New theory casts doubt on Planet Nine

[UM-Bot]

Scientists have come up with an alternative explanation for the peculiar orbits of some distant objects.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/318584/new-theory-casts-doubt-on-planet-nine

[Tom the Photon]

Planet Nine is actually a binary planet, each seven Earth masses.  Nine A is a captured comet, shaped like an egg timer.  It flexes around its narrow waist, generating heat which keeps its surface water liquid.  Nine B is principally iron.  It spins rapidly on its axis generating a magnetic field that protects this system from solar radiation.  This has allowed complex lifeforms to evolve on Nine A.  They are at a similar technological level to us and they’re up there every night searching the skies for the mythical “Planet Three”…

... in other words: nobody knows. 

I've said this before - it's okay to think about things, it's okay to tell people what you're thinking about, but just being a brilliant astrophysicist and an expert in your field doesn't make you any more correct that the next brilliant guy who's saying the exact opposite.

Planet Nine devotees on this site will probably slam this report, while clinging on to every word of experts who think it is out there.  Eh bien, c'est la vie.

[bison]

This new scenario is based on a computer projection. It seems to assume that a large number of small bodies, bunched in a loose group, which they refer to as a 'flock', could influence the orbits of other solar system bodies. This influence would resemble that caused by the proposed planet nine.

My chief reservation about this scenario is the unlikelihood of such a grouping of objects being stable. With even slightly different orbits, are they not likely to diverge over time, ending up in an evenly spread ring around the Sun? This is what we find to be the case with the vast majority of objects in the classical asteroid belt, and in the more distant Kuiper belt. In such an even ring, it does not appear that they would exert any directional perturbing effect on other bodies. 

Then, too, what would have caused these objects to bunch together in the first place? Without a large, stable object, like the supposed planet nine to provide the needed gravity, this would seem a very difficult question to answer.   

Edited June 5, 2018 by bison
added information

[Merc14]

3 hours ago, Tom the Photon said:

... in other words: nobody knows. 

I've said this before - it's okay to think about things, it's okay to tell people what you're thinking about, but just being a brilliant astrophysicist and an expert in your field doesn't make you any more correct that the next brilliant guy who's saying the exact opposite.

Planet Nine devotees on this site will probably slam this report, while clinging on to every word of experts who think it is out there.  Eh bien, c'est la vie.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Planet 9 devotee" and I am not aware of anyone here being anything more than an observer of an interesting bit of science and watching as it develops.  If the planet is there we will see it sonner or later and if it isn't then the mystery will remain and new hypotheses will arise to be tested. 

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "Planet 9 devotee"  

Niberu is real I say! Real!!!!!

[Tom the Photon]

5 hours ago, Merc14 said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "Planet 9 devotee" and I am not aware of anyone here being anything more than an observer of an interesting bit of science and watching as it develops.  If the planet is there we will see it sonner or later and if it isn't then the mystery will remain and new hypotheses will arise to be tested. 

Are you suggesting everyone on this site is a dispassionate, educated, qualified, neutral observer of scientific progress?  May I humbly suggest that really isn’t the case?  Many people here are deficit to one degree or another in at least one of those descriptors, some in most or all. 

None of us can know everything about every subject, so by and large we allow information from others to influence our confidence level in most matters of knowledge and understanding.  Since we cannot absorb all evidence from every authority we tend to focus on sources that match our own ideas, preferences and prejudices.  It’s called confirmation bias and we are all affected by it.

To address specific points you raise: I used “Planet 9 devotees” to refer to people who already believe Planet 9 is a real object just waiting to be located.  I’m sure you could have worked that out for yourself?

You say you’re “not aware of anyone being anything more than an observer …”?  In the past 24 hours you’ve contributed to forums (fora?) on Aliens Communicate With Me Telepathically On and Extraterrestrials are Sabotaging Nukes.  Are you sure everyone here is impartial and just wants to learn about good science?

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Tom the Photon said:

Are you suggesting everyone on this site is a dispassionate, educated, qualified, neutral observer of scientific progress?  May I humbly suggest that really isn’t the case?  Many people here are deficit to one degree or another in at least one of those descriptors, some in most or all. 

Nope, never suggested that Tom, not sure where that came from.

