>>Ever since we kicked Pluto out of the planet club in 2006, the solar system has been known to house eight planets. But in the last few years there’s been talk of that tally rising back up to nine, because evidence suggests there’s a gigantic rocky world lurking on the fringes. The astronomers who originally proposed the Planet Nine hypothesis have now published two more papers analyzing the case, highlighting a few new clues.<<

>>The second study revised the likely properties of a Planet Nine, based on thousands of new computer models of how the distant solar system evolved. Originally, the astronomers had said the evidence pointed to a rocky planet that was 10 times more massive than Earth, and may be orbiting at a distance of 600 Astronomical Units (AU), where 1 AU is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun.

But the new study suggests that if it’s there, the mysterious planet may be smaller and closer than previously thought. The researchers are now saying Planet Nine could be “only” five times bigger than Earth, and orbits about 400 AU from the Sun. Interestingly, recent observations of other planetary systems show that it’s actually weirder if our solar system doesn’t have one of these so-called Super-Earths.<<

https://newatlas.com/planet-nine-new-models/58674/

PermeateFree said:

>>Ever since we kicked Pluto out of the planet club in 2006, the solar system has been known to house eight planets. But in the last few years there’s been talk of that tally rising back up to nine, because evidence suggests there’s a gigantic rocky world lurking on the fringes. The astronomers who originally proposed the Planet Nine hypothesis have now published two more papers analyzing the case, highlighting a few new clues.<<

>>The second study revised the likely properties of a Planet Nine, based on thousands of new computer models of how the distant solar system evolved. Originally, the astronomers had said the evidence pointed to a rocky planet that was 10 times more massive than Earth, and may be orbiting at a distance of 600 Astronomical Units (AU), where 1 AU is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun.

But the new study suggests that if it’s there, the mysterious planet may be smaller and closer than previously thought. The researchers are now saying Planet Nine could be “only” five times bigger than Earth, and orbits about 400 AU from the Sun. Interestingly, recent observations of other planetary systems show that it’s actually weirder if our solar system doesn’t have one of these so-called Super-Earths.<<

https://newatlas.com/planet-nine-new-models/58674/

Interesting if it pans out, must be very dim to not be detected so far

Thanks for the update.

It’s an interesting case: basically, the simplest explanation is an additional planet but other explanations may arise. I’ll keep the champagne on ice.

BTW that image shows a planet about 2.5 times earth’s diameter, so about 16 times its volume.

dv said:

Thanks for the update.

It’s an interesting case: basically, the simplest explanation is an additional planet but other explanations may arise. I’ll keep the champagne on ice.

BTW that image shows a planet about 2.5 times earth’s diameter, so about 16 times its volume.

Don’t think volume was mentioned, only that it would be more ‘massive’ or ‘bigger’.

Troons, but this implies a low density: perhaps they anticipate that it would still be an ice giant.

dv said:

Troons, but this implies a low density: perhaps they anticipate that it would still be an ice giant.

Would it? Why not just being bigger, volume or weight excluded.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Troons, but this implies a low density: perhaps they anticipate that it would still be an ice giant.

Would it? Why not just being bigger, volume or weight excluded.

If they are showing it with a volume 16 times Earth and its mass is 5 times Earth, then its density is about 31% that of Earth.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Troons, but this implies a low density: perhaps they anticipate that it would still be an ice giant.

Would it? Why not just being bigger, volume or weight excluded.

If they are showing it with a volume 16 times Earth and its mass is 5 times Earth, then its density is about 31% that of Earth.

You do not have to use volume or weight the way you suggest. As an example an orange is bigger than a grape and most people would appreciate the difference and not consider their weight or volume difference, but of course if you are that way inclined you may. But it does not have to be the only way to look at the situation.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Troons, but this implies a low density: perhaps they anticipate that it would still be an ice giant.

Would it? Why not just being bigger, volume or weight excluded.

If they are showing it with a volume 16 times Earth and its mass is 5 times Earth, then its density is about 31% that of Earth.

Pink ice. We need a pink planet in this system.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Thanks for the update.

It’s an interesting case: basically, the simplest explanation is an additional planet but other explanations may arise. I’ll keep the champagne on ice.

BTW that image shows a planet about 2.5 times earth’s diameter, so about 16 times its volume.

Don’t think volume was mentioned, only that it would be more ‘massive’ or ‘bigger’.

I’m not sure what your objection is so I can but reiterate:

The image that you’ve shown here shows Planet 9 with a volume 16 times that of Earth. The text says its mass is 5 times that of Earth. This would imply a density 31% of Earth’s. That would be similar to that of Neptune, an ice giant.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Thanks for the update.

It’s an interesting case: basically, the simplest explanation is an additional planet but other explanations may arise. I’ll keep the champagne on ice.

BTW that image shows a planet about 2.5 times earth’s diameter, so about 16 times its volume.

Don’t think volume was mentioned, only that it would be more ‘massive’ or ‘bigger’.

I’m not sure what your objection is so I can but reiterate:

The image that you’ve shown here shows Planet 9 with a volume 16 times that of Earth. The text says its mass is 5 times that of Earth. This would imply a density 31% of Earth’s. That would be similar to that of Neptune, an ice giant.

How would a rocky planet get that far out, flung out and then recaptured perhaps

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Thanks for the update.

It’s an interesting case: basically, the simplest explanation is an additional planet but other explanations may arise. I’ll keep the champagne on ice.

BTW that image shows a planet about 2.5 times earth’s diameter, so about 16 times its volume.

Don’t think volume was mentioned, only that it would be more ‘massive’ or ‘bigger’.

I’m not sure what your objection is so I can but reiterate:

The image that you’ve shown here shows Planet 9 with a volume 16 times that of Earth. The text says its mass is 5 times that of Earth. This would imply a density 31% of Earth’s. That would be similar to that of Neptune, an ice giant.

The article makes it quite clear that Planet 9 is very much an unknown being and may not even exist at all. Yet you insist in giving it factual properties from no more than guesswork. Your contribution does not add anything to the appreciation of the proposition and appears very two-dimensional.

That’s bullshit.

Can’t be anything that big this side of the Oort cloud because we would have already seen it.

And no, pluto-killer-Brown can’t claim that it hasn’t been seen because it’s blacker tgan a black cat on a moonless night. The larger the body the higher the albedo. He’s a certifiable idiot.

mollwollfumble said:

That’s bullshit.

Can’t be anything that big this side of the Oort cloud because we would have already seen it.

And no, pluto-killer-Brown can’t claim that it hasn’t been seen because it’s blacker tgan a black cat on a moonless night. The larger the body the higher the albedo. He’s a certifiable idiot.

Does that mean I shall never be surprised in what happens in deep space again?

mollwollfumble said:

That’s bullshit.

Can’t be anything that big this side of the Oort cloud because we would have already seen it.

And no, pluto-killer-Brown can’t claim that it hasn’t been seen because it’s blacker tgan a black cat on a moonless night. The larger the body the higher the albedo. He’s a certifiable idiot.

Cloaking shield

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

That’s bullshit.

Can’t be anything that big this side of the Oort cloud because we would have already seen it.

And no, pluto-killer-Brown can’t claim that it hasn’t been seen because it’s blacker tgan a black cat on a moonless night. The larger the body the higher the albedo. He’s a certifiable idiot.

Does that mean I shall never be surprised in what happens in deep space again?

What happens in deep space stays in deep space

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

That’s bullshit.

Can’t be anything that big this side of the Oort cloud because we would have already seen it.

And no, pluto-killer-Brown can’t claim that it hasn’t been seen because it’s blacker tgan a black cat on a moonless night. The larger the body the higher the albedo. He’s a certifiable idiot.

Does that mean I shall never be surprised in what happens in deep space again?

What happens in deep space stays in deep space

Unless you’re BC and post it on science forums incessantly

Divine Angel said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Does that mean I shall never be surprised in what happens in deep space again?

What happens in deep space stays in deep space

Unless you’re BC and post it on science forums incessantly

Or until the asteroid arrives.

mollwollfumble said:

That’s bullshit.

