A Second Earth-like Planet may exist in the distant Kuiper-Belt scientists say

originally posted by: Venkuish1
I have linked the published paper and the claim id that there is an earth like planet between 250-500 AU from the sun.

Yes you repeated the dubious use of the term "earth-like" that the scientists used, so you can't be faulted for repeating their term on the one hand. But on the other hand, you could acknowledge the point that BeyondKnowledge3 made that the use of the term "earth-like" is at least dubious in this case. I tend to agree more with BeyondKnowledge3 than with the scientists. The basis of their claim seems to be gravitational interactions, which relate to mass, so I think it would be more accurate to refer to it as a planet with earth-like mass, since the mass might be earth-like (1.5-3 Earth masses), but the planet won't be.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
It could be difficult to detect a planet in the distant Kuiper-Belt in our solar system that doesn't reflect light and doesn't have any heat signature (being so far away).

"Doesn't reflect light" is not very scientific. Scientists use the term "albedo" to discuss how much light objects reflect.

Enceladus has a very high albedo of .99 meaning it reflects 99% of the light. Earth's moon on the other hand may look bright at night, but its albedo is about 1/8 of Enceladus, about .12 meaning it only reflects 12% of the light.

It's the inverse square law that's the problem, combined with the vast distance of 200AU. The 200 AU means it's 200 times further from the sun than the moon, so one might be tempted to think it's only 1/200 as bright as the moon, but the inverse square law means the 200 has to be squared. So moving the moon to 200 AU would make it only 1/40,000 as bright at a distance of about 240,000 miles, the average distance between earth and moon. But if you put the moon at 200 AU and keep the earth at 1 AU, then the inverse square law goes to work again when the moon's reflected light has to travel all the way from 200AU to 1AU. So even though the moon reflects light, as we know from seeing it every month, we might not be able to see it at 200 AU, well definitely not with our eyes but it may be too dark for a telescope also to see it live. A telescope may have to make a time exposure in exactly the right direction to detect it.

An author of the paper, Patryk Lykawka, explains why current telescopes have not seen the planet, at around 12-14 minutes in this video:

Is an Earth-like Planet Hiding in the Kuiper Belt? With Patryk Lykawka

Lykawka is guessing the possible planet might have an "apparent visual magnitude" of 21, 22, or 23, something like that. One problem with current telescopes finding it is he can't pinpoint an exact location to look. So searching using a powerful telescope with a wide field of view might help. The Vera Rubin Observatory in Chile is under construction and is the kind of telescope that might help to find such an object, if it exists. It has a wide field of view, which helps when you don't know exactly where to look. Vera Rubin Observatory will probably be finished this year and will start making observations next year in 2025. So maybe that observatory will detect the proposed planet, or some other interesting trans-Neptunian objects.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Venkuish1
I have linked the published paper and the claim id that there is an earth like planet between 250-500 AU from the sun.

Yes you repeated the dubious use of the term "earth-like" that the scientists used, so you can't be faulted for repeating their term on the one hand. But on the other hand, you could acknowledge the point that BeyondKnowledge3 made that the use of the term "earth-like" is at least dubious in this case. I tend to agree more with BeyondKnowledge3 than with the scientists. The basis of their claim seems to be gravitational interactions, which relate to mass, so I think it would be more accurate to refer to it as a planet with earth-like mass, since the mass might be earth-like (1.5-3 Earth masses), but the planet won't be.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
It could be difficult to detect a planet in the distant Kuiper-Belt in our solar system that doesn't reflect light and doesn't have any heat signature (being so far away).

"Doesn't reflect light" is not very scientific. Scientists use the term "albedo" to discuss how much light objects reflect.

Enceladus has a very high albedo of .99 meaning it reflects 99% of the light. Earth's moon on the other hand may look bright at night, but its albedo is about 1/8 of Enceladus, about .12 meaning it only reflects 12% of the light.

