"Aernus", A proposed new planet in the Kuiper Belt |
"Aernus", A proposed new planet in the Kuiper Belt |
Oct 14 2007, 02:55 PM
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 428 Joined: 21-August 06 From: Northern Virginia Member No.: 1062 |
Interesting. A massive distant planet is one way to account for the orbit of Sedna. I don't know if one Earth mass is enough though. If one earth mass wasn't enough, maybe they are in some kind of a resonance. That would allow for a difference in orbit gradually over time. That might even help to find such an object... |
|
|
Oct 15 2007, 10:06 AM
Post
#17
|
|
Special Cookie Group: Members Posts: 2168 Joined: 6-April 05 From: Sintra | Portugal Member No.: 228 |
I've asked David Tholen (the responsible for the latest Pluto system images) about this, if he had knowledge of it, I didn't publish this in the blog because it was a bit off topic, but there's one thing he said that made me scratch my head more vigourously...
He told me that he was aware of predictions for a much larger object being even farther out... -------------------- "Ride, boldly ride," The shade replied, "If you seek for Eldorado!"
Edgar Alan Poe |
|
|
Oct 15 2007, 11:57 AM
Post
#18
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3516 Joined: 4-November 05 From: North Wales Member No.: 542 |
|
|
|
Dec 14 2007, 11:12 AM
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 531 Joined: 24-August 05 Member No.: 471 |
Here's the arXiv preprint:
- An Outer Planet Beyond Pluto and Origin of the Trans-Neptunian Belt Architecture -------------------- - blue_scape / Nico -
|
|
|
Dec 14 2007, 11:22 AM
Post
#20
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3516 Joined: 4-November 05 From: North Wales Member No.: 542 |
Thanks very much for that - duly printed off for holiday reading.
|
|
|
Jan 7 2008, 09:20 AM
Post
#21
|
|
Special Cookie Group: Members Posts: 2168 Joined: 6-April 05 From: Sintra | Portugal Member No.: 228 |
Patryk Lykawka provided the link for downloading the high quality PDF (8.84MB) directly from his site.
-------------------- "Ride, boldly ride," The shade replied, "If you seek for Eldorado!"
Edgar Alan Poe |
|
|
Jan 7 2008, 05:03 PM
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 401 Joined: 5-January 07 From: Manchester England Member No.: 1563 |
Thanks ustrax that'll make for fascinating lunch break reading!
-------------------- |
|
|
Jan 21 2008, 04:52 AM
Post
#23
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1887 Joined: 20-November 04 From: Iowa Member No.: 110 |
New Scientist has an article discussing Lykawka's theory in the Jan 12 issue.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19...f-planet-x.html Levison and Morbidelli have there own paper to explain the properties of the Kuiper belt. http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0553 |
|
|
Jun 18 2008, 07:12 PM
Post
#24
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1018 Joined: 29-November 05 From: Seattle, WA, USA Member No.: 590 |
MSNBC is running a story on this today:
http://harbor.scitec.kobe-u.ac.jp/~patryk/...a-Planetoid.pdf Apparently Patryk has a new paper in the Astrophysical Journal today, although I can't find a link to it on his site: http://harbor.scitec.kobe-u.ac.jp/~patryk/index-en.html My biggest question, though, is why he thinks it would only be a "plutoid," since he seems to be describing a very large (Earth-diameter, but 1/3 mass) object well outside the Kuiper Belt -- something that almost certainly would have cleared its orbit. --Greg |
|
|
Jun 18 2008, 09:59 PM
Post
#25
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8784 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
I think he's erring on the side of caution and using the largest category of currently recognized trans-Neptunian objects by the IAU; seems sensible to me.
If you think the Pluto debate has been a debacle, just wait 20 years or so when I personally think we'll find a couple of dozen Mars-sized or better objects out there to struggle with. I'm gonna go with Stephen's nomenclature on another thread and start using "thingys". -------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Jun 18 2008, 11:03 PM
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 529 Joined: 19-February 05 Member No.: 173 |
MSNBC is running a story on this today: http://harbor.scitec.kobe-u.ac.jp/~patryk/...a-Planetoid.pdf Apparently Patryk has a new paper in the Astrophysical Journal today, although I can't find a link to it on his site: http://harbor.scitec.kobe-u.ac.jp/~patryk/index-en.html My biggest question, though, is why he thinks it would only be a "plutoid," since he seems to be describing a very large (Earth-diameter, but 1/3 mass) object well outside the Kuiper Belt -- something that almost certainly would have cleared its orbit. --Greg At Pluto's orbit, Earth would not be a planet by IAU standards. Silly, I know. At 100 AU, a several Earth mass object would be disqualified. This is a consequence of the zone clearing criteria which biases what is and is not a planet by distance-- so that objects that are planets at 1 AU like Earth are not planets at 30 AU. You know what I think of this. Now for a prediction: It shall fall before NH reaches Pluto. Too many people are figuring it out. Google "Great Planet Debate." -Alan |
|
|
Jun 18 2008, 11:52 PM
Post
#27
|
|
Senior Member Group: Admin Posts: 4763 Joined: 15-March 05 From: Glendale, AZ Member No.: 197 |
Organizations such as IAU exist by virtue of broad agreement to accept their declarations and rulings. When these groups tread outside the bounds of popular opinion and become controversial they risk that universal acceptance and accordingly their usefulness as an organization comes into question. Not that I'm part of any cabal, or anything like that.
-------------------- If Occam had heard my theory, things would be very different now.
|
|
|
Jun 19 2008, 12:31 AM
Post
#28
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8784 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
(Sigh)...yeah, and it's a damn shame that it happened, too. Up till this point, the IAU has been one of the least controversial and most respected organizations there is. Unfortunately, I think it was inevitable as well, and there will be other emerging issues in the near future as well (for example, let's all try to obtain a precise definition of a brown dwarf once we've got a broad sample of their population; ain't gonna be pretty.)
Classification in an absolute human-subjective sense does not lend itself well to almost any feature or aspect of the actual Universe. Reality stretches our self-imposed boundaries, always. Just watch: we're gonna find things like 'galaxies' in intergalactic space with fewer stars than an open cluster. The naming of names will never be over. For the far future, wait till when and if we ever discover a complex alien ecosystem; the words 'animal' and 'plant' will become instantly obsolete. Hell, they already are in a lot of ways. Sorry to belabor the point. I just don't ever see a neat solution to the problem, and it goes far beyond astronomy. -------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Jun 19 2008, 12:34 AM
Post
#29
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
Even beyond the controversy, we've had the following categories invoked re: Pluto's possible membership in the past several years:
Planet (pre-2006 status) Planet (the definition it had for a few days including Ceres, Eris, and Charon) Planet (the latest definition, excluding Pluto) Minor Planet (re: proposals to give it a Minor Planet number) Dwarf Planet Kuiper Belt Object Trans-Neptunian Object Plutino Plutoid Planetoid? Pluto is in six to eight of these categories by the current official reckoning, which is remarkable when you consider that we don't know that much about it. This is a mess. It was honestly someone's idea to look at the previously existing nine categories and conjure up a new one? How many times can you screw up a joke before the audience wants you off the stage? The IAU is *way* past that limit. |
|
|
Jun 19 2008, 01:29 AM
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 30-January 05 Member No.: 162 |
My apologies if someone else has thought of this first and I didn't notice (or if it is impossible . . . )
IIRC, quite a few objects out Pluto way seem to be resonant with Neptune. (3:2 springs to mind) Are any other solar orbital periods suspiciously common amongst the remainder of the other objects ?? Or any commensurabilities?? Like if we are seeing several objects with periods around (just picking a random #) 313 years and another bunch at 469 years, it seems like something "might be up". Maybe something large out at 626 years, or 939 years? (I realize checking all the ratios is annoying and involves something called 'math' . . . . ) |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 5th June 2024 - 03:45 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |