godnodog Posted January 18, 2015 #51 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Fuuny, I read this news on science daily and it was 2 dwarf planets, for Fox its 2 big planets :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godnodog Posted January 18, 2015 #52 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Here is the article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150115083036.htm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted January 18, 2015 #53 Share Posted January 18, 2015 In fact there is lots of room beyond Pluto before you begin to approach another star -- I'm talking off the top of my head here but Pluto is really quite close to the sun compared to other stars. The reason these objects haven't been seen is that they only shine by reflected light, which has to be quite dim that far from the sun, and they probably aren't all that much bigger than Pluto if at all. I believe it is something like 63,000 AU to a light year, and 4.4 light years to the nearest star. So about 275,000 AU to the next star. And Pluto orbits at a maximum of 50 AU, so that 275,000 is about 5500 times further away then Pluto. If it took 10 years to get to Pluto, it would take 550,000 years to get to the next star So, I agree. Pluto is right next door compared to the next star over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted January 18, 2015 #54 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Frank Merton. I too have wondered how else these planets could be detected and I was wondering if something like radar's been tried. I'm talking about a very very powerful narrow signal however and other stationary dishes being used to detect the reflections. Each pulse is slightly different from the others so you can tell each one apart, the signal travels in a straight line, and if a reflection is picked up all you have to do is look up the angles for that pulse's unique number. It's a long shot, pardon the pun, but it might work. I'm not much good when it comes to radar though and I expect someone has tried it already. Idea generated whilst reading a book about ASDIC incidentally. I think the problem with using radar, or a laser, to try to see deep space, is the Inverse Squared Law. Where light dissipates at the square of the distance, so 1000 feet from a laser source the power is a quarter of what it was at 500 feet, and a 16th what it was at 250 feet. So basically you would need a stars worth of power to be sent out to get any kind of signal back. Or, with a laser, you'd need unimaginable optics to focus the beam, and even then the issues with collecting the return signal would be crazy hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted January 19, 2015 #55 Share Posted January 19, 2015 MERC 14 in your profile you claim to be Retired Naval Aviator. And his contributions to this forum indicate that he is someone who is the real deal. Merc knows his stuff, and his reply to you was much more polite than your response. May I politely ask who retired you? That is most certainly NOT what you then proceeded to do. Smarm and sarcasm look rather silly coming from someone who does not understand the topic... A Viet cong Mig at 12 o'clock HIGH or a Sam at 6 oclock LOW?... Oh how we laughed. No wait, that was just you, cyclopes.. Because in the vacuum of space, gravity from mulitiple sources works in 3 dimensions mate First up, cobber, the 'vacuum of space' has nothing to do with it. Second, while gravity (and indeed all forces) do tend to work in 3 dimensions (or even one more..), planetary systems are ALWAYS disc shaped. I'd suggest you Google it. Knowing the difference between 2d and 3d and then NOT knowing why such accretion systems always tend to a disc, is a bad look. While Googling, look up 'planet' and consider the definition carefully.. Yes, it is possible for a 'rogue' body, eg a comet/asteroid/failed star to come into our solar system from above or below.. but we are talking about planets... Here's what Merc said. CORRECTLY, by the way: Solar systems form from accretion disks, they don't form into balls. What is it about that you dispute? He is exactly right. What you may 'reckon' doesn't count for much against the area of science called astronomy. And this article is about possible extra planets.. PS: I also agree with Merc's initial comments - "Two words: paragraphs, punctuation." Go on, you should try them sometime... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted January 19, 2015 #56 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) MERC 14 in your profile you claim to be Retired Naval Aviator. May I politely ask who retired you? A Viet cong Mig at 12 o'clock HIGH or a Sam at 6 oclock LOW? Because in the vacuum of space, gravity from mulitiple sources works in 3 dimensions mate and your mind and picture seems to only work in 2. Left right backwards forwards. Who taught you how to fly the Flat Earth society? I hope to God you haven't still got an aviation licence. This is the control column and this is the mountain ahead alarm. Pull up Bing Bing pull up Bing Bing pull up. Ring any bells does it? Thank you I now rest my case and now respectfully ask this court martial to ground pilot officer Jerc 14. The Vietnam war ended well before my time in the Navy but I was trained by guys who fought in that war and learned quite a bit from them. I have no idea what that has to do with your current argument however. You seem very sure about your assertion that solar systems can form into balls of planets rather than disks so time for your proof. As far as I know it doesn't happen but I am always willing to learn so have at it. BTW, you still have to work on the paragraphs and punctuation thing. Quite frankly, you write like an angry 12 year old educated at a lousy school. Try and do better. Edited January 19, 2015 by Merc14 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted January 19, 2015 #57 Share Posted January 19, 2015 What is it about that you dispute? He is exactly right. What you may 'reckon' doesn't count for much against the area of science called astronomy. And this article is about possible extra planets.. You forgot to mention that there ARE spherical galaxies. There are actually several types of galaxies, including irregular cloud-like galaxies. http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/advanced/galaxies/characteristics.asp Elliptical GalaxiesElliptical galaxies, such as M87 (left), have very little gas and dust. Because gas and dust are found in the clouds that are the birthplaces of stars, we should expect to see very few young stars in elliptical galaxies. In fact, elliptical galaxies contain primarily old, red stars (also known as Population II stars). Elliptical galaxies vary widely in size. Both the largest and the smallest known galaxies are elliptical. Very large elliptical galaxies can reach 300 million light years in diameter. Dwarf ellipticals, which are very common, may contain only 1/100,000th as many stars as the Milky Way! I'd remind everyone that a spherical galaxy would also count as an elliptical galaxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+susieice Posted January 19, 2015 Author #58 Share Posted January 19, 2015 There is already a thread out there on this news. Maybe in the ET forum, I think?? Here's the thread DieChecker. I posted it in this forum. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=277005&st=0&p=5420719entry5420719 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruel_Cahal Posted January 19, 2015 #59 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Oh Lord...I bet the Annunaki fanatics and Nibiru Nuts are wetting themselves right now. Exactly what I was thinking. LOL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclopes500 Posted January 19, 2015 #60 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Merc 14 please accept my apology. I went too far.YOU are not a jerk. You are clearly a trained military pilot and proud of the job you did to protect your country. I been swatted and I deserved it. In England we tend to say sorry mate, and my generation also tend to offer their hands and have them shook. I do the same to you and apologise. Unfortunately your picture reminds me of a bloke I hate and it generates anger within me. Solar systems form in disks and each little object in that Saturn ring like system has its own orbit. I was thinking of the objects that have been thrown into big orbits at all different angles by big planets. Like the probe Ulicees, Please excuse spelling, flung out of the system completely, whilst in that nebulae, and big and small planets that again been diverted, but by stars in binary systems. Ones that can have two three or more stars. These planets etc drift and get pulled into a very slow loose orbit a long way away from the mass of say our solar system, most of which is in the sun. At the distances I was talking about the gravity pull from the solar system is so weak an astronaut could kick an asteroid out of the system entirely I feel. Vacuum does not affect gravity. I used vacuum to describe space which is a cold airless void. In such an environment wings do not generate lift. On earth however they do. The loss of either wings or lift is the worst thing that can happen to an aircraft. A dive over a certain speed will rip them off, a climb at too high an angle reduces speed and the plane stalls. You know that so did the men who trained you to fly. I looked at your very nice planetary disk and pictured a light aircraft flying on a narrow 2d plane. What I said was my poor attempt at trying to break you of your pilot's instinct not to dive straight down or go straight upwards. Gravity can pull up and down in space though and I'd wondered if you'd been blinded by your training. I'm scared of heights incidentally so your qualifications are definitely better than mine. Please accept apologies about Vietnam too and I hope the next time we meet on this very interesting site that it'll be under better circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godnodog Posted January 19, 2015 #61 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Ok, now that the ranting is over let's all have a cup of tea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted January 19, 2015 #62 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Ok, now that the ranting is over let's all have a cup of tea haha Nothing like finding a couple of lost planets to get us all worked up --- . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted January 19, 2015 #63 Share Posted January 19, 2015 If as I now understand these two objects may be "Earth sized," they might have a little residual heat from their formation. Brown dwarfs down to Jupiter size objects have been ruled out because we should be able to detect something that large after only a few billion years of cooling, but earth sized? I have to wonder that such a low heat could be detected at such a distance. I also have to wonder that a returning radar signal could be detected. Technology surprises me often enough that I will keep an open mind and not fall out of my chair if someone succeeds at one of these. Still, my guess is that if we are able to detect them it will be with an optical telescope. Perhaps Hubble could see it but would have to know where to look in advance, so something earth based is more likely, at least for discovery. A lucky (very lucky) accident will be needed, and if one were to occur I would be inclined to think maybe there's a lot of these objects out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted January 19, 2015 #64 