NASA admits the mysterious Planet Nine is real, but says ‘deadly’ Nibiru is a fraud

Can't we have Class "M" planets?

a reply to: oldcarpy

Well, with respect, no.

M-Class is a classification from the Star Trek universe as you know. But the M does not stand for anything other than a word in Vulcan, which makes a nonsense of it as a descriptor.

Also, the expanded system, though it simplifies the task of planet classification nicely, fails because of the complexity of it, and because what we have found thus far, does not easily conform to any of the descriptors used in the show.

There does need to be a system of some sort, but it should not involve terms so nebulous as "Hot Jupiter" or "M-Class", because both, in and of themselves are meaningless, or at least, not meaningful or accurate enough. Phrases like "Super Earth" or "Hot Jupiter" though, feel deliberately misleading, and that crap needs fixing pronto.

a reply to: TrueBrit


I know. It stands for the Vulcan word Minshara. I thought it was a fairly clear and relevant classification.

And don't say "with respect" to me, I'm a lawyer. There are layers of "With respect" insults:

With respect = Shut up.
With great respect = Shut up you tw@t.
With the greatest respect = Seriously?
With all due respect = As if you deserve any.
With any due respect = Just 'eff off and do one, will you?
With the greatest possible respect = Do you actually have a Practicing Certificate?

No offence taken though, just saying.

a reply to: oldcarpy

I do not care what your qualifications or professional credentials are.

When I say with respect, when I say ANYTHING, you can be certain that what it means, is what is written right there on the page.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the term "super earth". The earth is a rocky planet, so another rocky planet that is huge in relation is a super earth. They aren't trying to confuse people, anybody can look it up and know what it means. It's like how a scientific theory is so much different than a layman's theory. Yeah they both use the word "theory" but the meaning is night and day. That's how science is. They have words that don't take on conventional meanings. The info is out there for anybody to learn what they mean.

originally posted by: Somethingsamiss
a reply to: Somethingsamiss

Here is one artical i read.


www.nzherald.co.nz...

If they're looking for a planet that's yet to be found because it's so far away, I don't understand why we can't use our technology to expand our horizons and put a satellite transmitted telescope on Mars to get a closer look, or even Ganymede... Have a shuttle use the moon's gravity to swing back around to Earth, then use Earth's gravity to swing back around to the moon, then finally swing around Mars on the final push for speed and then launch the craft with the telescope. Should be plenty fast by then.

originally posted by: Reverbs
a reply to: Somethingsamiss

They've been looking for planet x since before I was born and I'm in my 30s

When IRAS was launched in like 83? 84? They hoped to maybe catch planet ex's heat signature..

The reason they thought something was out there originally were abnormalities in Neptune And Uranus orbits.

New York Times 1983

Pluto was found in 1930 and they were like gotcha planet x but it wasn't big enough so they kept looking..

So yea it's been an idea for a long time.

From your article, I couldn't help but chuckle...

"SOMETHING out there beyond the farthest reaches of the known solar system seems to be tugging at Uranus"

Ive been watching this for longer than I should have hoping one would drop.

a reply to: LSU0408

Because they are basically looking for what will be a couple of pixels that moves against the background of stars, and it will be moving very, very slowly compared to even Pluto.

It could also be highly inclined to the plane of the solar system.

There will also be false ones (a comet, a asteroids, a kuiper belt object that ends up being too small to be it, etc) that have to be discounted.

Last is: the amount of sky you have to search for it.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: LSU0408

Because they are basically looking for what will be a couple of pixels that moves against the background of stars, and it will be moving very, very slowly compared to even Pluto.

It could also be highly inclined to the plane of the solar system.

There will also be false ones (a comet, a asteroids, a kuiper belt object that ends up being too small to be it, etc) that have to be discounted.

Last is: the amount of sky you have to search for it.

True. I guess you wouldn't just need distance, but also orbital timing for your best bet...

