I don't believe in Nemesis but here's proof that it "can" happen

Source: www.astronomynow.com...

Excerpts:

Two planets discovered orbiting their host star at highly inclined angles could impact theories of how multi-planet systems evolve.

The results were reported at the 216th American Astronomical Society meeting in Miami yesterday by Barbara McArthur of The University of Texas at Austin’s McDonald Observatory, who used data from the Hubble Space Telescope and numerous ground-based telescopes to study the orbits of the three known planets around the star Upsilon Andromedae. "The findings mean that future studies of exoplanetary systems will be more complicated," she says. "Astronomers can no longer assume all planets orbit their parent star in a single plane."

Astronomers already knew that three Jupiter-type planets orbit the star, which is similar to our own Sun albeit a little younger and more massive, but the new study enabled detailed analysis of the nature of their orbits, finding that two of the planets' orbits – planet c and d – are inclined by a staggering 30 degrees to each other.

Upsilon Andromedae's binary companion is a red dwarf star much dimmer and less massive than our Sun. “We don’t have any idea what its orbit is,” says Benedict. “It could be very eccentric. Maybe it comes in very close every once in a while. It may take 10,000 years.”

So it is technically possible on a theoretical level if you don't address visibility and gravitational effects that might give it away on approach. This is just my opinion, as I'm not an astronomer.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by pepesilvia]

reply to post by pepesilvia


Sad, you already have several stars and yet no responses. I was curious to see what others had to contribute.

Me too, I like discussion about new or novel topics. This was a pretty recent discovery, May 2010. I did learn something new about astronomy and orbits. Can't ask for much more. Maybe an astrophysicist will stumble on this thread and enlighten me if this is possible within our current solar system, and why or why not.

Do astrophysicists even read ats?

I am surprised the "scientific" clique haven't showed up in this thread. I can believe it is possible. Space is a big thing and in my opinion we only know about 5% of it.

Awesome find!

I'm no astronomy geek in any way ahsape or form, so I find this news rather impressive.

Tho I am some what disappointed that the science community didn't take this into account to begin with.. The universe is 3 dimensional, isn't it? Why not have planets orbiting in any direction. Seems rather odd to think otherwise, IMO, then again, I imagine, that taking things for granted is leaving one self open for discredit.

Great find, to both OP and the science team!

Peace.

reply to post by Cygnis


I am not sure if this is correct. It was my understanding that previously, astronomers thought planets formed from the dust and 'junk' that was surrounding and orbiting a star which naturally followed its creation. Eventually this stuff collided and coalesced to form larger and larger bodies. (This was demonstrated by an astronaut who mixed salt and sugar in a bag full of water in space -- eventually they stuck together as clumps).

Since the planets were formed from this 'star dust' if you will, it was presumed that the originating star's gravity exerted the same effect on the new planets as our sun does on our current planets. The planets should therefore orbit in the same direction of their star and along the same plane (similar to the rings of Saturn which is debris held in rings by Saturn's gravity).

This recent find, and another one in which the a planet is orbiting in the exact opposite of direction of it's star's rotation, put into question some of our beliefs on how planets form and how solar systems operate.

Some theorize that these anomalies may be caused by other bodies exerting conflicting gravitational effects.

Thanks, it's an interesting story, and if you factor in the binary companion, then yes, it does add weight to the possibility of a Nemesis in our own system. Mind you, the researchers have not considered the companion as causing the orbital eccentricities.

This is an interesting discovery. It shows that our previous planetary system knowledge based on one instance does not illustrate the possible systems exist in the universe. Kind of nice to learn that the universe is not a repeated cookie cutter landscape like so many neighborhoods being thrown up in metropolitan areas.

Originally posted by stereologist
This is an interesting discovery. It shows that our previous planetary system knowledge based on one instance does not illustrate the possible systems exist in the universe. Kind of nice to learn that the universe is not a repeated cookie cutter landscape like so many neighborhoods being thrown up in metropolitan areas.

It also shows you that Nibiru is a possibility. It is funny they choose one of the orbits the exact same length as Nibiru.

Great find op This just adds to the fact that we really don't know squat about space and that its very interesting that we can learn about our own solar system by observing distant systems.

I have never been a great fan of Sitchins work, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if there was a Nibiru or a Nemesis that it would not have to collide with Earth to affect it.

reply to post by dragnet53

It also shows you that Nibiru is a possibility. It is funny they choose one of the orbits the exact same length as Nibiru.

It doesn't make Nibiru a possibility. Here we are so very far removed from that system, and yet we can detect the presence of planets. We're not seeing them, but detecting their presence. It would be much easier to detect something if it were in our solar system. Thus it is an impossibility that there is any new planet in our solar system that enters the orbits of the known planets.

It also doesn't make sense when people say you could see Nibiru/Nemesis only from the south pole. If the earth is circular and rotates at a slight tilt, logically you should be able to see anything approaching from "under" earth's orbit around the sun from anywhere south of the equator.

It is theoretically true that a "Nemesis" like planet or brown dwarf can exist within our system.

But the 2012 date means that this "Nemesis" must be traveling pretty damn fast or be pretty damn close meaning that the time-line and theory are pretty much impossible.

Originally posted by dragnet53
It also shows you that Nibiru is a possibility.

