Jump to content

Talk:Planet Nine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Japf (talk | contribs) at 21:23, 23 January 2016 (→‎Synthesis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I don't think the move was appropriate

User:Kheider just moved this from Planet Nine to Planet Nine (hypothetical planet). I don't think that should have been done, because the base name was available. Real or not, this and will long remain a notable entity, even if it is hot off the presses ... from the best people, best university, best journal in the world for any such proposal, that is. We're now right on a level with the time when Lowell had proposed Pluto and people were hunting for it. Wnt (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, you don't need visual confirmation to verify a planet's existence, though it would be nice. Like Neptune was mathematically proven before it was spotted too. Seems like we're nitpicking here. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Planet 9 is already a page. The Super-Earth planet is still speculative and hypothetical. Time will tell if this will be another failed Nemesis (hypothetical star) or Tyche (hypothetical planet). This article may need to be merged with Telisto (hypothetical planet), Hypothetical fifth giant planet, and Fifth planet (hypothetical). -- Kheider (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Batygin himself says: "As a dynamical model, this appears compelling. But it is simultaneously important to keep in mind that until Planet Nine is caught on camera, it remains a theoretical prediction." Tbayboy (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There really isn't a difference between photographic evidence and other types of evidence. Indeed, part of the reason Pluto was considered a planet in the first place was because the photographic evidence lied (they thought it was dark and big, but it was actually bright and small). TheKing44 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another move

Recently User:The Anome boldly redirected Planet Nine to Ninth planet (disambiguation), and moved Planet Nine page to Planet Nine (2016 hypothesis).

Regarding page move to Planet Nine (2016 hypothesis)

Should we not change the title back to Planet Nine? Should we not move the page back to Planet Nine. prokaryotes (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth planet already redirects to Planets beyond Neptune. There isn't really any confusion. By disambiguating a title that doesn't need disambiguating, this title creates confusion where there was none. Serendipodous 14:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still prefer Planet Nine (hypothetical planet) to make it very clear it is hypothetical. -- Kheider (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, obviously. Leaving it at "Planet Nine" is obviously wrong, as there have been lots of other entities, both real and hypothetical, which have been given names like "Planet 9/Planet Nine/Ninth Planet". This is only the latest one: we need to disambiguate this from all the others with similar names. The front page can be linked directly to the correctly disambiguated article name. -- The Anome (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While i do not object to a title rename, the disambiguated articles can (and is for the most part) dealt with in the article already. Also this name is unique, it's not Ninth or X etc., albeit similar in designation. prokaryotes (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re: Should we not change the title back to Planet Nine? Does this mean Should we change the title back to Planet Nine? or Should we leave the title at Planet Nine (2016 hypothesis)? ? From previous contributions I get the impression that the question is interpreted in different ways. Therefore I'm not sure what each support and oppose vote means. Gap9551 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general consensus is that "Support" means "keep it" and "Oppose" means "change it". Serendipodous 19:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Gap9551 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar: can I also say that, whether or not we move back to Planet Nine, the current title is stupid? There are no 2015 or 2014 hypotheses called "Planet Nine". Serendipodous 19:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Redirect of Planet Nine to Ninth planet (disambiguation)

Planet Nine currently redirects to Ninth planet (disambiguation). Should Planet Nine instead link directly here?

Welcome back at Planet Nine ;-) prokaryotes (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable to follow that convention. That also resolves the previous name discussion. Gap9551 (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nine

When a Planet is named Planet Nine, the designation is redundant. The status (or not) of planet designation lies elsewhere. I suggest we refer to Planet Nine formally as Nine and informally as the ninth planet or in discussion out of context as Planet Nine. This is consistent with the formal use of planet Earth and Earth for example.Kyle(talk) 20:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use the term offered by the researcher (and used by the media), quote: If the search pans out, what should the new member of the sun’s family be called? Brown says it’s too early to worry about that and scrupulously avoids offering up suggestions. For now, he and Batygin are calling it Planet Nine (and, for the past year, informally, Planet Phattie—1990s slang for “cool”). Brown notes that neither Uranus nor Neptune—the two planets discovered in modern times—ended up being named by their discoverers, and he thinks that that’s probably a good thing. It’s bigger than any one person, he says: “It’s kind of like finding a new continent on Earth.” http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/feature-astronomers-say-neptune-sized-planet-lurks-unseen-solar-system prokaryotes (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not named officially as "Planet Nine". Since it is merely a cute "nickname" for a hypothetical object that already has multiple names, it should stay at "Planet Nine" until it has more peer support. -- Kheider (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and the link above clearly indicate a more suitable name will eventually arrive. Kyle(talk) 23:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Planets beyond Neptune

Clear consensus that this article can stand on its own. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There isn't a lot of information yet, and ninth planet, 9th planet and Sol IX already redirect there. Serendipodous 21:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the planets have their own article, and the current destination is fresh. prokaryotes (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Something also needs to be done with Telisto (hypothetical planet) which is the same planet. -- Kheider (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even though the article Planets beyond Neptune is within the scope, it is more broad in the historical context, and the article Planet Nine is already large enough to stand on its own. There could be a section at Planets beyond Neptune briefly summarizing Planet Nine and linking here. Therefore i oppose the merger. prokaryotes (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a merger/redirect. One team of researchers publishing one article does not count as notable. It counts as research. Wikipedia is not a journal article, nor is it news. Until there is corroborating evidence, it should remain as speculation inside the PbN article. Primefac (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are two research teams (two studies), plus 3rd parties searching the sky, and there are certainly enough news items (i.e. check Google News). prokaryotes (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose enough text exists to support this as a stand-alone article. --Jayron32 02:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE This world very likely is going to be confirmed and is 99% likely a real thing of some sorts because it explains the kepler belt objects well. Why start it over again in a few years when we can have this already put together? Matthurricane (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support until the planet is directly observed (or some other more definitive evidence). Although I think Planet Nine is likely to eventually be observed, at the present time it is an equivalent case to Planet X, which redirects to Planets beyond Neptune. Planet X was a huge deal in its time and some of the best astronomers believed (and calculated) that it existed. There are a great deal of sources for Planet X, much more than for Planet Nine. Let's give Planet Nine a nice level 2 header in Planets beyond Neptune, since it is undoubtedly the most significant of these since Planet X (and Pluto, of course, but that has been observed). A2soup (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"""Then we should remove all the unconfirmed extrasolar planet pages""" I don't see the reasoning to remove it because it isn't confirmed. Matthurricane (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many unconfirmed extrasolar planets already redirect to the article of their parent star. I think many editors (including myself) would support redirecting all unconfirmed exoplanets to parent stars, but it's a very daunting task, and the articles have very low visibility anyways. In this case, there will be very high visibility, so it's important to get it right. A2soup (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose More news items will most certainly be on the way. As for those claiming this isn't confirmed, you don't need to see something to confirm it. That's a silly rationale for science articles on many levels. This thing is confirmed with Sigma 3.5 confidence. Neptune was also similarly confirmed before it was spotted visually. It would be nice to see it but we detect planets around other star systems without ever seeing them but somehow that's respected and this is not? This planet is notable and will have many articles written on it. Let's start now, rather than 5 years from now. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notice there are already 5 other articles on the subject in other Wikipedia languages, and direct detection is not an article criteria.prokaryotes (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Notability clearly exists. If this all turns out to be bogus perhaps we should re-evaluate. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This appears to be a large planet and not a Dwarf planet although it is one of the Planets beyond Neptune. There is also a Hypothetical fifth giant planet ejected by Jupitor. Unless proven otherwise the nobility clearly exists. Zaman.hamad (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose clearly notable. The other article has a different scope and the two are not mutually exclusive.--DarTar (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close, per above. Clearly notable. Rehman 06:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose At some future time, that idea could be raised, but I think it would not be appropriate even then. The discussion of Planet Nine is current and (therefore, IMO) this article should remain a standalone article. MaynardClark (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Planets beyond Neptune would be way too cramped with this much information, making it hard for the reader to navigate and find relevant information. There is no reason for such a developing article to be merged into another. Zamaster4536 (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose *for now*. At the present time, this is very notable and appears to have a high chance being "real." However, I would suggest that we should revisit this in the next six months to a year. When public interest cools, or if evidence is raised which casts doubt on this hypothesis, it may make sense to roll this back into the trans-Neptunian planet article. Mrfeek (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object:Planet 9 is still a hypothetical planet. If it really exists it is not like one of the Kupier objects. It is much further away and much bigger. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is very current information, more news and articles are bound to pop-up due to back up this. Still, this article currently has more than enough sources to be a separate article right now. Kyle1278 09:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold off for now - this is a current story (and I came here specifically to look up this planet, which is being called "Planet Nine" in the press) - let's see how this pans out - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is clearly notable. Anarchyte 10:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The redirection of other articles doesn't prove they are not notable standalone topics - many times (most recently at hydrolevelling) I make a redirect from a topic that I know is worth having its own article, solely to guide readers until such time as someone actually does the separation. Furthermore, there is a distinction between a "ninth planet" as a concept that there is something undiscovered out there, and Planet Nine as a specific proposal underway to hunt for a planet in an orbit with a known inclination, approximate semimajor axis, and with a predicted size allowing an estimated magnitude. There are several older hypothetical ninth/tenth planets that I wish we had handled as standalones, because reading planets beyond Neptune it is impossible to try to say whether they were distinct proposals with this kind of detail in their time or not, or whether any of those older ideas might be said to be vindicated in the light of this observation. Wnt (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar- when this hypothetical planet turns out not to exist, as it almost certainly will, we can revisit this discussion and merge it in with all the other hypothetical planet nines that have turned out not to exist. Reyk YO! 12:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ye naysayers! This is not the 20th century. Planets have been breeding like tribbles lately, and Michael E. Brown has discovered a fair number, and he was actually testing the hypothesis of some other good astronomers. Wnt (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My skepticism is well grounded. It's just too hard to get this planet big enough to cause the right perturbations but faint enough to have escaped detection. Reyk YO! 12:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ever give a thought to the possibility that the surface could be of a more light-absorbent material (i.e. the planet appears dark/black), similar to TrES-2b? Alcherin (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Oppose I was for a merge, but then it got bigger. It looks like a decent stand-alone article now, and should probably have a summary section in Planets beyond Neptune. If a stable version of Planet Nine is still a large article, and would be difficult to merge, keep this article.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am no astrophysicist, but from the literature it seems more likely than not that "Planet Nine" does indeed exist. Every planet in our solar system gets its own article, and so does the putative Planet Nine. Article is large enough and credible enough to stand on its own. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discovery

