Researchers find evidence of a real ninth planet

January 20, 2016 by Kimm Fesenmaier, California Institute of Technology
This artist's rendering shows the distant view from Planet Nine back towards the sun. The planet is thought to be gaseous, similar to Uranus and Neptune. Hypothetical lightning lights up the night side. Credit: Caltech/R. Hurt (IPAC)

Caltech researchers have found evidence of a giant planet tracing a bizarre, highly elongated orbit in the outer solar system. The object, which the researchers have nicknamed Planet Nine, has a mass about 10 times that of Earth and orbits about 20 times farther from the sun on average than does Neptune (which orbits the sun at an average distance of 2.8 billion miles). In fact, it would take this new planet between 10,000 and 20,000 years to make just one full orbit around the sun.

The researchers, Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown, discovered the planet's existence through mathematical modeling and computer simulations but have not yet observed the object directly.

"This would be a real ninth planet," says Brown, the Richard and Barbara Rosenberg Professor of Planetary Astronomy. "There have only been two true planets discovered since ancient times, and this would be a third. It's a pretty substantial chunk of our solar system that's still out there to be found, which is pretty exciting."

Brown notes that the putative ninth planet—at 5,000 times the mass of Pluto—is sufficiently large that there should be no debate about whether it is a true planet. Unlike the class of smaller objects now known as dwarf planets, Planet Nine gravitationally dominates its neighborhood of the solar system. In fact, it dominates a region larger than any of the other known planets—a fact that Brown says makes it "the most planet-y of the planets in the whole solar system."

Batygin and Brown describe their work in the current issue of the Astronomical Journal and show how Planet Nine helps explain a number of mysterious features of the field of icy objects and debris beyond Neptune known as the Kuiper Belt.

The six most distant known objects in the solar system with orbits exclusively beyond Neptune (magenta) all mysteriously line up in a single direction. Also, when viewed in three dimensions, they all tilt nearly identically away from the plane of the solar system. Batygin and Brown show that a planet with 10 times the mass of the earth in a distant eccentric orbit anti-aligned with the other six objects (orange) is required to maintain this configuration. The diagram was created using WorldWide Telescope. Credit: Caltech/R. Hurt (IPAC)
"Although we were initially quite skeptical that this planet could exist, as we continued to investigate its orbit and what it would mean for the outer solar system, we become increasingly convinced that it is out there," says Batygin, an assistant professor of planetary science. "For the first time in over 150 years, there is solid evidence that the solar system's planetary census is incomplete."

The road to the theoretical discovery was not straightforward. In 2014, a former postdoc of Brown's, Chad Trujillo, and his colleague Scott Shepherd published a paper noting that 13 of the most distant objects in the Kuiper Belt are similar with respect to an obscure orbital feature. To explain that similarity, they suggested the possible presence of a small planet. Brown thought the planet solution was unlikely, but his interest was piqued.

He took the problem down the hall to Batygin, and the two started what became a year-and-a-half-long collaboration to investigate the distant objects. As an observer and a theorist, respectively, the researchers approached the work from very different perspectives—Brown as someone who looks at the sky and tries to anchor everything in the context of what can be seen, and Batygin as someone who puts himself within the context of dynamics, considering how things might work from a physics standpoint. Those differences allowed the researchers to challenge each other's ideas and to consider new possibilities. "I would bring in some of these observational aspects; he would come back with arguments from theory, and we would push each other. I don't think the discovery would have happened without that back and forth," says Brown. " It was perhaps the most fun year of working on a problem in the solar system that I've ever had."

Fairly quickly Batygin and Brown realized that the six most distant objects from Trujillo and Shepherd's original collection all follow elliptical orbits that point in the same direction in physical space. That is particularly surprising because the outermost points of their orbits move around the solar system, and they travel at different rates.

"It's almost like having six hands on a clock all moving at different rates, and when you happen to look up, they're all in exactly the same place," says Brown. The odds of having that happen are something like 1 in 100, he says. But on top of that, the orbits of the six objects are also all tilted in the same way—pointing about 30 degrees downward in the same direction relative to the plane of the eight known planets. The probability of that happening is about 0.007 percent. "Basically it shouldn't happen randomly," Brown says. "So we thought something else must be shaping these orbits."

Caltech's Konstantin Batygin, an assistant professor of planetary science, and Mike Brown, the Richard and Barbara Rosenberg Professor of Planetary Astronomy, discuss new research that provides evidence of a giant planet tracing a bizarre, highly elongated orbit in the outer solar system. Credit: Caltech AMT

The first possibility they investigated was that perhaps there are enough distant Kuiper Belt objects—some of which have not yet been discovered—to exert the gravity needed to keep that subpopulation clustered together. The researchers quickly ruled this out when it turned out that such a scenario would require the Kuiper Belt to have about 100 times the mass it has today.

That left them with the idea of a planet. Their first instinct was to run simulations involving a planet in a distant orbit that encircled the orbits of the six Kuiper Belt objects, acting like a giant lasso to wrangle them into their alignment. Batygin says that almost works but does not provide the observed eccentricities precisely. "Close, but no cigar," he says.

Then, effectively by accident, Batygin and Brown noticed that if they ran their simulations with a massive planet in an anti-aligned orbit—an orbit in which the planet's closest approach to the sun, or perihelion, is 180 degrees across from the perihelion of all the other objects and known planets—the distant Kuiper Belt objects in the simulation assumed the alignment that is actually observed.

"Your natural response is 'This orbital geometry can't be right. This can't be stable over the long term because, after all, this would cause the planet and these objects to meet and eventually collide,'" says Batygin. But through a mechanism known as mean-motion resonance, the anti-aligned orbit of the ninth planet actually prevents the Kuiper Belt objects from colliding with it and keeps them aligned. As orbiting objects approach each other they exchange energy. So, for example, for every four orbits Planet Nine makes, a distant Kuiper Belt object might complete nine orbits. They never collide. Instead, like a parent maintaining the arc of a child on a swing with periodic pushes, Planet Nine nudges the orbits of distant Kuiper Belt objects such that their configuration with relation to the planet is preserved.

"Still, I was very skeptical," says Batygin. "I had never seen anything like this in celestial mechanics."

A predicted consequence of Planet Nine is that a second set of confined objects should also exist. These objects are forced into positions at right angles to Planet Nine and into orbits that are perpendicular to the plane of the solar system. Five known objects (blue) fit this prediction precisely. Credit: Caltech/R. Hurt (IPAC) Diagram was created using WorldWide Telescope

But little by little, as the researchers investigated additional features and consequences of the model, they became persuaded. "A good theory should not only explain things that you set out to explain. It should hopefully explain things that you didn't set out to explain and make predictions that are testable," says Batygin.

And indeed Planet Nine's existence helps explain more than just the alignment of the distant Kuiper Belt objects. It also provides an explanation for the mysterious orbits that two of them trace. The first of those objects, dubbed Sedna, was discovered by Brown in 2003. Unlike standard-variety Kuiper Belt objects, which get gravitationally "kicked out" by Neptune and then return back to it, Sedna never gets very close to Neptune. A second object like Sedna, known as 2012 VP113, was announced by Trujillo and Shepherd in 2014. Batygin and Brown found that the presence of Planet Nine in its proposed orbit naturally produces Sedna-like objects by taking a standard Kuiper Belt object and slowly pulling it away into an orbit less connected to Neptune.

But the real kicker for the researchers was the fact that their simulations also predicted that there would be objects in the Kuiper Belt on orbits inclined perpendicularly to the plane of the planets. Batygin kept finding evidence for these in his simulations and took them to Brown. "Suddenly I realized there are objects like that," recalls Brown. In the last three years, observers have identified four objects tracing orbits roughly along one perpendicular line from Neptune and one object along another. "We plotted up the positions of those objects and their orbits, and they matched the simulations exactly," says Brown. "When we found that, my jaw sort of hit the floor."

"When the simulation aligned the distant Kuiper Belt objects and created objects like Sedna, we thought this is kind of awesome—you kill two birds with one stone," says Batygin. "But with the existence of the planet also explaining these perpendicular orbits, not only do you kill two birds, you also take down a bird that you didn't realize was sitting in a nearby tree."

Where did Planet Nine come from and how did it end up in the outer solar system? Scientists have long believed that the early solar system began with four planetary cores that went on to grab all of the gas around them, forming the four gas planets—Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Over time, collisions and ejections shaped them and moved them out to their present locations. "But there is no reason that there could not have been five cores, rather than four," says Brown. Planet Nine could represent that fifth core, and if it got too close to Jupiter or Saturn, it could have been ejected into its distant, eccentric orbit.

Batygin and Brown continue to refine their simulations and learn more about the planet's orbit and its influence on the distant solar system. Meanwhile, Brown and other colleagues have begun searching the skies for Planet Nine. Only the planet's rough orbit is known, not the precise location of the planet on that elliptical path. If the planet happens to be close to its perihelion, Brown says, astronomers should be able to spot it in images captured by previous surveys. If it is in the most distant part of its orbit, the world's largest telescopes—such as the twin 10-meter telescopes at the W. M. Keck Observatory and the Subaru Telescope, all on Mauna Kea in Hawaii—will be needed to see it. If, however, Planet Nine is now located anywhere in between, many telescopes have a shot at finding it.

"I would love to find it," says Brown. "But I'd also be perfectly happy if someone else found it. That is why we're publishing this paper. We hope that other people are going to get inspired and start searching."

In terms of understanding more about the solar system's context in the rest of the universe, Batygin says that in a couple of ways, this ninth planet that seems like such an oddball to us would actually make our solar system more similar to the other planetary systems that astronomers are finding around other stars. First, most of the planets around other sunlike stars have no single orbital range—that is, some extremely close to their host stars while others follow exceptionally distant orbits. Second, the most common planets around other stars range between 1 and 10 Earth-masses.

"One of the most startling discoveries about other planetary systems has been that the most common type of planet out there has a mass between that of Earth and that of Neptune," says Batygin. "Until now, we've thought that the solar system was lacking in this most common type of planet. Maybe we're more normal after all."

Brown, well known for the significant role he played in the demotion of Pluto from a planet to a dwarf planet adds, "All those people who are mad that Pluto is no longer a planet can be thrilled to know that there is a real planet out there still to be found," he says. "Now we can go and find this planet and make the have nine once again."

The paper is titled "Evidence for a Distant Giant Planet in the Solar System."

Explore further: Astronomers spot most distant object in solar system

More information: "Evidence for a Distant Giant Planet in the solar system," Konstantin Batygin & Michael E. Brown, 2016 February, Astronomical Journal , dx.doi.org/10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22

Related Stories

Monster planet is 'dancing with the stars'

December 16, 2015

A team made up almost entirely of current and former Carnegie scientists has discovered a highly unusual planetary system comprised of a Sun-like star, a dwarf star, and an enormous planet sandwiched in between.

How many moons does Mercury have? (Update)

January 1, 2016

Virtually every planet in the solar system has moons. Earth has the moon, Mars has Phobos and Deimos, and Jupiter and Saturn have 67 and 62 officially named moons, respectively. Heck, even the recently-demoted dwarf planet ...

Recommended for you

In colliding galaxies, a pipsqueak shines bright

February 20, 2019

In the nearby Whirlpool galaxy and its companion galaxy, M51b, two supermassive black holes heat up and devour surrounding material. These two monsters should be the most luminous X-ray sources in sight, but a new study using ...

When does one of the central ideas in economics work?

February 20, 2019

The concept of equilibrium is one of the most central ideas in economics. It is one of the core assumptions in the vast majority of economic models, including models used by policymakers on issues ranging from monetary policy ...

Research reveals why the zebra got its stripes

February 20, 2019

Why do zebras have stripes? A study published in PLOS ONE today takes us another step closer to answering this puzzling question and to understanding how stripes actually work.

Correlated nucleons may solve 35-year-old mystery

February 20, 2019

A careful re-analysis of data taken at the Department of Energy's Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility has revealed a possible link between correlated protons and neutrons in the nucleus and a 35-year-old mystery. ...

178 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

XQuantumKnightX
1.8 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2016
Planet X or Nibiru? Can we see close up images?
axemaster
4.9 / 5 (31) Jan 20, 2016
Wow, I never thought we'd discover another planet in the Solar System in my lifetime. Those days were supposed to be the stuff of history books. It's... actually a really profound feeling.
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 20, 2016
My prediction: They won't be able to see anything. It's not actually a planet, rather it's a stellar mass black hole formed from the collapsed star of our (unknown) binary system.

tracing a bizarre, highly elongated orbit in the outer solar system

If it's a black hole this would be more explainable, since the sun orbiting a similar mass would be highly elliptical.
bobbysius
4 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2016
I'm not discounting the possibility of a stellar mass black hole, but for that to be the case, the progenitor star would have had to be at least 15 times the mass of the Sun. Even at a distance of 600 AU, this would have destabilized the orbit of Neptune (and Uranus and Saturn as well). Indeed any body orbiting the sun at greater than about 7.5 AU wouldn't be stable long-term in such a system. I think a 10 Earth mass planet is much more likely.
antigoresockpuppet
4.3 / 5 (24) Jan 20, 2016
Axemaster's right. Too bad the experience is so highly attenuated listening to all the tin foil jobs and their predictable blathering.
Gigel
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2016
A stellar black hole would have to be much farther away in order not to scatter the Solar System planets. And being far away, it couldn't create the small planet orbits that are described in the article, not more than chance can do it.
Scroofinator
2.4 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2016
the progenitor star would have had to be at least 15 times the mass of the Sun

Assuming current accepted black hole theory, you're right. It would've had to be at least that large. Yet we have never witnessed the creation of one, and the physics behind it is still very much theory. Perhaps the star was only 2 times the mass of the sun, and had a much stronger magnetic field than previously understood to help overcome the electron repulsion that is thought to hinder black hole formation. We know that stronger magnetic fields are common in larger stars:
http://phys.org/n...ars.html
Because our sample is so big we have been able to dig deeper into the analysis and can conclude that strong [internal] magnetic fields are very common among stars that have masses of about 1.5-2.0 times that of the Sun
petersonwalter
3.1 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2016
I nominate the name of Erebus for this planet. It must be quite dark there.
Scroofinator
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2016
Not to mention there would be some pretty hard evidence that a core collapse SN as they are theorized to occur by the mainstream had taken place in our solar system

Well given the fact that a star with only 1.5 stellar masses will burn out within 3 billion years, I'd argue it would be difficult to get hard evidence if it went nova a billion years ago.
http://www.astron...n/s2.htm
promile
Jan 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SpiffyKavu
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2016
Planet X or Nibiru? Can we see close up images?

Unfortunately not. Our biggest telescopes can only resolve Pluto on a few pixels. This objects is significantly farther, so it would appear even smaller and be even more difficult to resolve. It might be potentially resolvable via optical interferometers, but that is very finicky.

Does this explain the Kuiper Belt cliff? Or the lack of Kuiper Belt objects beyond ~60 A.U.?
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2016
I am just going by the math of the mainstream, 1.5 solar masses won't get you one their BH's via a core collapse SN

You said it, according to current theory, which doesn't include the intense internal magnetic fields of stars.

and we have some gas giants that wouldn't survive such an event at this proximity

Perhaps not, but we don't really know. Could be survivable if the SN occurred while at aphelion.
my2cts
3.2 / 5 (18) Jan 20, 2016
One thing is for sure, a black hole does not explain the observations on account of being at least 10.000 times too heavy, among many reasons. So let's save that for another thread.
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2016
They have made the assumption this body's orbit is heliocentric, but if in fact it's a binary orbit that changes the barycenter and thus the mass associated to the "ninth planet".
my2cts
3 / 5 (18) Jan 20, 2016
Planet X or Nibiru? Can we see close up images?

Unfortunately not. Our biggest telescopes can only resolve Pluto on a few pixels. This objects is significantly farther, so it would appear even smaller and be even more difficult to resolve. It might be potentially resolvable via optical interferometers, but that is very finicky.

Earth's mass is 4.6 that of Pluto, so planet X being 10 times more massive than Earth should be 46 times more massive than Pluto, that is 3.5 times bigger assuming the same density. At 56 billion kilometers it should appear at 40% the brightness of Pluto, assuming the same albedo. It should be observable. It would move at 3 times lower speed than Pluto so at 28 times smaller angular velocity, which probably makes it hard to notice in a sky survey.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 20, 2016
continued
Many Kuiper belt objects have been observed at large distances. Eris is about the size of Pluto and was discovered at 96.4 A.U. An object as big as planet X at 60 A.U. should already have been discovered.
https://en.wikipe...stem.png
LagomorphZero
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2016
my2cts, your calculations seem pretty reasonable, I'd imagine that we'd get more help from parallax surveys 6 months apart, it should move pretty far relative to background stars seeing as it's still in the solar system.

I'm curious what wave lengths it might be discovered in first... I think submillimeter would be the most likely, given the large size of the arrays they can put together
Scroofinator
4 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2016
I don't know what makes you think 60 A.U. is predicted. Did you mean 600?
Although the model proposed herein is characterized by a multitude of quantities that are inherently degenerate with respect to one another, our calculations suggest that a perturber on an a' ~ 700 AU, e' ~ 0.6 orbit would have to be somewhat more massive (e.g., a factor of a few) than m' = 10 m⊕ to produce the desired effect.

http://iopscience.../22/meta
promile
Jan 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2016
I don't know what makes you think 60 A.U. is predicted. Did you mean 600?

You are right, 600 it is. It is 3.5 times bigger than Eris and 6 times further away. Eris is quite well resolved by Hubble, including its tiny moon. Planet X must be observable.
https://en.wikipe...mia2.jpg
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2016
Planet X must be observable

Then wouldn't you think the WISE survey would've found it?
Tangent2
4 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2016
Wow, I never thought we'd discover another planet in the Solar System in my lifetime. Those days were supposed to be the stuff of history books. It's... actually a really profound feeling.


That feeling is called humility, and it only comes around once the arrogant assumptions are put aside, such as the assumption that everything that could be discovered in our solar system has already been discovered.
LagomorphZero
4.1 / 5 (14) Jan 20, 2016
WISE has ruled out bigger objects, saturn and jupiter sized, but not in the 1-10 earth mass range, according to this article: http://iopscience....iop.org

That doesn't mean WISE hasn't seen it already, just that we haven't looked at the data for that mass range yet..
Ultron
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2016
There is no such planet, it is caused by missing part of gravity theory, similar to the Mercury orbit precession which was explained GR. Im glad about this discovery, it is fourth independent confirmation of my extended gravity theory.
Scroofinator
4.5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2016
Right, the study:
indicate[d] that the outer solar system probably does not contain a brown dwarf or a large gas giant planet.

and at a closest distance of 28,000 A.U.

That doesn't rule out a black hole though, unless it was active.

That doesn't mean WISE hasn't seen it already, just that we haven't looked at the data for that mass range yet..

I think you're right, they could already have the data, they just didn't know what to look for. If they just glimpsed a munching BH, how would it show up? The article said nothing about gas clouds. If they did spot some in that region maybe one has a random hot spot in it.
moops
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2016
Does this mean that perhaps somewhere in the previous several thousand years this WAS a visible planet with the naked eye? Or is it always too far away to observe? I'm guessing the latter since it would disrupt the inner planets if it was really that eccentric.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2016
it is fourth independent confirmation of my extended gravity theory.

I think I would like to hear more, care to elaborate?
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (21) Jan 20, 2016
Anyway, it's interesting how many ideas and findings long times denied with official science finally turn out to be true - in this way or another... It rather represents a rule than exception - don't you think?

Except - I don't think this one was actually denied, Pro...
baudrunner
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2016
I accept the possibility of a planet 9, or planet X, but estimations of it's size would be different if other factors in the evolution of the solar system are taken into consideration. The presence of the asteroid belt infers a calamitous event in our distant past, for one thing. An entire solar system might be thrown out of whack by the catastrophic collisions of other stars or planets.

What might be a worthy research project is an analysis of the directions of receding objects from our perspective and isolating those that show inconsistencies from the norm. We might be able to trace a little of the cosmic history of our solar system.
Protoplasmix
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 20, 2016
Anyway, it's interesting how many ideas and findings long times denied with official science finally turn out to be true - in this way or another... It rather represents a rule than exception - don't you think?
Except - I don't think this one was actually denied, Pro...

Oh yes it was. Google "planet x nibirhu debunked". And if there's a rule, it's more along the lines of "we refine our knowledge as we improve our dataset."
koitsu
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 20, 2016
Wow, I never thought we'd discover another planet in the Solar System in my lifetime. Those days were supposed to be the stuff of history books. It's... actually a really profound feeling.


I am excited at the possibility too. But it hasn't been discovered yet, only hypothesized.
Still, it would be very cool for Brown or someone to discover the culprit of Sedna's and the others' unexpected orbits. (Just don't bring up the two objects possibly seen by ALMA last month.)
Protoplasmix
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 20, 2016
That feeling is called humility, and it only comes around once the arrogant assumptions are put aside,...

I don't think "humility" or "arrogance" are the proper words to describe the feelings of the moment, for me anyway. More like "excitement" over the possibility of discovering a new planet, and "exhilarating" due to the manner in which the discovery is predicted. And I imagine it's immensely rewarding to be able to confidently announce, "point your telescopes in that direction and you'll find a planet."
hurricane25
2 / 5 (8) Jan 20, 2016
What are the chances that this is a image of this?

Another possibility (which seems more likely to the object's discoverers) is that it is about 300 AU away and about 1.5 times the size of Earth, making it the first "super-Earth" found in our solar system. Observations of trans-Neptunian objects have led to some speculation that one or two super-Earth's could lurk in the outer solar system, so it's not out of the question. There's reason to be cautious of this idea, however, because of its location. Alpha Centauri is about 42 degrees away from the ecliptic. Most large solar system lay within a few degrees of the ecliptic, and even Sedna's orbit is only inclined about 12 degrees from it. The chances of a super-Earth with such a highly inclined orbit seems very unlikely.
http://www.forbes...5e4857a0
Osiris1
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2016
Lotsa folks talking about Niburu Nhybbles and BlakkHole Bytes. However if this object is abt 80,000 miles in dia. and did not go thru a lot of gas so never became a gas giant (big guess), then just M-a-y-b-e..... it might be a black or brown dwarf. After all even Jupiter radiates more energy than it gets from the Sun as it is. Probably has a TON of moons from clearing paths thru the Oort cloud all the time. Maybe it is partly to blame for our periodic ice ages that seem to come every 20,000 plus years, seeing as this one's purported 'year' is on the order of the same, abt 20,000 or so years.
revvinevan
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2016
Whatever they end up naming the planet, it should start with the letter 'P'. That way "My Very Excellent Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas" can make a comeback. How about Pan, god of shepherds/herding? Or has that name already been used to name some asteroid?
FalcoPr
3.3 / 5 (16) Jan 21, 2016
I don't know which is more entertaining: Reading this article, or reading the "theories" from the many armchair-astrophysicists in the comment section.
my2cts
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 21, 2016
Anyway, it's interesting how many ideas and findings long times denied with official science finally turn out to be true - in this way or another... It rather represents a rule than exception - don't you think?

Except - I don't think this one was actually denied, Pro...