1 hour ago, Tom the Photon said:

None of us can know everything about every subject, so by and large we allow information from others to influence our confidence level in most matters of knowledge and understanding. 

 

 

 

That is generally referred to as "learning" Tom.

Quote

Since we cannot absorb all evidence from every authority we tend to focus on sources that match our own ideas, preferences and prejudices.  It’s called confirmation bias and we are all affected by it.

So any learning is simply confirmation bias?  How ridiculous!   I'd explain why but am not going to bother since you seem to be an *******.

1 hour ago, Tom the Photon said:

To address specific points you raise: I used “Planet 9 devotees” to refer to people who already believe Planet 9 is a real object just waiting to be located.  I’m sure you could have worked that out for yourself?

Well,  that is such an obvious statement one wonders why you made it but hey, as I said, you seem to be an ******* so......

1 hour ago, Tom the Photon said:

You say you’re “not aware of anyone being anything more than an observer …”?  In the past 24 hours you’ve contributed to forums (fora?) on Aliens Communicate With Me Telepathically On and Extraterrestrials are Sabotaging Nukes.  Are you sure everyone here is impartial and just wants to learn about good science?

So you think I believe in all those things Tom? 

[Skulduggery]

10 hours ago, Tom the Photon said:

Planet Nine is actually a binary planet, each seven Earth masses.  Nine A is a captured comet, shaped like an egg timer.  It flexes around its narrow waist, generating heat which keeps its surface water liquid.  Nine B is principally iron.  It spins rapidly on its axis generating a magnetic field that protects this system from solar radiation.  This has allowed complex lifeforms to evolve on Nine A.  They are at a similar technological level to us and they’re up there every night searching the skies for the mythical “Planet Three”…

... in other words: nobody knows. 

I've said this before - it's okay to think about things, it's okay to tell people what you're thinking about, but just being a brilliant astrophysicist and an expert in your field doesn't make you any more correct that the next brilliant guy who's saying the exact opposite.

Planet Nine devotees on this site will probably slam this report, while clinging on to every word of experts who think it is out there.  Eh bien, c'est la vie.

I agree wholeheartedly with the nobody knows part. 

[L.A.T.1961]

There is a link to the paper 'On the Dynamics of the Inclination Instability', published by Jacob Fleisig et al, here. -

https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.03651

It is a more complex solution than a single large planet and harder to test but it could still be an option. 

 

[Noxasa]

I always said the planet 9 conspiracy is just flat wrong.  If it existed it would have been found by now.  This explanation of the observations and the fact they can't see anything out there is a better explanation than the conspiracy theories suggest.  I'm so done with planet 9, it almost certainly doesn't exist.

[qxcontinuum]

I don't believe this theory stands up to be plausible to justify such odd planetary behaviours. However I don't believe either a planet 10 times the size of earth orbiting on a 20.000 years around sun can have any influence. The planetary idiosycracies can be however explained by the past existence of a planet nearby mars which disappeared in a cosmic event. Its fragments affected the solar system, created the kuiper belt, destroyed Mars fragile ecosystem and led to disappearance of dinosaurs on earth due to meteorite bombardment. 

Edited June 6, 2018 by qxcontinuum

[Tom the Photon]

6 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Nope, never suggested that Tom, not sure where that came from.

That is generally referred to as "learning" Tom.

So any learning is simply confirmation bias?  How ridiculous!   I'd explain why but am not going to bother since you seem to be an *******.

Well,  that is such an obvious statement one wonders why you made it but hey, as I said, you seem to be an ******* so......

So you think I believe in all those things Tom? 

Dear Merc,

Oh dear.  Where should one begin?

Nope, never suggested that Tom, not sure where that came from.

This must be my mistake!  Because when you wrote:

“I am not aware of anyone here being anything more than an observer of an interesting bit of science and watching as it develops” I thought you meant:

“I am not aware of anyone here being anything more than an observer of an interesting bit of science and watching as it develops”.

If you’re now telling me you meant something different I apologise for my confusion.  When I write something, intending to convey information, I use words I hope will be recognised and understood by others.  It’s called communication.  Perhaps it’s my training: in Britain scientists are encouraged to write with clarity and care.

That is generally referred to as "learning" Tom.

You’ve taken one sentence from my paragraph in order to score a cheap point with your sarcastic comment.  This is known as the fallacy of quoting out of context and is a device commonly used by those of lower intellect, bullies and politicians (the three sets are not mutually exclusive). 

So any learning is simply confirmation bias? 

If you nit-pick each word, clause or sentence separately you will inevitably be able to present sections out of context and present them as absurd.  Try reading faster so you retain information from the start of a paragraph to the end, then you can analyse it all together.  You will then observe that I never claimed the above, so there is no need to defend myself from this criticism.

I'd explain why but am not going to bother

That’s a shame.  I’d love to learn from your obvious genius and wisdom.

you seem to be an *******.

Shall we try to be grown-ups about this?  I personally graduated from the playground some years ago.

that is such an obvious statement one wonders why you made it

In your original post you wrote "I'm not sure what you mean by "Planet 9 devotee"".  I explained what I meant by it.  That’s why I made my statement – in response to yours.  If my reply was so obvious this time round I really can’t see why you had to make this comment at all. 

So you think I believe in all those things Tom? 

I had hoped the intention of my terminal paragraph was clear, but if it was left ambiguous permit me to clarify.  You read widely and contribute to many conversations.  In these you frequently challenge the assertions of wild and outlandish theories made by individuals pushing their agendas while showing little understanding of underlying scientific principles.  Those are the sorts I intended when I wrote Are you sure everyone here is impartial and just wants to learn about good science?

In summary – your last post does not present you in a very good light, with infantile name-calling, quoting out of context, sarcasm and flippant attitudes like I can’t be bothered to explain.  Should you care to reply would you please make it more erudite than before?

Thanks,

Tom

[Frank_Hoenedge]

Having read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholz's_Star and how it was within the zone earmarked for the Oort Cloud I was convinced citizen science was chasing the null hypothesis in respect of 'Planet 9'. It jumped off the page that based on the conclusions surrounding Scholz's Star's incursion some 70k years ago, huge swathes of the area earmarked for the Oort cloud would have tracts carved by the passage of nearby stars, potentially carrying their own 'Oort cloud' into Sol's 'Oort cloud' region.

This would explain the soundbite surrounding the data to me. I'm pretty reserved on the topic of mass delusions. Hopefully the planet 9 chasers have a chance to capitulate instead of nursing a faulty investment, within which purchase is socially reinforced realising like minds.

[Merc14]

6 hours ago, Tom the Photon said:

Dear Merc,

Oh dear.  Where should one begin?

Nope, never suggested that Tom, not sure where that came from.

This must be my mistake!  Because when you wrote:

“I am not aware of anyone here being anything more than an observer of an interesting bit of science and watching as it develops” I thought you meant:

“I am not aware of anyone here being anything more than an observer of an interesting bit of science and watching as it develops”.

If you’re now telling me you meant something different I apologise for my confusion.  When I write something, intending to convey information, I use words I hope will be recognised and understood by others.  It’s called communication.  Perhaps it’s my training: in Britain scientists are encouraged to write with clarity and care.

That is generally referred to as "learning" Tom.

You’ve taken one sentence from my paragraph in order to score a cheap point with your sarcastic comment.  This is known as the fallacy of quoting out of context and is a device commonly used by those of lower intellect, bullies and politicians (the three sets are not mutually exclusive). 

So any learning is simply confirmation bias? 

If you nit-pick each word, clause or sentence separately you will inevitably be able to present sections out of context and present them as absurd.  Try reading faster so you retain information from the start of a paragraph to the end, then you can analyse it all together.  You will then observe that I never claimed the above, so there is no need to defend myself from this criticism.

I nit-picked each word because your initial response to my originally polite response (those days are over) did just that.  Simply playing by your rules tom

Quote

 

I'd explain why but am not going to bother

That’s a shame.  I’d love to learn from your obvious genius and wisdom.

 

No you wouldn't, you are an arrogant, hostile, *******.

Quote

 

you seem to be an *******.

Shall we try to be grown-ups about this?  I personally graduated from the playground some years ago.

 

Grown ups?  That ended with your initial response to me. Your rules tom.

Quote

 

that is such an obvious statement one wonders why you made it

In your original post you wrote "I'm not sure what you mean by "Planet 9 devotee"".  I explained what I meant by it.  That’s why I made my statement – in response to yours.  If my reply was so obvious this time round I really can’t see why you had to make this comment at all. 

