Comments on Mike Brown's Planets: There's something out there -- part 2
Per Gordon Shumway in the mid 80s the next planet ...Per Gordon Shumway in the mid 80s the next planet out the Alvin followed by Dave.
I am really not qualified to do this. But here goe...I am really not qualified to do this. But here goes nothing. I think the key is much closer to home than we think. I suggest that Venus is a recent addition to our Solar System, perhaps within the last 100,000 years or less. The retrograde spin that is longer than its year would be the obvious evidence.<br />What if this star is orbiting in an orbit of 50 degrees off the orbits of the planets and moving in the wrong direction. Facing downwards from the North, all the planets are rotating around the Sun in a counter-clockwise direction. But if this star is moving in a clockwise direction, wouldn't the computer filters eliminate it off the images? If it is a very small and old dwarf star, would it also be extremely small and massive with a load of heavy elements rather than a gas giant? Taking it one step further, would it act like a planet with moons? If the moons are big, then you have something like Venus. This all imagination on my part, and I really do not have any evidence. If this so called dwarf star is at a very high degree off the orbits of our existing inner solar system, and if it is so far south of the equator, would it actually show up on our infrared scans? The critical point being if it is traveling in the wrong direction . . .
Planet X does not exist. A likely cause is that Se...Planet X does not exist. A likely cause is that Sedna started his life as a moon of Saturn called Gaga. A close encounter with another Gas Giant sent Sedna out of its Cronocentric orbit into a Heliocentric orbit beyond Neptune. A star swinging by subsequently perturbed Sedna into his current orbit.
Mike,I am writing a paper and would like to know m...Mike,I am writing a paper and would like to know more facts about Sedna. I am a very excited "Astronamer in Training".
The Pholus Aphelion Orcus Orbit synchronization pi...The Pholus Aphelion Orcus Orbit synchronization pictured in the website below: http://www.lunarplanner.com/Images/asteroid-orbits/Pholus-Saturn-Orcus.jpg <br /><br /> points in the same general direction of the sky as the aphelion of Sedna. When you couple with with other data (such as Pluto incline), what does that indicate to you?
Whatever put Sedna in its place probably also skew...Whatever put Sedna in its place probably also skewed Pluto's orbit as both are similarly inclined to the plane of the solar system. But apparently Pluto remained close enough to the sun to avoid the forces that elongated Sedna's ellipse.
2 suns? hopely won't get to hot, but anyways t...2 suns? hopely won't get to hot, but anyways the other one is not going to be really a sun but more powerful
Query: Someone's probably already suggested th...Query: Someone's probably already suggested this, but...<br />If Neptune and Uranus "switched places" at some early stage in their history, could Uranus have once been in an orbit that would have allowed it to eject Sedna?
"Bernard: There is no physically plausible wa..."Bernard: There is no physically plausible way to put Sedna in place and have nothing else out there, so no chance it will be isolated. But, geez, I sure would like to actually find some of those other guys one of these days.<br /><br />No arguing with you about New Horizons, though. It will show amazing things."<br /><br />Well I will defer to you then and await what is out beyond Sedna. It sure will be interesting and New Horizons will indeed be something great. I as a layman think it will probably shed more light on the Solar System than anything so far and help us understand more Sedna.<br /><br />I agree with you that the IAU in Prague was voting with no great thought but frankly I find that a relief. If they had put deep thought into how to define a planet I think we would have been worse off.
Bernard: There is no physically plausible way to p...Bernard: There is no physically plausible way to put Sedna in place and have nothing else out there, so no chance it will be isolated. But, geez, I sure would like to actually find some of those other guys one of these days.<br /><br />No arguing with you about New Horizons, though. It will show amazing things.
If Sedna is truly isolated doesn't that techni...If Sedna is truly isolated doesn't that technically make it according to you Dr. Mike Brown a planet? <br /><br /> <br /><br />Anonymous said... <br />"Well Mike, that's a superb/amazing explanation for Sedna;<br />a captured "extra-solar dwarf planet" ..."<br /><br /> <br /><br />You mean an exodwarf!<br /><br />See my blog that I am slowly fixing up and yes if you deny Pluto's planethood you can still see it. I'm not trying to change votes only hearts towards Pluto. Who knows what we'll find when New Horizons reaches there.
Nemesis is a main-belt asteroid... Its a minor pla...Nemesis is a main-belt asteroid... Its a minor planet and not a brown dwarf...
Here's another mechanism that is logically pos...Here's another mechanism that is logically possible, but I'm not sure if the math makes it wildly unlikely:<br /><br />Suppose in the early history of the solar system, there had been a population of mid-size (Earth to Neptune, say) worlds in elliptical orbits with aphelia out near 75-80 AU but perihelia of 5 to 10 AU. A world like that could tweak Sedna-like bodies at aphelion but be tweaked itself by Jupiter and Saturn at perihelion. After it placed Sedna in the current orbit, it could be eliminated from the solar system by an encounter with one of the giant planets. (Ejected, dropped into the Sun, dropped into a gas giant.) In essence, it would be a middleman of influence, bullying small bodies in the outer reaches, but being bullied itself in the mid-outer solar system.<br /><br />For this to make sense, there would have to have been a pretty large population of such worlds, and then a highly efficient dynamic for eliminating absolutely all of them.
The apparent luminosity of the full moon at 600 AU...The apparent luminosity of the full moon at 600 AU works out to an absolute magnitude only a little less than the Sun's. Presumably the likeliest perpetrator would be a much dimmer star?
What about dark matter in that vicinity causing th...What about dark matter in that vicinity causing the necessary gravitational pull to reflect the elongated orbit. Would explain why it has been hard to detect the "unknown" object causing the orbit?
As I mentioned in my previous comment (now on hold...As I mentioned in my previous comment (now on hold for eventual approval), this is not what we see, modern observations and papers reject firmly some of the earlier assumed tests for more massive solar bound objects. The case seems more difficult, at least from the outside. <br /><br />Also, I'm curious about "theoretical evidence", when it is observations of Kuiper belts objects that are best constrained so far, see how the particular hypotheses drowns in the new ones.
Torbjörn Larsson, OMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9094742788006644220.post-4932971756261198452010-11-12T03_05_03.637-08_002010-11-12T03_05_03.637-08_00
"I think it explains periodic mass extinction..."I think it explains periodic mass extinctions on Earth quite well."<br /><br />Just in case someone reads this and to satisfy my SIWOTI urge: as I noted under the first article in the series, there are no observations of periodic mass extinctions in the modern more extensive fossil record and in fact auto-correlation studies rejects it firmly. (Again, ref not handy but can provide if asked.) Nor, I believe, periodic iridium anomalies.<br /><br />Moreover, we now know that the KPg impactor was a one off, see the latest review paper (2009, I believe). The culprits were sulfur (main culprit) and calcium containing rocks, which lies spotty as seen by impactors and are modern only (as they are caused by the biosphere itself!), which severely restricts the risk for yet another in the remaining 0.5 - 2 Gy of biosphere lifetime. And no earlier impactor has likely caused extinctions, and would not be expected to with the above background.<br /><br />I'm fairly excited by the article's third hypothesis, since with the above observational background alone it is the most likely! Any early impactors set off by the mechanism would have drowned in the LHB/tectonics background.
Torbjörn Larsson, OMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9094742788006644220.post-4026812924904767752010-11-09T20_54_16.602-08_002010-11-09T20_54_16.602-08_00
Hi Mike, a very interesting article (Both parts 1&...Hi Mike, a very interesting article (Both parts 1&2),thanks.<br /><br />Aside from some of the more 'crank' theories out there in webland, there appears to be growing conjecture (Indeed signs of early theoretical evidence) that there may really be 'something out there'. No coincidence either that Neptune was 'discovered' using mathematical models and theory long before it was actually observed.<br /><br />Couple of questions, and please excuse my limited laymans knowledge...<br /><br />Can we not model the current orbits of all known solar system objects, on a computer, to try and determine the existance or position of a large object or at least narrow down the required search area?<br /><br />Given that Jupiter is self illuminating in IR, wouldn't WISE, Spitzer or Herschel easily be able to observe any similar sized IR emitting light source that lies closer than our nearest known star?<br /><br />Look forward to any more updates and good luck...<br /><br />Paul
I saw on twitter you forgot your charger, if you&#...I saw on twitter you forgot your charger, if you're at a hotel you might be able to find one in the lost and found (http://lifehacker.com/5454709/replace-your-lost-cellphone-charger-for-free)<br />-- I don't think I can dm you in twitter
What is the inclination of Sedna, is it close to P...What is the inclination of Sedna, is it close to Pluto's, and is there any possibility that Pluto's inclination to the solar system might also be caused by the same body that perturbed Sedna?
@CT I live in Seattle. I'd be happy if we had ...@CT I live in Seattle. I'd be happy if we had ONE sun!<br /><br />@Mike I keep expecting to hear a report about brown dwarves from WISE, and the fact they haven't said anything makes me think they didn't find anything. (My hypothesis is that if they'd discovered a "star" closer than Proxima, they'd go straight to the press.) Anyway, I'd guess the WISE results will be a big help as far as placing constraints on existing objects large enough to be responsible for Sedna.<br /><br />That raises the question of what sort of mission could conclusively eliminate the possibility of any body close than the Oort Cloud having put Sedna into its place.<br /><br />--Greg
I am kind of hanging out for the discovery of more...I am kind of hanging out for the discovery of more Sedna class objects. Perhaps when the large Synoptic Survey Telescope comes into service in the middle of the decade there could follow slew of discoveries. From my understanding the LSST would be well suited for "Sedna searching". <br /><br />What would be most intriguing is if nothing else like Sedna is found at all!<br />Lindsay
Hi Mike – Sedna’s periodicity is in 2:1 resonance ...Hi Mike – Sedna’s periodicity is in 2:1 resonance with the orbit of the companion star hypothesized by the Indian astronomer Sri Yukteswar in 1894. Yukteswar suggested that our sun’s motion around the common center of mass was the primary cause of the observable we call precession (in contrast to the lunisolar theory of precession that requires a static solar system). I plugged his numbers into a model and found it to be highly accurate in predicting changes in the precession rate. In fact, if you compare Yukteswar’s 1894 moving solar system model of precession with Newcomb’s 1897 precession equation, the binary model was 41 times more accurate over the next 100 years (based on P rate in Astronomical Almanac of 1900 and 2000). This implies that the bulk of the observable of the stars moving retrograde across the sky at about 50”p/y is actually due to motion of the solar system frame relative to the VLBI reference points, and very little due to local gravitational forces tugging on the oblate earth (although that local dynamic does cause nutation). Of course no companion star has yet been found but it shows your speculative ideas concerning a rogue star might not be so rogue after all. Incidentally, it may also solve the IAU’s problem that the precession equation is “not consistent with dynamical theory”. Keep up the good work!
I'll go for the first explanation, a "pla...I'll go for the first explanation, a "planet", but about five Jupiter masses. I think it explains periodic mass extinctions on Earth quite well.<br /><br />Mike, I don't see how Neptune would crank some of the Kuiper belt objects into some of the wilder orbital inclinations out there, for instance, the 44 degree inclination of your most famous discovery, Eris. Ed Belbruno asked me, if Eris was the lost moon of Triton as I thought at the time, how it got it's inclination. (Note, later I saw a collision between my flyby objects and realized that it was Haumea that was the lost moon of Triton; high density, collisional family, all kinds of indicators).<br /><br />So I put that on GravitySimulator. Even with Eris making very close (~350,000 km) flybys of Neptune, and even with Triton helping propel it, I couldn't get better than about 30 degrees. Encounters after getting Eris at that inclination usually resulted in the inclination getting lowered.<br /><br />It's the Kozai mechanism, you can trade eccentricity for inclination or vice-versa but the product of the two is a constant.<br /><br />The Kuiper belt should be flat as a pancake. The fact that it's not is why you're famous (deservedly so, thanks for looking, I REALLY appreciate it). Something - something big, much larger than one Earth mass - has wrecked the Kuiper belt and has also resulted in an abrupt cutoff of said belt at 55 A.U.<br /><br />Something needs to explain this cutoff and also the high inclinations. If one object can explain not only these, but also periodic mass extinctions, then maybe there's only one object and it exists.<br /><br />You have noted (somewhere on the vast internet) that we are highly, highly fortunate to be seeing Sedna so close to the Sun. For most of it's 12,000 year orbit, it's way too far out there to see. Or, maybe instead of being fortunate, there are a whole bunch of invisible Sednas parading past the Sun and we see the one that happens to be closest right now. Well, I like the second explanation better and thank you for both of them.<br /><br />That would mean the Planet X/Nemesis/Tyche object had a large population of moons/planets. It's Hill sphere would shrink as it approached the Sun and the outermost objects would get stranded and would go into independent orbits around the Sun. Maybe we're UNlucky and normally there are several to be seen. But we see Sedna and a couple of small objects so that's what any speculations should be based on.<br /><br />Thanks for letting me speculate on your blog :D Have a nice day.-<br /><br />Michael C. Emmert