"Large Planet Outside Pluto's Orbit"

[Nothalogh]

The other theory I've heard, that nobody seems to mention, is that of a nearby brown dwarf in a pseudo binary arrangement with the sun

[LordFerret]

I would think if a brown dwarf was involved, our sun's orbit about its barycenter would show otherwise ... which it doesn't.

[Nothalogh]

I would think if a brown dwarf was involved, our sun's orbit about its barycenter would show otherwise ... which it doesn't.

Good point. But have we fully mapped the sun's gravitational behavior?

[LordFerret]

Good point. But have we fully mapped the sun's gravitational behavior?

Of course the answer to that is 'no'. However, it's been studied and 'mapped' well enough that we count on it (TDB - Barycentric Dynamical Time) for space exploration and body ephemeris.

[cantab]

I would think if a brown dwarf was involved, our sun's orbit about its barycenter would show otherwise ... which it doesn't.

That movement would be very hard to detect. Nemesis (the usual name for that hypothetical red or brown dwarf) would have such a long orbital period that over the time we've been observing the Sun's movement around the Sun-Nemesis barycentre would be virtually a straight line, and therefore we could not separate it from the Sun's orbital motion through the Milky Way.

[Bill Phil]

It also failed with Neptune, and missed even the ballpark for Pluto.

Yes, but if you use Uranus in the Titius Bode Law as the starting point, you can accurately find Neptune.

It worked pretty well, and if anything we can recognize that it's accuracy drops off as distance increases.

[LordFerret]

That movement would be very hard to detect. Nemesis (the usual name for that hypothetical red or brown dwarf) would have such a long orbital period that over the time we've been observing the Sun's movement around the Sun-Nemesis barycentre would be virtually a straight line, and therefore we could not separate it from the Sun's orbital motion through the Milky Way.

I think were it a Red Dwarf, we'd have found it already ... especially if it's supposedly in our neighborhood.

I still have my doubts about a Brown Dwarf scenario. We've detected them elsewhere, over 1800 of them so far, and they're all much farther away than our own 'local group' here. The closest one to us found to date is WISE J085510.83-071442.5 ... http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/786/2/L18

[peadar1987]

Chaos doesn't exist, it is just order that we don't understand or we didn't found natural pattern to describe it

Bode's Law is nice but like someone said it does predict only semi-major axis and nothing more.

Someone said he can find formulas for any number sequence, so please make formula for (all planets from table above):

- planets radius (in order they are in solar system and second from smallest radius to largest),

- axial tilt

- orbital inclination

Microsoft Excel has an equation fitting function you can use for this. I did one for the masses of the planets:

In order from smallest to largest, the masses are given by: y=(2.0253E20)*(e^1.353).

This gives an R^2 value of 0.989, which is statistically a very good correlation. Exact predicted results below:

Body Mass Predicted

Ceres 6.4E20 7.8E20

Haumea 4E21 3E21

Pluto 1.3E22 1.7E22

Eris 1.7E22 4.54E22

Mercury 3.2E23 1.76E23

Mars 6.4E23 6.8E23

Venus 4.9E24 2.63E24

Earth 5.9E24 1.01E25

Uranus 8.7E25 3.93E25

Neptune 1E26 1.52E26

Saturn 5.7E26 5.88E26

Jupiter 1.9E27 2.27E27

This took about 5 minutes on a program not designed for producing accurate regressions. Doubtless somebody else could mathematically describe an even better fit than this one.

[Nothalogh]

We've detected them elsewhere, over 1800 of them so far

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those were located via observation of gravitational lensing or dimming of an object behind them, correct?

[Shpaget]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those were located via observation of gravitational lensing or dimming of an object behind them, correct?

Not all of them.

WISE is doing a great job of finding them directly.

[JetJaguar]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those were located via observation of gravitational lensing or dimming of an object behind them, correct?

Many of these were discovered by direct imaging in infrared by the WISE satellite when it compiled it's sky survey. As mentioned earlier, WISE has ruled out any sort of Nemesis-type brown dwarf companion, but there is still a possibility that terrestrial-massed objects remain undetected in the Kuiper Belt because they would be too cold for WISE to detect.