We should note that Nine is not discovered yet. The two know they may not get credit for that discovery. Until the planet is spotted directly with a telescope, any work surrounding it is theoretical. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/01/20/new-evidence-suggests-a-ninth-planet-lurking-at-the-edge-of-the-solar-system/ prokaryotes (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For all intents and purposes, it is discovered, just as extra solar planets are discovered by the wobble of star. Similar concept here, except through Planet Nine's tug on Kuiper belt objects. It's confirmed, just not visually detected yet. You don't need visual detection to infer many things in science, especially physics. That's a silly rationale. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Until they have a 5-sigma confidence level it is foolish to claim it is already discovered. -- Kheider (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit of hyperbole there. 99.97% confidence and you are suggesting that those are foolish odds and to bet against them? Yes sir! Leitmotiv (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Until they have more peer support, I will assume a more "real world" 90% confidence level. It would not be the first time bad assumptions were used. Time will tell if there are other explanations. -- Kheider (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can make up whatever imaginary numbers you like, but Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources. This paper has already been peer-reviewed and accepted by a science journal. Have fun in your make believe world! Leitmotiv (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if you read the paper you will learn that it is a model and not a confirmed discovery. You have not followed Planet X very much over the decades, have you? -- Kheider (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your deluding yourself. These models are based on real data. These models are more advanced than those tools and "models" used to figure out Neptune's existence. Be tell me again how it's just a model and it's foolish. Confirmation only means realizing what you or someone else already knows. That will be you someday. Anyway, I'm done here. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess you would also call David C. Jewitt a fool for being cautious. -- Kheider (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good reference against "discovery": “Until there’s a direct detection, it’s a hypothesis—even a potentially very good hypothesis,” -- Michael Brown. If we wanted to OR it, we can note Pluto credits Tombaugh. It is also possible that the hypothesis, which has considerable blur in the details, will lead to discovery of a planet somewhere in the general area that doesn't explain all of the orbits, leaving it partially confirmed, partially busted. So no, we don't say it's a discovery. But we do recognize it's a huge step forward from someone hinting that the orbits of all those bodies might be used to make a model of a planet, with unknown statistical significance. Wnt (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, since this is a confirmation of the Nature 2014 paper, the "discovery" credit would not be theirs. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the infobox is misleading. prokaryotes (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Tyche oder Nemesis have infoboxes. -- Kheider (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created because of Evidence for a distant giant planet... named Planet Nine. Who are we to question peer reviewed classic publications on the subject? Perhaps this three-sigma-evidence based upon review of available data will only become a discovery after five-sigma-evidence can be obtained from direct observation. Kyle(talk) 00:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it definitely shouldn't be talked about here as a definitely discovery yet, as it looks like more follow-up observations are definitely needed. There's a distinct difference between this type of complex modelling of a solar system, and the wobble induced in a star due to mass orbiting around it, so the two aren't really comparable. There's a reason the paper title starts with "Evidence for" not "Discovery of". :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this paper can also be considered as "preliminary evidence" of the same observations noted by Brown:
Abstract
Aphelion distances of long-period comets show a slight excess around 30 000 to 50 000 au from the Sun. Positions of cometary aphelia within these distance limits are aligned along a great circle inclined to both the ecliptic and the Galactic plane. This paper examines one of the possible explanations for this non-random clustering: that it is due to orbital perturbations by an undiscovered object orbiting within the above-mentioned distances. "Arguments for the presence of a distant large undiscovered Solar system planet" MNRAS (1999) 309 (1): 31-34. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02806.x First published online October 1, 1999. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I don't get

What is so special about this paper? There have been several papers on this topic since 2012 VP113 was discovered; what is it about this model that makes it so superior to all the others? Serendipodous 22:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma 3.5 particularly. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It might have implications for Earth as well (i.e. Milankovitch cycles)? And it might offer a first glimpse at a planet which traveled so far out into space. Maybe it is currently nearing the sun, this could mean another NASA mission. Many things. Exciting. prokaryotes (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If its perihelion is really 200 AU, then it could have absolutely no effect on Earth. Also, it means that any NASA mission would have a minimum time of 45 years. Serendipodous 23:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With new research results the travel time might shrink considerably, like 15 years for 200 AU? prokaryotes (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anything with aphelion (furthest distance from the Sun) inside ~150AU would not really feel this planet. -- Kheider (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one actually answered my initial question. Why is this evidence so much more compelling than the evidence previously presented? Serendipodous 09:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It involves/combines among 2012 VP113 and Sedna, offering a good theory of their orbits. As Brown mentioned in the AAAS article, its like the discovery of a new continent on Earth. prokaryotes (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Konstantin who has worked on this is supposed to have done very rigorous modelling work in this area. Check references for more details. J mareeswaran (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since others have discussed the evidence I'll focus on why this one has gotten extra attention 1)it has a catchy name, this give wikipedians a title for an article, pleases some of those that miss having nine planets, and also those who agree with the IAU by displacing Pluto as the ninth planet. 2)Mike Brown is familiar to those with a casual interest in planetary astronomy. 3)This is the first time I've seen someone say we should look for this now.Agmartin (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that he Gomes paper suggesting a distant planet was behind a paywall which kept it out of view of those who might have written an article previously.

Well, based on the model and the data it is very unlikely to be anything else...Something like .0007% chance of this occurring without a planet, etc. Pretty much Brown modeled it and came up with a stable orbit, size and mass that does effects the objects (icy words/dwarf planets) like they do in real life. It works in real life and that is why it is compelling evidence...Before it was just a far out theory. Brown is also the discover of many of the dwarf planets like Eris. Matthurricane (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One other interesting thing about this model, fully explained in the paper itself, is that the authors were already able to test their model using available astronomical data. This NPR article notes the following:

Their computer simulations predicted that if this hypothetical planet existed, it would twist the orbits of other small bodies in a certain way. So Brown looked through some old data to see if any icy bodies had been discovered with those kinds of orbits — and, lo and behold, he found five of them. "They're objects that nobody has really explained or tried to explain before," says Brown. "My jaw hit the floor. That just came out of the blue. Being able to make a prediction and having it come true in five minutes is about as fun as it gets in science."

Basically, the paper has the first round of hypothesis testing baked in already. (These additional objects are referenced Figure 9 of the paper.) The authors don't just rely on 2012 VP113 and other well-known objects, their model was specific enough to predict the existence of other objects. It turns out that astronomers have already observed some of those objects, and just not paid much attention to them. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Well, based on the model and the data it is very unlikely to be anything else...Something like .0007% chance of this occurring without a planet, etc." - I wouldn't overplay that. The thing is, that it is a 1 in 15,000 chance of this happening by chance - but there are thousands of astronomers checking out numerous hypotheses and looking at huge amounts of data. A 1 in 15,000 chance event will happen just through random chance, even if there were no real patterns in the data at all. So - it's a Sigma 3 result. That's significant enough to merit more study, and it is the most likely Planet X for some time which is hwy it is notable. But it is not enough to make it a sure thing or a near certainty as many have been saying. For that you need more like 5 sigma at least that's the threshold for particle physics. Or, about 1 in 3.5 million. They are nowhere near that yet. Robert Walker (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be a image of it?

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/briankoberlein/files/2015/12/newbody-1200x698.png

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2015/12/10/astronomers-find-new-object-possible-super-earth-in-our-solar-system/#cb6798a6b41f521f76316b41

Last month this was reported and it may very well be the right distance at 300-1,000 AU's. Matthurricane (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compelling, but probably not PN, since that would have been pointed out already - i would assume, and size is off. prokaryotes (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Plait expressed serious doubts for that object. That is Gna and it could just as easily be the result of detecting star-forming galaxies. -- Kheider (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Max Carrados, astronomer?

How is it HST didn't detect it...? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HST did not look and HST has a very small field of view, especially when you do not know where to point the scope. -- Kheider (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected the first; I should have thought of the second. :( Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know that it's not in any Hubble picture? Just not (yet) recognised for what it is. Tbayboy (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital Inclination

The orbital inclination of Planet-9 is not yet known or has not been calculated or estimated. From Caltech link

orbits of the six objects are also all tilted in the same way—pointing about 30 degrees downward in the same direction relative to the plane of the eight known planets. - See more at: https://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-researchers-find-evidence-real-ninth-planet-49523#sthash.F9Z6Pbca.dpuf

The above doesn't imply that orbital of this new object also is in same plane, correct me if I am wrong here. J mareeswaran (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the inclination given in the source 1 from the infobox. What I added earlier was that the parameters for the nominal simulation included an orbital inclination of 30 degrees, since that's what they said. So 30 degrees is the best guess for the model, but I did not understand from the original paper how much that guess could be off by and the model still work. That deficiency is mine (not an astronomer, sorry) and someone should do better - someone must be doing better, because someone has to decide how far and wide to scan with the telescope. Wnt (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


TNO (trans-Neptunian object), KBO (Kuiper Belt object)...

You state that this hypothic planet could explain the behaviour of some TNO. It is not correct. The original article at http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22 states : "In this work we show that the orbits of distant Kuiper Belt objects (KBOs)"--luxorion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7E8:C6CE:DF01:343B:EFA1:BD2B:461B (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between KBO & TNO ? J mareeswaran (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All KBOs are TNOs, but not all TNOs are KBOs. The Kuiper Belt is a well-delineated region of space from about 30 to 50AU containing objects on similar orbits. There are other things out there that are not KBOs, such as Oort cloud comets, the Scattered disc, and other strange beasts. Reyk YO! 13:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, but if the writer based his article on an official publication, please do list words used in that publication and do not replace them at will. In fact you should even state : The possible 9th planet, nickname Biden, is a member of Hills cloud, the internal Oort cloud. and forget the reference to TNO or KBO, a source of confusion-- luxorion

Btw, there is no mention in the article of what a TNO is, it just appears out of the blue. That is kind of bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.32.91 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The objects are in the broader sense trans-Neptunian objects, and orbit into the Kuiper belt region (farthest objects there), and while in the Kuiper belt considered KB objects, and stable because of the hypothetical Planet Nine (best explanation by known wisdom). I think we should mention both, since TNO is a very common term in related coverage and W articles. prokaryotes (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To make matters worse for the layperson, the 6 objects are all "extreme trans-Neptunian objects (ETNOs) with a "semi-major axis greater than 150 AU and perihelion greater than 30 AU". But ETNOs are only defined in a couple of papers. I notice the references in this article occasionally mention extreme Kuiper belt objects. Of the 14 known ETNOs, Planet Nine only controls 6 of them. Much of the literature treats the Kuiper belt and scattered disc as one. -- Kheider (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pun

Plen(et) Nine in Outer Space?

(Will amuse before it gets deleted). 85.115.54.202 (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the visualisation. prokaryotes (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this moved

The arcticle was moved from Planet Nine (2016 hypothesis) to Planet_Nine_(2016_hypothesis)_on_round_objects. The reason given was Willy on Wheels!. So it appears to be vandalism. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 18:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

definitely vandalism by some joker J mareeswaran (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Asked for page protection, here. prokaryotes (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(after two edit conflicts!) Agree - moved back. I've also applied move protection so that you have to be autoconfirmed to move it - that can be adjusted if need be. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
reverted it AlwaysUnite (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AlwaysUnite: That's not how you do a page move! Hopefully all cleaned up now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops sorry. Hope I didn't cause a mess. Couldn't move it normally because the redirect still existed. Didn't want to wait for the speedy delete. What was a better way then? AlwaysUnite (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike Peel can you review that editors history and revert is other page moves. At this time I can't figure out how to do it. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krj373: Done. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hypothetical fifth giant planet

These articles have exact scope duplication. They both discuss a hypothetical 9th planet, and they both rely on models of solar system formation to make their case. Unlike Planets beyond Neptune, which discusses the history of the search generally, Hypothetical fifth giant planet is confined in scope to just the one gas giant predicted by recent models. Not sure which name to use. Andrew Keenan Richardson (talk!) 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

big difference between Hypothetical fifth giant planet & planet 9 is that the hypothetical planet was presumed to have gone AWOL and become an Orphaned Planet whereas this new planet is predicted to be lurking well inside confines of Solar system so that definitely makes it the 9th planet J mareeswaran (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What source says the Hypothetical fifth giant planet had to be ejected completely from the Solar System? I believe it is just assumed that it was. The 5th giant planet could have been thrown outward by Jupiter or Saturn and then had perihelion lifted by the Suns birth cluster. -- Kheider (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the Nice model is the correct explanation for the Late Heavy Bombardment the ejection of the Hypothetical fifth giant planet takes place ~0.4 Billion years after the formation of the solar system, most likely after the sun has left its birth cluster.Agmartin (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I am not an active editor of the Nice Model, I trust Agmartin knows this better than I do. But Brown's closing paragraphs of the paper seem to want to leave this question open ended. -- Kheider (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are 2 different stories, one the origin & another the future possibility. Mike Brown has worked on both, so it would be appropriate to wait for him to merge these 2 stories, then we can merge the corresponding two wikipedia entries J mareeswaran (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We could use the name "Planet Nine" instead of the awkward "Hypothetical fifth giant planet". One theory predicts that there was a ninth planet which got ejected, and the other theory that it got put into a long orbit, which is not that dissimilar. Saying that we should have different articles because they explain different things is like saying we should have different articles for "Moon (tides)" and "Moon (moonlight)". It's the same planet in both models. Andrew Keenan Richardson (talk!) 20:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are different articles on Moonlight and Tide (with lunar tide as the dominant contribution), as well as many other moon topics with their own article (see Template:The Moon). It depends on whether the topic is notable and whether there is enough content for a standalone article. In this case I think there is, even before the results of searches come in. Gap9551 (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Planets beyond Neptune seems to cover that pretty well, both searches and proposals. Gap9551 (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger from Hypothetical fifth giant planet

  • Sorry, didn't see this. I just merged them. If you want to discuss a merger, please used the {{merge}} template on both articles so other editors will be sure to notice. For better or for worse, since I've done this, have a look and see if perhaps things should stay, or if they need to be reversed. But please don't just knee jerk reverse my work. Take a look, discuss it a bit. I promise not to be disagreeable. If we have things in this article that are out of scope or too detailed, we can move them to the Nice Model page, perhaps. Jehochman Talk 02:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion section here (of the study) http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22 mentions that PN might be a fifth giant planet, and this was/is mentioned under the Origin section. With the merger, it appears abstract to begin the article with the broad aspects of solar system formation. prokaryotes (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notice also that the article title is now misleading - not only 2016 hypothesis. And what if it turns out that there is no planet? ;) prokaryotes (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would just drop the 2016. There isn't another Planet Nine (hypothesis). In fact, the hypothesis was formed step by step in the preceding years. The recent announcement is just a reinforement of earlier work. A surprising reinforcement. Jehochman Talk 03:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, makes sense. prokaryotes (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other things that supports merger is that Brown and colleague were working on the Nice Model as well. They were fully aware of the fifth giant planet hypothesis, were studying and testing it as part of the research leading to the Planet Nine hypothesis. These were not at all detached theories. They are so intermingled, we can deal with them as one article, I think, without committing synthesis. Jehochman Talk 03:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


the two theories are not as tightly connected as you presume. As Ethan Siegel speculates in Forbes Science the giant planet might have nothing to do with NICE, instead might have been present in early orbits of Mercury to Mars. And NICE2 doesnt require a 5th planet at all. Unfortunate now that this article is heavily cluttered with more speculation that was neatly separated earlier.J mareeswaran (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Hypothetical fifth giant planet, about a gas giant that may have formed and been ejected from the system, merged into this article about an ice giant that may still be in the system when the discussion above is opposed? Articles should never be moved without reading the talk page, and undoing a merge is messy. Jonathunder (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a hypothesis, it allows that the planet: might not exist, might be gassy, might be icy, might be rocky, might have been ejected from the solar system. All possibilities are still on the table and can be discussed in the article. Moreover, if the planet is eventually confirmed in a few years, the various options disproven can still be reported as having been considered, and then disproved. If the article gets unwieldy, and sections can be spun out as daughter articles. We can deal with these things easily enough. I think it is easier to manage as one article because all these various ideas are tightly connected, and there would be excessive repetition if we separated. We should not create WP:CFORKs. Jehochman Talk 04:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the two theories are not as tightly connected as you presume. As Ethan Siegel speculates in Forbes Science the giant planet might have nothing to do with NICE, instead might have been present in early orbits of Mercury to Mars. And NICE2 doesnt require a 5th planet at all. Unfortunate now that this article is heavily cluttered with more speculation that was neatly separated earlier.J mareeswaran (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with people merging, moving and drop kicking this article without discussing it with anyone? These are two entirely different hypotheses based on entirely different data. If they are the same, we will know one way or the other if we find Planet Nine. Which we haven't yet. This article now spends more time talking about a currently unrelated idea than it does about its subject. Unmerge please. Serendipodous 08:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge. The Nice model described the fifth planet as "ejected", not even necessarily in the Solar System any more as I understood it. It certainly did not describe Planet Nine, which is to say, a planet in a particular orbit. Given proper sourcing to make the connection, the two articles can describe one another in summary style, but it is important to avoid giving the impression, for example, that we've seen someone do the calculation to show that this is a likely orbit that a fifth planet in the Nice/Nice2 model would end up with. It's entirely possible that the ejected planet is somewhere else out there, and indeed, perhaps even it is not the last! Wnt (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC) @Jehochman: I should add that before just before Jehochman made the merge, there were three apparent sources linking the two bodies - two were popular science articles, one of which vaguely said the planet might have formed further in, and the third was the original paper, which makes a brief speculative discussion of in situ versus migration models beginning with "In this work, we have made no attempt to tie the existence of a distant perturber with any particular formation or dynamical evolution scenario relevant to the outer solar system.". Not only does opinion here overwhelmingly oppose the merge - it was in fact very close to WP:OR even to connect the planets at all, as it was based on a selective interpretation of a primary source. Wnt (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move Hypothetical fifth giant planet?

If the name is casing confusion perhaps Hypothetical fifth giant planet should be moved to five giant planet Nice model since that is its focus. Agmartin (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UFOs

I removed a section speculating about aliens, sourced to the unreliable tabloid the Express. Fences&Windows 19:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

move request

Planet Nine (2016 hypothesis) ---> Planet Nine from Outer Space

This is what the 'WP fun' pages were for :) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will the atmosphere-investigating satellite eventually sent there be on cloud nine? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fact-checking The New Yorker

Thinking it added valuable perspective, I added this endnote from The New Yorker:

If the Sun were on Fifth Avenue and the Earth were one block west, Jupiter would be on the West Side Highway, Pluto would be in Montclair, New Jersey, and Planet Nine would be somewhere near Cleveland

So if one block west of Fifth Avenue marks the equivalent of one AU (i.e., the distance from the Sun to Earth), why isn't Planet Nine only 200 blocks (perhelion) to 1200 blocks (aphelion) distant? Why did The New Yorker put Planet Nine way out somewhere near Cleveland? That's much further than 1200 New York City blocks. Did The New Yorker get this wrong? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like someone fouled up. They have long blocks headed northwest in Manhattan, but they look less than 1000 feet. In some towns a long block is a full quarter mile (1320 feet) - if I assume they assumed it was 4 AU per mile, then Pluto aphelion = 49 AU or 12.25 miles, roughly the distance to Montclair, Jupiter is 6 blocks, a little over 5 AU which is right, and Nine is at roughly 360 miles to Cleveland = 1440 AU, compared to the 'nominal' 700 AU figure. I'm thinking this was rushed and sloppy, but still, not off by more than a factor of 3. Wnt (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A fifth of a mile per AU would be generous. True 5th to 6th might be the longest block on the Manhattan grid but I've never seen a block over 4 standard blocks in the entire city. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression, that it was a deliberate & clever pun by Brown and the journalist fell for it
Pheaton is actually a hypothesized planet & Phattie could have been a code-name by Brown to refer to it
But Brown may have wanted to avoid giving the impression of trying to influence the name of the planet, so joked that its name was Fatty (a pun on Phattie)
we should wait for Brown to clarify this - in his own blog posts J mareeswaran (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C-class

Should the article be rated C-class now? I'm just wondering because the new edit made the article a lot bigger.JakeR2002 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As of the most recent revision, ORES scores this article as being GA-class material with the highest probability.--DarTar (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JakeR2002: The article definitely meets the minimum for C-class within the quality scale of both WikiProjects, so I've upgraded it. It should probably be assessed for B-class, as it seems pretty close. Regards, EP111 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EP111: Ok then. Thank you. JakeR2002 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planet X

Shouldn't this term be mentioned somewhere in the article? Its clear from the press releases this is a body large enough to be considered a planet and not a dwarf planet, right? --RThompson82 (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planet X was a specific hypothesis proposed by Percival Lowell in 1895. It has nothing to do with this. Serendipodous 09:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also think astronomers want to get away for all the doomsday BS about Px. -- Kheider (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Planet X predates Pluto (so no, apparently the "X" never stood for 10). Yet people didn't call Pluto Planet X. Which means .... we probably shouldn't apply that term willy-nilly to a new body either. Still, we follow the sources - if they take up the idea, we'll be stuck with it. Wnt (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's covered in the article's See also section, Planets beyond Neptune. Jehochman Talk 13:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Nemesis (hypothetical star) to See also section. emijrp (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nox name

The Atlantic interviewed Brown, when he noted Roman names for other planets, then he or the journalist suggested Nox as a name. Since at least two editors removed this part, first removal claiming the journalist got the name wrong (Nox is Latin for Nyx), second removal edit summary states undue, i thought we should vote for inclusion/exclusion. The journalist is Ross Andersen, http://www.rossandersen.com/work/ This name also won in an online poll (+47%)prokaryotes (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nox/Nyx is an uninformed suggestion by the journalist as there are already two such objects.
NYX is given to an asteroid & NIX to a moon of Pluto.
I actually like the reasoning given by the journalist for the name & don't mind giving it to a planet but don't see how the astronomical society will approve this
My preferred name is Melancholia from the movie of the same name
:) J mareeswaran (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant Nyx (3908 Nyx) is an asteroid name, can you link to the Nox asteroid? The Pluto moon is called Nix (moon). Hence it appears Nox is free ;)prokaryotes (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected & linked now. please check J mareeswaran (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are not called Nox, and in detail related names are for asteroid and a moon, planet still unclaimed! prokaryotes (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mere suggestion of a journalist does not merit inclusion. When I deleted it, there was no mention of Der Spiegel's online poll: I don't know whether that is worth including, but I doubt it. zzz (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am late to the party, but as stated, there is no object named Nox. -- Kheider (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope they name the planet Hades. Nergaal (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Atlantic article, where the author suggests "Nox" would make a good name based only on what he remembers from classical sources. He doesn't cite anyone else saying so, and he either ignores or is unaware of the minor planet and moon of Pluto already named for the same figure. Many other names have been and will be suggested: Faunus, Inuus, Jugatinus, etc. There's no reason to include this. Jonathunder (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between 2012 VG174 and 2010 GB174

Are these two same are different? very confused! J mareeswaran (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2012 VG174 appears to be a typo by ExtremeTech http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/221595-new-research-suggests-our-solar-system-may-contain-a-ninth-planet-far-beyond-pluto or it might be one of those other four objects .-.prokaryotes (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
seems to be a mis-labelling by the authors. 2010_GB174 is correct others ( 2012_GB174, 2012_VG174 ) are wrong J mareeswaran (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2012 VG174 and 2012 GB174 do not exist. Here is a list of all ETNOs with more than a 365 observation arc. -- Kheider (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic image of PN

I do not think we should use the image of the blue planet next to the red star. Planet Nine is very far from the Sun and from every other object. If we use an artistic rendition, it should not misinform that the planet is close to another body. Jehochman Talk 15:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the Sun has been removed, i thought it would be nice for the scale. However editor Ephraim33 is tagging the image at commons for speedy deletion and now deletion. I used a slightly modified neptune image because according to Brown and Batygin Planet Nine is possibly similar in size and composition. prokaryotes (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's Neptune! At least be a bit creative. Why would we want people thinking Neptune is Planet Nine? Serendipodous 16:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just emailed Caltech and asked them to please release the images from http://www.caltech.edu/node/49523 with a CC license so we can use them. Jehochman Talk 16:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Fine! What do you suggest then, the blue is different to the original Neptun capture, it has possibly a small gas envelope. I don't like the idea to change the color. Though i could change the inner distribution of pixels (different strokes and such), and make it more dark or light maybe. Or it could be a body without an atmosphere (rocky). Any ideas or do you rather have the article without ANY image of PN. prokaryotes (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that Caltech will issue a CC for the image, they will likely refer to their fair use policy which is likely not accepted. Though, i might be wrong. And I only have time to work on the image tonight. prokaryotes (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you try to get the lighting right. It makes little sense to show the surface as if it was illuminated by a light source on the opposite side of the sun. I guess it should probably also be darker overall, as there must be significantly less sunlight available than on Neptune, wouldn't there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It depends where it is located within the orbit, and from where you take a picture, a probe could get pretty close theoretically. When its close to the Sun it might even be similar to Pluto or even Mars (in case there is no substantial atmosphere around). Or very reflective due to something similar like the Snowball Earth state. prokaryotes (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Planet Nine exists, and if it has a mass 10 m⊕ like Batygin and Brown write in their paper, it should have an internal structure like Uranus oder Neptune which is not at all similar to Pluto oder Mars. But still it is all speculation. Not a single photon of Planet Nine was detected in one of our telescopes. --Ephraim33 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it exists, some photons have been acquired by now. It is a matter a finding a trend. Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images to heart: "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image." If it is an image of Neptune and you make it an image of Planet Nine, it is a not acceptable photo manipulation. --Ephraim33 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it would be most appropriate to have no image at all of what this hypothetical planet might look like. It is just a mathematical hypothesis at present. What it might look like can be nothing more than a guess when science does not know whether it actually exists at all. Neutron (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement because this isn't an interpretation, it's Neptune and is misleading. Having no image is fine. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Either that or one with alot of the possibilities saying we don't know which if any is real. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the percentage but there are many articles which implement artist depictions of stars, systems, planets etc. I would rather have a dummy image then no image, imho it feels more complete with an image.prokaryotes (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutron is absolutely right. --Ephraim33 (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Neutron is right. Even the articles of existing exoplanets struggle with the same issue. This is clearly beyond that threshold of artistic license. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not want the general public confusing a well known picture of Neptune with Planet Nine. If anything, use a blank image of Uranus. Planet Nine will not have that exact version of Neptune's Great Dark Spot. -- Kheider (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that image either. In theory the proximity to the Sun is excusable, in the sense that if we sent a flyby probe maybe it would be interstellar and have a super duper telescope and could look back from a light year and see Planet Nine transiting the Sun like in the picture. Problem is -- people aren't expecting an alien's eye view. They are expecting that if we were lucky enough to get a probe near the planet, it would be a giant planet taking up the whole sky while the Sun is but a pinpoint of light some 490,000 times dimmer than it is from Earth (occasionally surrounded by the most peculiar little ring...). This is of special concern since there actually are kooky "Nibiru" type articles floating around, and some people will have the notion that this thing is going to come in and rendezvous with Earth like a souped-up Hale-Bopp, rather than staying some 200 AU away from points of local interest. Wnt (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
or, perhaps just swap the image out with http://img.lum.dolimg.com/v1/images/Death-Star-I-copy_36ad2500.jpeg?region=0%2C0%2C1600%2C900&width=768  ?

New image

Thank you Jehochman, any suggestions for tweaks? I thought the darkish silhouette on the right side of the planet might be moved slightly (still have the image open in Photoshop). prokaryotes (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. prokaryotes (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like it too; I would only suggest swapping it in the unlikely event that we get permission to use the original CalTech image. Serendipodous 15:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

direction of aphelion

The direction of aphelion seems to be between Orion and Taurus. I found an animation on the Scientific American website that shows the orbit in space. See [1], the articles itself (with the video embedded) is at [2] - is that enough of a reference? (I'd add "predicted" or "estimated" to the language used.) I've not seen it in writing anywhere else. But if it is a sufficient reference and can be talked about I'd like to suggest a couple more details:

  1. one is that is the direction Pioneer 10 is going. Though in 41 years it covered 80AU so it has another 500 years to get in the neighborhood and its transmitter died in 2003 anyway.
  2. And from what I can tell this is aphelion direction is near the tail of the solar wind into the interstellar medium. See Heliosphere#Space_beyond_the_heliosphere )(which is to say, about 180° from Scorpio/Sagittarius) or (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/a-tale-of-the-suns-tail/ ) --Smkolins (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. New Horizon's is headed in the direction of the perihelion but the prediction is that the planet is currently far from its perihelion or would have been identified already.

The orientation of the predicted orbit has the aphelion, the farthest point of the estimated orbit, where the constellations of Orion and Taurus meet, while perihelion, or nearest point in the orbit to the sun, near where Aquarius and Scorpio meet. See embedded video simulation at Michael D. Lemonick; (Worldwide Telescope, Caltech/R. Hurt (IPAC)) (January 20, 2016). "Strong Evidence Suggests a Super Earth Lies beyond Pluto". Scientific American. Retrieved Jan 22, 2015. This aphelion direction is the direction of Pioneer 10's trajectory though so far it has only covered some 80 AU and it's radio has already fallen silent. This is also the direction of the tail of the heliosphere, the direction combination of the solar system's motion in the Local Bubble combine sending the solar wind to become part of the local interstellar medium after 100 AU. Meanwhile the New Horizonss probe is headed in the direction of Sagittarius, near the perihelion direction, though the prediction is that the planet is far from there in its perhaps 20k year orbit. "Planetarium: Locate New Horizons". TheSkyLive.com. 2015. Retrieved Jan 22, 2015.

OK, going live. --Smkolins (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarius and Scorpius (not Scorpio) are not neighboring constellations and do not, therefore, meet. can someone clarify where the direction of perihelion really is? 107.135.96.81 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is synthesis. Don't put this content back in. See section below headed Synthesis. Jehochman Talk 13:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you found the comment. Again how is it synthesis? And yes the mistake on Aquarius. It's Sagittarius. Synthesis is about drawing unwarranted conclusions but this is just that that direction of space has other things in it. --Smkolins (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not and Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material both please. I've proposed just facts. The aphelion is in the direction of Orion/Taurus, and so are other things in the outer solarsystem.--Smkolins (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking around for other explorations of the directions their website [3] charts displayed for RA and Declination. Alas someone even asked what constellations that would be in but not answered yet. I guess the charts center aphelion near Taurus/Orion (RA 4 to 6 hrs, around 0° declination) and perihelion around 15-17 hrs RA, around 0° dec which would put it more around Serpens/Ophiuchus/Libra and rather less likely Sagitarrius (Scorpio would be on the fringe of the area.)--Smkolins (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Longitude of periapsis

The direction of the perihelion is the longitude of periapsis, i.e. the sum of the longitude of the ascending node and the argument of periapsis. This is the parameter that will be confined to 180 degrees from the periapsis of Planet Nine. Agmartin (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is RF 98 missing its argument of periapsis?

That is the only relevant bit of info. Without complete periapsis info, the list might as well not be there. Serendipodous 21:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found it here. Nergaal (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall it right now, but what is the parameter that measures how far is the perihelion from the ecliptic? That needs to be added to the table too. Nergaal (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing of the ecliptic

I remember reading that one important factor is that the 6 TNOs cross the ecliptic from S to N very close to the perihelion. That should be mentioned somewhere. Nergaal (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf planet limit

At roughly what mass would an object with the proposed orbit could be considered to not have cleared the neighborhood? I remember there was a debate at some point that a weakness of the clearing the neighborhood is that something larger than Earth in a TN orbit may qualify to not have cleared its neighborhood. Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.06300 Wnt (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So for a 700 AU orbit the planet needs to be at least twice the mass of Earth? Nergaal (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a weakness of the criterion, it's how nature works. The criterion is valid and simply produces some counter-intuitive results. Counter-intuitive results are no reason to dismiss it, cf. quantum physics, which is completely counter-intuitive. --JorisvS (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

@W.carter and DarTar: Why was the date format changed to MDY if DMY was used first? I don't think MOS:TIES applies. SLBedit (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit

This sentence needs editing for clarity:

"...in the Local Bubble combining sending the solar wind to become part of..." Archolman User talk:Archolman 08:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

agreed it is cumbersome. Come up with better language. The language describing the heliotail is limited out there. --Smkolins (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis

I removed the stuff about Pioneer and constellations. That material was synthesis or original research. Please don't put it back. This article is currently on the home page of Wikipedia. Don't make edits that cause the article to get templated for poor quality. If you want to propose similar content with better sources please do so here in the talk page first. Jehochman Talk 13:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that PN's proposed aphelion is in the direction of Orion and Taurus is not synthesis. It is observation of the model given by the orbital characteristics. A direction is a direction. Other things far out in the solar system can also be in that direction. What's wrong with saying so? The only thing not observed in any citation is that the gravitational affect of PN can't be observed in the motion of Pioneer 10 because it has gone silent. That's just obvious. And the whole entry was put above a couple of comment sections with no comment amidst a flurry of activity after you took it out the first time. Yes there is the mistake about Scorpio and Aquarius - it should have been Sagittarius but that's a minor issue - the direction of the perihelion of the proposed orbit exists. I can wish they had said these directions in the original paper but they relied on more precise astrometry definitions like "argument of perihelion" and so on. --Smkolins (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is just obvious. It is not Wikipedia's job to draw its own conclusions. We report the conclusions of others, nothing else. Serendipodous 13:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the problem of how we would verify your observation, I don't see why this information needs to be included in the article. If no other source has published this fact, why would we? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Jehochman Talk 14:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does it help looking at RA/Dec graphs on http://www.findplanetnine.com/p/blog-page.html ? --Smkolins (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Definitely not. You are digging too deep. Stick with reliable sources. Jehochman Talk 18:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the article Planets beyond Neptune

Please see where this information can be introduced. It seems the some kind of work, and with the same results. From the article Planets beyond Neptune: In 2012, Rodney Gomes of the National Observatory of Brazil modelled the orbits of 92 Kuiper belt objects and found that six of those orbits were far more elongated than the model predicted. He concluded that the simplest explanation was the gravitational pull of a distant planetary companion, such as a Neptune-sized object at 1500 AU or a Mars-sized object at around 53 AU.[1]Japf (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "New planet found in our Solar System?". National Geographic. 2012. Retrieved 2012-05-21.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planet_Nine&oldid=701319693"