It's the inverse square law that's the problem, combined with the vast distance of 200AU. The 200 AU means it's 200 times further from the sun than the moon, so one might be tempted to think it's only 1/200 as bright as the moon, but the inverse square law means the 200 has to be squared. So moving the moon to 200 AU would make it only 1/40,000 as bright at a distance of about 240,000 miles, the average distance between earth and moon. But if you put the moon at 200 AU and keep the earth at 1 AU, then the inverse square law goes to work again when the moon's reflected light has to travel all the way from 200AU to 1AU. So even though the moon reflects light, as we know from seeing it every month, we might not be able to see it at 200 AU, well definitely not with our eyes but it may be too dark for a telescope also to see it live. A telescope may have to make a time exposure in exactly the right direction to detect it.

An author of the paper, Patryk Lykawka, explains why current telescopes have not seen the planet, at around 12-14 minutes in this video:

Is an Earth-like Planet Hiding in the Kuiper Belt? With Patryk Lykawka

Lykawka is guessing the possible planet might have an "apparent visual magnitude" of 21, 22, or 23, something like that. One problem with current telescopes finding it is he can't pinpoint an exact location to look. So searching using a powerful telescope with a wide field of view might help. The Vera Rubin Observatory in Chile is under construction and is the kind of telescope that might help to find such an object, if it exists. It has a wide field of view, which helps when you don't know exactly where to look. Vera Rubin Observatory will probably be finished this year and will start making observations next year in 2025. So maybe that observatory will detect the proposed planet, or some other interesting trans-Neptunian objects.

The paper was referring to earth-like planet in terms of its mass and it's very clear from what they have said.

Not reflecting light is a perfectly valid explanation and I don't see anything anti-scientific about using the term.

I was responding to another poster who said we can see with our telescopes (directly) exoplanets and it's suspicious that we can't see this one in our solar system. Bur we can't see directly exoplanets the way we see galaxies and stars.

www.freethink.com...

Why can’t our current telescopes see exoplanets? While the Hubble and James Webb space telescopes can image distant galaxies and far-off stars, they can’t see exoplanets.

Even though exoplanets can be far closer — the nearest system to Earth, Proxima Centauri, has at least three exoplanets — they are also far smaller. Even if we used the highest resolution camera, the biggest telescope, and the longest exposure, we wouldn’t get a clear image, because our telescopes aren’t large enough to gather enough light to make out even the outline of an exoplanet.

So, how big of a telescope would you need? Well, to image an exoplanet 100 light-years away with clarity, you would need to scale up the Hubble so that its primary mirror has a diameter 20 times the size of the Earth!

I don't have any issue with you agreeing with the other poster and not with the scientists if you regard yourself an expert in the field.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed



Fascinating.

I've got guests here just now so cannot really comment this evening.

But spectacular nonetheless.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Not reflecting light is a perfectly valid explanation and I don't see anything anti-scientific about using the term.

The problem with "not reflecting light" is, that we have never discovered a natural object that doesn't reflect light except for black holes, and the author obviously thinks the potential planet is rocky and not a black hole, so it will reflect light. The fact the author of the paper says he expects the apparent magnitude to be somewhere around 21-23 means that it must be reflecting sunlight to create that light source, because rocky objects in the solar system are not expected to be self-luminous.

How could it have an apparent magnitude of 21-23 as the author of the paper expects, if it's not reflecting light?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Looks like thats correct but I don't think they have directly imaged worlds around stars in other galaxies NoCorruptionAllowed.

They have implied they exist using a combination of the methods i mentioned.

But our ability to detect planets in other galaxies is currently limited to those indirect methods, like observing the gravitational effects they have on their parent stars.

Technology is advancing just about every month where the likes of the field of astronomy is concerned.

Mainly down to the likes of the James Webb Space Telescope and other ground-based arrays.

At some point in the not-too-distant future, it may be possible to directly image the planets around other stars in distant galaxies, but i don't think we are anywhere close to doing so just yet.

We live in very interesting times, put it that way.

It's very difficult to detect exoplanets directly that are located in other galaxies due to the usual problems we face like mass and size of the planet and the distant from the observer (us).

The vast majority of these exoplanets have been detected indirectly and are still detected indirectly. The few that have been allegedly seen directly are blurred images of usually very large objects like the one the other poster linked earlier but if you take a look at the information currently there are disputes about whether these 'exoplanets' are really exoplanets.


