New data about two distant asteroids give a clue to the possible 'Planet Nine'

February 21, 2017

...
Now, a team of researchers led by the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC) in collaboration with the Complutense University of Madrid has taken a step towards the physical characterization of these bodies, and to confirm or refute the hypothesis of Planet Nine by studying them. The scientists have made the first spectroscopic observations of 2004 VN112 and 2013 RF98, both of them particularly interesting dynamically because their orbits are almost identical and the poles of the orbits are separated by a very small angle. This suggest a common origin, and their present-day orbits could be the result of a past interaction with the hypothetical Planet Nine. This study, recently published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, suggests that this pair of ETNOs was a binary asteroid which separated after an encounter with a planet beyond the orbit of Pluto.

To reach these conclusions, they made the first spectroscopic observations of 2004 VN112 and 201F3 R98 in the visible range. These were performed in collaboration with the support astronomers Gianluca Lombardi and Ricardo Scarpa, using the OSIRIS spectrograph on the Gran Telescopio CANARIAS (GTC), situated in the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory (Garafía, La Plama). It was hard work to identify these asteroids because their great distance means that their apparent movement on the sky is very slow. Then, they measured their apparent magnitudes (their brightness as seen from Earth) and also recalculated the orbit of 2013 RF98, which had been poorly determined. They found this object at a distance of more than an arcminute away from the position predicted from the ephemerides. These observations have helped to improve the computed orbit, and have been published by the Minor Planet Center (MPEC 2016-U18: 2013 RF98) responsible for the identification of comets and minor planets (asteroids) as well as for measurements of their parameters and orbital positions.
...

Read more at: phys.org...

In this latest research paper spectroscopic observations of 2004 VN112 and 201F3 R98 in the visible range were used and found that both asteroid have almost identical orbits, and the poles of the orbits are separated by a small angle which would suggest a common origin. Their present day orbit and separation would also indicate to have been the result of the interaction with the hypothetical planet 9 or planet X.

More, and more evidence keeps coming up pointing to the fact that there is at least one, or more planets, and planet 9 or X would be several times bigger than Earth (about 10 times) and possibly as large as Neptune or larger, up to 20 Earth masses and at a distance about 300 AU - 600 AU from our Sun.



The fact that ETNOs have an argument of perihelion close to 0, and their orbits are close together also points to at least a large planet, or more existing within the Solar System which would keep the orbits of ETNOs and their argument of perihelion so close together.

Because such planet, or planets exist so far away from the Sun it could also indicate the possibility that a brown dwarf also exists within the Solar System. Otherwise the interactions with other stars would have changed the orbit of planet 9, or X, and with it the orbits of ETNOs would have also changed a long time ago.

Astronomer Mike Brown from Caltech recently went on record to state that he was at this point certain that planet 9 or planet X is out there.

2017 Jan 08
Correspondent Bill Whitaker
...
Demoting Pluto leaves us with eight planets. But Mike Brown is preparing another surprise. He is sure there is a real ninth planet way out far beyond Pluto. He hasn’t seen it yet but he expects to soon. He believes the real Planet Nine is huge; and it’s out there.

Mike Brown: I would say at this point, I am certain.

Bill Whitaker: Certain?

Mike Brown: Yeah. That’s a rare thing to say-- for a prediction for a scientist. And I’m willing to say it.

Bill Whitaker: You do know how mind-boggling this sounds. I mean, a new planet hasn’t been discovered for 170 years. I believe you think it looks like this animation over my shoulder here?
...
Bill Whitaker: And we haven’t seen it? We can’t see it?

Mike Brown: It’s so far away that it’s actually just at the edge of what our biggest telescopes on the ground can possibly see because it’s so far away.

Fifty billion miles away. It’s also hard to find because it has an enormous orbit.

Mike Brown: Planet Nine we think takes something like 15,000 years to go around the sun.
...

www.cbsnews.com...




Related ATS articles:

Scientific Research on Solar System Brown Dwarf and Planet X.

