[ad_1]
Does this discovery of "The Goblin" make "Planet 9" more likely? Yes, I would say it. It's really strange. I'm starting to get excited about the idea :). There is a lot of space for planets to exist beyond Neptune. No gas giants known to get in their way. And – the objects are moving further and further away from the sun.
The fact is that our telescopes can easily spot even small objects at a distance of about Pluto. But beyond that, it becomes very difficult to see anything. This is because the brightness decreases with distance. If something is ten times farther away, it is visually 100 times smaller in the sky and, in addition, it gets only one hundredth of the sun's light. The combination of these two effects makes it 10 000 times lower for our telescopes. Something a hundred times the distance of Pluto would be a hundred million times smaller. You can also see things in another way. If it's ten times farther, its diameter has to be 100 times larger to have the same brightness (which would make it 10,000 times larger in cross-section to make up for the fact that it's 10,000 times weaker).
"Where we think the planet is – at hundreds of AU's, if it's 1,000 AU – something as big as Neptune would be weaker than most telescopes could see, "Sheppard told Space.com. (If it sounds strange or incongruous to you: the goblin was found near perihelion, about 80 AU from the sun.)
"And most of our investigations so far are not going so bad, do not go that far. We have covered the sky very little to the depth that needs to be covered to find something so weak, "he added. "You can very easily hide a very big thing in the external solar system." The world found "The Goblin" could lead to the mysterious planet Nine
From this same article, it was found at a distance of 80 km / h and has an estimated diameter of about 300 km (they do not know for sure because it depends on the light or dark color, but simply the total brightness). ).
If it was at a distance of 800 to, it would need a diameter of 30,000 km to have the same brightness. "Planet 9", if it exists, would have a diameter of 13,000 to 26,000 km and should be at a distance of 1,200 or less. That would make it much weaker than Goblin. So, if it exists, it is at the limit of what our largest telescopes can detect.
Introducing "The Goblin": a new distant dwarf planet reinforces the evidence of the planet 9
This shows its orbit
This shows some of the other objects found up to now – "the goblin" would be in an orbit extending to the left in this image. It's striking, almost all except the 2013 FT28 are in orbit in this direction.
The supposed "Planet 9" orbit in green and loose objects – note how recently discovered objects fit on one side of the sun – this could be due to the influence of a large, heavy planet in the supposed orbit.
The theory is that the big planet 9 makes the orbits in other directions unstable for very long periods – although you do not notice anything in a single orbit. It's not like the discovery of Neptune – we do not see any anomaly in the movements of these objects
The only anomaly is that they are in these very elliptical orbits that cluster on one side of the sun. The orbits themselves are fairly normal; The anomaly is more about what we do not find. Why have not we found similar objects in ellipses yet in the opposite direction?
Also note that these objects were only discovered because they were closest to their orbit to the sun.
Close up of some of the detached objects indicating their position at the time of discovery.
It is unlikely that they are all near the sun by chance at the very moment when astronomers have started looking for them. This means that there must be tens, probably hundreds of these objects that are in similar orbits – but currently much farther away from the sun. We only have to see a small part of a large population of hundreds of these objects. And when there are so many objects from a few hundred kilometers in diameter to a few thousand diameters – we can expect to find a few larger ones – so – there might well be bigger planets of the size of Mars and Earth in orbits similar to Sedna as well as the "Planet 9".
Mike Brown hypothesized that, shortly after its discovery, there would have been talk of Sedna – that there would probably be several objects the size of Mercury, Mars and possibly Earth in orbits similar to Sedna. These have not yet been found, but they would be even more difficult to spot than "Planet 9". Although we do not talk much, this option is probably still very widespread. There must be a larger object in these families and it is unlikely that we found it – so how big is it?
So, we could eventually find not only "Planet 9", but also "Planet's 10, 11, 12, …". And – some of them – far beyond Pluto – can be as big as Mercury or as big as Mars or even Earth. IAU will want to say that they are not planets because they do not "clear their orbits". But I think we'll call them planets and reopen this whole debate.
This image again shows some of these objects, but I like it because it gives an idea of our solar neighborhood. Apart from Jupiter, we can find objects not exceeding a few kilometers in diameter. to Pluto – tens of kilometers across hundreds of kilometers. But further, we could miss even large planets. Far enough and we could miss even a planet as big as Jupiter.
"The four zones of the solar system include a staggering amount of unexplored space – almost everything beyond Pluto is barely known. (Credit: M. Brown / Caltech / R.Hurt / C.Powell) "(figure from this article)
There might not be a single big planet – there could be many – Mars-sized planets, Earth's, this 'Planet 9' of Neptune's size – and maybe even bigger ones. Jupiter might be missed if you get enough out of the sun. The Oort cloud spreads largely to nearby stars. There could be objects in orbit one light year or more away.
An object as large as Jupiter, a light-year away, would not form in the manner of other planets from the same drop of gas that collapsed to form our solar system. But it could form as a sub-brown dwarf – a planet that condenses from a drop of separate matter, in the same way as a binary star.
We know that there is no second star companion. The WISE infrared space telescope has refuted this. No brown dwarfs either, unless they are really very cold (improbable) because they would be easily spotted by heat radiation – we can see them up to ten light-years away.
MIKE BROWN PREDICTING A FUTURE DISCOVERY OF A PLANET NOT MADE FROM MARCH, BEYOND NEPTUNE
You may remember that the IAU had stated that Pluto was not a planet some time ago, because, she said, a planet needs to "clean its orbit" from most other objects.
Here is his video where he predicts using a statistical argument from Sedna's orbit, that it is likely that we find planets beyond Neptune the size of Mercury, Mars or even Earth. He then goes on to say.
"What's strange about this one, we found this one almost at the closest point where it gets to the sun.
coincidently. Because there are only about 200 periods in red
here when we could have seen it. … So 200 years out of 12,000 years
means 1 in 60 chance of finding it. So we are very lucky,
astronomers do not like to consider themselves lucky or scientists
general, but what we like to think is that if we found
something and we only had one chance out of 60 to find it, probably there
are 60 and we just found the one that happens to be close. …
Now, maybe it's not 60. Maybe it's 30 and we had a bit of luck.
It may be 90 and we are a bit unlucky. But there is a lot of
objects in this very remote region where we have never known anything
before. It's the first time we discover something in this region
right here.""Now, the fun thing to think about is, if
Sedna is about 3/4 times larger than Pluto,
there are 60 objects 3/4 the size of Pluto, there are probably, oh, 30
objects of Pluto's size, that's a lot of objects the size of Pluto.
There are probably 10 objects that are twice the size of Pluto and he
are probably two or three objects that are three and four and maybe
even five times the size of Pluto. in this region here. It's a bit
little vague, since we have found only one object, to be able to
extrapolate to these things, but it's not so vague. There must be
some of these very big objects there. And our big goal now, and
one of my doctoral theses is to find these objects, if
there are some big objects there two, three or four times the size
of Pluto, these things are the size of Mercury, these things are the
Mars size, these things are the size of the Earth. If you take that
final thought and you look at the Kuiper belt and you put this object on
there, it's the size of Mars, ""I'm ready to
go out on a limb over there and say, let's find something like that, the
Mars size, in this region of space. And scientifically, it will be
fantastic because we will get to know a whole new class of
objects, and try to understand how they got there. But just as fun,
Of course, will that make astronomers go out of their way?
again. Because, if you find it, how do you call it? Well by the current
definition – and I forgot to tell you, of course, the current definition
is, you have the eight planets, and if you're not a planet, but you're
always one of those round things, you are a dwarf planet. ""His
a strange word because there are very few cases in English
where you have adjective, noun, combination "dwarf planet" is not a
"planet". Dwarf planets are not planets. They are dwarf planets. But
the official definition of this object the size of Mars would be a dwarf
planet. I believe in fact that it is the right classification. Because
I still think this population deserves to be brought together and the
the planets are really special. But I do not think most people are going
buy that. I think if you find something the size of Mars, something from
the size of the Earth I think most people will want to call it a
planet, and I think astronomers are going into a tumult again.
Maybe they will have as much fun as in Prague … "
and continues to speculate on the future meeting of the IAU after astronomers have found a dwarf planet the size of Mars, not meeting the definition of the IAU.
The video is here
"Planet 9", if it exists, sneaks like an orbit clearing
The vertical axis shows its mass in land masses.
At the distance of 'Planet 9', none of the terrestrial planets, not even the Earth, would count as a cleaning in orbit. If there was a planet as big as the Earth with a half-major axis as big as Sedna, or "the goblin", it would not be considered a "planet" according to the IAU.
You can also see on this diagram that Pluto and Eris would count as planets if they were in the same orbit as Mercury, and that Mercury would be exactly at the border, at Pluto's distance and well below, at the distance from Eris. Meanwhile, a sub-brown dwarf the size of Jupiter would not count for clarification of the orbit it was forming more than a light-year away from our sun.
THESE NEW PLANETS, IF FOUND, CAN NOT COME IN THE INDOOR SOLAR SYSTEM
Planet X is a general term for any hypothesis of a planet that has not yet been found. Pluto was the first "planet X" before finding it. Since then, many of them have been refuted. For example, Robert Harrington proposed a planet to explain the anomalies of Neptune's orbit. The need flew away when Myles Standish recalculated Neptune's mass after flying over Uranus and the anomalies disappeared. Since then, all planets in the solar system have behaved exactly as expected.
Neptune would have been called "Planet X" before being discovered if she had had this terminology. I think it's Lowell who started looking for Pluto. X means "unknown".
If you are looking for news about "Planet X," then Google fills your search results page on "Nibiru," a mythical planet that can not exist. Here is Planet x-bikes – Google Search (to exclude the bike manufacturer 'Planet X' searches).
Two of the first three research findings claim that 'The Goblin' could prove that 'Nibiru' exists. If you are an amateur or professional astronomer, you may never have heard of "Nibiru". It is an absurd conspiracy theory that there is an extra planet in our solar system that is about to hit Earth or fly over it. They claim that this will happen since 2003 since a lady, Nancy Lieder, claimed that aliens from Zeta Reticuli's Wikipedia star system had told her about "Nibiru" via an organic implant in her brain. Of course, nothing has happened.
Indeed, Google is filtering the false scientific news on the planets.
The conspiracy theorists claim that all these contradicted planets are the same planet, "Nibiru" – including Robert Harrington's "Planet X". They claim that he was murdered to hide the news (his theory was actually refuted six months before his death from a throat cancer). They ignore such differences as the hypothetical planets since Pluto permanently orbits well beyond Neptune.
In principle, a planet could cross the orbit of Neptune – Pluto does it – by being in a resonance, a 3: 2 resonance. There are many others known now, with a resonance of 1: 2. 1: 3, 1: 4, 1: 5, 2: 3, 3: 5, 2: 5, 4: 7 and various other ratios, collectively referred to as Trans-Neptunian transonist objects.
An object can not resonate with Neptune and Uranus, because these two planets are not in resonance with each other. This is why no planet or dwarf planet so close to Uranus will last long.
Whoever crosses all the gaseous giants and reaches Earth's orbit could not last a million years. If it is a brown dwarf it is even worse, all the other planets will disappear within a million years or even very quickly even a single flyby of the inner solar system would disturb it so much that the planets would be in strange and elongated orbits, probably exchange orbits and so on. They would soon touch the sun, "Nibiru", or be ejected completely.
It is therefore impossible for our solar system to have such a brown dwarf. And a planet smaller than Jupiter would have had very obvious effects on the Earth's orbit and we would probably have lost our Moon as well if it had buzzed the Earth 3,600 years ago. The idea is simply absurd, stupid LOL for astronomers and since Newton discovered the mathematics of gravity, the planets follow the law of reverse attraction.
See also my
See also my
Source link
