Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Solar System May Have Hidden Giant Planet

solar system planets tyche wise nasa

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#16    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,114 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 26 July 2013 - 11:40 AM

View PostJacques Terreur, on 26 July 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

sorry guys,i am really interested in astronomy & space, but my knowledge is next to nothing. Is it really possible what i took out of this post? That massive planets break out of their star system and fly through deep space until some other star's gravity "catches" them??

There are planets known as rogue planets which are not in orbit around a star, but instead wander through interstellar space. Some of these may have formed on their own (i.e. never been in orbit around a star) but most were probably ejected from a star system.

This is not the only way that a planet can end up around another star. Stars move independently to each other. Sometimes they will come close to another star. It is possible for a distant planet to be ripped from it's orbit and end up orbiting the other star.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#17    Jacques Terreur

Jacques Terreur

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
  • Joined:07 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:AREA 69

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:29 PM

thx, nice to come here and actually LEARN something...


#18    supervike

supervike

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,491 posts
  • Joined:16 May 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 July 2013 - 06:33 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 25 July 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

So it was. I totally missed that. It cropped up somewhere else today and I didn't notice that it was an old story.

Edited to add:

In fact there is a two year old topic on Tyche here: Search begins for giant new planet

I must be getting old, I generally remember if a subject has already been posted.

Oh good.  when I read the name Tyche, I could have sworn I heard about this before.

It's all coming back to me now....


#19    flbrnt

flbrnt

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 109 posts
  • Joined:16 Feb 2013

Posted 26 July 2013 - 06:50 PM

Interesting. I believe it was Herschel who predicted a ninth planet based on perturbations in the orbit of Neptune. Clyde Tombaugh was searching for it and discovered Pluto, assuming that Pluto was planet nine but Pluto was too small to account for the perturbations.


#20    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,772 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 July 2013 - 07:46 PM

View Postflbrnt, on 26 July 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

Interesting. I believe it was Herschel who predicted a ninth planet based on perturbations in the orbit of Neptune.
Nope. Herschel discovered Uranus. Based on further analysis of Uranus' orbit led Bouvard to propose the existence of an 8th planet, leading le Verrier (and possibly Adams, depending how generous you are with awarding credit for simultaneous discovery) to discover Neptune.

After even further analysis of Uranus' orbit, Lowell believed that a 9th planet existed. As you mention, Pluto was discovered but found to be too small to provide the necessary gravitational field.

Ultimately, further astronomical research - in particular the flight of Voyager 2 - corrected some of the initial mistakes made with Neptune's orbit and mass and basically resolved all the discrepancies with Uranus' orbit.

This is one of the reasons why a fifth large gas giant - if it exists - must have an extremely distant orbit, since the orbital trajectories of all the known planets (and dwarf planets) are adequately explained.


#21    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,114 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 26 July 2013 - 08:02 PM

View Postsepulchrave, on 26 July 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

Ultimately, further astronomical research - in particular the flight of Voyager 2 - corrected some of the initial mistakes made with Neptune's orbit and mass and basically resolved all the discrepancies with Uranus' orbit.

It's also worth noting that an extensive search was made for a planet (provisionally named Vulcan) that le Verrier hypothesised orbited between Mercury and the Sun. Newtonian physics could not explain particularities in Mercury's orbit.

When Einstein's General Relativity was applied to Mercury's orbit the need for Vulcan disappeared.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#22    emberdawn

emberdawn

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 232 posts
  • Joined:24 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Texas

Posted 26 July 2013 - 09:41 PM

View PostJacques Terreur, on 26 July 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

thx, nice to come here and actually LEARN something...

I agree.  Thank you for the info. Though the story is a couple years old its new to me.


#23    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 July 2013 - 11:16 PM

Unbeliveble. I thought that we explored our solar system.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#24    kannin

kannin

    Punisher of the wicked

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,765 posts
  • Joined:04 Jun 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:canada

  • the secret to change is to focus all of your energy,not fighting the old, but building the new

Posted 26 July 2013 - 11:29 PM

interesting

happiness can be found in the darkest of times, only if one remembers to turn on the light

#25    Parsec

Parsec

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 211 posts
  • Joined:15 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 28 July 2013 - 01:53 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 26 July 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

Parsec, virtually all of the answers I have given you are in the original article I linked to. Why not read that?