[Nothalogh]

But there is still a possibility that terrestrial-massed objects remain undetected in the Kuiper Belt because they would be too cold for WISE to detect

Ah, that makes sense

[B787_300]

While it is POSSIBLE for large trans-Neptunian planets to exist, but it is very very unlikely. As others have mentioned we should have seen various orbital perturbations in things like comets, Pluto, and other Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt objects.

At this point it would be very very surprising to me if such a planet was found because we know the orbital parameters of most objects that are large to large enough accuracy that something like that going unnoticed would be very odd. There are still things that we dont know about that are out there like more Pluto sized objects and orbital perturbations like the Pioneer Anomaly, but those are much too small to be another large planet

[Xannari Ferrows]

The only thing I know to be out there is Sedna. It isn't big though.

[tkw]

[magnemoe]

The only thing I know to be out there is Sedna. It isn't big though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_beyond_Neptune

We know about far more. however pluto is the largest of them.

[Darnok]

Microsoft Excel has an equation fitting function you can use for this. I did one for the masses of the planets:

In order from smallest to largest, the masses are given by: y=(2.0253E20)*(e^1.353).

This gives an R^2 value of 0.989, which is statistically a very good correlation. Exact predicted results below:

Body Mass Predicted

Ceres 6.4E20 7.8E20

Haumea 4E21 3E21

Pluto 1.3E22 1.7E22

Eris 1.7E22 4.54E22

Mercury 3.2E23 1.76E23

Mars 6.4E23 6.8E23

Venus 4.9E24 2.63E24

Earth 5.9E24 1.01E25

Uranus 8.7E25 3.93E25

Neptune 1E26 1.52E26

Saturn 5.7E26 5.88E26

Jupiter 1.9E27 2.27E27

This took about 5 minutes on a program not designed for producing accurate regressions. Doubtless somebody else could mathematically describe an even better fit than this one.

This is wrong, you should do something similar to Bodes law and use power of two or other number sequence or only mathematical constants.

And those results are terrible, I was looking at Giza Pyramid to find pattern in planets radius, using only mathematical constants (À, phi, e...) I was trying to avoid numbers, and every difference larger 50km rejected as inaccurate.

[peadar1987]

While it is POSSIBLE for large trans-Neptunian planets to exist, but it is very very unlikely. As others have mentioned we should have seen various orbital perturbations in things like comets, Pluto, and other Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt objects.

At this point it would be very very surprising to me if such a planet was found because we know the orbital parameters of most objects that are large to large enough accuracy that something like that going unnoticed would be very odd. There are still things that we dont know about that are out there like more Pluto sized objects and orbital perturbations like the Pioneer Anomaly, but those are much too small to be another large planet

The Pioneer Anomaly is actually pretty well accounted for by differential thermal radiation from the RTGs. It's a low-power photon drive, in essence.

This is wrong, you should do something similar to Bodes law and use power of two or other number sequence or only mathematical constants.

Why? That wouldn't produce a best-fit line. The claim was that it is possible to construct a best fit line "law" for any set of data, not that said law would be a power of two, which would be utterly ridiculous.

And those results are terrible, I was looking at Giza Pyramid to find pattern in planets radius, using only mathematical constants (À, phi, e...) I was trying to avoid numbers, and every difference larger 50km rejected as inaccurate.

Says you. The maths say it has an R2 value of 0.989, which denotes an extremely good fit. You're rejecting it because it doesn't fit your preconceived view, just as you have rejected Sedna, Makemake, Haumea, Orcus, Ixion, Quaoar, Huya and so on from your predictions, only keeping Eris and Pluto in because they fit better.

[Darnok]

Why? That wouldn't produce a best-fit line. The claim was that it is possible to construct a best fit line "law" for any set of data, not that said law would be a power of two, which would be utterly ridiculous.