Apparently Ultron last night repeated the simulation as was described above on his laptop.
my2cts
3.6 / 5 (17) Jan 21, 2016
I don't know which is more entertaining: Reading this article, or reading the "theories" from the many armchair-astrophysicists in the comment section.

Reading the article, and I have seen worse comment sections.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.6 / 5 (18) Jan 21, 2016
The difference to the useless pattern search of earlier 'planet finders', this is solid science with orbital parameter tests - 3 different tests, 4 with the Nice 5th ejected giant model! And it is merited researchers who does this, so this looks hopeful.

The upshot is to verify Nice, verify pebble formation theories (no superEarths within the orbit of gas giants in the solar system specifically), and to find a close superEarth to do future missions to.

The downshot is that the 'PlanetX/Nibiru' conspiracy theory crackpots - seeing patterns of for example extinctions or impact timelines were there are none - predictably crawled out from under their rocks and started making meaningless noise, proclaiming 'victory' then yet again _their_ ideas failed - this evidence makes it harder for their putative patterns and its crackpot planet to be existing. :-/

Also, it is "Planet Nine" or "planet IX" if you must.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.6 / 5 (20) Jan 21, 2016
my2cts, there are always worse comment section, but it is still sad to see the predictable 'I think it is my idea confirmed' (no, it isn't) or ' what an opportunity to spout my irrelevant shit' (yes, it is). Also, it takes several worthless seconds out of one's life to skip many crap comments. Say the here impossible (or if it hadn't been) unlikely black hole idea.

@moops: It was likely always invisible to the naked eye. If it was the Nice ejected 5th "giant" (actually super´Earth), it was ejected very early, right before Neptune and Uranus re-sculpted the Kuiper belt. (Such a Planet Nine did some resculpting too, see the extended Nice model and the article.)

@baudrunner: "estimations of it's size would be different if other factors in the evolution of the solar system are taken into consideration".´

No, that is the beauty - it fits like a glove (with some of the extensions of the Nice model)!
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.6 / 5 (19) Jan 21, 2016
@Scroofy: "They have made the assumption this body's orbit is heliocentric".

Technically that is a (now tested) constraint and not a possibly untestable assumption as science always do the former and (hopefully) never the latter. And it was the one that worked - see the article.

@Protoplasmix: It is one thing to reject a theory or "debunk" if pseudoscience - it is giving the idea the honor it is due - it is another to repress ideas.
NIPSZX
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016
The solar system elliptical is starting to look like an atom.
my2cts
3.1 / 5 (15) Jan 21, 2016
my2cts, there are always worse comment section,

OK, I have seen incredibly much worse ;-).
bluehigh
Jan 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (16) Jan 21, 2016
Wow, I never thought we'd discover another planet in the Solar System in my lifetime. Those days were supposed to be the stuff of history books. It's... actually a really profound feeling.

Agreed. I particular like the way the article is written. A better read than any thriller, to me. Seaching, hint of a hypotheis, two and fro of theorist and experimental guy, Eureka moment and serepindipidous, unexpected match with furtgher observations.

Yes, I totally get why the guy says "It was perhaps the most fun year of working on a problem in the solar system that I've ever had."
IMP-9
4.2 / 5 (21) Jan 21, 2016
That doesn't mean WISE hasn't seen it already, just that we haven't looked at the data for that mass range yet.


That's not really how it works. WISE is just an imaging survey, you detect objects like this by observing their motion. A priori you don't know how massive they are, searches didn't target any particular mass range. WISE people were looking for anything that moved because of the interest in Near Earth Objects (asteroids). WISE couldn't rule out smaller bodies simply because it wasn't sensitive enough so detect them in the outer solar system.

If this object did exist it would take quite a survey to find it or rule it out. The best chance is LSST to come online in about 10 years however the team behind the claim have put it too far north for LSST in Chile. Leaving that HSC on Subaru is the best bet but with the poor understanding of it's proposed location it's going to be difficult to convince a TAC.
EU2AA
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2016
Shields with the Earth removed. Soon astronomers will find a lot of interesting!
promile
Jan 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Nik_2213
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016
Lovely, lovely 'Real Science', the wary process an object lesson for those weird & wonderful notions proposed by the Usual Suspects on my 'Ignore' list...

A thought; might a radio-telescope survey spot any lightning, narrow the search field ??
tomek_py
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2016
There is no such planet, it is caused by missing part of gravity theory, similar to the Mercury orbit precession which was explained GR. Im glad about this discovery, it is fourth independent confirmation of my extended gravity theory.


Just curious here, mind elaborating on that ?
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (25) Jan 21, 2016
Ultron claimed
There is no such planet, it is caused by missing part of gravity theory, similar to the Mercury orbit precession which was explained GR. Im glad about this discovery, it is fourth independent confirmation of my extended gravity theory
And the maths which so confirms your speculation in relation to key Physics formulae is - please ?
&
bschott says
If they are correct about the 20 mass planet, it will be found pretty quickly given the orbital plane it must follow to stabilize the rest of the system....until someone else does math that says 2 planets could do it
Ah ! So Now you accept "Scientists" & their Newtonian Gravity as extended to Einstein's gravity which puts you in direct contradiction with your earlier comment, words to effect of "I can't believe matter self compresses" :P

Can bschott reconcile what appears as an immensely contradictory position ?

ie
You accept gravity here but, disdain for it re algebra & DM - why, please clarify ?
SkyLy
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2016
I would prefer real evidence of an hypothetical ninth planet than hypothetical evidences of a real ninth planet !
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2016
So if the Planet-X would move directly toward us, it could still evade the attention.

No. It would get bigger. That's motion that can be detected.
Now that the region is constrained there's going to be quite a few people pointing telescopes that way.

or "planet IX" if you must

"..we have just folded space from IX...many machines on IX...new machines...better than those on Richesse "
(couldn't resist gratuitous Dune quote)
bluehigh
4 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2016
Mad Mike, the complete fraud has no shame after being shown to have zero credibility by Uncle Ira, continues critisism of other contributors while fixing kitchen appliances and reading Wikipedia.
bluehigh
4 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2016
* Can bschott reconcile what appears as an immensely contradictory position ? *

> Can you reconcile being called out as an ego tripping nutter and carry on commenting?

> Buffoon would be an understated description for you Mad Mike.

Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016
Technically that is a (now tested) constraint and not a possibly untestable assumption as science always do the former and (hopefully) never the latter. And it was the one that worked


Well I don't really consider a computer model "tested", when they had to make assumptions to be able to make the test. Just because a simulation fits some observations, it doesn't mean it's absolutely correct. Assumptions are a necessary part of the scientific method, but until there is observation of the theoretical, it's nothing but (educated) guesses.

Like someone mentioned before, the Kupier belt cliff would be a good test of the theory. That should be something their computer simulations should be able to determine. But given that:
they ran their simulations with a massive planet in an anti-aligned orbit

It doesn't seem like the right orbit to cause such an anomaly.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 21, 2016
Well I don't really consider a computer model "tested", when they had to make assumptions to be able to make the test. Just because a simulation fits some observations, it doesn't mean it's absolutely correct.

But if the model then makes predictions that are actually observed (which this model did) then it's better than just 'fitting observations'. It doesn't mean the model is necessarily correct, but it's a pretty big upgrade from 'just another theory'-territory.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016
makes predictions that are actually observed (which this model did)

Think about what you just said. What predictions have they made that have been observed?
kivenaberham
1.6 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2016
1. 20,000 years in 1 orbit. does this planet drag in or pull asteroid from the kuiper belt in close to our planet?
2. can human colonize this 9th planet?
3. is there water on this 9th planet?
4. are we planning to send any satellite to that 9th planet?
eagleslightlybetter
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 21, 2016
That feeling is called humility, and it only comes around once the arrogant assumptions are put aside, such as the assumption that everything that could be discovered in our solar system has already been discovered.


Wow. Pretty dickish way to speak to someone.
Protoplasmix
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2016
makes predictions that are actually observed (which this model did)
Think about what you just said. What predictions have they made that have been observed?
Or you could think about what you read in the article – you did read it, right?

From the article:
But the real kicker for the researchers was the fact that their simulations also predicted that there would be objects in the Kuiper Belt on orbits inclined perpendicularly to the plane of the planets... observers have identified four objects ... "We plotted up the positions of those objects and their orbits, and they matched the simulations exactly,"
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 21, 2016
@Protoplasmix: It is one thing to reject a theory or "debunk" if pseudoscience - it is giving the idea the honor it is due - it is another to repress ideas.
If I had suggested the word "refuted" instead of "debunked" then the search results would have been different. I was only pointing out that some people posited the existence of a "planet x" (or "Nibirhu") while others refuted its existence, after Whydening Gyre asked if anyone had 'actually denied' its existence. I didn't mean to imply it had been "debunked", sorry for the confusion.
Scroofinator
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2016
Proto, if a prediction comes after an observation, doesn't that make it an explanation? From the other part of your cherry picked quote:
Batygin kept finding evidence for these in his simulations and took them to Brown. "Suddenly I realized there are objects like that," recalls Brown. In the last three years, observers have identified four objects tracing orbits roughly along one perpendicular line from Neptune and one object along another.

I'm not belittling the work they've done, just pointing out they haven't predicted anything that has been observed based on their predictions, which is that there is another large body out there.
Ophelia
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016
@SlyLy
I would prefer real evidence of an hypothetical ninth planet than hypothetical evidences of a real ninth planet !

But there is "real" evidence, though indirect/circumstantial. Just as in a criminal trial, defendants can be convicted without direct/eyewitness testimony but on the basis of circumstantial evidence, so the evidence as pointed out in the article would indicate that this ninth planet actually exists. The scientific based model presented here is little different than a theory of the crime.

And, yes, I know science demands more exacting proof of "something" before acceptance of its reality than is required in a criminal trial.

But, the upshot is simply that there is real evidence pointing to the existence of this ninth planet. Whether we ever find direct evidence is another question to be answered later.
OdinsAcolyte
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016
So Nemesis is a planet not a twin to our sun? Cool.
Mark Thomas
1.5 / 5 (17) Jan 21, 2016
"Earth's mass is 4.6 that of Pluto."

my2cts, Earth's mass is 456 that of Pluto, suggesting you don't have an intuitive feel for this. Don't feel too bad, you appear to be in very good company. Let me suggest this is the real problem with space exploration. It is not our lack of technical ability or resources, it is our failure to conceptualize. With the information we already have we should be demanding enhanced manned and unmanned space exploration programs to get out there and explore these strange, new worlds.
Macksb
2 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2016
If correct, as seems likely, this is yet another example of Art Winfree's law of coupled periodic oscillators. (See my many prior Physorg posts for more information.)

Orbits are periodic oscillations. They influence each other ("mean-motion resonance"). The 6 orbits self-organize in relation to the orbit of Planet 9. That coupling is in the form of an "anti-aligned orbit...perihelion(s) 180 degrees across." Precise anti-alignment is one of the two stable patterns for a Winfree two oscillator system (P 9 is one oscillator; 6 objects are the other).

The third oscillator group of "five known objects" (blue in lower image) has orbits perpendicular to the plane of the solar system. All match the Winfree patterns of self-organization for systems of coupled periodic oscillators.

The Sedna "pair" is in transition from one Winfree pattern involving Neptune to a Winfree pattern involving P 9.

Why 20,000 years for the P 9 orbit? So the periods fit. Integers.
my2cts
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2016
you detect objects like this by observing their motion
So if the Planet-X would move directly toward us,

That requires that the perihelium is close to the orbit of Earth. It does not look that way in the picture.
my2cts
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 21, 2016
"Earth's mass is 4.6 that of Pluto."

my2cts, Earth's mass is 456 that of Pluto, suggesting you don't have an intuitive feel for this.