Example: The smallest planet allegedly detected directly has 7 times the mass of earth and it's called Proxima Centauri C but it is disputed if it's an exoplanet. Similarly there are disputes about a range of other exoplanets discovered directly (their are only a few).

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Not reflecting light is a perfectly valid explanation and I don't see anything anti-scientific about using the term.

The problem with "not reflecting light" is, that we have never discovered a natural object that doesn't reflect light except for black holes, and the author obviously thinks the potential planet is rocky and not a black hole, so it will reflect light. The fact the author of the paper says he expects the apparent magnitude to be somewhere around 21-23 means that it must be reflecting sunlight to create that light source, because rocky objects in the solar system are not expected to be self-luminous.

How could it have an apparent magnitude of 21-23 as the author of the paper expects, if it's not reflecting light?

It should be clear if you read the paper that earth-like planet refers to the mass of the planet (I said it earlier). It should also be clear that all objects reflect light but it's how much light they reflect. You can use the terms albedo and apparent magnitude (one describing how much light is reflected and the other how bright to us the planet appears to be).

A planet which is so far away and so small in size will be almost impossible to detect. You are right about the inverse square low and the effect it has on the brightness of the planet. The apparent magnitude of this one is 21-23 which means it is quite faint.

If you combine the facts like great distance from the observer, small mass and size, very low albedo and apparent magnitude of what is proposed then it makes it very difficult to be detected and it answers the why it hasn't been detected if it exists.

For the same reason why earth like planets as well as the vast majority of exoplanets in other galaxies cannot be directly detected. The other poster linked a page with the first ever exoplanets to have been detected (which is fascinating) but not the way exoplanets are detected. If you have a further look at the current information there is a small number of directly detected exoplanets but there are many disputes whether these are really exoplanets.

The smallest one that has been allegedly detected directly is Proxima Centuri C with a massive of 7 earth masses but:

en.wikipedia.org...

In June 2020, the planet's existence was initially confirmed using Hubble astrometry data from c. 1995, allowing its inclination and true mass to be determined.[3][7] Also in June 2020, a possible directly imaged counterpart of Proxima c was detected in the infrared with SPHERE, but the authors admit that they "did not obtain a clear detection".[8] If their candidate source is in fact Proxima Centauri c, it is too bright for a planet of its mass and age, implying that the planet may have a ring system with a radius of around 5 RJ.[8]

However, a 2022 study questioned the planetary nature of the observed radial velocity signal corresponding to Proxima c, attributing it to systematic effects.[4] If this is the case, it is unclear why astrometric observations detected what appeared to be a similar planetary signature.

originally posted by: Scratchpost
We can NOT even get to are Moon!

Not now, Hecklefish, not now ..

a reply to: Venkuish1

Perhaps this is the star system of the supposed brown dwarf some call "Nemesis". I am not big at all into that theory, but this data means that someone's theory has some legs with data to support the plausibility that it is out there. Doom porn is so easy for some people to put out on this. Data is our friend, if we just go with it and see where it leads.

originally posted by: Steinermath333

originally posted by: Phatal
Then why have we not seen it? We know of planets in galaxies hundreds of light years away and havent seen a planet in our own solar system? Not really buying it.

This is why I have never been able to take the claims of Nibiru/planet X seriously.

Little doubt that something has been out there pulling on Neptune. Seeing a needle in a haystack is hard to do. If it is Earth like in size, then it would be mighty hard to pinpoint IMO.

a reply to: AnotherJustoneman

I could swear you have posted 11₁₆ times

Cheers

originally posted by: AnotherJustoneman

originally posted by: Steinermath333

originally posted by: Phatal
Then why have we not seen it? We know of planets in galaxies hundreds of light years away and havent seen a planet in our own solar system? Not really buying it.

This is why I have never been able to take the claims of Nibiru/planet X seriously.

Little doubt that something has been out there pulling on Neptune. Seeing a needle in a haystack is hard to do. If it is Earth like in size, then it would be mighty hard to pinpoint IMO.