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Merc 14 please accept my apology. I went too far.YOU are not a jerk. You are clearly a trained military pilot and proud of the job you did to protect your country. I been swatted and I deserved it. In England we tend to say sorry mate, and my generation also tend to offer their hands and have them shook. I do the same to you and apologise. Unfortunately your picture reminds me of a bloke I hate and it generates anger within me. Solar systems form in disks and each little object in that Saturn ring like system has its own orbit. I was thinking of the objects that have been thrown into big orbits at all different angles by big planets. Like the probe Ulicees, Please excuse spelling, flung out of the system completely, whilst in that nebulae, and big and small planets that again been diverted, but by stars in binary systems. Ones that can have two three or more stars. These planets etc drift and get pulled into a very slow loose orbit a long way away from the mass of say our solar system, most of which is in the sun. At the distances I was talking about the gravity pull from the solar system is so weak an astronaut could kick an asteroid out of the system entirely I feel. Vacuum does not affect gravity. I used vacuum to describe space which is a cold airless void. In such an environment wings do not generate lift. On earth however they do. The loss of either wings or lift is the worst thing that can happen to an aircraft. A dive over a certain speed will rip them off, a climb at too high an angle reduces speed and the plane stalls. You know that so did the men who trained you to fly. I looked at your very nice planetary disk and pictured a light aircraft flying on a narrow 2d plane. What I said was my poor attempt at trying to break you of your pilot's instinct not to dive straight down or go straight upwards. Gravity can pull up and down in space though and I'd wondered if you'd been blinded by your training. I'm scared of heights incidentally so your qualifications are definitely better than mine. Please accept apologies about Vietnam too and I hope the next time we meet on this very interesting site that it'll be under better circumstances. I only include my military experience on my profile because it sometimes helps when discussing UFO's (or the lack thereof) ro other aerial phenomena but It has nothing to do with this conversation so I really wasn't sure why you brought it up. Regardless, apology accepted I guess but I have been called far worse here so no worries. Knuckie Thompson was convenient and is an interesting character but I am just too lazy to change it right now. You are talking about rogue planets and they surely do exist just as rogue stars exist. They aren't the same thing as a solar system, however, in the sense that they formed out of the dust and debris into a star and its accompanying planets but yes, I am sure they can join an existing solar system in an eccentric orbit. It would be interesting to see an example of such a system but I don't think was have an example yet. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godnodog Posted January 20, 2015 #65 Share Posted January 20, 2015 If as I now understand these two objects may be "Earth sized," they might have a little residual heat from their formation. Brown dwarfs down to Jupiter size objects have been ruled out because we should be able to detect something that large after only a few billion years of cooling, but earth sized? I have to wonder that such a low heat could be detected at such a distance. I also have to wonder that a returning radar signal could be detected. Technology surprises me often enough that I will keep an open mind and not fall out of my chair if someone succeeds at one of these. Still, my guess is that if we are able to detect them it will be with an optical telescope. Perhaps Hubble could see it but would have to know where to look in advance, so something earth based is more likely, at least for discovery. A lucky (very lucky) accident will be needed, and if one were to occur I would be inclined to think maybe there's a lot of these objects out there. The scientis say these should be dwarf planets, FOX NEWS can't even say this correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted January 20, 2015 #66 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) The scientis say these should be dwarf planets, FOX NEWS can't even say this correctly. The hypothesis is that there are two planets larger than earth orbiting the sun past Neptune and because they are larger than earth they are, by definition, not dwarf planets so just what did Fox News get wrong? BTW, why in the F are you even mentioning Fox News when the article in the OP is from Space.com? Edited January 20, 2015 by Merc14 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted January 20, 2015 #67 Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I was reading up on the Kuiper Belt which is like the Asteroid Belt, but is wider and has a lot more stuff out there. And from what I read, at about 50 AU the belt peters out, where a traditional simulation predicts that the objects should continue outward quite a long ways further. This leads me to suspect that a planet, not too far away, is out there and has cleared off many of these objects. If it (or they) has a dark surface, we'd never see it. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Kuiper_belt The Kuiper belt, sometimes called the Edgeworth–Kuiper belt, is a region of the Solar System beyond the planets, extending from the orbit of Neptune (at 30 AU) to approximately 50 AU from the Sun.