I meant to write "diameter" not mass.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 21, 2016
all of the information we have about space arrives in the form of photons generated through particles interacting with magnetic fields.

That is incorrect "you illiterate fool".
How do millions of tons of matter NOT fall back to the suns surface Mike?

By exceeding the escape velocity of 617.5 km/s.

Space IS a magnetic field.

"Insane".
Mark Thomas
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 21, 2016
Earth's diameter is 5.4 that of Pluto.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (17) Jan 21, 2016
Hi Scroofinator. :)
...rather it's a stellar mass black hole formed from the collapsed star of our (unknown) binary system.
If it was a BH with mass at least that of our Sun, then we'd already have noticed the wobble-dance which would have to be obvious between two similarly massed objects orbiting each other around a common barycenter position in the space between them. OOrt Cloud's randomly distributed orbits indicate probably many other early-SS-formation/subsequent dynamics 'products' would have been 'gravity-interaction slingshot' into variously-inclined orbits. Probably only requiring the usual Sun-ignition "Nova", "Polar Jets", ejecting huge quantities of 'excess', shock-compressed, matter mini-clouds at various inclinations that eventually coalesced with other such mini-clouds on co-moving/intersecting paths to form variety of bodies at variety of inclinations. No companion BH necessary. :)
Scroofinator
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2016
Hi RC,
then we'd already have noticed the wobble-dance which would have to be obvious between two similarly massed objects orbiting each other around a common barycenter position in the space between them.

An assumption that misunderstood may be. Consider:
1) The sun's angular momentum makes no sense under Nebular Condensation Theory
2) The sheer edge of the Kuiper belt (Kuiper cliff)
3) The study of long comet paths indicate the presence of some large body
4) Lunisolar theory doesn't explain precession of the equinox, or the acceleration of precession

Given the evidence, binary theory is more plausible then the canonized Lunisolar theory, if one's willing to consider said evidence. Since we haven't been able to observe a planetary body, which many here believe we should already have discovered, that only leaves a BH.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (17) Jan 21, 2016
Hi my2cts. :)

From bschott:
How do millions of tons of matter NOT fall back to the suns surface
From my2cts:
By exceeding the escape velocity of 617.5 km/s.
I suspect bschott was asking what the mechanism/process was that does the accelerating of the huge mass of plasma to make it propagate radially-spirally away from sun at a greater-than/equal-to "escape-velocity" rate, against the sun's immense gravitational strength at the plasma-mass ejection's starting location.
Space IS a magnetic field.
"Insane".
Known science treats space as representing a 'compound' of many types of 'fields' which overall would produce the various levels of phenomenological features/dynamics, both on the Quantum scale and larger macro scales.

PS: My2cts, recall my caution some time back? Resist temptations to glibness/arrogance etc due to penchant for smart-aleck comebacks which may leave you open to accusations of not fairly addressing the issue raised. Be careful, mate! :)
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 21, 2016
Note however:
"The corona is 10^−12 times as dense as the photosphere"
which is why CMEs can not be accelerated by it.
https://en.wikipe...i/Corona
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (17) Jan 21, 2016
Hi again, Scroofinator. :)

I know what you are trying to posit, but it doesn't require such if the ordinary explanation I just provided does the trick to produce all the variety/range of bodies on a variety of inclined orbitals which we should thus expect to observe when we can due to improved telescopes/probes.

Also, you didn't acknowledge "elephant in the room" absence of the easily detected 'wobble dance' our Sun would be exhibiting IF there existed a BH partner in such close proximity to our sun in a mutual binary-pair type mutual orbital dance around such a binary-pairing's barycenter. See? That definitively rules out any BH scale mass/partner to our sun.

I explained the combination of 'ordinary' known factors that can produce a variety of smaller bodies/inclined orbits; so above study/simulation authors' 'prediction' of a couple of such bodies in inclined orbits (in their case 'perpendicular') was explained/subsumed by/in prior known science predictions.

Cheers. :)
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016
if the ordinary explanation I just provided does the trick

Sure, your ordinary explanation is plausible as well. Seeing that you used "probably" numerous times I'll take it as another theory.

didn't acknowledge "elephant in the room" absence of the easily detected 'wobble dance' our Sun would be exhibiting

Come on now, it wouldn't be as obvious as pluto/charon given the vastly larger mass and time one orbit would take. How about the precession of the equinox for a 'slow dance'...

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (18) Jan 21, 2016
Hi my2cts. :)
"The corona is 10^−12 times as dense as the photosphere"
which is why CMEs can not be accelerated by it....
This may be true of average density of plasma at that altitude over periods of time when quiescent; but it's the violent perturbations which intrude huge quantities of much denser plasma from below that characterizes the process of mass-ejection. And then, consider the magnetic-field energies which would arise/reinforce/magnify when such huge plasma masses flow. Then also consider what (huge, violent, plasmoid collapses with polar jets of high temp/velocity of the plasma mass) initiates that violent process, transporting massive flows of plasma into the upper layers for further acceleration/ejection through upper layers; which layers subsequently resume their average plasma density and previously relatively quiescent magnetic field activity/pattern. It's more complex/interesting than older texts described. Recent discoveries slowly correcting same. :)
my2cts
3 / 5 (12) Jan 21, 2016

not that anyone who believes in gravity as the primary force for universal structure lives in the real world anyways....

Rrriight. Calm down.
He states "accelerated away from the sun by the corona".

Yes, because when you watch a video of any CME leave the sun, the matter is always accelerated through the corona.

There's only one way to leave the sun, though the corona.

That is incorrect "you illiterate fool".


OOPs, other than the radiative emission initiated by absorption of high energy photons and re-transmitted as IR photons. But still nocents, I would love to hear your explanation...they are always a treat.

I was quoting you there ;-).
You said :
"all of the information we have about space arrives in the form of photons generated through particles interacting with magnetic fields".
Starlight is not generated in this way.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (17) Jan 21, 2016
Hi Scroofinator. :)
if the ordinary explanation I just provided does the trick
Sure, your ordinary explanation is plausible..
The point was, it's more plausible/probable given known science re sun-forming "nova-polar jets"; ie, any surrounding 'excess' matter-cloud constituents plasmoid/wave-shocked-compressed to high densities; densities then act as gravity-concentrating 'nuclei' for aggregating nearby matter to form variety of bodies at the various orbital inclinations expected in that 'ordinary' scenario.
didn't acknowledge "elephant in the room" absence of the easily detected 'wobble dance' our Sun would be exhibiting
it wouldn't be as obvious as pluto/charon given the vastly larger mass and time one orbit would take
I wasn't talking about optically resolving both 'bodies' of alleged Sun-BH-binary, as such; I meant while only 'sun' is observable, any BH-caused 'wobble' in sun's observed motion with respect to "the fixed stars" would be noted. :)
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 21, 2016
Hi my2cts. :)
"The corona is 10^−12 times as dense as the photosphere"
which is why CMEs can not be accelerated by it....
This may be true of average density of plasma at that altitude over periods of time when quiescent; but it's the violent perturbations which intrude huge quantities of much denser plasma from below that characterizes the process of mass-ejection.

Obviously. Also obvious is that CME's cannot be powered by the corona.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016
RC, I understand the process you're talking about. No need to keep repeating yourself :)
sun's observed motion with respect to "the fixed stars" would be noted

It's the solar systems observed motion, not just the sun. We are one unit, so the "fixed stars" change the same for us. Hence, precession.

This can be tested, given we have a rover on the surface of mars. If we measure the precession on both planets, and they turn out to be the same, what would the tell us?
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (17) Jan 21, 2016
Hi my2cts. :)
"The corona is 10^−12 times as dense as the photosphere"
which is why CMEs can not be accelerated by it...
This may be true of average density of plasma at that altitude over periods of time when quiescent; but it's the violent perturbations which intrude huge quantities of much denser plasma from below that characterizes the process of mass-ejection.
Obviously. Also obvious is that CME's cannot be powered by the corona.
It's not all-or-nothing, mate; it's a step-processes 'excursion' event, initiated below in the sun, erupting onto the sun, and proceeding/evolving into/through the corona and into space; taking some of the plasma, its currents and electric/magnetic fields/forces with it.

Just to check something: Have you kept up with the recent discoveries which confirm that hugely powerful plasmoid processes occur at all scales in, on and above the sun itself? If you missed that, then you may be misunderstanding what I have been saying. :)
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (17) Jan 21, 2016
Hi Scroofinator. :)
It's the solar systems observed motion, not just the sun. We are one unit, so the "fixed stars" change the same for us. Hence, precession.
There are algorithms which input all the relative motions of/between solar system bodies, including the sun. Which is why we can detect even the effect of the planets lining up on one side of the sun during a rare transient coincidings of their respective orbital positions along nearby radials. The algorithms have no problem with including info from various satellites in geo-stationary and free-path etc trajectories along/through the solar system; hence we can discern and calculate the extent of any wobble or unusual 'swerving' from otherwise predicted path of motion of the sun itself across the void and with respect to all sorts of reference points, including "the fixed stars" as the ultimate and least varying reference 'sphere' of points.

Anyhow, good luck with your own conjectures, mate. :)
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2016
Well RC until we figure out the cause of gravity, anything not proven false is on the table for me. Nice chatting with ya
yep
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2016
Well RC until we figure out the cause of gravity, anything not proven false is on the table for me. Nice chatting with ya

Electric Gravity!
http://www.holosc...niverse/
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (22) Jan 22, 2016
bschott claims
But then I won't be discussing physical reality any longer, not that anyone who believes in gravity as the primary force for universal structure lives in the real world anyways..
No !

You unwell or pretending to fail basic Physics comprehension ?

Learn

1. Unlike charge/magnetic poles, gravity has (as yet) No opposite = No repulsion & Not correlated or causally linked with Mass - nada, zero !
2. Gravity & charge fall off as inverse square but, charge easily sums ie + & -
3. Magnetism falls off as inverse cube & of course propensity to sum locally, ie Sol's EMF is so low as to be unmeasurable on Earth - not so with Sol's gravitation as it influences tides !
4. Moon has no known EMF or charge & even if it did, negligible, see 2 & 3

Deduction:- Gravity is primary by far, prove me wrong please ?

bschott says
... video of any CME leave the sun, the matter is always accelerated through the corona
Sad that videos are your primary input medium :-(
my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2016
Obviously. Also obvious is that CME's cannot be powered by the corona.
It's not all-or-nothing, mate; it's a step-processes 'excursion' event, initiated below in the sun, erupting onto the sun, and proceeding/evolving into/through the corona and into space; taking some of the plasma, its currents and electric/magnetic fields/forces with it.

Obviously, but trillions of tons of material cannot be "accelerated away from the sun by the corona" at speeds of 2000 km/s. The corona is a very rare medium, only dense when a CME happens to pass. Newton's third law says that that is unlikely. It is like saying that when a water droplet flies up from a boiling pot it is "accelerated away" by the vapour above the surface.

Just to check something: Have you kept up with the recent discoveries which confirm that hugely powerful plasmoid processes occur at all scales in, on and above the sun itself?

Yes I have, have you ? And have you understood the process?
my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2016
@RC
Why are you defending bs?
He is always wrong except when he uses "mainstream" math.
Benni
4.2 / 5 (19) Jan 22, 2016
anyone who believes in gravity as the primary force for universal structure lives in the real world anyways
.

