# Planet X



## Serendipity

For years people have been searching for Planet X (at one time called Xenia and at another time called Nemesis). It was finally dismissed when the so-called perturbations in the orbit of Uranus were finally explained in 1992.

But now comes evidence that it is almost certainly very real.  See http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016...eptune-sized-planet-lurks-unseen-solar-system for details.

Edit - Dag nab it - I'm going to have to rewrite stuff....


----------



## Ray McCarthy

There was some doubt expressed recently in some Pluto articles that EVERTHING was accounted for. Some suspicion there could be Dwarf or actual planet objects (depending on distance) between Kiuper belt and Oort Cloud.

Interesting ... probably take 20 200 years to go and look?



> orbits the sun every 15,000 years.
> ...
> Its closest approach to the sun is* seven times farther than Neptune, or 200 astronomical units *(AUs). (An AU is the distance between Earth and the sun, about 150 million kilometers.) And Planet X could roam as far as 600 to 1200 AU, well beyond the Kuiper belt, the region of small icy worlds that begins at Neptune’s edge about 30 AU.


That suggests VERY far out!

EDIT:

BBC Link


----------



## Brian G Turner

This is wonderful news! Nemesis has long been a favourite theory of mine - we have a previous discussion on that here:
Nemesis theory - Planet X

(Am actually tempted to merge this thread with that one).

Now, this theory comes up repeatedly - what the Science piece says is that this is a totally serious and fully peer-reviewed hypothesis that stacks up.

And here's a graphic of what they're postulating:







Cool beans.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Here's the video Science put on Youtube:






I've been really excited about this - a theory I've been following, and warmly supportive of, for decades. 

However, Nemesis has been so difficult to pin down that although there's support for the theory this time around, I'm not going to hold my breath for evidence coming through any time soon.


----------



## mosaix

Wow! Just wow!

But if this would be the ninth planet shouldn't it be *Planet IX?*


----------



## BAYLOR

The size of Neptune and with rings and 10 to 20 thousand years to orbit. I  think it's rather doubtful  that we'll find life there.  But I think the idea of having another planet  in our solar system is pretty cool. Maybe some day they can send a probe.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

Nice report here
Boffins: There's a ninth planet out there – now we just need to find it

The Guardian and UK Independent have reports too.


----------



## J Riff

Here we go again. On TV here, minutes ago -_ Scientists says there is a 'good chance' of a 9th planet, larger than Pluto._
I think not, just that there is a lot of wreckage floating around out there, that used to be a planet, or parts of it. But... maybe an alien spacecraft, disguised as a planet, has snuck into our solar system? Hold on, I'll look on YouTuuuuube.........


----------



## galanx

I did like this bit 





> Incidentally, this is the second time Brown has reshaped our map of the solar system. He was one of the scientists who fought to change Pluto's designation from planet to dwarf planet, and he even published a book about it. Apparently his daughter has never forgiven him. "She's still kind of mad about Pluto being demoted," he told the Washington _Post_. "She suggested a few years ago that she'd forgive me if I found a new planet. So I guess I've been working on this for her."


----------



## Starbeast

Scientists long ago get exited about finding planet PLUTO, that made the headlines in the media. Then later, scientists discover a tenth planet, that made the headlines. And suddenly, nothing more was said about it. Much later, scientists say PLUTO isn't a planet. A little later scientists say that they think they found a ninth planet.

Scientists have the luxury to say was is, and what is not, then change their mind. Astronomy was exciting to me when I was a teen, now it just bores me as an adult.


----------



## Serendipity

I don't usually do this... but I have a few comments to make about the implications of this new planet... see my post at Evidence for a ninth planet in the Solar System 

It kind of makes for interesting speculation...


----------



## thaddeus6th

Doubt it'll happen, but if it's the IX planet, then Ixion could be a fitting name.

Mind you, we've gone with Romanised Greek gods so far, and more of the Olympians are accounted for. I think there's just:

Hestia - Vesta [I think in the Roman form]
Demeter - Ceres [apparently, had to check this one]
Athena - Minerva
Apollo [same in both]
Artemis - Diana
Dionysus - Bacchus
Hephaestus - Vulcan


----------



## Mirannan

For names, maybe one ought to go along with the theme started by Pluto/Charon. Erebus (god of darkness and shadow - it's pretty darned dark out there!) or maybe Tartarus, the god of the deepest, darkest pit of the underworld. Or even Nyx, the goddess of night.


----------



## J Riff

Well, the way the media works today, as opposed to the previous centuries of repression, is to flood with info. So the truth or a reasonable facsimile, is out there, on YoTube, no doubt, but, can it be sorted out from the hordes of speculative disinfo? Stay tuned.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

Serendipity said:


> but I have a few comments to make about the implications of this new planet... see my post at Evidence for a ninth planet in the Solar System


My understanding is that there is no scientific basis for "bode's law"? It was just an attempt to fit observations into a formula?  If we know orbit we can calculate mass, or vice versa from Kepler's laws.


			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> There is no solid theoretical explanation of the Titius–Bode law, but if there is one it is possibly a combination of orbital resonance and shortage of degrees of freedom: any stable planetary system has a high probability of satisfying a Titius–Bode-type relationship. Since it may simply be a mathematical coincidence rather than a "law of nature", it is sometimes referred to as a rule instead of "law". However, astrophysicist Alan Boss states that it is just a coincidence, and the planetary science journal Icarus no longer accepts papers attempting to provide improved versions of the law.


We do have theories as to how the solar system formed, which might provide some basis for "Bode's law", however larger objects between Kupier belt and Oort Cloud contradict our existing theories of planet formation.


----------



## Serendipity

Ray McCarthy said:


> My understanding is that there is no scientific basis for "bode's law"? It was just an attempt to fit observations into a formula?  If we know orbit we can calculate mass, or vice versa from Kepler's laws.
> 
> We do have theories as to how the solar system formed, which might provide some basis for "Bode's law", however larger objects between Kupier belt and Oort Cloud contradict our existing theories of planet formation.



The scary thing about Bode's law is that it was discovered in or before 1715, i.e. before the existence of Ceres and the asteroid belt, Uranus and Neptune and Pluto were discovered. When ALL these fitted into the law, then there must be a basis of why this law exists. As to what that basis is, is as you say a matter for debate.

My gut feel (i.e. it follows a pattern that I'm anticipating) is that we'll see a bit of a thickening in the dust and ice particle at the missing slots of 77.2 and 154 astronomical units out from the Sun - kind of Solar System rings. Planet X or IX, depending on which terminology you prefer, is likely to be a planet flung out from the inner regions of the Solar System (much like Neptune is thought to have been). If Bode's law holds, then that planet is likely to have found or be heading for one of the two subsequent slots.


----------



## Ursa major

thaddeus6th said:


> Demeter - Ceres


Demeter is an asteroid and Ceres is a dwarf planet.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Ursa, Demeter should smite those who lent the name of an Olympian to a mere asteroid. Ceres may feel a bit miffed too.


----------



## J Riff

Like this could be going on without anyone knowing about it, that's the main problem I have.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Such distant orbits may not be unusual - this example is, but only because the distance itself is so extreme:
Astronomers discover largest solar system - BBC News

Quote:
Astronomers have discovered the largest known solar system, consisting of a large planet that takes nearly a million years to orbit its star.

The gas giant is one trillion kilometres away, making its orbit 140 times wider than Pluto's path around our Sun.

Only a handful of extremely wide pairs of this kind have been found in recent years.


----------



## ralphkern

I like Mirranan's suggestion of Erebus


----------



## Ursa major

ralphkern said:


> I like Mirranan's suggestion of Erebus


...which has the advantage that it can be used, when modified slightly, over and over again: Erebus 300, Erebus 310,  Erebus 318, Erebus 319, Erebus 320, Erebus 321, Erebus 330, Erebus 340, Erebus 350, Erebus 380....


----------



## Ray McCarthy

Ursa major said:


> it can be used, when modified slightly, over and over again


If the latest theory that's a third belt of rubble is correct (like Asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter and the Kuiper belt) then that might be useful.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Does the Mars-Jupiter asteroid belt actually have a name, or is it just called the asteroid belt?


----------



## Ursa major

According to Wikipedia (I'm sure more authoritative sources are available):





> The asteroid belt is also termed the *main asteroid belt* or *main belt* to distinguish it from other asteroid populations in the Solar System such as near-Earth asteroids and trojan asteroids.


----------



## thaddeus6th

That's a bit rubbish.

Maybe something like Hyperion's Girdle would sound better.


----------



## Ursa major

thaddeus6th said:


> That's a bit rubbish.


Indeed it is.


----------



## J Riff

Well the asteroid belt rocks no matter what we call it.


----------



## BAYLOR

The Rocky Belt?


----------



## galanx

A while back, when the asteroid-extinction theory first became respectable, some scientists speculated that there was a periodicity to extinction events on Earth. 
On the hypothesis that this might be caused by perturbations caused by an unknown planet/sun out in the Oort Cloud leading to periodic rains of asteroids or comets, the name Nemesis was sugggested.

Nemesis: A Solar Companion? 
Piet Hut: Nemesis: A Solar Companion?

 I remember a suggestion from from Stephen Jay  Gould that we should give up the Classical Greek/Roman naming tradition, to allow other cultures to have a chance.
Since the hypothetical planet not only caused destruction (the dinosaurs) but led to new creation (us!) he suggested Kali, after the Hindu goddess with the sdouble aspect of destruction/creation.


----------



## Serendipity

Looks like they've ruled out about half of the possible places that planet IX (nine) could exist using the Cassini probe data. See http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/forth/aa28227-16.pdf


----------



## BAYLOR

Serendipity said:


> Looks like they've ruled out about half of the possible places that planet IX (nine) could exist using the Cassini probe data. See http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/forth/aa28227-16.pdf



So it may not exist at all?


----------



## Serendipity

BAYLOR said:


> So it may not exist at all?



This has always been a possibility, though the probability of this being the case is now very small. 

As far as the article is concerned, they've ruled out parts of the orbit that they can measure i.e. those parts closest to the Sun - they assess it only has the mass of ten Earths, so small by astronomical standards (sorry about the pun). Hence one of the difficulties in finding it. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## Serendipity

Further evidence has been found for the existence of Planet IX - another Kuiper Belt object has been proved to behave strangely, on top of the original six that led to the first announcement. See : Scientists have found more evidence that our solar system has a hidden planet in it


----------



## BAYLOR

Serendipity said:


> Further evidence has been found for the existence of Planet IX - another Kuiper Belt object has been proved to behave strangely, on top of the original six that led to the first announcement. See : Scientists have found more evidence that our solar system has a hidden planet in it



I suspect that at some point the real estate developers will show up and divy up all the best real-estate on Planet X  and put in luxury housing which no one will be able to afford.


----------



## Ursa major

In the video in that link (the one to the Independent), the commentary says (at about 0:40) that "computer simulations show that the planet, if it exists, would orbit about twenty times farther away from the sun than the Earth." (I can't guarantee that I've got the wording _entirely_ correct, but it's... er... close enough, I think.)

It seems that they're confusing Planet IX with Uranus (which seems somehow appropriate...).


----------



## Serendipity

more info on Planet IX - Planet Nine's profile fleshed out - BBC News 

Wow! this is getting exciting...


----------



## J Riff

Well, MSN hotmail page logs out to news headlines - "Planet 9 could destroy Earth as soon as this month."
There's a lot of alternate media talk about this 'planet', that makes some sense. I think it makes more sense than casually mentioning that this here planet-thingy mought deeeee-stroy us all before next payday.
I don't track much mainstream stuff, but at least something is happening there for a change, and, here - we all hope that it's a giant spaceship, or a big ball of edible space-food just drifting on in from the Cheese Nebulae.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

J Riff said:


> "Planet 9 could destroy Earth as soon as this month."


Or deflect a comet / Meteor in 3 million years time.


----------



## Serendipity

J Riff said:


> Well, MSN hotmail page logs out to news headlines - "Planet 9 could destroy Earth as soon as this month."
> There's a lot of alternate media talk about this 'planet', that makes some sense. I think it makes more sense than casually mentioning that this here planet-thingy mought deeeee-stroy us all before next payday.
> I don't track much mainstream stuff, but at least something is happening there for a change, and, here - we all hope that it's a giant spaceship, or a big ball of edible space-food just drifting on in from the Cheese Nebulae.




Hm... a time perspective would be useful here. When the Solar System was younger, clumping matter into rocks, bergs, comets, asteroids, planets etc then there would have been a period where collisions would have been very prevalent. However, as time went on, the clumping cleared the paths of the bigger objects. Yes, there were still collisons. Some of these involved bigger objects that sent matter spewing into the paths of other objects for them to clumps together (or not). But over time those collisions became less and less in number. We are still in that period of reducing collision frequency, but the chances of big objects colliding together are now very small. 

As Ray says, Planet IX is more likely to destroy us by sending a huge comet hurtling our way and that will take at thousands of years. By that time I would hope we would have the space technology to avert the disaster. 

In the meantime of more concern is that we don't have that space technology to avert the bigger meteoroids from crashing into our local neighbourhood. All we can do is watch, hope we spot them, prepare by evacuation where we can, but otherwise pray they don't come our way. It really is time for the space industry to grow sufficiently to be able to stop these bigger objects from landing on Earth.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

More nonsense debunked (on Indo or Guardian too)
Saturn spacecraft immune to mysterious Planet 9's charms


----------



## J Riff

I wish someone could ac`tually bunk some of this info. THe truth is there, on YouTube I reckon, - people just don't search for it right. No ETs, oh no, we need a whole alien planet, not just a few ufos and ETS, a whole planet smashing on in, that's what's in the news...  and still nobody notuices nuthin in this town.
 What's that in the sky... is it a bird, a plane?..... no... it's a gigantic planet just wAndering on in to smash us all to dust. _War of the Worlds_ anyone?


