Two papers Claim Super Earth sized planets in the Outer Solar System at 300 AU.

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: RadioRobert

Science is open-minded. It just needs futher observations/measurements/confirmations on top of these isolated "discoveries" to make it certain enough to be anounced with confidence. Open-mindedness doesn't mean letting just any kind of proposition or idea in and giving it the same validity as the tested and proven tenets.

Yes, but I don't think a lot of the reaction (and more specifically those in question in the post I was replying to) were "open-minded". It's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, "That's interesting. We're going to need more data before we upset the apple cart." It's another thing altogether to say, "If this was true we'd know it by now" or "We've looked for this once with WISE, so we know it's not true. Just more garbage".

a reply to: UnknownEntity

Sitchin could have been wrong about a lot of things, but he gave us a lot of things to think about. If what he said was real nonsense NASA would not admit they are searching for an unknown planet in our solar system at the moment we speak. Please stop insulting a man who searched his all live to find out where our consiousness comes from.

Read: www.evawaseerst.be...

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: RadioRobert

Science is open-minded. It just needs futher observations/measurements/confirmations on top of these isolated "discoveries" to make it certain enough to be anounced with confidence. Open-mindedness doesn't mean letting just any kind of proposition or idea in and giving it the same validity as the tested and proven tenets.

If you step off a cliff, you have all the confidence that you will fall, receiving injury or even death. We don't have that kind of confidence about any possible planets or brown dwarfs in the outer Solar System. That's why, while these new "discoveries" are interesting, a lot of additional work is due before we can get really excited about it (or realise that it's a dud).

Pretty much this ^

Lets wait and see what the conclusions are on this once the peer reviews and analysis takes place. The one thing I think most agree on is that this is both very interesting and very exciting. Potential new discoveries always are.

originally posted by: zandra
a reply to: UnknownEntity

Sitchin could have been wrong about a lot of things, but he gave us a lot of things to think about. If what he said was real nonsense NASA would not admit they are searching for an unknown planet in our solar system at the moment we speak. Please stop insulting a man who searched his all live to find out where our consiousness comes from.

Read: www.evawaseerst.be...

Scientist would be searching for other possible planets no matter whether Stitchin ever existed or not. It's what science does -- to make the unknown known.

And I don't understand the "NASA would not admit..." part. Are you saying NASA would not "admit" to doing science? Many details of what we know about the solar system comes from NASA unilaterally (i.e., without others "making them do it) gathering scientific data for science in order for science to make new discoveries.

This is not a new thing. I remember back in the 80's (87-89) that this was discovered by looking at wobbles. They named the object Nemesis. Those that discovered it were ostracized so much that they had to find new lines of study to keep employed. I find it strange that there is a lot of claims of NASA hiding info but when they say something like this it is believed at once while other people that in the past say the same think no one believes them.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: UnknownEntity

The Niburu crowd must be hopping madder than Rumplestiltskin with a bad case of St Vitus dance and Tourrettes.
They are screaming, "See I TOLD YOU!"

This is a crazy discovery.

Not really.
Other bodies in the outer solar system ≠ Nibiru.

I mean, the past discoveries of Sedna, Quaoar, Eris (which is larger than Pluto), and the like haven't made the Nibirui crowd yell "I told you so". If an Earth-sized body exists, it wouldn't necessarily be anything like the supposed "Nibiru".

If it orbits the sun it could be = to Nibiru.

Nibiru (also transliterated Neberu, Nebiru) is a term in the Akkadian language, translating to "crossing" or "point of transition",

It is one of the objects like this one that orbits the sun.

More interesting is 2012 VP113's distant, highly elongated orbit, which brings it 80 astronomical units from the Sun at its closest and a whopping 472 a.u. away at its farthest. It takes 4,600 years to loop around the Sun. Another such object, 90377 Sedna, is likewise distantly adrift. Both lie well outside the Kuiper Belt, which extends outward only to about 50 a.u. - See more at: www.skyandtelescope.com...

The fact is people have been saying there is nothing more to be found near by as the "whole sky has been surveyed" "f anything were there it would have been found already" those saying there are things yet to be found have been called "ignorant" and worse...by many on ATS and other websites continuously.

They are owed an apology.

What was crazy to me, they only scanned a very very small part of the sky, and found 2 of these things. That seems to suggest there could be hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of those things floating around out there.

And there may be some explanation as to why they all seem to congregate in one area of the sky. But yeah, it is a scary thought.

a reply to: smitastrophe

I think that they scan the parts of the sky that are indicative of having possible objects.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: smitastrophe

I think that they scan the parts of the sky that are indicative of having possible objects.