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Somethingsamiss
a reply to: Somethingsamiss

Here is one artical i read.


www.nzherald.co.nz...

If they're looking for a planet that's yet to be found because it's so far away, I don't understand why we can't use our technology to expand our horizons and put a satellite transmitted telescope on Mars to get a closer look, or even Ganymede... Have a shuttle use the moon's gravity to swing back around to Earth, then use Earth's gravity to swing back around to the moon, then finally swing around Mars on the final push for speed and then launch the craft with the telescope. Should be plenty fast by then.

Even a telescope on Ganymede would not be that much closer (plus putting a large telescope there or on Mars would cost the GDP of most countries) ;-).

But let's say money is no object....
The hypothetical Planet Nine is believed to have a highly eccentric orbit that at its farthest point from the Sun is 1200 Astronomical Units (AU), and is 200 AU at its closest point (one AU is the distance of the Earth to the Sun). Ganymede is about 5 AU from the Sun, and about 4 AU away from Earth (at its closest) -- So it would be potentially 4 AU closer to Planet Nine than we are.

So instead of Planet Nine being 1200 +/- and 200+/- AU away from a telescope on earth or in Earth orbit, it would be instead be 1196 AU and 196 AU away from a telescope on Ganymede. Not much of a difference.

As Erik said above me, the reason why it is hard to find ist that being so far from the Sun, it would be quite dim. Seeing that dim object against the starry bbackground is difficult. Not only that, much of the calculated orbit of the hypothetical Planet Nine is through a part of the sky with the Milky Way as a background -- on of the most densely-starred part of the sky as viewed from Earth.

That means there is a whol lot of noise in the background to see such a dim and tiny object moving against it.

a reply to: LSU0408

Well, there is a plan in the works to launch a new satellite telescope into orbit (earth's orbit) in 2018. Supposedly the new one will have much greater capabilities than the Kepler or Hubble. Perhaps that will aid us in actually getting a good shot of the planet. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it turned out to be a brown Dwarf.

Heck, maybe one of the Voyager probes will accidentally discover it at some point, but the chances of that are very slim, I admit.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: LSU0408

Well, there is a plan in the works to launch a new satellite telescope into orbit (earth's orbit) in 2018. Supposedly the new one will have much greater capabilities than the Kepler or Hubble. Perhaps that will aid us in actually getting a good shot of the planet. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it turned out to be a brown Dwarf.

The smallest a brown dwarf could be is thought to be about 13 Jupiter masses. The hypothetical Planet Nine is believed to be maybe 10 Earth masses.

Since Jupiter is more than 300 times the mass of Earth, that means that Planet Nine would be about 1/30 (0.033) of a Jupiter mass. That's a mass of about 40 times too small to be a brown dwarf.

Heck, maybe one of the Voyager probes will accidentally discover it at some point, but the chances of that are very slim, I admit.

Who knows -- the Voyagers might be on the opposite side of the Solar system from Planet Nine, which means they might be even farther from Planet Nine than Earth is.

Anyway, the cameras on the Voyagers no longer operate (they "can" possibly operate, but they had been turned off long ago to save power and computing memory).

I suppose it's within the realm of possibility (but, as you said, slim odds) that one of the Voyagers gets close enough to Planet Nine to be perturbed enough by the Pkanet's gravity to have a noticeable effect on Voyager's trajectory. That might be one one that Voyager might play a part in discovering Planet Nine.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Whatta ya think True, does Nasa seem to be spliting hairs here
as they slowly come clean. I mean isn't basically saying, there most
likely is a planet we've been denying was in our solar system
for decades. Simply an example of either enough incomptence or
to much willful deciept to consider them seriously as a sourse?
Especially concerning anything they say about it now?

I'm just say'n if I applied the same standard of ethics to Nasa
that I do when I use the term friend socially? Also i think it
wise to keep in mind that when someone, some group,
some anything, is TELLING you something. It is beyond doubt
to be something they WANT you to know, think, believe, or all
three. And it's perfectly rational to point out what happens to
truth, when people want.

