Planet #9

[Jitendra Hydonus]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/space/astronomers-have-an-pretty-good-idea-of-where-planet-nine-might-be/

i  do not know if Nibiru and the 9th planet are the same. Considering the orbital period of this 9th planet it does not seem likely. Unless many people have it all wrong about when Nibiru is supposed to pass our neighborhood.

[mccoy]

Steve, I remain an healthy skeptic about Nibiru. Pls note that by his books Mr. Sitchin has made a lot of money (millions of copies = millions of dollars multiplied the author's share). This means that, in lack of substantiated evidence by the scientific community or any other unbiased community, he might have just had a prodigious fantasy, and reaped the fruit of his imagination.

Astronomical and scientific observations[edit]
Sitchin's "planetary collision" hypothesis does superficially resemble one suggested by modern astronomers—the giant impact hypothesis of the Moon's formation about 4.5 billion years ago by a body impacting with the newly formed Earth. However, Sitchin's proposed series of rogue planetary collisions differ in both details and timing. As with Immanuel Velikovsky's earlier Worlds in Collision thesis, Sitchin states that he has found evidence of ancient human knowledge of rogue celestial motions in a variety of mythological accounts. In Velikovsky's case, these interplanetary collisions were supposed to have taken place within the span of human existence, whereas for Sitchin these occurred during the early stages of planetary formation, but entered the mythological account passed down via the alien race which purportedly evolved on Nibiru after these encounters.
According to former Immanuel Velikovsky assistant turned prolific critic,[28] C. Leroy Ellenberger,[28] "[Sitchin states that] from an equal start, the Nephilim evolved on Nibiru 45 million years ahead of comparable development on Earth with its decidedly more favorable environment. Such an outcome is unlikely, to say the least, since Nibiru would spend over 99% of its time beyond Pluto. Sitchin's explanation that heat from radioactive decay and a thick atmosphere keep Nibiru warm is absurd and does not address the problem of darkness in deep space. Also unexplained is how the Nephilim, who evolved long after Nibiru arrived, knew what happened when Nibiru first entered the solar system."[29]
The scenario outlined by Sitchin, with Nibiru returning to the inner solar system regularly every 3,600 years,
... implies an orbit with a semi-major axis of 235 astronomical units, extending from the asteroid belt to twelve times farther beyond the sun than Pluto. Elementary perturbation theory indicates that, under the most favorable circumstances of avoiding close encounters with other planets, no body with such an eccentric orbit would keep the same period for two consecutive passages. Within twelve orbits the object would be either ejected or converted to a short period object. Thus, the failed search for a trans-Plutonian planet by T.C. Van Flandern, of the U.S. Naval Observatory, which Sitchin uses to bolster his thesis, is no support at all.[29]
Sitchin in "the case of Adam’s alien genes"[30] states that 223 genes found by the Human Genome Sequencing Consortium are without the required predecessors on the genomic evolutionary tree. Later researchers have argued that the conclusion from the Human Genome Sequencing Consortium cannot be drawn due to a lack of a comprehensive gene database for comparison. An analysis by Salzberg identified 40 potential genes laterally transferred into the genome from prokaryotic organisms. Salzberg also argues that gene loss combined with sample size effects and evolutionary rate variation provide an alternative, more biologically plausible explanation.[31]

[b]

I agree Mccoy. Neil Degrasse Tyson doesn't seem too have a high opinion of the Nibiru hypothesis either. Here is a video from 2011 where he is commenting on it.



Since this is not an accepted theory in astronomy, and has no authoritative sources to reference, we are justified to think it is an internet meme and not an actual scientific discovery. Contrast Niburu with the discovery of the gravitational wave. There is a difference. Even the great Einstein who predicted gravitational waves had to wait, in all humility, for 100 years before his hypothesis was proved.

Peace.

[mccoy]

Steve, have you tried to look up the wiki voice 'solar system'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System

Lots of interesting (and scientifically rigorous) info there, and many details I just didn't know, like the existance of the trans-neptunian dwarf palnets makemake, heumea, Eris (which is as large and more massive than Pluto). In light of the ascertained existence of the dwarf planets, which includes Pluto, it seems weird that a proper planet (the 9th planet) has gone unobserved.