 

I really didn't know and was asking, politely I might add, and recieved your vitriol filled, sanctimonious, response for my troubles.  

Quote

 

So you think I believe in all those things Tom? 

I had hoped the intention of my terminal paragraph was clear, but if it was left ambiguous permit me to clarify.  You read widely and contribute to many conversations.  In these you frequently challenge the assertions of wild and outlandish theories made by individuals pushing their agendas while showing little understanding of underlying scientific principles.  Those are the sorts I intended when I wrote Are you sure everyone here is impartial and just wants to learn about good science?

 

I wasn't aware I had a stalker.  

Quote

 

In summary – your last post does not present you in a very good light, with infantile name-calling, quoting out of context, sarcasm and flippant attitudes like I can’t be bothered to explain.  Should you care to reply would you please make it more erudite than before?

Thanks,

Tom

 

Thanks tom. Two words for you and they ain't "Happy motoring!"  

 

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Merc14

[Tom the Photon]

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

I nit-picked each word because your initial response to my originally polite response (those days are over) did just that.  Simply playing by your rules tom

No you wouldn't, you are an arrogant, hostile, *******.

Grown ups?  That ended with your initial response to me. Your rules tom.

I really didn't know and was asking, politely I might add, and recieved your vitriol filled, sanctimonious, response for my troubles.  

I wasn't aware I had a stalker.  

Thanks tom. Two words for you and they ain't "Happy motoring!"  

 

 

Have you NO intelligent response to anything I've said?

Take for example just one part of our dialogue:

     ME: Planet Nine devotees... 

     YOU: I'm not sure what you mean by "Planet 9 devotee" 

     ME: I used “Planet 9 devotees” to refer to people who already believe Planet 9 is a real object just waiting to be located.

     YOU: Well,  that is such an obvious statement one wonders why you made it. 

     ME: In your original post you wrote "I'm not sure what you mean by "Planet 9 devotee"".  I explained what I meant by it.  That’s why I made my statement – in response to yours.

     YOU: I really didn't know and was asking.

 

Your first reply was just ignorant.  Your second was contradictory, puerile and abusive.  Your most recent post is all the above.

I know nothing about you except for how you present yourself here in writing, and you don't make a very good impression.  You don't show much intelligence, command of language or logic.  I get the impression you regard yourself as talented and educated, but there's little evidence of this.  I have more challenging arguments with my ten-year-old son.

Don't bother writing back - I've won this debate and see no need to read any more of your ignorant nonsense.

 

[Merc14]

35 minutes ago, Tom the Photon said:

Have you NO intelligent response to anything I've said?

Take for example just one part of our dialogue:

     ME: Planet Nine devotees... 

     YOU: I'm not sure what you mean by "Planet 9 devotee" 

     ME: I used “Planet 9 devotees” to refer to people who already believe Planet 9 is a real object just waiting to be located.

     YOU: Well,  that is such an obvious statement one wonders why you made it. 

     ME: In your original post you wrote "I'm not sure what you mean by "Planet 9 devotee"".  I explained what I meant by it.  That’s why I made my statement – in response to yours.

     YOU: I really didn't know and was asking.

 

Your first reply was just ignorant.  Your second was contradictory, puerile and abusive.  Your most recent post is all the above.

I know nothing about you except for how you present yourself here in writing, and you don't make a very good impression.  You don't show much intelligence, command of language or logic.  I get the impression you regard yourself as talented and educated, but there's little evidence of this.  I have more challenging arguments with my ten-year-old son.

Don't bother writing back - I've won this debate and see no need to read any more of your ignorant nonsense.

 

LMAO   Q@uestion tommy, why have you posted NOTHING about the subject itself?  You keep going on about how no one understands the science yet you post nothing about the hypothetical planet itself.  Are you a troill tommy because your behavior sure does resembels one?

Edited June 6, 2018 by Merc14

[paperdyer]

I tried to upload this yesterday but our server wouldn't let me.  Theories are great.  Maybe the Pluto probe will show something as it's journey continues.

 

[Tom the Photon]

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

LMAO   Q@uestion tommy, why have you posted NOTHING about the subject itself?  You keep going on about how no one understands the science yet you post nothing about the hypothetical planet itself.  Are you a troill tommy because your behavior sure does resembels one?