Seems like a lot of games an semantics and beating around the
bush coming from what should only be an intelligent and
truthful source. The mars anomalies for example. I have no
clue what's going there. But my guess is they get a big kick
out of silly picture pranks (deception). Or they keep our
interest in going to mars on the table this way. (deception)

What I don't believe is that they would release anything that
would cause controversy they didn't want.

What good is information that leads one around by the nose
in a circle. Why pay attention when you end up with nada?

It is out there1

No it isn't!

Oh okay it is but we're not calling it that.

WTF?

a reply to: randyvs

I don't think mainstream astronomer (nor NASA, but they aren't really the only astronomical science authority, not even in this country) ever "denied" the potential existence of a planet beyond Pluto. That has always been a possibility in the eyes of astronomers (and NASA, for that matter) of another planet out there.

Astronomers may have not had any solid evidence of such a planet until now, but that doesn't mean they didn't think it was possible, and there has always been a part of mainstream astronomy that has always been actively searching for another planet.


Heck, it was the search for a 10th planet ("10th" when Pluto was still the 9th) by astronomers that lead to the discovery of Eris in 2006, which for a short time was considered by some to be the 10th Planet. It is the same size as Pluto, with some estimates thinking it may be even slightly larger.

Although that discovery, and the idea that many many more Eris-type and Pluto-type objects existed that resulted in Pluto being reclassified to the new group of planets called "Dwarf Planets", with Eris and other Eris-like objects joining it.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Well thank you, what your response tells me is my interpretation
of information could be skewed just enough by disinformation
to cause some of my conclusions to become rather harsh
indictments lacking good judgement.

I knew that. You may be right.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

I don't think mainstream astronomer (nor NASA, but they aren't really the only astronomical science authority, not even in this country) ever "denied" the potential existence of a planet beyond Pluto. That has always been a possibility in the eyes of astronomers (and NASA, for that matter) of another planet out there.

Astronomers may have not had any solid evidence of such a planet until now, but that doesn't mean they didn't think it was possible, and there has always been a part of mainstream astronomy that has always been actively searching for another planet.

This is something that is grossly misunderstood on ATS. When a scientist says, "We have seen no conclusive evidence for (X)" he means nothing other than that. He is NOT claiming that "(X) does not exist" (or denying the existence of (X) or however else you want to word it). Science is all about the evidence. That's all.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Pathaka
as it has a mass of 1000x mass of Jupiter.

Except it doesn't. Not even 1000x mass of Earth. It would probably be more like Neptune, which has 17x mass of Earth.

My bad, thank you for the correction. In the paper, it clearly states the calculation assumption: m ∼ 10 m⊕.
For whatever reason my brain farted, and I did a conversion from 10xmass of the sun :-D

So, the astronomers Konstantin Batygi and Alessandro Morbidelli are assuming Planet 9 has a mass roughly equivalent of that of 10 earth masses.

a reply to: randyvs

Not really randyvs.

There is a massive difference between saying "We have found solid evidence for the existence of an object, with the mass of a decent sized planet (as opposed to a Pluto scale Dwarf Planet)", and "Niburu, of legend, which will pass through our solar system and destroy it by wobbling everything all to smithereens, according to an arcance combination of some ancient ramblings of a mushroom scarfing priest of long ago, coupled with pseudoscientific blather from the early internet, IS A THING!".

Its not splitting hairs to state that there is a planetary mass which remains unobserved and unmapped in even the smallest detail, within our solar system, but to also categorically state that, no, this is not, and by the very nature of the orbital mechanics which lead to its being confirmed as existing, CANNOT be anything even remotely like Niburu, which STILL has no actual evidence of its existence, to recommend the "theory" to anyone of learning or intellect.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Always a detailed and concise reply. Thank. you
True.