More Evidence for Ninth Planet on Solar System's Fringes

Two Teams of Astrophysicists Postulate Inclination of the Solar System Could be Caused by Planet 9

Mike Browns comment baffles me a little bit. He says its just at the edge of where our biggest ground based telescopes can reach, but what about space based?

a reply to: Rosinitiate

The Keck telescopes in Hawaii have a pair of 10 meter (33 feet) primary mirrors with adaptive optic technology, where as Hubble's primary mirror is only 2.4 meters.

While it makes sense that a telescope out in space doesn't have to deal with our atmosphere, the adaptive optic technology that the Keck system has along with it's huge mirror system makes it a better telescope.

Not Hubble's fault. It's not like we can just go to it and upgrade it easily with it being in orbit.

The James Webb space telescope when they get it up will have a 6.5 meter mirror that is made out of thin sheets of gold, with much more advanced technology than Hubble had.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
Mike Browns comment baffles me a little bit. He says its just at the edge of where our biggest ground based telescopes can reach, but what about space based?

Even with space based telescopes such a planet is hard to see because it is still within the solar System and is a very faint object. Think of it as trying to watch the stars within a large city (that would be ground telescopes), if you move a bit closer to the edge of a city but are still within the city, you can see more stars (that would be space based telescopes) but you won't still see all stars. We can better identify planets outside the solar system because they are far away from the light of our sun, but we also have a better point of view since we can see them as they pass in between their own sun, and our point of view. If we had telescope further deep inside our Solar System, or even outside the Solar system, we would be able to see even more stars as well as it would be easier to detect other astral bodies. If we had a telescope outside the solar system, and we would turn it to look towards the solar system, then Planet 9 (X) and other planets and anything else that exists in the Solar system would be easier to detect.

It is possible that WISE has already photographed planet 9 (X), but astronomers are still looking through all the data.

The distance that planet 9 or X seems to be at is around 300 AU - 600 AU from the sun, and it's mass could be 10-20 masses that of Earth.

...
"The similar spectral gradients observed for the pair 2004 VN112 - 2013 RF98 suggests a common physical origin", explains Julia de León, the first author of the paper, an astrophysicist at the IAC. "We are proposing the possibility that they were previously a binary asteroid which became unbound during an encounter with a more massive object". To validate this hypothesis, the team performed thousands of numerical simulations to see how the poles of the orbits would separate as time went on. The results of these simulations suggest that a possible Planet Nine, with a mass of between 10 and 20 Earth masses orbiting the Sun at a distance between 300 and 600 AU could have deviated the pair 2004 VN112 - 2013 RF98 around 5 and 10 million years ago. This could explain, in principle, how these two asteroids, starting as a pair orbiting one another, became gradually separated in their orbits because they made an approach to a much more massive object at a particular moment in time.
...

Read more at: phys.org...

For some reason can't edit my post anymore. It says 4 hours have passed.

Anyway. The statement I made should read.

" We can better identify planets outside the solar system because they are far away from the light of our sun, but we also have a better point of view since we can see them as they pass in between our point of view and their sun."

Strange that something that has been denied all the time suddenly appear,I'm not going to say the "N' word ,heck they are both starting off with the same letter?

a reply to: 0bserver1

Go ahead and say the "N" word, because that is what was being denied all this time: the idea that there was some world with a 3600 year orbit that comes crashing into the inner part of the solar system.

The real Planet X in this case is a large body that always stays well outside even the orbit of Neptune at all times.

Thanks for the interesting thread, EU! Although I do have to wonder how can spectroscopic measurements of an object help with calculating its orbit...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

When it arrives the seas will part and reveal Hy Brasil.

Thanks for the interesting thread, EU! Although I do have to wonder how can spectroscopic measurements of an object help with calculating its orbit...