Is that your definition of a troll - someone who stands up to you?  Someone who fails to prostrate themselves at the feet of the Wonderful Wizard of Merc?

You really are pathetic.

[Merc14]

10 minutes ago, Tom the Photon said:

Is that your definition of a troll - someone who stands up to you?  Someone who fails to prostrate themselves at the feet of the Wonderful Wizard of Merc?

You really are pathetic.

Stands up to me? LMAO.   I had said nothing negative to you or anyone else on this thread and simply asked what you meant by ninth planet devotee and boom, the fight was on.   Yes, that is a troll, a person who has nothing to say on a topic and simply attacks people on said thread.  So answer my question tommy, what is you opinion of what these astronomers are postulating or haven't you got an opinion tommy

[Tom the Photon]

16 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Stands up to me? LMAO.   I had said nothing negative to you or anyone else on this thread and simply asked what you meant by ninth planet devotee and boom, the fight was on.   Yes, that is a troll, a person who has nothing to say on a topic and simply attacks people on said thread.  So answer my question tommy, what is you opinion of what these astronomers are postulating or haven't you got an opinion tommy

So that's your gripe?  Have you read my posts, or are you illiterate as well as ignorant and irrelevant?  

I gave a clear opinion in post #2.

Your first post (#5) was really idiotic and dumb.

My reply, post #7, explained this to you carefully without recourse to insulting language.

Your response, #8, was abusive, sarcastic, derogatory and above all really, really dumb.

I replied at #13 and - do you know what? - I still tried to explain things to you in an intelligent and articulate manner.  I've just read it through again and the only name I can see I called you was genius. 

Your response at #15 was even more unintelligible drivel spewed from your feeble, febrile mind.

It's gone pretty much downhill from there.  You haven't contributed a single useful point to this discussion yet demand others do as you dictate.  You haven't acknowledged any of  the points I've scored against you - you just keep changing the line of attack: classic bullying tactics.  Is that what you are in real life too, or just when you can hide behind a keyboard? 

You are an overrated, inconsequential windbag, and an insult to the principles of this site.   When will you give up? 

[Merc14]

2 hours ago, Tom the Photon said:

So that's your gripe?  Have you read my posts, or are you illiterate as well as ignorant and irrelevant?  

I gave a clear opinion in post #2.

Your first post (#5) was really idiotic and dumb.

My reply, post #7, explained this to you carefully without recourse to insulting language.

Your response, #8, was abusive, sarcastic, derogatory and above all really, really dumb.

I replied at #13 and - do you know what? - I still tried to explain things to you in an intelligent and articulate manner.  I've just read it through again and the only name I can see I called you was genius. 

Your response at #15 was even more unintelligible drivel spewed from your feeble, febrile mind.

It's gone pretty much downhill from there.  You haven't contributed a single useful point to this discussion yet demand others do as you dictate.  You haven't acknowledged any of  the points I've scored against you - you just keep changing the line of attack: classic bullying tactics.  Is that what you are in real life too, or just when you can hide behind a keyboard? 

You are an overrated, inconsequential windbag, and an insult to the principles of this site.   When will you give up? 

Having a tough day tommy getting late in jolly old i'nt  mate?  BTW, something can't go downhill when it starts at the bottom, try and think before posting.  Go to bed tommy,, tomorrow is another day to make an ass of yourself.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Merc14

[Tom the Photon]

34 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Having a tough day tommy getting late in jolly old i'nt  mate?  BTW, something can't go downhill when it starts at the bottom, try and think before posting.  Go to bed tommy,, tomorrow is another day to make an ass of yourself.

Yawn.

[+Not A Rockstar]

I don't believe in the Nibiru junk but I do wonder what is causing the effects we observe. Don't care if they find a planet or some other cause, just would be interesting to know what it is. 

[+Hammerclaw]

Just the facts, ma'am. A multitude of smaller objects are more intriguing than just one big one.

[FateAmeniableToChange]

I also believe this new theory is incorrect, the so called "flock" of large meteoroids or asteroids or whatever makes up the flock although able to account for gravitational effects on planets due to combined mass would never be stable for any length of time and in turn the planets would tug at the flock, dismantling it rock by rock as their larger gravitational pull pulled the flock apart.