Can’t be anything that big this side of the Oort cloud because we would have already seen it.

And no, pluto-killer-Brown can’t claim that it hasn’t been seen because it’s blacker tgan a black cat on a moonless night. The larger the body the higher the albedo. He’s a certifiable idiot.

I think it is a bit strong to be calling Brown an idiot. He’s a well respected astronomer and you disagree with you on a few points.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Don’t think volume was mentioned, only that it would be more ‘massive’ or ‘bigger’.

I’m not sure what your objection is so I can but reiterate:

The image that you’ve shown here shows Planet 9 with a volume 16 times that of Earth. The text says its mass is 5 times that of Earth. This would imply a density 31% of Earth’s. That would be similar to that of Neptune, an ice giant.

Yet you insist in giving it factual properties from no more than guesswork.

Dude…

I’m using the mass and size given in the material you provided. I’m not making any guesses at all.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

I’m not sure what your objection is so I can but reiterate:

The image that you’ve shown here shows Planet 9 with a volume 16 times that of Earth. The text says its mass is 5 times that of Earth. This would imply a density 31% of Earth’s. That would be similar to that of Neptune, an ice giant.

Yet you insist in giving it factual properties from no more than guesswork.

Dude…

I’m using the mass and size given in the material you provided. I’m not making any guesses at all.

dv you have a fixated and narrow view on this matter, which can be very irritating. The guesswork was not me or you, but clearly enunciated in the article. You started this stupid assessment based on hyperbole and I suggest you get over it.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Yet you insist in giving it factual properties from no more than guesswork.

Dude…

I’m using the mass and size given in the material you provided. I’m not making any guesses at all.

dv you have a fixated and narrow view on this matter, which can be very irritating. The guesswork was not me or you, but clearly enunciated in the article. You started this stupid assessment based on hyperbole and I suggest you get over it.

I think this sort of topic is one of DVs strong points. Give it up before you make a fool of yourself. really. but i know you wont.

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Dude…

I’m using the mass and size given in the material you provided. I’m not making any guesses at all.

dv you have a fixated and narrow view on this matter, which can be very irritating. The guesswork was not me or you, but clearly enunciated in the article. You started this stupid assessment based on hyperbole and I suggest you get over it.

I think this sort of topic is one of DVs strong points. Give it up before you make a fool of yourself. really. but i know you wont.

LOL. I thought dv’s strong points was trivia and politics, of which he uses similarly here.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

dv you have a fixated and narrow view on this matter, which can be very irritating. The guesswork was not me or you, but clearly enunciated in the article. You started this stupid assessment based on hyperbole and I suggest you get over it.

I think this sort of topic is one of DVs strong points. Give it up before you make a fool of yourself. really. but i know you wont.

LOL. I thought dv’s strong points was trivia and politics, of which he uses similarly here.

he is also good at those topics. but being a geophysicist he is also good a planetary mass, density etc type of stuff.

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

I think this sort of topic is one of DVs strong points. Give it up before you make a fool of yourself. really. but i know you wont.

LOL. I thought dv’s strong points was trivia and politics, of which he uses similarly here.

he is also good at those topics. but being a geophysicist he is also good a planetary mass, density etc type of stuff.

To make any use from what you claim, you need facts. In this instance there are none except wild guesswork that is even admitted in the article.

maybe you need to study up on how density is measured.

Mind you I don’t think I would need my degree to solve the following equations:

Vp = 4/3 Rp^3

Ve = 4/3 Re^3

Rp = 5/2 Re

Mp = 5 Me

Dp = Mp/Vp

De = Me/Ve

Dp = X De

Find X.

I don’t want to keep butting heads with you, PF, but I can’t meet you half way on this one. It’s just … maths. I wasn’t rebutting you when I posted it, just making an observation: why you took exception to it, I can’t imagine.

dv said:

Mind you I don’t think I would need my degree to solve the following equations:

Vp = 4/3 Rp^3

Ve = 4/3 Re^3

Rp = 5/2 Re

Mp = 5 Me

Dp = Mp/Vp

De = Me/Ve

Dp = X De

Find X.

I don’t want to keep butting heads with you, PF, but I can’t meet you half way on this one. It’s just … maths. I wasn’t rebutting you when I posted it, just making an observation: why you took exception to it, I can’t imagine.

LOL, you’re so naive DV.

;-)

dv said:

Mind you I don’t think I would need my degree to solve the following equations:

Vp = 4/3 Rp^3

Ve = 4/3 Re^3

Rp = 5/2 Re

Mp = 5 Me

Dp = Mp/Vp

De = Me/Ve

Dp = X De

Find X.

I don’t want to keep butting heads with you, PF, but I can’t meet you half way on this one. It’s just … maths. I wasn’t rebutting you when I posted it, just making an observation: why you took exception to it, I can’t imagine.

I am truly amazed that you take your calculations so seriously. Maths is an exact science, yet you apply it to things that you, nor anyone else has anywhere near factual information. That article was merely highlighting some additional discoveries, which in themselves are inconclusive. Yet you take it all seriously and the wild estimates as fact. It has nothing to do with the accuracy of your mathematics, but the fact you are taking them so seriously as if your representation depended upon them. Your attitude is just so silly.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

Mind you I don’t think I would need my degree to solve the following equations:

Vp = 4/3 Rp^3

Ve = 4/3 Re^3

Rp = 5/2 Re

Mp = 5 Me

Dp = Mp/Vp

De = Me/Ve

Dp = X De

Find X.

I don’t want to keep butting heads with you, PF, but I can’t meet you half way on this one. It’s just … maths. I wasn’t rebutting you when I posted it, just making an observation: why you took exception to it, I can’t imagine.

LOL, you’re so naive DV.

;-)

You rarely understand the situation Boris, so why should I be concerned with your opinion now, when it is always in support of certain people here no matter what they say.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

Mind you I don’t think I would need my degree to solve the following equations:

Vp = 4/3 Rp^3

Ve = 4/3 Re^3

Rp = 5/2 Re

Mp = 5 Me

Dp = Mp/Vp

De = Me/Ve

Dp = X De

Find X.

I don’t want to keep butting heads with you, PF, but I can’t meet you half way on this one. It’s just … maths. I wasn’t rebutting you when I posted it, just making an observation: why you took exception to it, I can’t imagine.

LOL, you’re so naive DV.

;-)

You rarely understand the situation Boris, so why should I be concerned with your opinion now, when it is always in support of certain people here no matter what they say.

Now, i’m really confused. For a moment.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

Mind you I don’t think I would need my degree to solve the following equations:

Vp = 4/3 Rp^3

Ve = 4/3 Re^3

Rp = 5/2 Re

Mp = 5 Me

Dp = Mp/Vp

De = Me/Ve

Dp = X De

Find X.

I don’t want to keep butting heads with you, PF, but I can’t meet you half way on this one. It’s just … maths. I wasn’t rebutting you when I posted it, just making an observation: why you took exception to it, I can’t imagine.

LOL, you’re so naive DV.

;-)

You rarely understand the situation Boris, so why should I be concerned with your opinion now, when it is always in support of certain people here no matter what they say.

LOL. Yeah right. Fucking idiot.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

LOL, you’re so naive DV.

;-)

You rarely understand the situation Boris, so why should I be concerned with your opinion now, when it is always in support of certain people here no matter what they say.

Now, i’m really confused. For a moment.

It just means he supports his mates no matter what. All very courageous in certain situations, but plain stupidity in others.

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

LOL, you’re so naive DV.

;-)

You rarely understand the situation Boris, so why should I be concerned with your opinion now, when it is always in support of certain people here no matter what they say.

LOL. Yeah right. Fucking idiot.

Your low life background is beginning to shine through Boris. :)

dv said:

Thanks for the update.

It’s an interesting case: basically, the simplest explanation is an additional planet but other explanations may arise. I’ll keep the champagne on ice.

BTW that image shows a planet about 2.5 times earth’s diameter, so about 16 times its volume.