Waspie, thank you for your answers. I did read the article, but, maybe as I should have stated more clearly in my post, I wanted to speculate about the - possible - finding.
I know researchers said it should look like Jupiter and with a temperature on surface of -73° C, but it's not said. We don't even know if it really exists!
The variables are many, it could be very different from what they expect. We still don't even know exactly how's Earth interior, we don't know for sure how our Moon formed, but we are so sure on how a possible new still undiscovered planet lurking at the boundary of our Solar System looks like? Come on!
Researchers had fantasy, why don't we use it too?
That's why I've written my post: I wanted to think about the most extreme (and unprobable, I know) possibilities.


View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 26 July 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

Being a gas giant it wont have a solid surface.
No, it wouldn't be a gas giant then.

What I meant was, given some extraordinary circumstances, could it be possible that a giant gas could not be so gaseous after all? For a weird (or unique) balance between inner heat, cosmic freeze, own pressure, could it be without rocky elements, but still solid? And not only the inner core, but at least a big part of the planet?


View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 26 July 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

It's more likely to have been "stolen" from another star but it could still be older than the sun.

I don't understand your punctualization, to me it's a bit pointless and redundant. Why did you have to point that out?
I didn't write the reason why, I only wrote that if it originated in another star system, it could be possible that's even older than our Sun, and I added that it takes a long way to come here, even if it came from Proxima Centaury. The reason is another kettle of fish. Wether it's a rougue planet or a "stolen" one, it had to travel a lot.

And more important, if it really didn't form in our Solar System, form me it's even more exiting!
Think about it: a planet older tha our Sun formed in another star system, here "close" to us!
And if, like the researcher said in the article, it has moons, who knows if they came all along with it (so rocky moons maybe older than our Sun), rather than being gathered once it arrived here!
Maybe not for you, but to me it's mind boggling!


#26    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,772 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 July 2013 - 05:16 PM

View PostParsec, on 28 July 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

Waspie, thank you for your answers. I did read the article, but, maybe as I should have stated more clearly in my post, I wanted to speculate about the - possible - finding.
I know researchers said it should look like Jupiter and with a temperature on surface of -73° C, but it's not said. We don't even know if it really exists!
The variables are many, it could be very different from what they expect. We still don't even know exactly how's Earth interior, we don't know for sure how our Moon formed, but we are so sure on how a possible new still undiscovered planet lurking at the boundary of our Solar System looks like?

You are right, of course.

However IF this planet exists, and IF it hasn't been discovered yet, it must fit into a relatively narrow range of characteristics.

As discussed by the original paper on the subject, it must be within  the range of 1-4 Jupiter masses; otherwise it couldn't be responsible for the cometary perturbations that lead to the prediction that it exists.

This planet also must be rather cold, or previous infrared surveys would have detected it.

I think that if the planet is significantly bigger than 4 Jupiter masses it would be hotter (and possibly in the near-IR range) and have a larger gravitational perturbation, and therefore probably have already been detected.

If the planet is smaller than 1 Jupiter mass then it probably couldn't be responsible for the cometary perturbations mentioned above. This doesn't mean that planets in this mass range don't exist in the Oort, just that they can't be responsible for the phenomena that lead the authors to predict that Tyche exists.

It is possible that a planet in the 1-4 Jupiter mass range could be rocky, but I think it is unlikely. The prevailing theory suggests that planets in the 5-10 Earth mass range have sufficient gravity to start accumulating hydrogen clouds, and these planets change into gas giants with rocky cores.

So I think the things you suggest are possible, but perhaps unlikely. And since even the existence of this planet itself is pretty unlikely, I'm guessing the researchers are trying to keep their speculations about the type of planet as close to ``mainstream'' as possible.


#27    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,114 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 28 July 2013 - 05:30 PM

View PostParsec, on 28 July 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

Waspie, thank you for your answers. I did read the article, but, maybe as I should have stated more clearly in my post, I wanted to speculate about the - possible - finding.
I know researchers said it should look like Jupiter and with a temperature on surface of -73° C, but it's not said. We don't even know if it really exists!
The variables are many, it could be very different from what they expect. We still don't even know exactly how's Earth interior, we don't know for sure how our Moon formed, but we are so sure on how a possible new still undiscovered planet lurking at the boundary of our Solar System looks like? Come on!
Researchers had fantasy, why don't we use it too?
That's why I've written my post: I wanted to think about the most extreme (and unprobable, I know) possibilities.
My mistake. What with this being the science section I had rather assumed that you wanted a logical, rational, scientific answer. I didn't realise that you were looking for wild speculation, pure guess work and flights of fantasy.

The one thing the scientists DID NOT DO was resort to fantasy when they hypothesised the existence of this planet. They looked at an unsolved problem, the unexplained orbits of some Oort Cloud comets, and then looked for a logical, rational explanation.

Why don't we use fantasy... because it has no place in science. If you want to write fantasy then the Writer's and Artist's Hangout is the place you should be visiting.

One of my favourite quotes is from the comedian and scientist Dara O Briain:

Quote

Science knows that it doesn’t know everything; otherwise, it’d stop. But just because science doesn’t know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.

The scientists can derive a minimum and maximum size for Tyche. Minimum because a lower mass than that and it simply will not be large enough to cause the effects they are looking for. A maximum because if it was larger than that it would already have been found.

Given that they can have a fair idea of how massive it is then it is possible to derive the pressures and temperatures involved. That in turn makes it possible to derive what the surface conditions will be like. All of this is done by applying known scientific principles.

The mistake so many people make is assuming that just because they don't understand how they scientists derived their results the scientists can't understand how they derived their results, therefore they assume it is guesswork and fantasy when nothing could be further from the truth.

View PostParsec, on 28 July 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

What I meant was, given some extraordinary circumstances, could it be possible that a giant gas could not be so gaseous after all? For a weird (or unique) balance between inner heat, cosmic freeze, own pressure, could it be without rocky elements, but still solid? And not only the inner core, but at least a big part of the planet?
Not in the way you are envisioning.

There is a hypothetical planet type called "Chthonian planets". These are gas giants that have had their atmosphere stripped away by the actions of a star. This leaves only the core. These planets would appear more lile a terrestrial planet than a gas giant though.


View PostParsec, on 28 July 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

I don't understand your punctualization, to me it's a bit pointless and redundant.
Once again it appears that because YOU don't understand something you assume that others don't either.

View PostParsec, on 28 July 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

Why did you have to point that out?
From Wikipedia:

Quote

Quotation marks can also be used to indicate a different meaning of a word or phrase than the one typically associated with it and are often used to express irony.
(My emphasis).
Source: HERE

Since the star is not literally stealing the planet my use of punctuation marks was totally correct.

View PostParsec, on 28 July 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

I didn't write the reason why, I only wrote that if it originated in another star system, it could be possible that's even older than our Sun, and I added that it takes a long way to come here, even if it came from Proxima Centaury. The reason is another kettle of fish. Wether it's a rougue planet or a "stolen" one, it had to travel a lot.
I know what you did and didn't write, that's why I added some facts.

"Travel a lot" is subjective and rather meaningless. All planets "travel a lot" even if they remain in orbit around their own star. However a planet swapping from one planet to another need not necessarily wander light years to do it. That was the point I was making.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 20 June 2014 - 09:29 PM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#28    Parsec

Parsec

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 211 posts
  • Joined:15 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 29 July 2013 - 12:57 AM

View Postsepulchrave, on 28 July 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

However IF this planet exists, and IF it hasn't been discovered yet, it must fit into a relatively narrow range of characteristics.

I think that if the planet is significantly bigger than 4 Jupiter masses it would be hotter (and possibly in the near-IR range) and have a larger gravitational perturbation, and therefore probably have already been detected.

So I think the things you suggest are possible, but perhaps unlikely. And since even the existence of this planet itself is pretty unlikely, I'm guessing the researchers are trying to keep their speculations about the type of planet as close to ``mainstream'' as possible.

Sepulchrave, thank you for your answer and for the spirit.


View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 28 July 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

Not in the way you are envisioning.

There is a hypothetical planet type called "Chthonian planets". These are gas giants that have had their atmosphere stripped away by the actions of a star. This leaves only the core. These planets would appear more lile a terrestrial planet than a gas giant though.

Waspie, thank you for the info, very interesting.

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 28 July 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

My mistake. What with this being the science section I had rather assumed that you wanted a logical, rational, scientific answer. I didn't realise that you were looking for wild speculation, pure guess work and flights of fantasy.

The one thing the scientists DID NOT DO was resort to fantasy when they hypothesised the existence of this planet. They looked at an unsolved problem, the unexplained orbits of some Oort Cloud comets, and then looked for a logical, rational explanation.

Why don't we use fantasy... because it has no place in science.

The mistake so many people make is assuming that just because they don't understand how they scientists derived their results the scientists can't understand how they derived their results, therefore they assume it is guesswork and fantasy when nothing could be further from the truth.

Maybe your mistake is confusing science with arid logic. Maybe you're confusing a part for the whole.