I assume that the spectroscopic measurements solidify the theory that these two asteroids are related, and were probably gravitationally bound together at some point in the past (because they have a very similar composition). This information probably helps to "narrow down" the orbital parameters of both objects (since integration of their orbits backwards in time would need to result in a "merge" at some point). This in turn begs the question.....why (and how) did they separate? That's where Planet 9 comes in.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Seems that Sitchin's maybe going to be right soon?
So you say this is something else then Nibiru because of the deviating path it takes around our sun?

originally posted by: 0bserver1
Strange that something that has been denied all the time suddenly appear,I'm not going to say the "N' word ,heck they are both starting off with the same letter?

Nibiru is being denied, not Planet 9...i.e., what astronomers say does not exist is the planet Nibiru, with the definition of "Nibiru" being a planet that swoops in through the inner solar system every 3600 years (let's call the "inner solar system" the planets inside the orbit of Jupiter).

Just take a look at what the OP is saying about HOW astronomers are hypothesizing the existence of Planet 9 in the first place. The clues that may be pointing to Planet 9's existence are in the orbits of some of the asteroids and other Kuiper belt objects that orbit out past Pluto. They can see that the orbits of those objects seem to be affected by something else that might be out there.

So, if they can see that a hypothetical Planet 9 may be affecting the orbits of things near it, it stands to reason that if some Planet Nibiru came swooping through the inner solar system, then they would be able to detect perturbances of the planets and asteroids of the inner solar system.

...But no such perturbed orbits caused by a planet-sized body swooping in every 3600 years have been observed in the inner solar system.


So some of the reasoning and methods they use to show Planet 9 might exist can also be applied to show that Nibiru does not exist.

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: eriktheawful

Seems that Sitchin's maybe going to be right soon?

Nope, not soon, not ever.

You're not getting the point, are you. The proposed Planet 9 has absolutely nothing to do with Sitchin's Nubiru. For one, it never comes even close to the inner Solar System.

Nibiru is being denied, a potential planet out beyond Neptune is not. As Soylent Green pointed out, if a planet came periodically into the inner Solar System, it would have affected the orbits of known planets. No such effect has been observed.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Well, then I understand this better. Seems that with all the new technology we are going to see more planet's yet to be found in our Solar system.

Maybe Exostargazers already noticed that planet as we see theirs now with Kepler and keck ?

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Well, then I understand this better. Seems that with all the new technology we are going to see more planet's yet to be found in our Solar system.

Maybe Exostargazers already noticed that planet as we see theirs now with Kepler and keck ?

Maybe, but keep in mind how the Kepler Telecsope (and many other exoplanet-hunting telescopes) acutuall find planets around other stars.

The Kepler Telescope does not find exoplanets by "seeing"" them. Instead, Kepler monitors a bunch of stars, waiting for a star to dim is a specific way. This dimming (which is by an extremely small amount) can be caused by a planet passing in front of, or "transiting", the star. This method for finding exoplanets is called the "Transit Method" (or "Transit Photometry"). To get a better confirmation that the dimming was caused by an exoplanet transiting that star, astronomers wait for the planet to transit again -- and maybe even multiple times, to find regularity.

That's why most of the exoplanets discovered so far using the transit method have very small and quick orbits. That's because those fast-orbiting planets are the ones that are easiest to confirm.

...HOWEVER, the hypothetical Planet 9 has an orbital period around the sun of 10,000 to 20,000 years. That means if a far-away alien is using the transit method to look for planets around our sun, they would detect the dimming of our Sun caused by the transit of planet 9 only every 10,0000 to 20,000 years. If they were lucky enough to catch it transiting once, they would not see transit transit again (for confirmation purposes, to show the dimming wasn't caused by something else) for another 10,000 to 20,000 years.


Another method used to find exoplanets is the "Doppler Shift" method. This method looks for the wobble in a star caused by the gravitational tug of a planet on that star. For example, even though Earth is small, is does tug a bit on the Sun as it orbits, causing the Sun the "wobble" ever-so-slightly. But again, for a body that takes 10,000+ years to orbit a star, the wobble effect the planet has on that star will be difficult to detect.