Gravity can never be so strong as to cause the energy (frequency) of any wavelength of electro-magnetic waves to become zero, as must be the case to prevent light from reaching escape velocity to escape the surface of a black hole. If such a gravity field exists, then transformation of energy must also be inferred according to E=mc2, the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle of Special Relativity because a photon with zero energy content can no longer be a wave or particle traveling at light speed, it must be less, that is it must be Mass. Somehow transformation must occur because electro-magnetic waves at zero frequency cannot exist at zero frequency which by mathematical calculations corresponds to infinite wavelength:
E=hv=hc/ λ
where E is energy,
h is Planck's constant per particle
λ is the wavelength of the photon

E=hc/ 0= infinity
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (17) Jan 22, 2016
"Yes, because when you watch a video of any CME leave the sun, the matter is always accelerated through the corona."

There's only one way to leave the sun, though the corona.

That was kinda funny in the sheer obviousness of it...:-) But... is it accelerated (wish I could italisize that) by the corona? And, if so, how? If not, why not...?

"OOPs, other than the radiative emission initiated by absorption of high energy photons and re-transmitted as IR photons. I would love to hear your explanation... "

You said :
"all of the information we have about space arrives in the form of photons generated through particles interacting with magnetic fields".
Starlight is not generated in this way.

That isn't an explanation. It's a parry. How IS it generated?
Anyway, this seems a little off topic...
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (17) Jan 22, 2016
Gravity can never be so strong as to cause the energy (frequency) of any wavelength of electro-magnetic waves to become zero, as must be the case to prevent light from reaching escape velocity to escape the surface of a black hole. If such a gravity field exists, then transformation of energy must also be inferred according to E=mc2, the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle of Special Relativity because a photon with zero energy content can no longer be a wave or particle traveling at light speed, it must be less, that is it must be Mass. Somehow transformation must occur because electro-magnetic waves at zero frequency cannot exist at zero frequency.E=hv=hc/ λ
where E is energy,
h is Planck's constant per particle
λ is the wavelength of the photon

E=hc/ 0= infinity

You're saying "the more photons there are, packed together, the lower it's frequency". Right?
That light also has mass (albeit, unknown orders smaller than what we can measure)?
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (17) Jan 22, 2016
Wow, I never thought we'd discover another planet in the Solar System in my lifetime. Those days were supposed to be the stuff of history books. It's... actually a really profound feeling.

Infinite possibilities, Axe...
ALMOST infinite probabilities...:-)
May you all have the privilege of living in interesting times...:-)
Benni
3.9 / 5 (21) Jan 22, 2016
electro-magnetic waves at zero frequency cannot exist at zero frequency which by mathematical calculations corresponds to infinite wavelength:
E=hv=hc/ λ
where E is energy,
h is Planck's constant per particle
λ is the wavelength of the photon

E=hc/ 0= infinity


Your math skills, which you always speak highly of, fail you.


You certainly proved yours with that statement when you can't figure out that anything divided by zero always equals INFINITY, therefore cannot be real.
Benni
3.9 / 5 (21) Jan 22, 2016
So you have not spotted your error yet. You should concentrate on Einstein's differential equations, do what you are good at.


.....the onus is on you to prove dividing by any number other than zero by zero does not equal INFINITY.
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 22, 2016
There is optimism Planet 9 will be found.

http://www.scient...et-nine/
Benni
3.7 / 5 (22) Jan 22, 2016
So you have not spotted your error yet. You should concentrate on Einstein's differential equations, do what you are good at.


..the onus is on you to prove dividing by any number other than zero by zero does not equal INFINITY.

No the "onus" is on you to spot the simple error in your post.


What? No error, you simply cannot prove gravity can create enough photon deflection that prevents EM from reaching escape velocity & emerging from the surface of a black hole? Yours sounds like a problem in "tired light theory".
Benni
3.5 / 5 (22) Jan 22, 2016
.....the onus is on you to prove dividing by any number other than zero by zero does not equal INFINITY.

It would be a victory if you would spot AND admit the error in your post.
A victory for you. The first step to wisdom.


Wisdom has nothing to do with science. I'm challenging you to prove the strength of a gravity can be so strong as to create photon deflection in such a manner as to prevent light (or any EM) from reaching escape velocity (light speed)...........waiting.

Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (20) Jan 22, 2016
You certainly proved yours with that statement when you can't figure out that anything divided by zero always equals INFINITY, therefore cannot be real.

any number divided by zero should equal that number. After all, you didn't actually divide it...:-)
Benni
3.5 / 5 (22) Jan 22, 2016
the onus is on you to prove dividing by any number other than zero by zero does not equal INFINITY.

It would be a victory if you would spot AND admit the error in your post.
A victory for you. The first step to wisdom.


Wisdom has nothing to do with science. I'm challenging you to prove the strength of a gravity can be so strong as to create photon deflection in such a manner as to prevent light (or any EM) from reaching escape velocity (light speed)...........waiting.


I have no intention to prove any claim I never made
& then you make the claim....
I just say there is a big mistake in your post
.....but you can't point it out because you know so little about SR & GR.


Find it and repent.
What? Get your religion? Not a chance.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (20) Jan 22, 2016
Find it and repent.
What? Get your religion? Not a chance.


Ahh.. the famous "I know DEs and I don't need to prove it to you..." gambit...
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (20) Jan 22, 2016
.....the onus is on you to prove dividing by any number other than zero by zero does not equal INFINITY.

You stated it. The onus being on you to PROVE it....
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 22, 2016
@Scroofinator -- my quoting the bit of the article that shows you were wrong about the simulation's predictions is not 'cherry picking'. Now you're worse than wrong. You're being offensive.
... their simulations also predicted that there would be objects...
Simulations _p_r_e_d_i_c_t_e_d_ Scroof.
Benni
3.7 / 5 (22) Jan 22, 2016
@Benni
When I say "repent!" I mean that you should write something like
"ok I made a mistake" and then fix it.
You need to face the fact that you made a mistake.
It will teach you humility, without which you can not understand the world.
If you call that "religion" then I confess


Ohh, preach me another sermon, you prattle on & on, making charges you refuse to define because the Differential Equations of Einstein's section of photon deflection in GR is totally beyond your comprehension.

I'd just love to see your math proving a photon can lose escape velocity & 100% loss of energy causing it to fall back onto the surface of a black hole due to gravitational attraction impeding the speed of light (slowing it down). Where is your "field equation for gravity" demonstrating how this works?

After you've come up with your "field equation", you can then explain what is happening on the surface of a black hole with all those photons piling up moving at zero velocity.
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2016
Did Einstein predict Mercury's orbit? No, he explained it.

You're a cherry picker because you left out key parts from the middle of the quote to suit your needs.

Like I said I'm not discrediting them for their work, it takes guts to publish something that's gonna ignite planet x talk again.

I'm just telling it how it is, get over it.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (21) Jan 22, 2016
Ohh, preach me another sermon, you prattle on & on, making charges you refuse to define because the Differential Equations of Einstein's section of photon deflection in GR is totally beyond your comprehension.

I'd just love to see your math proving a photon can lose escape velocity & 100% loss of energy causing it to fall back onto the surface of a black hole due to gravitational attraction impeding the speed of light (slowing it down). Where is your "field equation for gravity" demonstrating how this works?

After you've come up with your "field equation", you can then explain what is happening on the surface of a black hole with all those photons piling up moving at zero velocity.

Ahh... Another deflection... Don't you have an estate to ski on tonite?
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (20) Jan 22, 2016
Like I said I'm not discrediting them for their work, it takes guts to publish something that's gonna ignite planet x talk again.

Wouldn't that be planet "1 b4 X"...? (like - 9...?
Anyway, SOMEthing is affecting the orbital characteristics of other mapped bodies out there. Let's give astronomers a few days, weeks, even months of time to corroborate or not.
Like the article said, Neptune was first discovered this way....
Nikstlitselpmur
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 22, 2016
A naked low mass blackhole left over from the supernova that seeded the intergalactic gas cloud that formed the solar system.
MRBlizzard
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2016
To be a planet, it must have cleared it's orbit. How would we know that about Planet 9?

How about IRAS? Would the source be to dim?

I was tangentially associated with IMP, so shouts to IMP-9.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (22) Jan 23, 2016
Benni on the wrong track
Gravity can never be so strong as to cause the energy (frequency) of any wavelength of electro-magnetic waves to become zero, as must be the case to prevent light from reaching escape velocity to escape the surface of a black hole
No, you're taking utterly wrong track, ie Wrong to apply a simple static equation in that non-inertial reference frame, especially so you completely ignored Lorentz !

Simpler path, *start* & observe you can solve for acceleration by way of Force
ie F=ma=Gmm1/d^2, cancels to a=Gm1/d^2, so assign a as c/t & set t = 1sec. You then plug in mass of Black Hole Eg m1=3xSol & get simple equation d^2 as unknown, why can't you solve that Benni ?

Take it step further & create graph of d vs m1 only for fixed a but, of course avoid region d near zero ie an asymptote

Take it a step even further, make it 3D (easily done nowadays) ie asymptotically below Event Horizon variation in respect of a :-)

ie Physics/Algebra Benni
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (22) Jan 23, 2016
Benni claims
You certainly proved yours with that statement when you can't figure out that anything divided by zero always equals INFINITY, therefore cannot be real
For someone who claims they can solve differential equations then you should know that to apply Planck's you need to craft it as a non-trivial differential equation (DE) & admittedly this is not simple for High school students but, doable for 2nd yr uni-students but, as you have claimed to understand Einstein's field equation then instead of a Newtonian simplification offered in my last post then why can't YOU apply Einsteins Field Equation to the scenario you incorrectly tried Planck for ?

When you use Einstein's field equation you don't need to re-craft Planck's relationship in relativistic terms.

So tell us Benni, if you extend Planck's equation into relativistic terms re a DE in concert with Gauss re gravitational fields, what sort of equation do you think we'd start to see emerging ?

*grin*
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (22) Jan 23, 2016
Benni claims
Wisdom has nothing to do with science
Dead Wrong !
Application of wisdom to Science (="The discipline of the acquisition of Knowledge") saves time, improves efficiency & enhances Science Communication. Your 1D simplistic view goes fully & completely against your claim to graduate as an Electrical (EE) & then a Nuclear Engineer !

Where & when graduated please ?

Still haven't answered my Q re your uni lab experience in EE solving for unknown, so I'll add to it re context in which you apply Planck, why in hell would you apply a DC equation to an AC problem Eg Reactances ie L & C ?

Benni asked
... prove the strength of a gravity can be so strong as to create photon deflection in such a manner as to prevent light (or any EM) from reaching escape velocity (light speed)..
Issue of magnitude, photon deflection already seen !

See my recent posts, simple offering for your level but, YOU claimed to understand Einstein's field equation, so apply it ?
Benni
3.5 / 5 (22) Jan 23, 2016
See my recent posts,
........seldom bother with your posts.........your use of that cockney english accent creates such disconnected sentence construction that very little of what you post is decipherable enough to figure out the points you're trying to make.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (21) Jan 23, 2016
Benni said
..seldom bother with your posts........ disconnected sentence construction that very little of what you post is decipherable enough...
Really prove it, simple equations not even differential, & to Uneducated YES, follow the Math Benni !

Or u WANT to maintain ignorance & STILL cannot explain why in hell you would choose a static form re Planck instead of Einstein's field equation which as a differential equation (DE) you imply you understand well & can solve but, didnt ?

You're motivated to read my post & minimal reply but, fail in kind re Physics, ffs !

You tell us heaps, most common pattern by far - you bark criticism at those that are either dead or not here Eg Zwicky & despite your claimed education in Electrical Engineering cannot comprehend issue of solving straightforward DE's, noticed it ?

If you'd seen L.Susskind Stanford lecture re light's deflection & how to work it out you wouldn't embarrass yourself choosing inappropriate Planck, ffs !
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (22) Jan 23, 2016
@Benni, who Fails to make sense of claim re cockney accent:-

Here is the Math Benni (spaced out so its crystal, just in case You are spaced out lol), no accent's of any kind whatsoever, tell all of us watching you want you imagine is wrong with it and Why please ?