[1] It is similar to the asteroid belt, but it is far larger—20 times as wide and 20 to 200 times as massive. Edited January 20, 2015 by DieChecker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted January 20, 2015 #68 Share Posted January 20, 2015 You forgot to mention that there ARE spherical galaxies. There are actually several types of galaxies, including irregular cloud-like galaxies. http://skyserver.sds...acteristics.asp .. I'd remind everyone that a spherical galaxy would also count as an elliptical galaxy. Quite true, but these are galaxies, not planetary systems. Like Merc, I'm not aware of examples of spherical planetary systems. I do concede that it is possible for a rogue body to not be in/near the ecliptic plane, but the article is about planets, and we are talking about planets. I think it's fair to say the the chances such a body might be found well off the ecliptic plane are very small indeed, and technically it is very unlikely to be a planet by definition... (Polite paragraph inserted here..) Also, and I propose this without fully thinking it through.. I suspect that the perturbations caused by something well off the ecliptic plane would be more easily detected, given the *huge* number of bodies (planets, asteroids, kuiper, oort, etc) mostly *on* that plane that all interact essentially in the same 2 dimensions.. If something starts drifting inexplicably up or down, the astronomers would be jumping out of their skins with excitement. (and not ludicrously questioning someone's military career..) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted January 20, 2015 #69 Share Posted January 20, 2015 This leads me to suspect that a planet, not too far away, is out there and has cleared off many of these objects. If it (or they) has a dark surface, we'd never see it. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Kuiper_belt Mmmm, unless it: - goes in front of a background star/galaxy and obscures it briefly (you'd be surprised just how much observation of the sky goes on, so this does happen, and of course if it is getting closer it will subtend a greater and greater arc (aka 'get bigger') and thence obscure things more often ..) - perturbs something/s we *can* see - has some parts of its surface that are shinier/more reflective than others.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted January 21, 2015 #70 Share Posted January 21, 2015 If it (or they) has a dark surface, we'd never see it. Not in the optical wavelengths maybe, but they would still be visible in the infra-red. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted January 21, 2015 #71 Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) because they are larger than earth they are, by definition, not dwarf planets so just what did Fox News get wrong? Absolutely wrong! The designation of a solar system object as a dwarf planet has NOTHING to do with it's size. A planet must satisfy 3 criteria: It must orbit the Sun. It must be massive enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium (in other words it must be massive enough that gravity makes the object more or less spherical). It must have "cleared it's neighbourhood". Any object which fulfils the first two criteria but not the third is a dwarf planet (regardless of size). As these two objects are believed to be in the Kuiper Belt they have not cleared their neighbourhood and are, therefore, by definition dwarf planets. Edited January 21, 2015 by Waspie_Dwarf 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKing Posted January 21, 2015 #72 Share Posted January 21, 2015 ^^^^ Did not know that,thanks for the info... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted January 21, 2015 #73 Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Absolutely wrong! The designation of a solar system object as a dwarf planet has NOTHING to do with it's size. A planet must satisfy 3 criteria: It must orbit the Sun. It must be massive enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium (in other words it must be massive enough that gravity makes the object more or less spherical). It must have "cleared it's neighbourhood". Any object which fulfils the first two criteria but not the third is a dwarf planet (regardless of size). As these two objects are believed to be in the Kuiper Belt they have not cleared their neighbourhood and are, therefore, by definition dwarf planets. Possibly they have cleared their neighbourhood, as diechecker, said but I did not know this definition so I stand corrected. Thank you sir. Edited January 21, 2015 by Merc14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted January 21, 2015 #74 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Mmmm, unless it: - goes in front of a background star/galaxy and obscures it briefly (you'd be surprised just how much observation of the sky goes on, so this does happen, and of course if it is getting closer it will subtend a greater and greater arc (aka 'get bigger') and thence obscure things more often ..) - perturbs something/s we *can* see - has some parts of its surface that are shinier/more reflective than others.. I thought that is what the article exactly suggested, was that there is unexplained perturbations... I have to agree that if it eclipses a star, we'd know it was there. Perhaps this just hasn't happened yet? Or perhaps hasn't been noticed? Not in the optical wavelengths maybe, but they would still be visible in the infra-red. If they were out past 50 AU, they would be harder to see then Pluto though, and if they are not in the elliptic, they would be even harder to see. Could be they just haven't been seen yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted January 21, 2015 #75 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Possibly they have cleared their neighbourhood, as diechecker, said The very fact that they are part of the Kuiper Belt means they can't have cleared their neighbourhood. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now