----------



## Brian G Turner

The search for Planet X is narrowing: We are closing in on possible whereabouts of Planet Nine


----------



## J Riff

MAybe this will help revive Ed Wood's career.... Plan (et) Nine from outer space. It's cloudy today, so no giant solar bodies visible.


----------



## Serendipity

And here's some hypotheses about how Planet IX (if it truly exists) might have formed.... http://gizmodo.com/planet-nine-just-got-weirder-1774497705


----------



## Brian G Turner

Option 3 - extrasolar in origin.

We already know that space must be filled with wandering planets. It is utterly plausible that our solar system should be able to capture one or more. The trouble in accepting that is the realisation that the solar system we have now might not actually have started that way, and one or more planets we know and love may actually be extra-solar in origin.

Btw, hasn't it been underlined enough that there is no computer model that ever predicts a solar system forming with inner rocky and outer gas giant planets?

Uh-huh.


----------



## J Riff

There is no matter wandering in space, which is not subject to the gravity well o' th' Galaxy (Milky What?) - Zero. There are no rogue planets in our solar system, never were. There IS a lot of rubble from a gigantic explosion in the system. That's it, move back, noting happening here folks, it's all over, millenia ago, keep moving, don't block the intake vents.
- ET.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

Brian Turner said:


> there is no computer model that ever predicts a solar system forming with inner rocky and outer gas giant planets?


We know very little about planetary formation and star systems because till recently we could only study one. We can't study other ones well enough.  So we have only highly speculative models.
We know now there are stars with gas giants in orbits closer than Mercury, which was a surprise.
Pluto is a surprise as is Makemake


----------



## Brian G Turner

Ray McCarthy said:


> We know now there are stars with gas giants in orbits closer than Mercury, which was a surprise.



Indeed, and the modelling suggests the gas giant spiralled in over time, ejecting other planetary bodies as it did so. Yet these "hot Jupiters" are surprisingly common, suggesting an awful lot of planets - and their moons - ejected to wander through interstellar space.


----------



## J Riff

I will say nay - again - based on gravity, and suggest that there is exactly zero planets or large bodies of any kind - wandering anywhere in space.
None, zilch. You can't move in or out, away from the core o' the Milky Way. Can't do it. Can't even imagine ETs powerful enough to move anything Large - other than back and forth a bit - inside the force that holds yer planet at an exact distance from the core for millions years at a time. Could be wrong. )


----------



## Brian G Turner

@J Riff - you misunderstand: interstellar space is space between the stars within the Milky Way; intergalactic space is the space between galaxies.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

J Riff said:


> there is exactly zero planets or large bodies of any kind - wandering anywhere in space.
> None, zilch. You can't move in or out,


There certainly are at least wandering stars and could be wandering planets. Not many.
Encounters between galaxies, between star systems or novas etc cause the existence of Wanderers.

There is also no edge to the "Milky Way" or any other galaxy, they are just less and less dense away from the centre.

While the Andromeda galaxy (M31) is the nearest galaxy like ours in shape, it's not the nearest galaxy. Ours is about 150,000 LY across (0.15 M LY), some are not much further away.
Some may be close enough to account for wanderers.
List of nearest galaxies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The satellite galaxies of Andromeda M31 are about 22 to 45 on the list.

There is also the unsolved problems of rotation and expansion which might also account for a few wanderers. Dark Matter and Dark Energy might not be real, they have been hypothesised because the expansion speed of the visible universe is wrong. The rotation of galaxies are "wrong" too. They rotate all of a piece, like a record or any solid disk. The outer bits should be rotating slower than the inner bits due to inverse square law of gravity and most of the mass being toward the centre. So for now "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" is the fudge to make the equations work, till either we discover those are real things or some other explanation as to why galaxy scale structures are not behaving in the same manner as individual star systems.

Also interestingly the "dark" bits between the spiral arms of our galaxy have LOADS of stars, just not as many, so they seem darker.

There are about 47 members in our "local" group of Galaxies. Andromeda contains about a million million stars,  at least twice the number of stars in the Milky Way, which is estimated to be 200–400 thousand million. They keep revising the number of stars  in our galaxy upwards.

So a few wandering stars, gas giants and rocky planets are to be expected, especially an outer gas giant that survives the nova even of its star.

As Douglas Adams said, "space is big, really big".

Our own star and system is in a local low density "bubble" of the Milky Way due to a super nova. That may have left or caused some wandering objects in the neighbourhood.


----------



## Serendipity

They have already discovered a rogue planet without a star wandering all on its lonesome about 80 light years away from Earth. see Institute for Astronomy Press Release: Found: A Strange Lonely Planet without a Star ...