[mccoy]

I find this image exceptional in giving an outlook of the whole solar system and its known bodies



Beyond Neptune (the so called trans-neptunian region), we have 4 dwarf planets, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, Eris

The IAU propose a formal definition of the planets which I feel should be used to avoid confusion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet

[mccoy]

The definition of planet set in Prague, Czech Republic in August 2006 by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) states that, in the Solar System, a planet is a celestial body which:

is in orbit around the Sun,
has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
has "cleared the neighborhood" around its orbit.
A non-satellite body fulfilling only the first two of these criteria is classified as a "dwarf planet". According to the IAU, "planets and dwarf planets are two distinct classes of objects". A non-satellite body fulfilling only the first criterion is termed a "small Solar System body" (SSSB). Initial drafts planned to include dwarf planets as a subcategory of planets, but because this could potentially have led to the addition of several dozens of planets into the Solar System, this draft was eventually dropped. The definition was a controversial one and has drawn both support and criticism from different astronomers, but has remained in use.

[mccoy]

So we have planets, dwarf planets and SSSB's...

[mccoy]

Plot of the positions of all known Kuiper belt objects (green), set against the outer planets (blue)

[mccoy]

Another interesting news it that the official demotion of Pluto (from fully-fledged planet to dwarf planet) as a planet has driven some people nuts.

[mccoy]

The new designation also has repercussions in the astrological world and finds mixed receptions, with differences of opinion as to whether to make any changes to astrological practice as a result of the redefinition

On June 11, 2008, the IAU announced that the subcategory of dwarf planets with trans-Neptunian orbits would be known as "plutoids". In an accompanying press release, the IAU said that:[53]

“   Plutoids are celestial bodies in orbit around the Sun at a distance greater than that of Neptune that have sufficient mass for their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a hydrostatic equilibrium (near-spherical) shape, and that have not cleared the neighbourhood around their orbit.   ”
This subcategory includes Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

Another interesting news it that the official demotion of Pluto (from fully-fledged planet to dwarf planet) as a planet has driven some people nuts.

The relative size of Pluto to other objects in the kuiper belt makes it significant in its size and distance. Eris is large but as you have shown in the chart above it is out so far that its influence is not likely to be as strong.

[SI]

Another interesting news it that the official demotion of Pluto (from fully-fledged planet to dwarf planet) as a planet has driven some people nuts.

I'm not fanatical about it as some are, but to me it is a planet. They can call it whatever they want.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

I find this image exceptional in giving an outlook of the whole solar system and its known bodies



Beyond Neptune (the so called trans-neptunian region), we have 4 dwarf planets, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, Eris

The IAU propose a formal definition of the planets which I feel should be used to avoid confusion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet

i found this charted illustration very useful mccoy because it shows the relative distance these objects are from the Sun. i read this in an astrological article:

Makemake (pronounced maki-maki) is the third largest Kuiper belt dwarf planet, slightly smaller than Eris (the largest) and Pluto (who was demoted by astronomers to dwarf planet status following the discovery of Eris). Makemake has an eliptical orbit of about 309 years around the Sun, and unlike Eris and Pluto, Makemake appears to have no moon(s). Makemake and Haumea are designated by their original numbers below with labels below the pictures.

As you can see by the diagram, that mccoy took the time to dig up, Pluto orbits closer to the Sun and to the earth then the other dwarf planets. It even comes within the orbit of Neptune for a time. Thus its relative significance in astrology.



2003 EL61 = Haumea   2005 FY9 = Makemake

[mccoy]

The wiki voice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine

Is a satisfactory and scientific overview of the issue of the elusive planet 9, how its existence has been hypothesized, its foreseen characteristics, why it hasn't been spotted yet and when it might be spotted (the new infrared telescope generation might give us a view in 2018).

[mccoy]

The topic almost resembles the search for the elusive companion of the Sun, hypothesized by Sri Yukteswar.

Planet 9's existence has been presumed by some effects of the laws of clestial mechanics, whereas people have hypothesized the presence of a sun2 by numerical incongruities in earth precession and other behaviours which honestly I do not remember.

While the hypothesis of planet 9 appears to have been accepted by the astronomical community, the hypothesis of a dual sun is rejected, or it is accepted only as a far, unproven conjecture.