I mean PF could have just said, “You’re welcome, and thanks for the analysis”. That would have been a conventional response.

Further to mollwolf’s point:

The article in the original post suggests an object 5 times the Earth’s mass, at 400 AU.
If it really is a smallish ice giant such as Neptune, as the picture above might indicate, then it might have an albedo of 0.4 or so. Such an object would have an apparent magnitude of about 20.5.

Even if we take the dimmest view, no pun intended, and assume this is a compact rocky planet with an Earth-like density that for some reason was as dark as Ultima Thule, then we’d have an apparent magnitude of -23.1.

Dimmer objects than this have been discovered. Ultima Thule itself, for instance, has an apparent magnitude of 26.8. (The higher the magnitude, the lower the brightness, for arcane historical reasons.)

On the other hand, such objects are still being found, and keep in mind that an object at 400 AU with a moderate eccentricity orbit will a) show low parallax and b) be moving verrrry slowly in the sky, like one degree per 20 years.

Still, yeah, you’d expect that this object would be found soon if there were a concerted effort.

—-

dv said:

dv said:

Thanks for the update.

It’s an interesting case: basically, the simplest explanation is an additional planet but other explanations may arise. I’ll keep the champagne on ice.

BTW that image shows a planet about 2.5 times earth’s diameter, so about 16 times its volume.

I mean PF could have just said, “You’re welcome, and thanks for the analysis”. That would have been a conventional response.

—-

If your analysis was pertinent and anywhere realistic, I might have done so. But as your analysis has been made from information you do not have (nor anyone else for that matter), it was rubbish, plain and simple. And kindly stop trying to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear, because you have nothing better.

Your entire analysis is based on the relative sizes of Plant 9 and the Earth gained from an artists impression, which MIGHT be 5 times BIGGER than the Earth. It does NOT say volume or anything else, just bigger! This might well mean a diameter 5 times the size of Earth, which is represented in the illustration. It might refer to the volume being 5 times larger, or something else altogether. We simply don’t know on the information given! Therefore your analysis means absolutely fuck all!

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

dv said:

Thanks for the update.

It’s an interesting case: basically, the simplest explanation is an additional planet but other explanations may arise. I’ll keep the champagne on ice.

BTW that image shows a planet about 2.5 times earth’s diameter, so about 16 times its volume.

I mean PF could have just said, “You’re welcome, and thanks for the analysis”. That would have been a conventional response.

—-

If your analysis was pertinent and anywhere realistic, I might have done so. But as your analysis has been made from information you do not have (nor anyone else for that matter), it was rubbish, plain and simple. And kindly stop trying to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear, because you have nothing better.

Your entire analysis is based on the relative sizes of Plant 9 and the Earth gained from an artists impression, which MIGHT be 5 times BIGGER than the Earth. It does NOT say volume or anything else, just bigger! This might well mean a diameter 5 times the size of Earth, which is represented in the illustration. It might refer to the volume being 5 times larger, or something else altogether. We simply don’t know on the information given! Therefore your analysis means absolutely fuck all!

>>But of course, just because that clustering is happening, doesn’t necessarily mean a new planet is to blame. Other studies have found that the same result could be reached if known distant objects are jostling each other like “gravitational bumper cars,” or if there’s a large disc of rock and ice out there instead.

“Though this analysis does not say anything directly about whether Planet Nine is there, it does indicate that the hypothesis rests upon a solid foundation,” says Brown.<<

>>But the new study suggests that if it’s there, the mysterious planet may be smaller and closer than previously thought. The researchers are now saying Planet Nine could be “only” five times bigger than Earth, and orbits about 400 AU from the Sun.<<

>>Whether Planet Nine is really out there or not, the search will no doubt continue. The researchers on the new study acknowledge that they may be wrong, but are pretty confident that we’ll find it soon.<<

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

dv said:

Thanks for the update.

It’s an interesting case: basically, the simplest explanation is an additional planet but other explanations may arise. I’ll keep the champagne on ice.

BTW that image shows a planet about 2.5 times earth’s diameter, so about 16 times its volume.