----------



## J Riff

That's more like it, some facts. I will argue some more - that we cannot leave our groove in the record. Even if our Sun blew up, its matter would continue to circle the core at the same distance. That's how powerful gravity is, galactic-style. Nothing wandering in or out, unless it has been ejected by an explosion so large that it shoulda been destroyed. And, anything wandering would simply head for the largest nearby mass, and stay there. Comets circle our solar system, they can't escape even that. It looks like a big, slow-moving place with lots of different zones, but rotation is king and movement between solar systems almost impossible without a fully-fueled spaceship. No planet could possibly break free of its rotation around the core, can't see it.
 The further back IN, toward the core you go, the more ancient and locked-in it all is. We are on the edge, or near it, and anything drifting in from another galaxy may well show up out here first.... possibly the only advantage to living way out here in the sticks.


----------



## mosaix

J Riff I think there's a misunderstanding here. I think, maybe I'm wrong, that the term 'wandering' is describing a planet that is not orbiting a sun of its own. Of course, as you say, any such planet would be subject to the gravitational attraction of the galaxy itself.


----------



## J Riff

But can it stay wandering? Of course not. It will achieve orbit around something, has to. And I cannot see such a planet moving one inch further from galactic central. It has to circle, like a record goin' round, round, right round. *)


----------



## mosaix

The term wandering obviously isn't correct. The orbit it is achieving is around the galactic centre. But it may come under the influence of a nearby sun and possibly be captured by its gravity. I think that is what is being suggested may have happened.


----------



## J Riff

Yup. But I'm betting nope. No planet has drifted into our system. Doesn't add up. It's something else, if anything. (?)
I like the record album analogy. If our Sun exploded it would all still stay in the same groove. So, a nearby star means one in the same groove, and no way to go anywhere elset. That's how it was shown to me, and heck it makes sense, but what is this planet 9 thing? A ship or a hallucination? No idea.


----------



## mosaix

Yes but a 'wandering' (wrong word) planet doesn't have to have come about as a result of an exploding sun. Couldn't it get 'kicked out' of its own solar system by, say, the gravitational influence of another much larger planet? This could give it a different speed / galactic orbit than before, allowing it to catch up with or be caught by a new solar sytem.


----------



## J Riff

Why not? Stuff must drift in from other galaxies, too. Until we meet interstellar travellers some of this theory has to be theoretical. Must be a way to use the gravity to slingshot stuff...


----------



## Brian G Turner

Here's the Wiki piece on wandering planets:
Rogue planet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Ray McCarthy

Planet 9 (the X in title) might be an exoplanet, if it exists.
Or maybe it's ours and very eccentric. (Name it Potts?)
Planet 9 a captured alien, astroboffins suggest


----------



## Brian G Turner

With no computer model able to predict the formation of our solar system, there's no reason to presume _any _planet in our solar system originally formed here. 

And the idea that a "young sun" might have captured a Planet X underlies a fatal flaw of reasoning in astrophysics - that the solar system has remained unchanged for 4 billion years, with any disturbances only happening at formation. That's just a silly presumption.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

It's all speculation.

However it's probable that all the planets did form here. The solar system over  the 1st billion years would be come more  like what we see today. It's not actually "stable". Only the the inner most planets and most of the inner comets  (Within Jupiter's orbit) are relatively stable. Pluto and many moons are not exactly stable. The longer time scale comets are less predictable for two reasons, one is the mass lost on approach to the sun and the other is the slightly chaotic effect of  crossing from trans-Neptunian space to within the orbit of Jupiter as they orbit the sun.

It's interesting that there appears to be layers to the Oort cloud and due to lower density and distance from Sun, Jupiter and Saturn (it's on average 1000x further than tran-Neptunian/kuiper belt) it's a shell, a globe like region rather than a belt in the plane of the ecliptic as the Kuiper object mostly are. Pluto's highly elliptical orbit is way out of the ecliptic and surely must be slowly changing each time it on the nearest point. Seriously hard sums.


----------



## J Riff

I must be out of touch... _AstroBoffins_?? Disturbingly similar to a band name ... but... and... hey, tere's another planet... just showed up and it's the biggest, bigger than the others... and it's called Planet Tex.. ohnevermind, need coffee.


----------



## BAYLOR

Brian Turner said:


> With no computer model able to predict the formation of our solar system, there's no reason to presume _any _planet in our solar system originally formed here.
> 
> And the idea that a "young sun" might have captured a Planet X underlies a fatal flaw of reasoning in astrophysics - that the solar system has remained unchanged for 4 billion years, with any disturbances only happening at formation. That's just a silly presumption.



What about capture of a wandering planet? Maybe X didn't originate in out solar system.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

*Planets 9, 10 and 11?*

Something is out there.
Solar System may hold ten planets or more, say scientists


----------



## J Riff

Good. Let's name them something cool before the scientists get there.
Living Biospheres ahoy!
One of them planets looks like it might have blown up at some point in the past, confusing the issue?


----------



## Ray McCarthy

seems to be confirmation?
Astronomers discover distant dwarf planet beyond Neptune


> Currently designated 2015 RR245, the giant ball of ice and rock lies nine billion kilometres away in the the most distant reaches of the solar system
> A dwarf planet half the size of Britain has been found tumbling through space in the most distant reaches of the solar system.
> 
> The giant ball of rock and ice lies nine billion kilometres away on an orbit that swings far beyond the realm of Neptune, the most remote of the fully-fledged planets in our cosmic vicinity.
> 
> Astronomers first noticed the new world when it appeared as a bright spot moving slowly across a sequence of images taken in September 2015 by a telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii for the Outer Solar System Origins Survey (OSSOS).
> 
> “It was really remarkable to see how bright this object was,” said Michele Bannister, an astronomer on the team at the University of Victoria, Canada. “It’s far brighter than the objects we normally find.”
> 
> In a formal note released on Monday, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) designated the dwarf planet 2015 RR245. The name will be replaced when astronomers come up with a better one.



Or perhaps this is an extra one, and not the hypothesised one in this thread?


> The newly-found dwarf planet is on a highly elliptical 700-year orbit that comes as close as five billion kilometres to the sun before heading out twice as far as Neptune. Having spent hundreds of years more than 12 billion kilometres away, the body is swooping inwards for its closest approach in 2096.
> 
> Based on the makeup of other dwarf planets, 2015 RR245 is likely to have an exotic landscape covered with frozen water and nitrogen, perhaps some carbon monoxide, and what Bannister described as “hydrocarbon gunk.”



I think the hypothetical planet 9 has a 20,000 year orbit?


----------



## Brian G Turner

Sounds a bit small for Planet X...but at least there's a serious search.


----------



## Ray McCarthy

Brian Turner said:


> Sounds a bit small for Planet X


Technically Planet IX, but I agree.


----------



## BAYLOR

Ray McCarthy said:


> Technically Planet IX, but I agree.



So now it's not good enough to be planet  X and its has to settle for being IX ? Being demoted is  A crushing blow to any planets ego .


----------



## Ray McCarthy

BAYLOR said:


> not good enough to be planet X and its has to settle for being IX



Here is a nice list 
List of Solar System objects - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Traditionalists don't like it, but we now only have EIGHT known planets. At least Pluto didn't get demoted to the Minor League of 707,664 planets!

*Solar System Members*
*Stars:* *1*
(Sun)
*Known planets: 8*

Mercury
Venus
Earth
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
*Known dwarf planets *Possibly *several hundred*;[1] 
five currently recognized by the IAU

Ceres
Pluto
Haumea
Makemake
Eris
(A sixth may be named, photographed in 2015)
*Known natural satellites 470*

173 planetary[2]
297 minor planetary[3]
*Known minor planets* *707,664*(as of 2016-03-07)[4]
*Known comets* *3,406*(as of 2016-03-07)[4]
*Identified rounded satellites* *19*


----------



## Brian G Turner

I'm sure it's been suggested before that Planet X could be a brown dwarf, and now there's a claim that whatever it is could be as large as 20 earth masses - and tilting all of the planets away from the sun's plane:
Planet Nine may have tilted entire solar system except the sun


----------



## Brian G Turner

Mystery object in weird orbit beyond Neptune cannot be explained

The article mentions that the object - Niku - is too close to Neptune to be connected to Planet X - but it does show that the outer solar system may be more complex than we've given credit for.


----------



## BAYLOR

Brian Turner said:


> I'm sure it's been suggested before that Planet X could be a brown dwarf, and now there's a claim that whatever it is could be as large as 20 earth masses - and tilting all of the planets away from the sun's plane:
> Planet Nine may have tilted entire solar system except the sun



It sounds like a rather dangerous object to have hovering at the edge  of our solar system.


----------



## Serendipity

So they'e calling it Niku, Chinese for rebellious. Why don't they just call it Rogue One?

All jesting aside, this could have been thrown into our solar system from outside - which might explain the bizarre orbit. If this is the case, I can see putting in for soem emergency funds to get a mission to explore the first known interstellar object... or am I being too optimistic?


----------



## BAYLOR

Serendipity said:


> So they'e calling it Niku, Chinese for rebellious. Why don't they just call it Rogue One?
> 
> All jesting aside, this could have been thrown into our solar system from outside - which might explain the bizarre orbit. If this is the case, I can see putting in for soem emergency funds to get a mission to explore the first known interstellar object... or am I being too optimistic?



Maybe they''ll end some valuable material with commercial possibilities on Planet X.


----------



## Serendipity

Here's more news-worthy stuff - New Solar System objects revealed - BBC News about newly discovered objects in the depths of the Solar System.


----------



## Serendipity

Well, they're still searching for Planet X or as it's now called Planet IX... In the meantime, someone's shown it could well be a captured planet.... see http://gizmodo.com/our-sun-may-have-snatched-planet-9-from-outside-the-sol-1791075905


----------



## J Riff

Planet Nine... from Outer Space..... noooooo...


----------



## thaddeus6th

Damn it. _I_ was going to make that pun! Beaten to the punch.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Serendipity said:


> Well, they're still searching for Planet X or as it's now called Planet IX... In the meantime, someone's shown it could well be a captured planet.... see http://gizmodo.com/our-sun-may-have-snatched-planet-9-from-outside-the-sol-1791075905



I like that science is finally catching up to the idea of solar systems capturing planets - that road is likely to result in a lot of interesting surprises. 

However, all the research does is acknowledge that captured planets may be feasible - we already know from studying exoplanets that gas giants can spiral close to the sun, before being ejected. It's possible Nemesis is one of these planets.

Either way,the idea that our solar system has always looked this way is finally being challenged - and that's a good thing. Especially as it's a key theory I promote in my writing.


----------



## Serendipity

Brian G Turner said:


> I like that science is finally catching up to the idea of solar systems capturing planets - that road is likely to result in a lot of interesting surprises.
> 
> However, all the research does is acknowledge that captured planets may be feasible - we already know from studying exoplanets that gas giants can spiral close to the sun, before being ejected. It's possible Nemesis is one of these planets.
> 
> Either way,the idea that our solar system has always looked this way is finally being challenged - and that's a good thing. Especially as it's a key theory I promote in my writing.



Hm... there's another article saying our galaxy has been snatching stars from another galaxy - the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy to be precise - see http://gizmodo.com/the-milky-ways-most-distant-stars-appear-to-be-stolen-1791111612 So thieving seems to be the norm in this universe. 

At the moment Planet X/IX is most likely to be found in the part of the sky occupied by Cetus, Pisces and Aries. It has a postulated orbit of between 10,000 and 20,000 years... but then you already knew this, didn't you? I've been looking up these facts for a reason... and C.A.T. is not very pleased about the results....


----------



## J Riff

I dislike the idea of the solar system capturing planets. From where? No way is anything drifting around out there that wasn't part of this system for aeons. That's my theory, and I understand the gravity of the situation.


----------



## BAYLOR

J Riff said:


> I dislike the idea of the solar system capturing planets. From where? No way is anything drifting around out there that wasn't part of this system for aeons. That's my theory, and I understand the gravity of the situation.



Which makes me think of the book and movie *When Worlds Collide 
*


----------



## Brian G Turner

So ... presuming we do detect a large planet on the outer-edge of our solar system ... what do we name it?

I know it's been previously named Nemesis by researchers searching for it. If it's a particularly large gas giant - a brown dwarf even - then it could be an appropriate name.

However, because of its far proximity from the sun, I'm wondering now if perhaps it wouldn't be better named Hades?


----------



## J Riff

Something family friendly... call it Diznee. Or since it would be cold there, call it Snowball, or The Invisible Icebox. How about... no, far too silly. Sorry.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Pluto is Hades. Hades is also Greek and the planets have been given the Latinised, Roman names instead.

I think Nemesis (like Apollo) is the same in both, though. And it's a cool name.

"He has fled... to Nemesis!"


----------



## Brian G Turner

Ah, well - my bad.


----------



## Starbeast

​


Starbeast said:


> Scientists long ago got excited about finding planet PLUTO. That made the headlines in the media. Years later, scientists discover a tenth planet, and that also made the headlines. Then suddenly, nothing more was said about it. Much later, scientists say PLUTO isn't a planet. A little later scientists say that they think they found a ninth planet.
> 
> *Scientists have the luxury to change their minds, and say what is, and what is not. Astronomy was exciting to me when I was a teen, now it just bores me as an adult.*


----------



## Paul_C

New proof that there could be a mysterious ‘Planet Nine’ in our solar system


----------



## Serendipity

Paul_C said:


> New proof that there could be a mysterious ‘Planet Nine’ in our solar system


Many thanks for this... useful background for my fiction writing.


----------



## mosaix

Starbeast said:


> Scientists have the luxury to say was is, and what is not, then change their mind.



I would say scientists have a _responsibility_ to say was is, and what is not, then change their mind.