If Nibiru were real it should already be showing unanticipated and massive gravitational effects on the positions of the planets. To demonstrate, I plugged in some conservative numbers for Nibiru into an N-body gravity program to see what such an object would do to the major planets of the solar system:

This is with an inclination of a whopping 90 degrees, claimed by some to prevent it from noticeably affecting the planets, a close approach of only about 3 AUs, and a mass less than that of a minimum mass brown dwarf by about 20%. All these factors were to be as conservative as possible for the Nibiru theory, which incidently puts Nibiru at a current distance of about 10 AUs for a close approach in 2012 on its 3600 year orbit. At that point in the simulation above (in which years pass in seconds) Saturn itself (the yellow line) starts to seriously deviate from its normal orbit. Even years before that you can see Uranus taking on a new orbit as shown by the green line "retracing" itself at the bottom of the screen. When I looked at this scenario in a wider view you could see pluto and neptune being pulled into new orbits as well years before the close approach. What this means is that Nibiru does not exist; if it did it should be doing all these things to our solar system right now. The outer planets should not appear to be where they're supposed to be in the sky.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by ngchunter]

I don't understand why people think that matters that can only be proven or unproven with evidence are a matter of "belief."

[edit on 2010/6/7 by Aeons]

reply to post by ngchunter


The model is based on the assumption that the orbit of Nibiru/Nemesis is elliptical. While I agree gravitational effects should be observed by this point if the orbit was elliptical, the original article does state they can't predict the orbit.

For all we know something could be zig-zagging through space. We, as humans, haven't observed it before -- however, we also didn't think a body could rotate off the single elliptical plane, or in a different direction than a star before a few months ago.

It would be a far-fetched idea.

Originally posted by pepesilvia
reply to post by ngchunter

 

The model is based on the assumption that the orbit of Nibiru/Nemesis is elliptical. While I agree gravitational effects should be observed by this point if the orbit was elliptical, the original article does state they can't predict the orbit.

That's in reference to a binary star in another solar system; the chief reason they haven't figured the orbit is probably just not enough time spent observing its motion yet to determine an orbit. If "Nibiru's" orbit is circular, not elliptical, then it's not Nibiru. The term has come to describe a specific theoretical object I simulated above. Could a brown dwarf be lurking at Oort cloud distances in a circular orbit without disturbing the planets? Sure, but that's not the theory of Nibiru.

For all we know something could be zig-zagging through space.

Please explain how a massive orbiting body could be zig-zagging through our solar system, and how this would fit the Nibiru theory.

We, as humans, haven't observed it before -- however, we also didn't think a body could rotate off the single elliptical plane, or in a different direction than a star before a few months ago.

It still follows the laws of orbital mechanics though; such laws preclude "zig-zagging" through a solar system except in extremely exotic theoretical configurations that would definitely not apply to our own solar system and do not resemble any solar system yet observed. We never thought that there was anything in the laws of orbital mechanics that would specifically preclude finding bodies inclined to their elliptical plane or in a retrograde orbit; it may not make sense without considering violent interactions in a solar system's history, but as far the orbit itself, nothing precludes it and it makes physical sense.

It would be a far-fetched idea.

That was the point of my simulation; to put the far-fetched idea of Nibiru to the test. It didn't hold up. We should be seeing the effects of it on the positions of the outer planets.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter


Zig-zagging - in reference to an entirely new orbital shape previously undiscovered. For example make it's orbit is in the shape of an 'S.' Maybe it stops somewhere and completely alters directions who knows?

I said it was far fetched because it has never before been observed and is contrary to everything we as a species know about astronomy and orbits.

However, the universe is a big place, who knows how gravity functions in different places, and what other invisible forces may effect a body of that size. My point was that such a far-fetched idea occurring comes pretty close to impossible. But given our lack of information about most of the universe, lack of understanding of dark matter and dark energy, and what everything is expanding into, it is not quite impossible yet.

They called string theorists crazy at one point too. Information too incomplete too rule out different shaped orbits.

Probability of that occurring in and effecting our particular solar system is such a small fraction that it would be deemed impossible. But other in other galaxies? Who knows.

Originally posted by pepesilvia
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Zig-zagging - in reference to an entirely new orbital shape previously undiscovered. For example make it's orbit is in the shape of an 'S.' Maybe it stops somewhere and completely alters directions who knows?

I said it was far fetched because it has never before been observed and is contrary to everything we as a species know about astronomy and orbits.

There could be invisible elf ninjas floating right above the grass in my lawn too. What you're proposing fundamentally violates physics, and it does so without any evidence supporting it. I understand that you understand it's "far fetched" to say the least, but as I thought the point of the thread was to show how something so "far fetched" can happen I feel it's necessary to point out that your example follows the laws of orbital mechanics, it does not violate them in any way. Every solar system we've looked at follows these laws; even the orbits of planets around stars many, many light years away are predictable once the elements are determined. While strange configurations might exist that cause some very unusual motions, we can say that does not exist in our solar system with the same level of certainty that I can say there are no invisible floating elf ninjas in my yard.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter


As the article states, a planet rotating in the opposite direction of the star or off the elliptical plane was previously thought to be impossible and against the laws of physics as well.

It is more likely to occur than elf-ninjas in your lawn, universe is bigger sample size -- and there are still many things out there we can't explain. Have you seen any ninja stars sticking out of trees or something?

Most of physics is based on the 'laws' we observe in our own solar system. That is why there are anomalies, which our laws of physics can't be explained.

To rule out orbits that are not shaped as an ellipse given the current information would imply that humans know everything about how the universe operates. Far from it.

Remember when orbits were supposed to be perfect circles? Keplar was considered crazy when he told them it goes in an ellipse.

Edit to add anomalies in orbits may not be confined/may not apply to planetary bodies, however does anyone know the shape of orbits on a macro level. solar system to galaxy etc?

My point isn't that its likely or probably, only that our information is too incomplete to rule out its possibility. Anyway we have digressed away from the original topic, and I know too little about physics and astronomy to proceed any further without making assumptions without any proof (and possibly logic)

[edit on 7-6-2010 by pepesilvia]