a planet, this other mysterious object may not be a true planet, even if it has a size similar to that of the Earth, as it could be surrounded by huge asteroids or dwarf planets," explains the Spanish astronomer. "In any case, we are convinced that Volk and Malhotra's work has found solid evidence of the presence of a massive body beyond the so-called Kuiper Cliff, the furthest point of the trans-Neptunian belt, at some 50 AU from the sun, and we hope to be able to present soon a new work which also supports its existence."



    This brings to mind the possibility that, if the closer-in object is found, it is a satellite of the larger farther object, if it is found.

    We're going to need more names.
    Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    10,862
    I'd love to see what that collection of objects would look like.
    The most stunning visual in our system is yet to be found perhaps...

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,703
    The situation could be summed up by this question: Just how many planet IXs are there?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,001
    I don't always quite follow much of the technical/mathematical explanations in these papers, but I thought I understood the latest research to have ruled out (or significantly reduced the likelihood) of a "Mars-sized" object closer in and that the best explanation is still a single "Planet 9".

    CJSF
    "A scientific theory
    Isn't just a hunch or guess
    It's more like a question
    That's been put through a lot of tests
    And when a theory emerges
    Consistent with the facts
    The proof is with science
    The truth is with science"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Science Is Real"


    lonelybirder.org

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    I don't always quite follow much of the technical/mathematical explanations in these papers, but I thought I understood the latest research to have ruled out (or significantly reduced the likelihood) of a "Mars-sized" object closer in and that the best explanation is still a single "Planet 9".

    CJSF
    Often I seem to read papers that are beyond my full understanding, especially the technical / mathematical types, but I'd be interested in seeing the latest research to which you refer, even if it leaves me confused.

    And I'd almost be willing to bet that if the larger "planet nine" is discovered, it will have satellites (maybe four or seven, just guessing).
    Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,001
    Quote Originally Posted by A.DIM View Post
    Often I seem to read papers that are beyond my full understanding, especially the technical / mathematical types, but I'd be interested in seeing the latest research to which you refer, even if it leaves me confused.

    And I'd almost be willing to bet that if the larger "planet nine" is discovered, it will have satellites (maybe four or seven, just guessing).
    I started with these 2 blog posts:
    http://www.findplanetnine.com/2017/0...te-part-1.html
    http://www.findplanetnine.com/2017/0...te-part-2.html

    and then:
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.04992.pdf
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.04175.pdf

    and a few other search/link hopping.

    CJSF
    "A scientific theory
    Isn't just a hunch or guess
    It's more like a question
    That's been put through a lot of tests
    And when a theory emerges
    Consistent with the facts
    The proof is with science
    The truth is with science"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Science Is Real"


    lonelybirder.org

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •