Most distant solar system object yet

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Most distant solar system object yet could hint at hidden planet

The inky black of the outer solar system just got a little brighter. A speck of light spotted in October 2015 is a rocky world more than 3 times more distant than Pluto – the farthest body in our solar system ever seen.

“We don’t know anything about its orbit,” says Scott Sheppard of the Carnegie Institute of Washington, whose team discovered the new addition. “We just know it’s the most distant object known.”

Sheppard announced the new object, called V774104, on 10 November at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society’s Division for Planetary Sciences, held in National Harbor, Maryland.

Read more...

[geraldnewfie]

Niburu !!!!

[Sundew]

If NASA gets a working model of their microwave engine into space, perhaps we'll get a peek at it in my lifetime. That would be very interesting.

[Infernal Gnu]

Fire a tractor beam at it and bring it in closer.

[Captain Dumbass]

So am i the only one that thought "good place to hide the space station from us" ? The size fits my imagination of a spacestation like the death star.

Oh yes, i am a huge sci-fi fan so i don't mind letting my imagination go there. I should do a 3D animation about thiis ;-)

[TripGun]

I think it is a Dyson sphere.

[Aardvark-DK]

No no, Death Star ! Watch out for the Dark Side...

[qxcontinuum]

i can't believe at that distance sun is still exercising influence over it. This may just prove there is more than just magnetism causing planets and smaller objects to obit sun. gotta be some defined traces in the dark matter

[Waspie_Dwarf]

i can't believe at that distance sun is still exercising influence over it.

What you believe is almost entirely irrelevant.

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.

- Neil deGrasse Tyson

This may just prove there is more than just magnetism causing planets and smaller objects to obit sun.

Come on qx, this is kiddies level science. Magnetism has NOTHING to do with objects orbiting the Sun, there is this thing called gravity.

gotta be some defined traces in the dark matter

Given that you don't know the difference between magnetism and gravity I'm going to guess that you don't actually know what dark matter is.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Waspie_Dwarf

[qxcontinuum]

apologies i wanted to say sun's gravity . there must be more than just gravity causing this dwarf to move around sun. as per dark matter well.. . i though nobody trully knows what is but i have a theory like others

[Frank Merton]

It's all kinda frustrating. Just as we get a good look at what during my youth was always thought to be the farthest thing away in the solar system -- Pluto -- they start finding more things even farther out.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Just as we get a good look at what during my youth was always thought to be the farthest thing away in the solar system -- Pluto -- they start finding more things even farther out.

We've know that comets can travel far beyond Pluto for a very long time. Indeed what is now known as the Oort Cloud was originally proposed as early as 1932, only two years after the discovery of Pluto, so I don't think it is the case that Pluto was ever really considered the furthest object in the solar system, just the farthest known.

[Frank Merton]

We've know that comets can travel far beyond Pluto for a very long time. Indeed what is now known as the Oort Cloud was originally proposed as early as 1932, only two years after the discovery of Pluto, so I don't think it is the case that Pluto was ever really considered the furthest object in the solar system, just the farthest known.

Yes I know about comets. Not quite a planet or dwarf planet, but the point is correct.

[JesseCuster]

apologies i wanted to say sun's gravity . there must be more than just gravity causing this dwarf to move around sun. as per dark matter well.. . i though nobody trully knows what is but i have a theory like others

But why must there be something else at work than gravity to make an object at that distance orbit the sun?

There's absolutely nothing about the theory of gravity that precludes an object at that distance orbiting the sun. In fact you can even calculate the expected orbital period if you know the distance. It's about 1500 years if I've done it correctly.

[qxcontinuum]

because the exact trajectory of a celestial object orbiting a star would be chaotic without having a defined route. the very same something reduces the mass of these celestial bodies. dark matter is believed to be at play on this. In other words if the sun will dissapear one day , all the planets will still orbit on the same trajectories for eons of time, undisturbed of its absence.

[JesseCuster]

because the exact trajectory of a celestial object orbiting a star would be chaotic without having a defined route.

I've no idea what that means. The theory of gravity predicts elliptical orbits for planets without anything to do with dark matter. Why do you think orbits would be "chaotic" without a "defined route"? What is a defined route and what does it have to do with dark matter?

the very same something reduces the mass of these celestial bodies.

Nor this. What celestial bodies are having their "mass reduced" and what is causing it?

dark matter is believed to be at play on this.

Believed by who?

In other words if the sun will dissapear one day , all the planets will still orbit on the same trajectories for eons of time, undisturbed of its absence.

I've never heard that idea before. Where did you come across it? Got a link? It doesn't appear to make any sense to me as it's the mass of the sun that causes the orbits of the planets in the solar system.

Your post just reads like some random pseudoscientific things you have just spouted off the top of your head.

Edited November 17, 2015 by JesseCuster

[Thorvir]

i can't believe at that distance sun is still exercising influence over it

Then pop open a science book and educate yourself.

This may just prove there is more than just magnetism causing planets and smaller objects to obit sun. gotta be some defined traces in the dark matter

Not magnetism. Gravity. Please look it up.

apologies i wanted to say sun's gravity . there must be more than just gravity causing this dwarf to move around sun. as per dark matter well.. . i though nobody trully knows what is but i have a theory like others

Gravity is enough. There is no magic involved here.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

In other words if the sun will dissapear one day , all the planets will still orbit on the same trajectories for eons of time, undisturbed of its absence.

This is just about as wrong as it is possible to be.

It is often said that if the Sun were replaced by a black hole of identical mass then the planets would not suddenly be sucked in to it but would continue to orbit as they do now. This is correct. I'm guessing that you have heard/read this and totally misunderstood the point leading to the travesty I have quoted above.