Did I write about Nibiru, Planet X or stuff like that?
Did I mention ancient alien civilizations, originated on that ancient planet and who visited Earth millennia ago (hey, nice idea! I'll use it for a story, thank you!)?
Did I ask if the planet could be made of marshmellow?

Don't pretend to be in others minds, and never think for others. It's arrogant and very unnoying.
As you wrote, based on the data, scientists inquire a range of possibilities and then rule out the least possible.
What I asked is, according to you, which could be the most extreme possibilities of this range. That's it.

As far as I know, science works in two ways:
1) you observe a phenomenon and try to understand how it works;
2) you have an idea, and see if it matches with reality.
Fantasy is a fundamental part of science. You have to be extremely imaginative to come up with some theories, but at the same time you have to be extremely rigorous with your reasoning and with the following part of the process, that is the verification of it.

The problem is not that you don't have to have fantasy, the problem is that you have to have rigor and method.


View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 28 July 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

Once again it appears that because YOU don't understand something you assume that others don't either.
Since the star is not literally stealing the planet my use of punctuation marks was totally correct.

Your despising and conceited tone aside, I think here there's a misunderstanding, being English not my mother tongue.
I meant clarification, not punctualization. I wasn't talking about your use of quotation marks in the sentence, but the fact that it looked like you specified something as opposed to something else I wrote. Since I never mentioned  the reason why Tyche should've arrived here from somewhere else, to me your clarification looked like pointless, not your adding some facts (that are always welcome). That's the "punctualization" I was talking about.
I hope this time I've managed to be more clear.


View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 28 July 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

"Travel a lot" is subjective and rather meaningless. All planets "travel a lot" even if they remain in orbit around their own star. However a planet swapping from one planet to another need not necessarily wander light years to do it. That was the point I was making.

Did you mean "a planet swapping from one star to another", or is it right this way?
Anyway, I wanted to keep the conversation "down to Earth". I don't think that the use of "big words" makes the conversation deeper, higher or more scientific (nor who uses them). Everything is explainable with simple words. I know that "travel a lot" is relative and doesn't express a quantifiable measure, but I thought (probably wrongly) that in this circumstance a precise value wasn't necessary and that we could understand each other. From my point of view, using "a lot", 4.5 light years or 243 AU was the same for that reasoning. But maybe it was only my point view after all. My bad.

Now that we've cleared better what we meant, I agree with you and I find interesting your point.

Bottom line, if Tyche exists, it could be older than our Sun. Stop.


As for the tone of your post.
I respect you for yor knowledge and for your will to share informations with others.
Beware, I don't know you and I don't pretend to, I can base my opinion only on your posts I've read on UM.

First: what DO YOU think?
I seldom see a personal opinion coming from you. Usually you report what others said or did, what the theory says, what the current scientific community thinks is right. But what is your own opinion?
And what's your opinion on this specific subject?
Nowadays everybody can find answers on internet, but what makes your contribution valuable and unreplaceable is your own opinion. The mix of your knowledge with your ideas.
I was interested in that, but maybe you prefer to keep it for you. I'll respect your choice.

From what I read, you have a very high idea of yourself and a very low idea on almost everybody else. Your answers are in some occasions very despising. Only because someone doesn't know what you know, doesn't mean he's worse than you, nor that he should know that specific information, because you consider it common law.
I don't know if that's what you really think (I hope not), but I can tell you that this is what pass through the screen.

I repeat myself, I'm not judging you and no offense intended. What is transmitted from your writings is like a lack of emotions. You don't show enthusiasm, excitement, fantasy, nothing.
I think you do feel them and have passion for this matter (otherwise you wouldn't pass so much time sharing all these news, nor searching them in primis), but it doesn't show up. Or maybe your're just so.
In my country we say "the world is nice because it's various": we're all different, and we have to respect everybody's way of being. There are people like you and luckily others like Feynman (I noticed you use Wikipedia a lot for your readers, so http://en.wikipedia....Richard_Feynman). I'll stick with the second type.


#29    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,093 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 01 August 2013 - 04:27 PM

I doubt gas giants don't have rocky cores to some degree. Some say they are solid gas, yet they are surrounds by rocky moons? inevitably dense materials will sink to a bottom layer In a gravity well. I'm not sure why anyone would ever consider or the possibility that gas giants don't have rocky cores. I would guess that these cores are even larger than earth given that some of those moons rival earth.

Edited by White Crane Feather, 01 August 2013 - 04:28 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#30    Elfin

Elfin

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 538 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 01 August 2013 - 04:49 PM

Wasn't there a planet Vulcan that orbited near the sun but disappeared in the 19th century?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users