Start & observe you can solve for acceleration by way of Force

ie F=ma=Gmm1/d^2

Cancels to a=Gm1/d^2

Assign a as c/t & set t = 1sec (as a start)

Plug in mass of Black Hole Eg m1=3xSol

Get equation d^2 as unknown

Can you solve it Benni ?

Which point is either; flawed, makes invalid assumption, is unclear or fails basic Newtonian gravitation/motion as approximation prior to Einstein's field equations ?

OR

Would you prefer me to study YOUR solution to Einstein's field equation which DOES squarely show a Black Hole can form but, also there is NIL discontinuity whatsoever which shows it can be incredibly massive ?

Am awaiting proof of your idle claim to know Einstein's field equations & solve DE
Benni
3.6 / 5 (23) Jan 23, 2016
Ohhh, you neophytes, cockney Muttering Mike & that other guy who got no further than a 1st semester Physics course...how has anything you've yet posted proves that the escape velocity of gravity at the surface of a black hole is faster than light?

The two of you need to refrain from watching some plumber's videos for high school students & then imagining you've now entered & become elitist 21st Century New Age Geniuses.

Until you actually study the text of Einstein's SR & GR, you will continue to sop up the side shows of media drivel that the combination of Einstein's Field Equations & Photon Deflection calculations provide a scientific basis that the gravity of black holes can slow the speed of electromagnetic waves to zero, a condition which can only be done by reducing photon frequency to zero. There's no observation of such phenomena & this equation proves it is mathematically impossible: E=hv=hc/ λ , make the denominator zero & the equation becomes meaningless.

Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2016
I'm just telling it how it is, get over it.
Pffft. You're just showing everyone how you are: rude, wrong, and evidently incorrigible. It's your forum credibility and reputation. You earned it. Get out from under it.
viko_mx
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2016
So the virtual methods reveal the virtual planet. What a virtual evidence and science.
Benni
3.9 / 5 (19) Jan 23, 2016
I wonder who are GoshURStupid and GettingitDone. They always vote along with Benni.
Could Benni be sick enough to create multiple accounts to tilt the voting?
Definitely.


Yeah, where is axemaster when you need 'im? Axe'em, your perpetual voting brigade is calling out for you. Is your silence also your consent?
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 23, 2016
Benni claims
Until you actually study the text of Einstein's SR & GR, you will continue to sop up the side shows of media drivel that the combination of Einstein's Field Equations & Photon Deflection calculations provide a scientific basis that the gravity of black holes can slow the speed of electromagnetic waves to zero, a condition which can only be done by reducing photon frequency to zero. There's no observation of such phenomena & this equation proves it is mathematically impossible: E=hv=hc/ λ , make the denominator zero & the equation becomes meaningless
Can you not read or comprehend, the equation you tried to use is inappropriate ie Wrong ?

What is wrong please Benni, with the approach I have taken ?

Tell us why you claim you understand Einstein's field equation but, didnt apply it & instead go down a woefully incorrect uneducated meaningless path ?

By way of example, calculate path integral for photon deflection, can you see that Benni ?
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (18) Jan 23, 2016
Phys1 observed
I wonder who are GoshURStupid and GettingitDone. They always vote along with Benni. Could Benni be sick enough to create multiple accounts to tilt the voting? Definitely
Indeed & just to let you know one of the dumb sock puppets chose a nick close to my name to attempt to obfuscate perceptions - as if we can't see a spelling error !
https://sciencex...._Masson/

Timing of its creation happens to coincide with acrimonious trouncing of 3 claimants, so hope you notice as that nick/Benni/bschott/Uncle Ira etc have no relationship with me at all

From that brigade, wonder how many would be courageous enough to; not only disclose their real name as I have but, also sign affidavit they have not been in any way involved with the practice of sock-puppetry, arbitrary voting & the like etc ?

Patterns are so transparent its tragic :P

Benni says
..refrain from watching some plumber's videos..
Wrong he's a Physics prof at Stanford :-)
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2016
You're just showing everyone how you are: rude, wrong, and evidently incorrigible

So what you're saying is "you must comply". There is no absolute proof in science, or very rarely, so I keep my options open. Conformity to mainstream doesn't suit me well. If you can prove anything I say wrong, I will own it and make amends, as I have done before on this site.

The only time I look at ratings is to see who is giving biased ratings, which makes it so much easier to see what someones motives are.

Reputations come and go, care about it if you want
Isaacsname
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2016
Nice to see you all getting along so well
Mike_Massen
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 23, 2016
Benni asks
how has anything you've yet posted proves that the escape velocity of gravity at the surface of a black hole is faster than light?
Beg Pardon ?

Question is not faster than light (FTL), its covering claim you make a black hole cannot exist & your failure to use the best tools at your disposal go to prove you cannot have that claimed university degree in Electrical & then Nuclear Engineering !

Why in hell would you choose simplistic formula ignoring relativistic issues, its amazing that you are so incompetent you don't know how very incompetent you are !

Trying to deflect issue away from your inappropriate use of an equation to now blurt an issue re faster than light makes no sense & shows up you have no clue !

Benni, tell me please, what makes you imagine a scalar relationship could ever apply to a vector, what the hell is wrong with you ?

I offered a simplification as its clear you don't know vectors but, you cannot even address that ?

Learn Physics !
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (20) Jan 23, 2016
Scroofinator facile tangential jab at Einstein asks
Did Einstein predict Mercury's orbit? No, he explained it
Beg Pardon ?

So when Einsteins equation can show where it will be hours/ days later, within accepted issue of the n-body problem, you claim that's not a prediction ?

Do you understand significance of the Einsteins field equations, which nicely sit upon the excellent work of Gauss, have you seen a very useful lecture here ?
https://www.youtu...PKAKZWx8

Now Benni, claims he won't click my links, strange that because, he's missing a great opportunity to learn essentials which can help him. Instead he sticks to his pattern of making things up, mostly to raise his ego but, makes massive blunders along the way

ie
1 Confuses me with user runrig whos a UK meteorologist
2 Confuses Susskind, a stanford professor with a plumber
3 Applies a scalar formula to a vector identity
4 Shifts to speed of gravity from escape velocity
etc :/
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (16) Jan 23, 2016
Hi Whydening Gyre. :)
any number divided by zero should equal that number. After all, you didn't actually divide it.:-)
At Last! Someone else that 'gets it' about the 'division by zero' furphy. In mathematics, that "expression" is called "undefined". That is misleading in both logic and reality, because, as I tried many times to explain over many years on two other forums in the past, such an 'operation' is NOT an 'operation' at all! It is a NON-action, an UNreal philosophical concept/result flowing from the current mathematical system based on the equally philosophical "Point/Zero" concept (ie, a dimensionless unreal ABSTRACT entity existing only in the mathematical construct as a Philosophically-based axiomatic/entity which cannot exist in reality; "Point/Zero" itself, being in REALITY PHYSICS terms merely a "Balanced Resultant" quantity/state" between opposing entities/actions). :)

It's this misleading axiomatic at the core of mathematics which has polluted physical
Benni
4.1 / 5 (18) Jan 23, 2016
The point is,he put the wavelength to zero.That indeed corresponds to infinite energy


He wanted to put the frequency to zero
No, that's what neophpytes like you do to buttress dumb ideas that gravity is a strong enough force for reducing energy (E) to zero. I simply set the denominator to the value you claim can be achieved at the surface of a black hole which you claim can slow the velocity of a photon below light speed.

Not that that makes any sense either
Of course it can't make sense, photons exist at one velocity or they can't exist at all, look how long it's taken you to start figuring that out.

as there is no reason why a photon in a potential
What? What is "a photon in a potential"?

with an escape velocity equal to c should have zero energy.
Yeah, it's impossible, which is the point I continue to make that zero λ (wavelength) in E=hv=hc/ λ creates an impossible conundrum of infinite energy at zero wavelength on a BH surface.
RealityCheck
2.4 / 5 (17) Jan 23, 2016
Hi Phys1.
The point is, he put the wavelength to zero. That indeed corresponds to infinite energy. He wanted to put the frequency to zero. Not that that makes any sense either, as there is no reason why a photon in a potential with an escape velocity equal to c should have zero energy.
I was not commenting on Benni's/your contentions. I was merely responding to Whydening Gyre's perceptive realization that using "Zero/Point" (as in "Nothing/Dimensionless concepts) is the Achilles' Heel of any ABSTRACT mathematical/Geometrical "spacetime" analytical construct. As demonstrated starkly where GR maths comes up against this very problem when PHILOSOPHICALLY extrapolated to some imaginary PHILOSOPHICAL SINGULARITY 'point' at an equally IMAGINARY physical space/location AT 'r=zero'.

There is NOT 'nothing' AT r=0. There's always 'something' physically REAL in energy-space terms. Hence invalidity/weakness of ABSTRACT GR maths to say anything about physical REALITY at all. :)
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (15) Jan 23, 2016
@Mike Massen
The life of a person can sometime be as paradoxical as the quantum world.

Is Susskind a plumber, or as he ever been? You will have a partial answer at the beginning of the next video. If you listen to the whole thing you will also be introduced to one of his great contribution: the holographic principle. https://www.youtu...T357ofuE

One of his great qualities is his ability of explaining very complicated ideas very simply. Here he is on string theory https://www.youtu...t2jlvHqM

Susskind is not just a professor; he is also a wonderful person and a great storyteller. Here is one of my favorite Ted Talks. https://www.youtu...wotips7E
vlisivka
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2016
There is millions of such "planets" in near interstellar space. Will we count each of them as "planet"? IMHO, we should count only bodies with strong magnetic field, which are capable to stay at stable orbit around star with help of that magnetic field.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (18) Jan 23, 2016
E=hv=hc/ λ , make the denominator zero & the equation becomes meaningless.

Isn't that what you did?
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (19) Jan 23, 2016
So the virtual methods reveal the virtual planet. What a virtual evidence and science.

Hmmm... the same methodology for finding Neptune and Pluto was used here...
Guess those are virtual, too...
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (18) Jan 23, 2016
Hi Whydening Gyre. :)
any number divided by zero should equal that number. After all, you didn't actually divide it.:-)

At Last! Someone else that 'gets it' about the 'division by zero' furphy. In mathematics, that "expression" is called "undefined".

"Knowledge is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." -
A. Einstein
Mike_Massen
1.2 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2016
TechnoCreed offered
..The life of a person can sometime be as paradoxical as the quantum world. Is Susskind a plumber..
Indeed, as a teen only, see
https://en.wikipe...ducation

Big ugly problem with Benni is he tries to marginalise people as do Uncle Ira to pull people down & both have same worry re so called "Gravitas" esp Uncle Ira, ie not smart & both try distraction to avoid challenge, ugly shallow behaviour :-(

Benni commenting Susskind's early life, tries to diminish credibility as Prof at Stanford university, so sad :-(

I've also had unusual history in a very wide range of disciplines, from selling textool (3M) sockets at school (17) to consulting whilst student at uni for their commercial arm to mining industry re nucleonic ore flow gauges.

But, if I draw attention to mine, claimed trying to look smart ie so called "gravitas", fact Benni can't prove his degrees, Uncle Ira lies/obfuscates & both refuse to learn
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2016
Benni has STILL failed to explain WHY he is going on a completely wrong path ???

Benni is caught in a logical trap, he is trying to make continue a claim by defending use of the wrong equation
Yeah, it's impossible, which is the point I continue to make that zero λ (wavelength) in E=hv=hc/ λ creates an impossible conundrum of infinite energy at zero wavelength on a BH surface
ONE reason you don't use that equation !

Photon's in a BH don't move, energy is zero as the freq=0 too !