I mean PF could have just said, “You’re welcome, and thanks for the analysis”. That would have been a conventional response.

—-

If your analysis was pertinent and anywhere realistic, I might have done so. But as your analysis has been made from information you do not have (nor anyone else for that matter), it was rubbish, plain and simple. And kindly stop trying to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear, because you have nothing better.

Your entire analysis is based on the relative sizes of Plant 9 and the Earth gained from an artists impression, which MIGHT be 5 times BIGGER than the Earth. It does NOT say volume or anything else, just bigger! This might well mean a diameter 5 times the size of Earth, which is represented in the illustration. It might refer to the volume being 5 times larger, or something else altogether. We simply don’t know on the information given! Therefore your analysis means absolutely fuck all!

>>But of course, just because that clustering is happening, doesn’t necessarily mean a new planet is to blame. Other studies have found that the same result could be reached if known distant objects are jostling each other like “gravitational bumper cars,” or if there’s a large disc of rock and ice out there instead.

“Though this analysis does not say anything directly about whether Planet Nine is there, it does indicate that the hypothesis rests upon a solid foundation,” says Brown.<<

>>But the new study suggests that if it’s there, the mysterious planet may be smaller and closer than previously thought. The researchers are now saying Planet Nine could be “only” five times bigger than Earth, and orbits about 400 AU from the Sun.<<

>>Whether Planet Nine is really out there or not, the search will no doubt continue. The researchers on the new study acknowledge that they may be wrong, but are pretty confident that we’ll find it soon.<<

So could be, might be, whether it exists or not, I trust you will come to some interesting conclusions.

What we really should be searching for out there is the nearest star system.

The third and fourth nearest star systems were both discovered less than 10 years ago.

That’s Luhman 16 and WISE 0855−0714.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

I mean PF could have just said, “You’re welcome, and thanks for the analysis”. That would have been a conventional response.

—-

If your analysis was pertinent and anywhere realistic, I might have done so. But as your analysis has been made from information you do not have (nor anyone else for that matter), it was rubbish, plain and simple. And kindly stop trying to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear, because you have nothing better.

Your entire analysis is based on the relative sizes of Plant 9 and the Earth gained from an artists impression, which MIGHT be 5 times BIGGER than the Earth. It does NOT say volume or anything else, just bigger! This might well mean a diameter 5 times the size of Earth, which is represented in the illustration. It might refer to the volume being 5 times larger, or something else altogether. We simply don’t know on the information given! Therefore your analysis means absolutely fuck all!

>>But of course, just because that clustering is happening, doesn’t necessarily mean a new planet is to blame. Other studies have found that the same result could be reached if known distant objects are jostling each other like “gravitational bumper cars,” or if there’s a large disc of rock and ice out there instead.

“Though this analysis does not say anything directly about whether Planet Nine is there, it does indicate that the hypothesis rests upon a solid foundation,” says Brown.<<

>>But the new study suggests that if it’s there, the mysterious planet may be smaller and closer than previously thought. The researchers are now saying Planet Nine could be “only” five times bigger than Earth, and orbits about 400 AU from the Sun.<<

>>Whether Planet Nine is really out there or not, the search will no doubt continue. The researchers on the new study acknowledge that they may be wrong, but are pretty confident that we’ll find it soon.<<

So could be, might be, whether it exists or not, I trust you will come to some interesting conclusions.

LOL, you can’t even quote correctly.

Plus DV is just giving an analysis on the information given. Is that too hard for you to understand?

mollwollfumble said:

What we really should be searching for out there is the nearest star system.

The third and fourth nearest star systems were both discovered less than 10 years ago.

That’s Luhman 16 and WISE 0855−0714.

WISE 0855−0714 may be cool enough to have life on its surface. As a Y2.

OK, it’s highly unlikely.

mollwollfumble said:

What we really should be searching for out there is the nearest star system.

The third and fourth nearest star systems were both discovered less than 10 years ago.

That’s Luhman 16 and WISE 0855−0714.

(Shrugs) it is possible for a large organisation to pursue several goals