You are right and we can't see exoplanets with our telescopes due to the distance from earth and their size and mass. There is a list of a few exoplanets that have been (allegedly) discovered directly by observation as another poster mentioned but they are few and it is disputed if they are really exoplanets. We discover exoplanets indirectly and even on this occasion the distance of 250-500 AU from us where this planet is supposedly located and with a mass of 1.5-3 earth masses makes it extremely difficult for detection (if it exists).

originally posted by: Venkuish1
If you combine the facts like great distance from the observer, small mass and size, very low albedo and apparent magnitude of what is proposed then it makes it very difficult to be detected and it answers the why it hasn't been detected if it exists.

That was my main point. I'm glad to see you're describing it more accurately now, instead of your former description you suggested "not reflecting light". Maybe the Vera Rubin observatory will be able to detect it, provided it exists, but it's not finished yet. It has to reflect light to be observed by that observatory.

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: AnotherJustoneman

I could swear you have posted 11₁₆ times

Cheers

I am Justoneman revived account. Sent an email to ATS and see if I can get my old one back from last year.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: Phatal
Then why have we not seen it? We know of planets in galaxies hundreds of light years away and havent seen a planet in our own solar system? Not really buying it.

I need to comment on the 6 stars you got until now. You may get more later on but a quick search on the internet without the need of having exceptional wisdom and knowledge will reveal the following (although in my posts I said we cannot directly see exoplanets even with the most powerful telescopes we have)

www.freethink.com...

Why can’t our current telescopes see exoplanets? While the Hubble and James Webb space telescopes can image distant galaxies and far-off stars, they can’t see exoplanets.

Even though exoplanets can be far closer — the nearest system to Earth, Proxima Centauri, has at least three exoplanets — they are also far smaller. Even if we used the highest resolution camera, the biggest telescope, and the longest exposure, we wouldn’t get a clear image, because our telescopes aren’t large enough to gather enough light to make out even the outline of an exoplanet.

You’re not seeing the point that i am making. Mars was discovered in 1610. Neptune discovered in 1846. Pluto discovered in 1930…. Yet there is still one out there just beyond Neptune and much closer than pluto that has yet to be discovered with all our advances in some 400 years of cataloging the planets???(by traditional/modern standards.. “ancient” ways not included [not discounting the validity of them])

originally posted by: Phatal
You’re not seeing the point that i am making. Mars was discovered in 1610. Neptune discovered in 1846. Pluto discovered in 1930…. Yet there is still one out there just beyond Neptune and much closer than pluto that has yet to be discovered with all our advances in some 400 years of cataloging the planets???(by traditional/modern standards.. “ancient” ways not included [not discounting the validity of them])

I see your misunderstanding, you think it's closer than Pluto. It's not.

Pluto's orbit ranges from 30 to 49 astronomical units (AU), while the hypothesized undiscovered Earth-like mass planet orbit is expected to range much further away, like 150 to 250 astronomical units. If it's ~250 AU away from the sun now, that's more than 5 times further from the sun than Pluto will ever be. The inverse square law says light intensity is only 1/25 as great when the distance is 5 times larger, so the alleged planet would get very little light at ~250 AU if that's where it is now in its orbit.

originally posted by: AnotherJustoneman
I am Justoneman revived account. Sent an email to ATS and see if I can get my old one back from last year.

See This thread. I read that sending a PM to either DontTreadOnMe or Djarums to get your account restored is the way to go, and that worked for me.

originally posted by: Phatal

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: Phatal
Then why have we not seen it? We know of planets in galaxies hundreds of light years away and havent seen a planet in our own solar system? Not really buying it.

I need to comment on the 6 stars you got until now. You may get more later on but a quick search on the internet without the need of having exceptional wisdom and knowledge will reveal the following (although in my posts I said we cannot directly see exoplanets even with the most powerful telescopes we have)

www.freethink.com...

Why can’t our current telescopes see exoplanets? While the Hubble and James Webb space telescopes can image distant galaxies and far-off stars, they can’t see exoplanets.

Even though exoplanets can be far closer — the nearest system to Earth, Proxima Centauri, has at least three exoplanets — they are also far smaller. Even if we used the highest resolution camera, the biggest telescope, and the longest exposure, we wouldn’t get a clear image, because our telescopes aren’t large enough to gather enough light to make out even the outline of an exoplanet.