----------



## Serendipity

Looks like the hunt for the ninth is on... and the citizen scientist can join in! See Planet Nine: Astronomers want help from amateur stargazers - BBC News


----------



## Brian G Turner

> Although it opens up the possibility of naming input, rules set by the International Astronomical Union mean discoverers do not have complete control.
> 
> "My personal vote is not for another Greek god, we have enough of those," Dr Tucker said.
> 
> "I do not want Planet McPlanetface."



I love that last line.


----------



## Old_Man_Steve2016

Serendipity said:


> Looks like the hunt for the ninth is on... and the citizen scientist can join in! See Planet Nine: Astronomers want help from amateur stargazers - BBC News


It's a really difficult hunt. This is an example of what you'll see on the search site. 
It reminds me of trying to watch a faraway station on broadcast TV and trying to spot the ball in the static.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I'd be tempted to call it Gothham. And yes, I have deliberately spelt that incorrectly.

Mwahahahaha!

In seriousness, I'd go for Typhon, unless it's already been taken.


----------



## Serendipity

If it were up to me to give Planet 9 a name I probably would choose *Aphaea *(it kind of appeals to my warped sense of humour... ahem...)


----------



## Brian G Turner

If we're looking for a brown-dwarf rather than a planet then it's already been named _Nemesis_ since 1984: 
Nemesis (hypothetical star) - Wikipedia

We discussed this back in 2003 on the chrons forums:
Nemesis theory - Planet X

Many links in that thread aren't working - but I'm wondering if this from the BBC about Pioneer 10, 11, Galileo, and Ulysses, experiencing an inexplicable gravitational drag, have been solved yet:
BBC News | Sci/Tech | Spacecrafts pulled by mystery force


----------



## Serendipity

More info on the search for Planet Nine can be found here - http://gizmodo.com/when-the-hell-will-we-find-planet-nine-1794681137


----------



## Brian G Turner

NASA's sent out a press release effectively accepting that Planet 9 probably exists: News | The Super-Earth that Came Home for Dinner



> "There are now five different lines of observational evidence pointing to the existence of Planet Nine. If you were to remove this explanation and imagine Planet Nine does not exist, then you generate more problems than you solve. All of a sudden, you have five different puzzles, and you must come up with five different theories to explain them."



Lead researcher, Konstantin Batygin, talks more about it at _Wired_ here: We're closer than ever to finding the mysterious Planet Nine | WIRED UK


----------



## Matteo

Well..._tenth_ if you ask me - (mutter...Pluto...grumble)

The asteroid is 55AU distant from the sun and has an orbit of 35 to 863 times the radius of Earth’s orbit, with an inclination of 54 degrees. 

One possible answer for this weirdness is a ninth (grrr...) planet 10 times the mass of the Earth.

Paper is here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.05355.pdf (ninth planet proposal is discussed at end)

Article here: A New World’s Extraordinary Orbit Points to Planet Nine | Quanta Magazine


----------



## LordOfWizards

Matteo said:


> Well..._tenth_ if you ask me - (mutter...Pluto...grumble)
> 
> The asteroid is 55AU distant from the sun and has an orbit of 35 to 863 times the radius of Earth’s orbit, with an inclination of 54 degrees.
> 
> One possible answer for this weirdness is a ninth (grrr...) planet 10 times the mass of the Earth.
> 
> Article here: A New World’s Extraordinary Orbit Points to Planet Nine | Quanta Magazine



They (Astronomers) had suspected this planet existed for years, but scientists rarely accept new ideas without some resistance. I too am old enough to know that Pluto was once a planet. My kids readily accept that it is classified as a "Dwarf Planet" (How dare they!!! ). But from the following article they explain where scientists came up with the definition of a "Planet", as well as the reason that this 9th? 10th? Planet helps mathematical planetary formation models appear more well behaved. 

Solar System Planets: Order of the 8 (or 9) Planets


*Planet Nine*
Planet Nine orbits the sun at a distance that is 20 times farther out than the orbit of Neptune. (The orbit of Neptune is 2.7 billion miles from the sun at its closest point.)  The strange world's orbit is about 600 times farther from the sun than the Earth's orbit is from the star.

Scientists have not actually seen Planet Nine directly. Its existence was inferred by its gravitational effects on other objects in the Kuiper Belt, a region at the fringe of the solar system that is home to icy objects left over from the birth of the sun and planets.


----------



## Brian G Turner

A new computer model suggests the orbits of Oort Cloud bodies is natural and doesn't require another planet:

Collective gravity, not Planet Nine, may explain the orbits of 'detached objects'


----------



## thaddeus6th

Boo hiss to that.

We all know it's Mondas.


----------



## Brian G Turner

No new news, but this TedX video from Mike Brown about his discovery of Sedna and why he's searching for Planet 9 might be of interest:


----------