But maybe some alien somewhere has other methods for finding exoplanets. For example, we are able to actually see some planets around other stars by masking the star's brightness (either physically of digitally). Usually, stars are much much too bright for us to hope to see a star around it, but if the star's glare can be subtracted from the view, then the planets might be come visible:

www.planetary.org...

Other methods of exoplanet detection:
lasp.colorado.edu...



But none of that is helpful for directly imaging Planet 9.

In the case of Planet 9, its existence is hard to confirm (which would be done through direct observation) because it is like that the orbit of planet 9 is currently taking it through a region with the Milky Way (as seen from our viewpoint) as the background against which it would be passing. There are a lot of background stars in that region of our sky, much denser than other regions, which would cause a lot of visual noise. Ad that to the fact that Plant 9 is so far away that the apparent movement from our point of view would be extremely tiny, and it would be a rally faint object.

So astronomers are looking for an extremely faint dot that hardly moves at all against the background, and in a background full of other dots (stars), most of them much brighter than the dot they are interested in...

That's not finding a needle in a haystack. Instead, it's like finding one very specific needle in a haystack-sized pile of needles.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

It's a matter of time before they can see more planets or other objects in our solar system .

Filtering out glares of stars today all happens because computers and software I guess.

But why can't they find them by gravity, I mean if planets unseen yet in our system one would presume gravity should be the force to discover them and track them ,maybe I'm talking about something I've missed that they already working on.

However it's most interesting the times we live in with all those great discoveries.

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

But why can't they find them by gravity, I mean if planets unseen yet in our system one would presume gravity should be the force to discover them and track them ,maybe I'm talking about something I've missed that they already working on.

That's what the OP was all about.

The gravitational effects of something appears to be pulling on several Kuiper belt objects in such a way that the objects' perihelions (the points in these objects' orbits where each is closest to the sun) are found to be mostly to one side of the sun. One hypothetical cause of the behavior of the orbits of these object is the existence of a planet-sized object out there -- Planet 9.

Here is an image from the OP illustrating this:

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
I wish I could find it, but it was 14 years ago when I first heard about Nibiru. The video that explained it was very well done and very detailed for the time. Few people, like, myself, had ever heard of it, so it wasn't attached to all the bad press that later got attached to it.

I think it is very interesting that everything they are saying here is what the guy was saying then. He even predicted that most people wouldn't become aware of it until around 2015 - 2016. He mapped out how it would gradually have more and more impact on our planet, and he even spoke of our planet going through the debris field of the Milky Way, causing us to have a great increase in the number of asteroids and meteors impacting our planet. He made a little cartoon showing a car trying to make it across an interstate while meteors were raining down, to give it a more visual explanation.

I wonder what he is saying now.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
and he even spoke of our planet going through the debris field of the Milky Way, causing us to have a great increase in the number of asteroids and meteors impacting our planet.

I think you mean the Oort Cloud, not The Milky Way.

The thing in our night sky we call the Milky Way is the dust and stars that we can see that are toward the center of our galaxy. That is very very far away from our solar system.

The Oort Cloud, on the other hand, is the theoretical region of our own solar system -- albeit on the outer reached of our solar system -- in which resides comets and other stuff that was left over from the formation of the solar system. It is thought that the gravitational effects of large objects (perhaps within our solar system or outside of our solar system, such as a passing star) can perturb some of the comets that would otherwise reside forever in the Oort cloud and cause their orbits to change in a way to send them sunward.

...But as I mentioned in a post above, we know that planet 9 is NOT the same thing as what some people call Nibiru. The hypothetical orbit for Planet 9 keeps it WAYYY far out in the solar stem -- 50 to 100 times farther out than even Pluto. If this Planet 9 exists, its orbit does NOT take it through the inner solar system like Nibiru allegedly does.

If it did, then the same gravitational effects on Kuiper belt objects that are the clues to Planet 9's existence would also be seen on objects in the inner solar system -- but those effects are not seen, so its orbit does not come through the inner solar system.

So the orbital details of this potential Planet 9 do not at all match with the story of Nibiru.