Of course you can construct best fit "law" using numbers with any number of decimal places, I don't argue with that

The key is to use base numbers that have meaning like power of two in Bodes Law or like math constants. And you can't do that with any random set of data

Says you. The maths say it has an R2 value of 0.989, which denotes an extremely good fit. You're rejecting it because it doesn't fit your preconceived view, just as you have rejected Sedna, Makemake, Haumea, Orcus, Ixion, Quaoar, Huya and so on from your predictions, only keeping Eris and Pluto in because they fit better.

Extremely good fit... look at Uranus 8.7E25 3.93E25 and now calculate % error... 121%?

Eris and Pluto fit better when starting point is Mercury and Earth has value 1.0, I didn't calculated Bodes Law for other starting points.

Also keep in mind we have thread where people are arguing about what space object is "planet" and what isn't. While you require for single law to predict orbits of planets, dwarf planets and asteroids

[peadar1987]

Of course you can construct best fit "law" using numbers with any number of decimal places, I don't argue with that

The key is to use base numbers that have meaning like power of two in Bodes Law or like math constants. And you can't do that with any random set of data

Why? Is 2 somehow more of a "legitimate" or "meaningful" number than 1.353?

Extremely good fit... look at Uranus 8.7E25 3.93E25 and now calculate % error... 121%?

Eris and Pluto fit better when starting point is Mercury and Earth has value 1.0, I didn't calculated Bodes Law for other starting points.

Yes, because Eris' semi-major axis is about 320 times the size of Mercury's. Jupiter's mass is about 5 million times the mass of Ceres. There is a far greater variance in the masses. Mathematically, my regression fits the data extremely well, using an objective, mathematical metric, not a subjective one like you are using.

You're now fudging the numbers to make it fit better.

Also keep in mind we have thread where people are arguing about what space object is "planet" and what isn't. While you require for single law to predict orbits of planets, dwarf planets and asteroids

This is circular reasoning. "Bode's law predicts the orbit of planets. If it doesn't fit Bode's law it is not a planet. Only the orbits of planets fit Bode's law, so Bode's law must predict the orbit of planets"

[TrooperCooper]

I looked in RSS. There is nothing there. Move along!

[Darnok]

Why? Is 2 somehow more of a "legitimate" or "meaningful" number than 1.353?

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.353

Can you see the difference?

Yes, because Eris' semi-major axis is about 320 times the size of Mercury's. Jupiter's mass is about 5 million times the mass of Ceres. There is a far greater variance in the masses. Mathematically, my regression fits the data extremely well, using an objective, mathematical metric, not a subjective one like you are using.

You're now fudging the numbers to make it fit better.

Fudging numbers really, I accepted 120% error or you did?

It is about finding pattern that means something not another stupid calculated sequence of meaningless numbers that any software can generate.

Variance in masses has nothing to do with this, just take À, phi or 1 as Earth radius and do the math for Moon, Venus or Mercury, it will have meaning.

While taking 1.353 as Earth radius means nothing.

This is circular reasoning. "Bode's law predicts the orbit of planets. If it doesn't fit Bode's law it is not a planet. Only the orbits of planets fit Bode's law, so Bode's law must predict the orbit of planets"

And now replace "Bodes law" in that sentence with any other name of law or rule

You missed post when I said you should pick order planet, than Earth, as base 2?

What are rules for current categorisation of planets? Planet radius? It is super artificial and it is exactly as you said circular reasoning or even more stupid we bargain about specific number. If we found too many planets just rise requirements higher and it is done, this is super dumb.

More natural and universal way would be to use Bodes law or any other law that predicts radius of planets or their orbits, to decide what is planet and what is not.

The powers of two is not some random number sequence. We should base our laws and categorisation on universal math values not number picked by one guy and accepted or negated by others.

[LordFerret]

That movement would be very hard to detect. Nemesis (the usual name for that hypothetical red or brown dwarf) would have such a long orbital period that over the time we've been observing the Sun's movement around the Sun-Nemesis barycentre would be virtually a straight line, and therefore we could not separate it from the Sun's orbital motion through the Milky Way.

I'll disagree as I've seen such orbital simulations and read otherwise... if such you state is true, how do we know the barycenter of distant binary / trinary / etc star systems (of which many have been modelled)?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those were located via observation of gravitational lensing or dimming of an object behind them, correct?

As you can see below, I got Ninja'd.

Not all of them.

WISE is doing a great job of finding them directly.

Many of these were discovered by direct imaging in infrared by the WISE satellite when it compiled it's sky survey. As mentioned earlier, WISE has ruled out any sort of Nemesis-type brown dwarf companion, but there is still a possibility that terrestrial-massed objects remain undetected in the Kuiper Belt because they would be too cold for WISE to detect.

I'm pretty confident that WISE will continue to discover a number of new objects, as are expected to be out there, before completing its survey!

While it is POSSIBLE for large trans-Neptunian planets to exist, but it is very very unlikely. As others have mentioned we should have seen various orbital perturbations in things like comets, Pluto, and other Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt objects.

At this point it would be very very surprising to me if such a planet was found because we know the orbital parameters of most objects that are large to large enough accuracy that something like that going unnoticed would be very odd. There are still things that we dont know about that are out there like more Pluto sized objects and orbital perturbations like the Pioneer Anomaly, but those are much too small to be another large planet

As speculated in the paper I linked way earlier, there should be more 'Sednitos' out there, and it is expected that the Gaia Mission should discover 50 or more of them.

Edited July 17, 2015 by LordFerret

[peadar1987]

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1.353

Can you see the difference?

Not in any functional way. 2 is an interesting number for a variety of reasons, but for picking the base of a sequence, it is no better or worse than any other number.

If you really want to play this game, 1.353 is 23/17.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=23

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=17

Isn't that interesting? And useless.

And anyway, your fudged Bode Law has a 0.4 and a 0.3 in it. How is that any better than a 1.353?

Newton's Law of Gravitation has a 6.7E-11 in it. Avogadro's Number is 6.02E23. Childishly simple isn't always best.

Fudging numbers really, I accepted 120% error or you did?

It is about finding pattern that means something not another stupid calculated sequence of meaningless numbers that any software can generate.

Go read about regression and best-fit lines. I don't think you're in any position to talk about stupid sequences of meaningless numbers.

Variance in masses has nothing to do with this, just take À, phi or 1 as Earth radius and do the math for Moon, Venus or Mercury, it will have meaning.

While taking 1.353 as Earth radius means nothing.

What do you mean "it will have meaning"? What do you mean by "do the math for the moon, Venus or Mercury".

And now replace "Bodes law" in that sentence with any other name of law or rule

Newton's Law of gravitation

Maxwell's Law

Kirchoff's Law

Faraday's Laws

Kepler's Laws

All of these make accurate, testable predictions. All Bode's law does is throw out data that doesn't agree with it. Like the existence of all of the dwarf planets except two.

You missed post when I said you should pick order planet, than Earth, as base 2?

What are rules for current categorisation of planets? Planet radius? It is super artificial and it is exactly as you said circular reasoning or even more stupid we bargain about specific number. If we found too many planets just rise requirements higher and it is done, this is super dumb.

-Be in hydrostatic equilibrium

-Orbit the Sun

-Have cleared their orbit (defined as having a Stern-Levison parameter of greater than 1).

It's not without its problems, but it's better than your proposed method of arcane numerology and fudge.

More natural and universal way would be to use Bodes law or any other law that predicts radius of planets or their orbits, to decide what is planet and what is not.

The powers of two is not some random number sequence. We should base our laws and categorisation on universal math values not number picked by one guy and accepted or negated by others.

Rubbish. Bode's Law counts Ceres as a planet, but not Haumea, Makemake or Quaoar, which are of comparable size. If we used it as a determiner of what is and isn't a planet, like you are suggesting, a body the size of Jupiter at 100AU wouldn't count as a planet, but an icy lump 50km across at 154 or 307AU would do. Clearly rubbish.

And that's before you even consider the fact that for your prediction to work, you have to ignore the existence of Neptune.

[KerikBalm]

Peadar.... some people, its not worth arguing with... I hope most people can plainly see that some of these arguments are simply incoherent/illogical/plainly wrong.

I've seen a lot of non-sensical posts in other threads... and I'm done trying to have debates with people when logic is flouted so openly