You’re not seeing the point that i am making. Mars was discovered in 1610. Neptune discovered in 1846. Pluto discovered in 1930…. Yet there is still one out there just beyond Neptune and much closer than pluto that has yet to be discovered with all our advances in some 400 years of cataloging the planets???(by traditional/modern standards.. “ancient” ways not included [not discounting the validity of them])

You have confused thinks a little or let's say a lot. The planet (if it exists) is much further away from Pluto which is located at 39AU from the Sun (average distance). This one is located between 250-500AU from the Sun and given its size/mass and distance from us it would extremely difficult to detect.

See part of the Abstract from the paper I linked in my OP

We determined that an Earth-like planet (m ∼ 1.5–3 M⊕) located on a distant (semimajor axis a ∼ 250–500 au, perihelion q ∼ 200 au) and inclined (i ∼ 30°) orbit can explain three fundamental properties of the distant Kuiper Belt: a prominent population of TNOs with orbits beyond Neptune's gravitational influence (i.e., detached objects with q > 40 au), a significant population of high-i objects (i > 45°), and the existence of some extreme objects with peculiar orbits (e.g., Sedna)

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Phatal
You’re not seeing the point that i am making. Mars was discovered in 1610. Neptune discovered in 1846. Pluto discovered in 1930…. Yet there is still one out there just beyond Neptune and much closer than pluto that has yet to be discovered with all our advances in some 400 years of cataloging the planets???(by traditional/modern standards.. “ancient” ways not included [not discounting the validity of them])

I see your misunderstanding, you think it's closer than Pluto. It's not.

Pluto's orbit ranges from 30 to 49 astronomical units (AU), while the hypothesized undiscovered Earth-like mass planet orbit is expected to range much further away, like 150 to 250 astronomical units. If it's ~250 AU away from the sun now, that's more than 5 times further from the sun than Pluto will ever be. The inverse square law says light intensity is only 1/25 as great when the distance is 5 times larger, so the alleged planet would get very little light at ~250 AU if that's where it is now in its orbit.

originally posted by: AnotherJustoneman
I am Justoneman revived account. Sent an email to ATS and see if I can get my old one back from last year.

See This thread. I read that sending a PM to either DontTreadOnMe or Djarums to get your account restored is the way to go, and that worked for me.

Imagine the distance is 10 times larger as the planet (if it exists) could be located as far as 500AU from the Sun. Then its brightness will be 1/100 of what we would have expected if this planet was located near Pluto.

It's almost impossible to make direct observations/discoveries of small mass/size planets that are located so far away or exoplanets and that's why we don't detect exoplanets directly but indirectly. For the few exoplanets that have been detected directly (allegedly) there is a lot of dispute if these are really exoplanets and it's understandable.

originally posted by: AnotherJustoneman

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: AnotherJustoneman

I could swear you have posted 11₁₆ times

Cheers

I am Justoneman revived account. Sent an email to ATS and see if I can get my old one back from last year.

Hi JOM. Good to see you posting again.

Cheers

If this is actually out there it only goes to show the absolute incompetence of every single space agency on our planet. Secondly, if it is earth like and in the kuiper belt, it should theoretically be barren and uninteresting.

Nibiru hype 3.0…. How convenient with the newest Ufo/Uap “disclosure” events

originally posted by: Phatal
If this is actually out there it only goes to show the absolute incompetence of every single space agency on our planet. Secondly, if it is earth like and in the kuiper belt, it should theoretically be barren and uninteresting.

Nibiru hype 3.0…. How convenient with the newest Ufo/Uap “disclosure” events

Not really because we can't see planets that are too far away and too small in mass and size. For example almost all exoplanets have been detected indirectly and we were not able to detect any of them 40 years ago. It's not a matter of incompetence as you said.

This isn't a conspiracy theory but a valid hypothesis based on the three fundamental properties of the distant Kuiper Belt. In my OP you can have a look at the paper and see what has motivated the scientists to theorize the possibility of a planet in the range 250-500 AU from the Sun.