In any case what is Benni actually saying re a BH surface, does he mean at surface of the mass at the center or at the probabilistic region of the Event Horizon & if so, which side ?

Benni has claimed to be an Electrical AND a Nuclear Engineer but, its clear Engineers aren't so sloppy communicating technical issues re equations.

Before applying any equation & especially so where there is a potentially contentious issue one must FIRST determine if key equations are applicable !
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2016
vlisivka claims
.. only bodies with strong magnetic field, which are capable to stay at stable orbit around star with help of that magnetic field
Beg Pardon ?

How is it even remotely possible any planet gets "help of that magnetic field" to "stay at stable" orbit ?

Aren't you aware magnetic field sums locally, if NOT then Sol's magnetic field would overwhelm ours & be detectable on Earth, its not & proves magnetic fields sum locally & in any case their force falls off MUCH faster as inverse cube law whilst gravity only drops off as inverse square law, understand ?

Do you vlisivka, know the difference between inverse cube & inverse square please ?

You realise vlisivka, if what you say is even a little bit true then tides which arise from gravitational fields of Moon & Sun would be easily influenced by Solar Wind, cosmic mass ejections AND be detectable as the mass of water shifts by using a compass or magnetic probe...

None of that happens ie only Gravity
vlisivka
3 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2016
vlisivka claims
.. only bodies with strong magnetic field, which are capable to stay at stable orbit around star with help of that magnetic field
Beg Pardon ?

How is it even remotely possible any planet gets "help of that magnetic field" to "stay at stable" orbit ?

If you will rotate two magnets: big one and small one, small magnet will start to orbit around big magnet at predefined distance. This small effect from magnetic field of rotating planet will help it to stay at it orbit in long term.
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2016
vlisivka claims
If you will rotate two magnets: big one and small one, small magnet will start to orbit around big magnet at predefined distance
Doubt it, why *should* it stay at "predefined distance" & especially so why when force drops as inverse cube ?

vlisivka claims
This small effect from magnetic field of rotating planet will help it to stay at it orbit in long term
If so then the magnetic field influence should be measurable on our surface. So explain please WHY our Sun's magnetic field is NOT measurable on Earth AND why Sun is able to influence tides *only* by relative gravitational position with NO addition of *any* magnetic field effects ?

Please answer my earlier questions, they go towards the important detail of a Proof ?

AND

Find a journal article/paper Please which *Needs* to add magnetism to Earth's gravitational effect in respect of the Sun to fully describe our elliptical orbit & perturbations over their complete range of motion ?
vlisivka
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2016
vlisivka claims
If you will rotate two magnets: big one and small one, small magnet will start to orbit around big magnet at predefined distance
Doubt it, why *should* it stay at "predefined distance" & especially so why when force drops as inverse cube ?

See it: https://www.youtu...h7AHdwhU .
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2016
vlisivka offers
See it: https://www.youtu...h7AHdwhU
And very nice indeed as an artificial construction ie A clever arrangement, a nice toy for illustration, can you draw the field ?

But, did you notice main issues ?

1. See how close they are together, at that distance re Sun's scale gravity overwhelms &
then we would be instantly drawn into the Sun & be destroyed

2. Magnetic arrangement of the stationary 2-level construction is not straightforward magnetic dipole anything like Suns field as measured & it is completely static, there is NO movement of any mass within it

3. Imagine what would happen if you moved them further apart at the same proportional distance the Earth is from the Sun, there would be NO effects at all, nothing, the video didn't show that. Remember inverse cube law = weaker than gravity ?

Please answer my questions or at least look up a journal paper adding magnetism to gravity for the Earth/Sun elliptical orbital motions ?
vlisivka
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2016
vlisivka offers
See it: https://www.youtu...h7AHdwhU
And very nice indeed as an artificial construction ie A clever arrangement, a nice toy for illustration, can you draw the field ?

But, did you notice main issues ?


If you project that to space, it is equal to _levitating_ of planet without orbiting at all.

Planet, which has elliptic or round orbit around Sun, is already balanced, so very tiny effect of rotating magnetic field over very large period of time (hundreds of million years) will cause significant (but not mayor) effect on planet orbit. It explains why planets are orbiting Sun in same plane (instead of random angles), it explains round shape of orbits, it explains rings around Saturn.
Kedas
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2016
In which range of angular diameter should we be looking?
Neptune is about 2.2''
- about 20 times further
- ASSUME about the same size as Neptune (17 x mass earth)
So we are looking for 2.2''/20 = 0.11''

So that is about the angular diameter of Pluto, it could in theory hide behind Pluto at a certain moment in time.

This means if your equipment can't find Pluto you can't find planet X either. (10" scope or up for Pluto)
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2016
vlisivka forgets Physics
If you project that to space, it is equal to _levitating_ of planet without orbiting at all
No !

You forget magnetism is SHORT range only, it sums locally, do you know what that means ?

vlisivka claims
Planet, which has elliptic or round orbit around Sun, is already balanced, so very tiny effect of rotating magnetic field over very large period of time (hundreds of million years) will cause significant (but not mayor) effect on planet orbit
Prove it with math and especially so as magentism drops off as inverse cube NOT gravity's inverse square !

Do you know what inverse cube law is & why its weaker than inverse square re forces ?

vlisivka claims
It explains why planets are orbiting Sun in same plane (instead of random angles), it explains round shape of orbits, it explains rings around Saturn
No, you need to learn about angular momentum and tidal forces PLEASE !

Gravity does NOT sum locally...

ie. Learn Physics please
vlisivka
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2016

No, you need to learn about angular momentum and tidal forces PLEASE !


Are you claiming that you are solved multiple-body gravity interaction problem? Can you, please, tell me solution. Simulation shows that system with multiple bodies orbiting around it is inherently unstable and very easy to broke. It will not stay for billions of years. Magnetic effect, while extremely small, stabilizes system. It in orders of magnitude smaller, so it needs millions and millions of years to do fraction of what gravitation does every second. It is not a mayor effect, but it helps planets to stay (or form) at their orbits, which cannot be explained by tidal forces alone. When all other forces are balanced, even tiny effect causes significant effect over large period of time.
vlisivka
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2016
My quick and very dirty math, based on video above, shows that 1g of iron will change it orbit from random ecliptic to near round at orbit of Earth in less than 100 000 of years because of magnetic field alone. So it is plausible.
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2016
vlisivka claims
My quick and very dirty math... shows that 1g of iron will change it orbit from random ecliptic to near round at orbit of Earth in less than 100 000 of years because of magnetic field alone
Prove it please ?

Did you include comparative differential between magnetism's inverse cube law vs gravity's inverse square law & if so did you also account for angular momentum of the solar system in its orbit in the galactic plane ?

ie. There is NO "quick & dirty math" at all, sorry, you are squarely caught in an idle claim !

Why, because you haven't been able to quantify the field strength of the iron - at the least !

re your previous post re n-body, my response re your claim "orbiting Sun in same plane (instead of random angles)", you ignore angular momentum of solar system in conjunction with (chaotic) collisions re extra solar system bodies eg from ejections from any other Sun like system anywhere else, ie There isnt evidence it cannot occur etc...
vlisivka
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2016
Prove it please ?

Prove? :-) I am engineer, not a scientist. See my dirty match:

Let assume that weight of large magnet is 1Kg and weight of smaller magnet is 100g, distance between magnets is 1cm and smaller magnet changes it orbit in about 0.1s, Sun is about 1E30 times weightier than larger magnet, small magnet is 1E2 times weightier than 1g magnet, distance between Sun and Earth is 1E11 meters, 1E13 larger. Let assume that there is square law between weight of magnet and effect on it (high power particles are stopped by weak Earth magnetic field), so magnetic effect on 1g magnet will be 1E4 stronger, despite it smaller size.

So we have 1E30*1E4=1E34 stonger magnetic effect, which will be 1E39 weaker at Earth distance, so magnet will change it orbit in 1E4 seconds. But magnetic field of Sun and raw iron are much weaker. Sun is about 1E6 weaker than magnet, iron is 10x weaker, so we will have about 1E12 seconds, about 30 thousands of years, less than 100 000 years.
vlisivka
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 24, 2016
So you think the Sun is 2e30 kg of highly magnetised iron ?
That explains. You would still be wrong though.

No, I think Sun is 1E30kg of substance which is 1E6 weaker than magnet. Math is rough, but it shows that effect is plausible: magnetic field can form ring of magnetic materials around star, so planets can form out of these rings, so we can give name "planet" only to bodies formed in such way.
Sorry, my English is far from perfect (I am from Ukraine, Eastern Europe).
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (17) Jan 24, 2016
No, I think Sun is 1E30kg of substance which is 1E6 weaker than magnet. Math is rough, but it shows that effect is plausible: magnetic field can form ring of magnetic materials around star, so planets can form out of these rings, so we can give name "planet" only to bodies formed in such way.
Sorry, my English is far from perfect (I am from Ukraine, Eastern Europe).

Interesting vid, but I see problems;
1. Assuming the poles are top and bottom (not the edge) - since it shows the magnets
attracting at the edge, it means the polarity of one is opposed to the polarity of the other.
Our N pole points in the same direction of Sol - would be edge on repulsive.
2. Planets (small magnet) do not maintain even a small contact with a solid surface directing their motion.
3. It shows CW spin (of small magnet) rather than CCW (All planets except venus are ccw)
TechnoCreed
4.8 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2016
@Mike_Massen
Big ugly problem with Benni is he tries to marginalise people as do Uncle Ira to pull people down & both have same worry re so called "Gravitas" esp Uncle Ira, ie not smart & both try distraction to avoid challenge, ugly shallow behaviour :-(
Honestly, I find it funny that you would put Benni and Uncle Ira in the same category. Ira is a middle age family man with good science literacy, a good sense of humour and a good dose of humility. I very much enjoy the guy. As for Benni he is annoying and he has no science literacy at all. He went on ignore as soon as this feature was implemented.

tbc
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2016
...

One thing you have got to remember when commenting in an open forum. It does not matter if you are an 80 years old PhD or an inexperienced teenager, every one of us are just someone in the net crowd. The value of one's comment has only the value that the others are willing to give to it. There is a question you should ask yourself when replying to a comment: Are you giving to the words of a total stranger to much importance? If you are wasting valuable time on them, the answer should be obvious. For myself, when I spend some time on Physorg, it is just for entertainment; winning an argument is pointless here.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2016
Techno -
Nicely done...:-)
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (17) Jan 24, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
Also poorer people far from 'profitable' grid left in the lurch, or exploitatively exorbitant charges to extend grid power to them/excludes them. etc.

Didn't happen to us out on a farm in the middle of an empty (then, at least) North Dakota...
If you're lucky enough to be in a place where the long-distance grid lines run reasonable close enough to extend easily/cost-effectively/profitably to your place, then that is good luck for you. Not everyone is in that fortunaate position, especially in Indai, Africa, Australia etc.

cont...
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (17) Jan 24, 2016
Apologies, Whyde. Above post should have posted to thread...

http://phys.org/n...ors.html

I'll repost it correctly therein asap. Thanks.

vlisivka
4 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2016
No, I think Sun is 1E30kg of substance which is 1E6 weaker than magnet. Math is rough, but it shows that effect is plausible: magnetic field can form ring of magnetic materials around star, so planets can form out of these rings, so we can give name "planet" only to bodies formed in such way.
Sorry, my English is far from perfect (I am from Ukraine, Eastern Europe).

Interesting vid, but I see problems;
1. Assuming the poles are top and bottom (not the edge) - since it shows the magnets
attracting at the edge, it means the polarity of one is opposed to the polarity of the other.
Our N pole points in the same direction of Sol - would be edge on repulsive.
2. Planets (small magnet) do not maintain even a small contact with a solid surface directing their motion.
3. It shows CW spin (of small magnet) rather than CCW (All planets except venus are ccw)


We should ask NASA to conduct experiment in space at ISS. I cannot answer these questions.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (16) Jan 24, 2016
We should ask NASA to conduct experiment in space at ISS. I cannot answer these questions.