What you are claiming is in total contravention of Newton's First Law. This states:

When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.

Or, as Newton himself phrased it (when translated from the Latin):

Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.

(My emphasis).

The reason planets do not move "uniformly straight forward" is exactly as Newton explains it; because there is a force acting on them. That force is gravity.

Gravity is a product of mass (Newton's Second Law

The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: F = ma

).

If you remove the Sun then, obviously, you remove the Sun's mass, If you remove the Sun's mass the F=ma becomes F=0, in other words the force acting on the planets becomes zero. From the First Law, if there is no force acting on the planets then the planets will travel "uniformly straight forward".

In other words, if the Sun were to disappear then the planets (and every other object orbiting it) would not continue to orbit on the same trajectories but would head of into deep space in a perfectly straight line, until some other force acts on them.

Once again, this is pretty basic stuff and has been understood for more than 300 years. If you can not understand the most basic principles you are most certainly not in the position to be making wild, unsupported claims about gravity not being sufficient to account for the orbit of ANY body around the Sun.

I really think you should read this and try and understand what it actually means before making any more guesses which are provably wrong:

The age of stupid is upon us. Scientific conclusions are drawn from missing data, resuming to suppositions and guessing.

That should be very familiar to you, it is your own profile quote. It's a shame you don't follow it.

[qxcontinuum]

the force that moves earth around the sun is very little influenced by sun's gravity. It is instead the result of a circular movement of the giant sun which creates waves in the fabric of space atracting planets. it is the same phenomenon reproduced in the water. if you drop a ball 3 meters away from you , it can be brought back by making circular movements in the water. In space the water would be dark matter. This is also why all galaxies are following a spiral pattern , because they are in a continuous tango like rotation.

Also the self rotatation of the sun or other planets is created by dark matter's electrical charge interacting with their iron core. It creates the same type of rotation like a magnet sourounded by an elect field (electric motor)

Edited November 18, 2015 by qxcontinuum

[Waspie_Dwarf]

qx, taking into account your own profile account, to avoid accusations of hypocrisy, you will of course be providing evidence to support your claims I presume.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

qx, how does your drivel explain the high inclination orbits of some comets, or the retrograde nature of many long period comets?

I'll give you a big clue... it doesn't.

[JesseCuster]

the force that moves earth around the sun is very little influenced by sun's gravity.

Of course the force that moves earth around the sun isn't very little influenced by sun's gravity. The force that moves the earth around the sun IS sun's gravity.

It is instead the result of a circular movement of the giant sun which creates waves in the fabric of space atracting planets.

Can you at least explain where you're getting this nonsense from? When you say the "circular movement of the giant sun" do you mean the rotation of the sun or are you referring to something else? What you write is very vague and rambling and it's thus hard to know what you're actually talking about.

Not only is it nonsense, you've gone ahead and completely contradicted yourself. First you said that the planets would continue on their orbits undisturbed by the absence of the sun and now you're saying that their orbits are caused by the circular movement of the sun. Is the sun responsible for the orbits of the planets or not?

it is the same phenomenon reproduced in the water. if you drop a ball 3 meters away from you , it can be brought back by making circular movements in the water. In space the water would be dark matter. This is also why all galaxies are following a spiral pattern , because they are in a continuous tango like rotation.

Also the self rotatation of the sun or other planets is created by dark matter's electrical charge interacting with their iron core. It creates the same type of rotation like a magnet sourounded by an elect field (electric motor)

That's just gibberish. Did you make this up, read it on some woo site or completely misinterpret and mangle something from an actual scientific source?

Can you answer some of the questions that were asked of you earlier which you didn't, namely the following 2:

Where did you get the nonsense idea that orbits would be chaotic if it weren't for dark matter or the circular motion of the sun or whatever? The theory of gravity predicts neat elliptical orbits for planets which is exactly what we see. Why do you think otherwise? The maths behind Newton's theory of gravity is pretty basic and explicit about this.

What on earth were you talking about "the very same something" causing the "reduction of mass" of celestial bodies? I can't make head nor tail of what you're trying to say.

You might try actually defending some of this stuff because as it is I suspect you're simply rambling from post to post throwing out buzz phrases and terminology in a completely incoherent mess. As the famous saying goes, it's not even wrong.

[qxcontinuum]

sorry for my poor english again. i probably should take more time to explain these things in a way it can be inteligible and coherent. Of course i can provide wider context to my afirmations but my personal time is very limited. I am working on a major project where my entire focus and dedication is required.

I am not a clown as some of you may believe reading shortly through my poorly selected words although the message should have always been clear .

[qxcontinuum]

qx, how does your drivel explain the high inclination orbits of some comets, inclination or the retrograde nature of many long period comets

I'll give you a big clue... it doesn't.

no it doesn't because there is something else regulating revolvment and that ain't gravity

high orbits of some comets comparing to what ? out there in space what is the reference plan you are comparing their orbital inclination? You should know by now that if gravity truly is the main driver of their retrograde and prograded orbital movement they should have slammed already in the cosmic chaos created by the perturbation created by gravity interaction between the sun and planets. Their orbit would be like crazy moto cross rallyee with twisties

Edited November 19, 2015 by qxcontinuum

[Frank Merton]

no it doesn't because there is something else regulating revolvment and that ain't gravity

high orbits of some comets comparing to what ? out there in space what is the reference plan you are comparing their orbital inclination? You should know by now that if gravity truly is the main driver of their retrograde and prograded orbital movement they should have slammed already in the cosmic chaos created by the perturbation created by gravity interaction between the sun and planets. Their orbit would be like crazy moto cross rallyee with twisties

Reading you is painful.