"Large Planet Outside Pluto's Orbit"

[Psycix]

I can't seem to find it, but I recall a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson that went something like this:

"All gravitational sources in the solar system have been accounted for."

If there was another mass, our observations would not match with our Newtonian (and relativistic) calculations.

[WinkAllKerb'']

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

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

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

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

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

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9F%A9%E9%99%A3%E7%90%86%E8%AB%96

etc. & etc. & etc. plox i! free there minds i'm done and tired xDr & thks (huhu @_ _ _ & _ _ _ )

&@ => _ _ _ you know what your're trying to hide is so obvious that's it's ridiculous ... guy your're just boring and of none interests at all (but your own) and that's all ... here we go again â„— series ... 'sigh'

Edited July 18, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''
1/2 off topic chit chat on/off

[cantab]

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)?

In a binary with a visible and an unseen component, the closer the pair is the shorter the orbit, allowing us to detect the changing movements of the visible companion around the barycentre by radial velocity or by astrometry. Nemesis is hypothesised to be over a light-year from the Sun, and as far as I know binary systems anywhere near that widely separated are only discovered where we've seen both components.

Nemesis will only be found or ruled out I expect by a comprehensive sky survey that includes parallax measurements of distances. WISE has done that, and I don't think Nemesis exists, but I'm not sure it's been quite definitely ruled out yet.

[Darnok]

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

Isn't that interesting? And useless.

23/17 is useless, 2 isn't if can't see difference I can't help you.

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?

Yea, here I can agree with you and that is why I improved Bode's Law a bit and removed 0.4 and 0.3

But first you have to understand what is Bode's Law about, it is not about finding current orbits, because that is the result of interaction of various forces for billions of years. Bode's Law is to find pattern in very young solar system, maybe it depends of size of star (just like habitable zone) or maybe our solar system was created.

My formula:

(ups forgot to write phi=1.6180339... golden ratio)

[table=width: 380]

[tr]

[td][/td]

[td]k[/td]

[td]predicted AU[/td]

[td]real AU[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Mercury[/td]

[td]0[/td]

[td]0.404896429891662[/td]

[td]0.387[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Venus[/td]

[td]1[/td]

[td]0.723206316075452[/td]

[td]0.723[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Earth[/td]

[td]2[/td]

[td]1.041516202259240[/td]

[td]1.0[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Mars[/td]

[td]4[/td]

[td]1.678135974626820[/td]

[td]1.52[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Ceres[/td]

[td]8[/td]

[td]2.951375519361990[/td]

[td]2.77[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Jupiter[/td]

[td]16[/td]

[td]5.497854608832310[/td]

[td]5.2[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Saturn[/td]

[td]32[/td]

[td]10.590812787773000[/td]

[td]9.54[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Uranus & Neptune[/td]

[td]64[/td]

[td]20.776729145654300[/td]

[td]19.2[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Pluto[/td]

[td]128[/td]

[td]41.148561861416900[/td]

[td]39.44[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Eris[/td]

[td]256[/td]

[td]81.892227292942100[/td]

[td]67.7[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Planet-X [/td]

[td]512[/td]

[td]163.379558155993000[/td]

[td]???[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Planet-Y[/td]

[td]1024[/td]

[td]326.354219882093000[/td]

[td]???[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

I am not the only one that thinks there are at least two more large planets

http://www.universetoday.com/118252/astronomers-are-predicting-at-least-two-more-large-planets-in-the-solar-system/

Newton's Law of Gravitation has a 6.7E-11

It is rubbish, inaccurate (accurate for apples and other objects of similar size ) and wrong in many cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Observations_conflicting_with_Newton.27s_formula

Kepler's Laws

All of these make accurate, testable predictions.

Right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_orbit

It considers only the point-like gravitational attraction of two bodies, neglecting perturbations due to gravitational interactions with other objects, atmospheric drag, solar radiation pressure, a non-spherical central body, and so on.

As far as I know our solar system has more than two bodies

So how you tested it and how accurate results it gave you? Right I forgot 100% error is good fit for you

Try to use it here:

-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.

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.

So you are using one classification method to claim other classification method is wrong

That is very good example of your logic or lack of it.

I can't seem to find it, but I recall a quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson that went something like this:

"All gravitational sources in the solar system have been accounted for."

If there was another mass, our observations would not match with our Newtonian (and relativistic) calculations.

This is wrong, Eris was discovered in 2005 and Pluto in 1930, both of them didn't made full orbit since we observe them, so only thing you can measure is estimated or simulated result. No evidence of any or none gravitational perturbation can be delivered from so short observation periods.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Darnok

[WinkAllKerb'']

...

This is wrong, Eris was discovered in 2005 and Pluto in 1930, both of them didn't made full orbit since we observe them, so only thing you can measure is estimated or simulated result. No evidence of any or none gravitational perturbation can be delivered from so short observation periods.

... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe strike back ... boring just boring arguing ...

[Darnok]

... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe strike back ... boring just boring arguing ...

Show me evidence for this "age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years"' date=' not model, not result of simulation, not assumption, not hypothesis, not equation written on paper, but evidence

[url']https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HE_1523-0901

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_140283

star of 14.46 ± 0.8 billion years old

age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years

No point in arguing with results of simulations and models created to prove hypothesis and get rewards Big bang hypothesis is just a scenario full of assumptions nothing more.

[Felsmak]

Try to use it here:

http://i.imgur.com/cH2l37N.gif

Those orbits. They're hideous!

[sal_vager]

Any further pseudo-scientific, anti-scientific, creationist or conspiracy theory off-topic posts will be removed and the poster will be warned/infracted, if you want to discuss such things take it to PM or another forum, thank you.

Edited July 18, 2015 by sal_vager

[WinkAllKerb'']

@darnok yup i might had mistaken may be it's bazillion or trillion years not sure ... but hey you know it's not like a few more or less week will change anything for a 0 to 130 being ... *bored of thoose kind of arguing atm i m going to build an ark for the next kerbal crew much better ; )*

[windows_x_seven]

@darnok yup i might had mistaken may be it's bazillion or trillion years not sure ... but hey you know it's not like a few more or less week will change anything for a 0 to 130 being ... *bored of thoose kind of arguing atm i m going to build an ark for the next kerbal crew much better ; )*

Can anyone decode this message, please?

[Stargate525]

1 lightyear is so far out the planet would have an large chance getting expelled, at two lightyear this is pretty much guaranteed.

How far out would we get something at the size of earth? My guess is that its unlikely we find something larger than mars.

considering that two lightyears is nearly halfway to Alpha Centauri, when does it stop being a distant planet of our solar system and start being a rogue traveler we've currently got in the neighborhood?

[Streetwind]

considering that two lightyears is nearly halfway to Alpha Centauri, when does it stop being a distant planet of our solar system and start being a rogue traveler we've currently got in the neighborhood?

I can't answer that question, but I reckon you might find reading about the Oort Cloud and long-peruiod comets relevant to your interests.

[cantab]

considering that two lightyears is nearly halfway to Alpha Centauri, when does it stop being a distant planet of our solar system and start being a rogue traveler we've currently got in the neighborhood?

When it stops being gravitationally bound to the Sun.

Now that's a bit of a fuzzy criterion. The Sun and other stars are all moving through the galaxy, so the radius of the Sun's Hill Sphere won't be constant, but we should be able to calculate a typical value. That a passing star could eject a planet if it passed by just right doesn't disqualify said planet, after all such ejection is possible if unlikely for the eight planets we know. But an object too far away will indeed be tugged out of solar orbit by the gravity other stars that are not especially close to the Sun.

[cryogen]

I want to know what the actual evidence is

Here's the current observational limits (click to embiggen). The optical magnitude falls off very steeply, as R^-4 (because both the amount of sunlight, and the distance from earth observers, fall off as R^-2). Mid-infrared magnitudes (thermal radiation) only fall off as R^-2, but you need an intrinsic heat source -- a planet large enough to still have primordial heat.

Left graph is IR + optical on a log scale; right graph is zoomed in on small objects.

[TABLE=width: 800]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Sources (open-access):

Luhman, K. L. (2014). A search for a distant companion to the sun with the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Explorer. The Astrophysical Journal, 781(1), 4.

https://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/781/1/4/pdf/0004-637X_781_1_4.pdf

Sheppard, S. S., et al. (2011). A southern sky and galactic plane survey for bright Kuiper belt objects. The Astronomical Journal, 142(4), 98.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.5309

Summary:

[TABLE=width: 960]

[TR]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]limit[/TD]

[TD]method[/TD]

[TD]limiting telescope[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Sedna-size, albedo = 0.15 (assume r=500 km)[/TD]

[TD]~70 AU[/TD]

[TD]optical, R band[/TD]

[TD]Palomar 1.2m + Las Campanas 1.3m[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Pluto-size, albedo = 0.15[/TD]

[TD]~110 AU[/TD]

[TD]optical, R band[/TD]

[TD]Palomar 1.2m + Las Campanas 1.3m[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Earth-size, albedo = 0.15[/TD]

[TD]~270 AU[/TD]

[TD]optical, R band[/TD]

[TD]Palomar 1.2m + Las Campanas 1.3m[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Saturn-size (Fortney et al. brown dwarf model)[/TD]

[TD]~28,000 AU (0.4 l.y.)[/TD]

[TD]IR, W2 band (4.6 μm)[/TD]

[TD]WISE[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Jupiter-size (Fortney model)[/TD]

[TD]~82,000 AU (1.3 l.y.)[/TD]

[TD]IR, W2 band (4.6 μm)[/TD]

[TD]WISE[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Edited August 18, 2015 by cryogen