That's not what they've been doing in this case. They were looking at specific stars in order to study them, and those "planets" just happened to pass through their field of view.

Does it mean there must be hundreds of thousands of them floating around our Solar System? I wouldn't say that. An incredibly small chance of spotting such an object in such a small field of view is still a chance, and can happen.

originally posted by: smitastrophe
What was crazy to me, they only scanned a very very small part of the sky, and found 2 of these things. That seems to suggest there could be hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of those things floating around out there.

That's pretty much what astronomers assume.

Back when Eris and Sedna (which are Pluto-like bodies) were discovered, astronomers began to realize that there where probably hundreds (maybe thousands?) of similar objects, hence one of the reasons to give them their own classification of "dwarf planet". Or else, we would have hundreds of things we called planets.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

If it orbits the sun it could be = to Nibiru.

Maybe. But it could be just like all of the other trans-Neptunian objects we already know about, which do NOT equal Nibiru. Those objects don't have orbits that bring it racing through the inner solar system every 3600 years, as the popular definition of Nibiru states.

The fact is people have been saying there is nothing more to be found near by as the "whole sky has been surveyed" "f anything were there it would have been found already" those saying there are things yet to be found have been called "ignorant" and worse...by many on ATS and other websites continuously.

They are owed an apology.

I'm not sure to which people you are referring, but its is rather well-understood that there are probably hundreds or thousands of objects just like this new object, or like he previously discovered ones such as Eris, Sedna, Quaoar, Haumea, Makemake, etc.

As I said in my other post above, science understands that there are other objects like Pluto out there in the Kuiper belt, and that was one of the reasons (after the discovery of Eris 10+ years ago) for creating the new classification of "Dwarf Planet" for Eris, Pluto, and the other similar objects they know about -- and the ones they don't know about but are virtually sure are out there.

originally posted by: remembering
This is not a new thing. I remember back in the 80's (87-89) that this was discovered by looking at wobbles. They named the object Nemesis. Those that discovered it were ostracized so much that they had to find new lines of study to keep employed. I find it strange that there is a lot of claims of NASA hiding info but when they say something like this it is believed at once while other people that in the past say the same think no one believes them.

I believe that back then the irregular orbits of Uranus and Neptune were used to hypothesise that a 10th planet was out beyond Neptune (because Pluto was not large enough to account for the orbital peturbations of Uranus and Neptune).

Since then it was discivered (I believe through additional measurements taken by Pioneer?) that the data we had on the mass of Neptune and Uranus was incorrect. When the new correct data was plugged into the equations, the orbits of both Uranus and Neptune were spot on. That killed the Planet X theories of the time.

What confuses me about these proposed findings is that, if there really was a large planet lurking beyond Neptune, wouldn't our current orbital calculations be off?

Here is the image of the second object seen in the same frame as the Alpha Centurai binary star system (represented by A & B). This image is taken from the paper produced by the scientists making the claims)

flic.kr...

This object 'may' be a 'super-sized' earth or brown dwarf located out beyond Pluto.

*****

The other finding talks of an object that could be either a 'close' small object of about 800km across within 12-25 AR, OR a much larger object at ~4000AU.

originally posted by: UKTruth
What confuses me about these proposed findings is that, if there really was a large planet lurking beyond Neptune, wouldn't our current orbital calculations be off?

That planet may be far enough so as to hardly affect Neptune at all.

whether the objects are at the lower estimated mass boundary or the higher or in between; it's good news because island hopping is a legitimate way to get to a distant shore.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: UKTruth
What confuses me about these proposed findings is that, if there really was a large planet lurking beyond Neptune, wouldn't our current orbital calculations be off?

That planet may be far enough so as to hardly affect Neptune at all.

Yes, but I was responding the point that 'this was discovered by looking at wobbles' . That hypothesis has been binned after the new masses of Neptune and Uranus were discovered. I often still read about these peturbations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune in new Planet X material, but as far as I am aware these peturbations were false (they were based on incorrct mass data). This is a clear give away for me when reading 'new' theories. When the peturbations are mentioned in new material I assume that the researcher has not done enough homework.

a reply to: UKTruth
Sorry, where does it say anything about wobbles or perturbations regarding the new proposed discovery?

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: UKTruth
Sorry, where does it say anything about wobbles or perturbations regarding the new proposed discovery?

It doesn't.
The point I was referring to was in relation to the spurious assumptions of the mid 80's.