Oh, they probly have, somewhere down the line...
ACoffeeDrinker
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2016
Time to revive the TAU mission.
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2016
TechnoCreed offers
..funny that you would put Benni and Uncle Ira in the same..
Evidence; sadly both refuse to prove claims & Uncle Ira spreads personal lies, a dark side triggered by my *only* offering a peaceful perspective re gkam's valid army experience, lucky you're not on receiving end of actual defamation, he claims

1 I'm a thief
2 Had my ebay account closed due to thieving
3 Published my home address
4 Make up testimonials of my products
5 Have some odd pointy hat
+ odd ball incomprehensible personally attacks

TechnoCreed says
Ira is a middle age family man with good science literacy, a good sense of humour...
Family fine, literacy maybe, though mostly impressions & tends to follow trends/moods, doesnt offer clarifying links & won't challenge obfuscators & went off beam re trying to tell me what I think of myself, I've no time for that. Humility selective,

TechnoCreed noted
.. Benni he is annoying and he has no science literacy ..
Spot on
vlisivka
3.3 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2016

We should ask NASA to conduct experiment in space at ISS. I cannot answer these questions.

Don't ask NASA to check if the Sun is a ridiculously large piece of magnetised iron.
They might greet your question with uncontrollable laughter.


Sun is ridiculously large magnet. See wikipedia for details.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (23) Jan 24, 2016
TechnoCreed offers.

Blah, blah and a bunch more blahs too.


Mike-Skippy offers to give laboratory evidence that Ira-Skippy might make a decent psychologist if he ever gets tire of working the river.

@ Mike-Skippy. You are not that special. You only get the attentions you attract. It's entirely up to you what kind of attention you draw. You are that important. Just one more silly couyon on the interweb like all of us. Now pull up your big boy panties and get a grip. You are making the spectacle of your self. (And just between you and me, it is not a spectacle I would be proud of non.)

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Qui Cher, a silly looking pointy cap just for you. You earned him, and if you keep pressing it, I have to make you wear one like glam-Skippy's that has the stars and moons on him.

This me taking you serious Cher. Tink about how you look to everybody. (Non, peeking in the mirror is not working, that is not how you look to everybody else.)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (17) Jan 24, 2016
Sun is ridiculously large magnet. See wikipedia for details.

Not an engineer or physicist, so I have to ask those better trained than me -
How far away from sun and from earth do the respective field strengths equal eachother?
Mike_Massen
1.2 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2016
Uncle Ira says
Mike-Skippy. You are not that special
As you keep saying, why am I so important to you ?

Why must you defame me, unlike you as a nick I have courage to use my real name ?

Why can't you prove any of your ugly claims, why draw attention by making them at all ?

Uncle Ira says
Just one more silly couyon on the interweb like all of us
No !
I don't defame
I offer Science communication
I challenge idiots & zealots hiding behind nicks
I follow up lines of enquiry
I have credentials & wide experience to share & as basis for critique
I prove my claims
I apologise if making errors

Uncle Ira, ALL above you fail :-(

Best thing you can do to recover some credibility;

a Get back on topic
b Focus on Science Eg useful basic Physics
c Stop finding bad google links trying to bring people down

Uncle Ira in the gutter
Now pull up your big boy panties...
Why won't you apologise for lying & defaming me ?

I apologize, why can't you be honorable ?
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (22) Jan 24, 2016
As you keep saying, why am I so important to you ?

You are not. YOU keep coming to me. For a genius scientist type you sure are slow. You are not important, to physorg or me. How many times have I come to you to be "mean and "nasty" to you? Let me give you a hint. ZERO. That's right, a GREAT BIG ZERO. You must like it while I am making you look so bratty foolish, YOU keep coming back begging for more.

That's how I know you got a really serious mental condition when it comes to how you see your place in the world. You are just a silly couyon on the interweb. Couyons on the interweb are a dime for a dozen dozens.

Now instead of stamping your feets, and begging for apologies, why you don't just put on your silly looking pointy cap, pull up your big boy's panties and quit poking at me. If you don't want to play, don't keep begging me to play with you.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (16) Jan 24, 2016
Not an engineer or physicist, so I have to ask those better trained than me -
How far away from sun and from earth do the respective field strengths equal eachother?


@Whydening Gyre

Ooh, that would be the Lagrange points: https://en.wikipe...an_point
Problem is, they were worked out purely by applying gravitational theory. So they should be wrong. Funny thing is, when we put satellites in these areas, the buggers stay there! Whoda thunk it?
Mike_Massen
1.2 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2016
Uncle Ira telling lies Again
How many times have I come to you to be "mean and "nasty" to you? Let me give you a hint. ZERO...
Bare faced LIE ! Evidence SHOWS you claimed

1. I'm a thief
2. My ebay account was closed due to thieving
3. I make up testimonials re my products
etc

If you have any honor left, explain why you need to defame ?

I've never done this to anyone here ever or anywhere else for that matter.

Evidence on phys.org, trigger for you trying to dig for dirt arose when I offered a benign observation re gkam's history as an army veteran re how engineers move between projects which does not mean they lose jobs - implying prejudice, that simple

Uncle Ira claims
YOU keep coming back begging for more
No !
Reminded you that you started this whole sorry shenanigans off by mindlessly following someone elses prejudice against gkam & falling into the trap of trying it against me

Why can't you apologise being caught lying ?

Physics instead please ?
Whydening Gyre
4.9 / 5 (17) Jan 24, 2016
Ooh, that would be the Lagrange points: https://en.wikipe...an_point
Problem is, they were worked out purely by applying gravitational theory. So they should be wrong. Funny thing is, when we put satellites in these areas, the buggers stay there! Whoda thunk it?

Not questioning gravitational theory. Just wondering how magnetics and gravity might be inter-related... possibly whether they are different wavelengths of the same thing... Harmonics, maybe?
Just a tickling hunch, but I get the feeling gravity is more like an aggregation of all magnetic content within any given relative locality of space...
Before anyone says "prove it" - I can only say "I'm workin' on it, but gotta pay the bills first...":-)
Mike_Massen
1.2 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2016
Uncle Ira claims
Now instead of stamping your feets
Beg Pardon - how so ?

Unclue ira claims
and begging for apologies
No !
Proper thing to do is remind you of your in Mistake defaming me with your only excuse/reason being some unclear issue re "gravitas" with you imagining what I might think, which for any intelligent person is not just a total waste of time it doesn't achieve anything :-(

Instead of being a copycat re bad google links to try & hurt, why not be smarter & ask me technical questions head on politely & I will answer them directly AND offer links AND be happy to further articulate in event you don't understand details, did that with Whydening Gyre & few others. Obviously useless with likes of Benni/bschott, yuck :-(

So WHY can't you be mature about it ?

Uncle Ira demands
..why you don't just put on your silly looking pointy cap
You've said it a few times, I have no pointy caps, are you ill ?

I have heaps of baseball caps ?

Apology ?
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2016
@ Mike-Skippy. You are becoming unhinged and hysterical. Why you don't take a few days off and try to compose your self? What do you think you are going to gain by writing me all these silly postums?

Now why you don't just leave me out of your bratty rants and hysterical raving. Send out another email or two about ol Ira-Skippy if that makes you feel better. You really are not helping your self, not even a little bit.
Mike_Massen
1.5 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2016
Whydening Gyre asked
Just wondering how magnetics and gravity might be inter-related... possibly whether they are different wavelengths of the same thing... Harmonics, maybe?
There have been several lines of research for decades, All fields whether gravitational, magnetic or electric fall into Gauss' theorems re surfaces & divergence
https://www.youtu...znPrtzS4

What we do know confidently is key differences re those force effects

1 Gravity has no repulsion observed or mathematically theorised, never cancels
2 Magnetism can't be distinct, only dipole ie Has to have north/south, cancels
3 Charges can be distinct but, if brought to opposite, cancels

Whydening Gyre adds
..get the feeling gravity is more like an aggregation of all magnetic content..
Entropic gravity closest
https://en.wikipe..._gravity

Whydening Gyre cautious
Before anyone says "prove it"
No problem, you ask honest Q's (as 4 AGW) not barking claims
Mike_Massen
1.2 / 5 (20) Jan 24, 2016
Uncle Ira just__can't__focus__on__Science
You are becoming unhinged and hysterical
Where is hysteria in reminding you its smart to be honourable & acknowledge you made huge mistakes making things up defaming me ?

Learn; claim is NOT equal to Evidence, apology ?

Uncle Ira can't get it
What do you think you are going to gain by writing me all these silly postums?
They are called reminders & appropriate requests you acknowledge your mistakes & be mature & apologising

Uncle Ira lies again
Now why you don't just leave me out of your bratty rants and hysterical raving
No. No hysteria, no ravings, you can end this easily, just apoloogise for lying ?

Uncle Ira rambles
Send out another email or two about ol Ira-Skippy if that makes you feel better. You really are not helping your self...
What emails do you keep going on about all the time ?

What pointy cap, are you ill, can't you focus on Science/Physics/useful links ?

Physics instead please ?
bluehigh
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 24, 2016
@WG

Perhaps it was the mention of Save the Artists Foundation or the conclusion ...

"The standard model believes that forces at the planetary or astral level are all gravitational and at the quantum level are all E/M, but this is false. The forces at all levels are unified field forces. The elementary charge includes gravity."

http://milesmathi...ine.html

So I looked him up and hes in the pseudoscience crank bin, sadly.
Interesting reading for a while though.

bluehigh
5 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2016
"The separation of electricity into positive and negative was just a heuristic device, a semi-useful conceptualization. Franklin proposed it, Faraday expanded it, and it is still in use. But, at a fundamental mechanical level, it is false, ..."

http://milesmathi...ono.html

Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (20) Jan 25, 2016
Mike-Skippy you really have the serious problem. But your biggest problem is not seeing that you doing everything you can to show off your mental conditions as if you were proud of them.

Is this the reason you can not make it in a real forum and have to settle for the comment pages at the physorg? Tell the trut, this is all you got left isn't it? You been banneded everywhere else?
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (21) Jan 25, 2016
What emails do you keep going on about all the time ?

The dozens or so you keep sending to the physorg front office about how you want to clean up the place and it is terrible being Mike-Skippy while there are peoples like Ira-Skippy around.

What pointy cap, are you ill, can't you focus on Science/Physics/useful links ?


The same ones I been giving out for years. The ones peoples earn by being silly, stupid and foolish in class. Got two varieties. The silly looking pointy ones for the fools, and the aluminum wrap ones for the woo-woo Skippys.
Uncle Ira
4.7 / 5 (23) Jan 25, 2016
Mike-Skippy, much as I am enjoying fooling around with, I got to go get some work done. So pontificate away and be sure to remind them all to Learn Physics more.

Since you obviously think you can wear me down, we'll have to take this up tomorrow, okayeei? But trust me Cher, it will only be more of the same. You begging for an apology and stamping your feets. And me making the fun with you for doing that. How long that goes on is entirely up to you Cher. You are not that interesting so sooner instead of later works for me.

You know what they say about the peoples with the mental conditions who keep right on doing the same crazy thing thinking that just one more time will do the trick. Yeah, that's right, they say they have the mental conditions.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy.
bluehigh
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2016
I certainly owe you an apology Uncle Ira. I badly misjudged your character. I'll hang on to the silly pointed hat you gave me, as a reminder of the rudeness and lack of civility from me to you at times. As WG once said .. There's more to you than meets the eye. (Paraphrased).

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.