I think a 100 billion dollars to make sure it's there would be a good investmment towards WTF. If it's big enough we can call it "Boca Michelle"

I thought it was already named Nemesis

Don't worry, I'll protect you.

Posted by: Oldsailor at February 14, 2011 06:21 PM (oBXlb)

Junior in the wall on lap 3!

Posted by: buzzion at February 14, 2011 06:19 PM (oVQFe)

There's no high-visibility massive object close enough to it to detect it that way.  And it hasn't actually been detected, has it?

I thought it was already named Nemesis

Posted by: Anachronda listens to too much Art Bell at February 14, 2011 06:17 PM (IrbU4)

Check your link.  Tyche is the alternative name proposed due to negative connotations of "Nemesis"

 Sailor Tyche...

Well, considering it's supposed size, I propose that we give it to Sailor Moon's token fat friend.  Or Sailor Bubba.

IIRC, Pluto was discovered because there were purturbation in the orbits of the other planets that was unexplained. So they looked for another planet that was causing it. They stumbled upon Pluto, and shouted "That's it!" Eventually, though, it turned out that Pluto wasn't big enough to cause the problem, wasn't all that special among the junk flying 'round out there, and didn't really even qualify as a planet. The problem was still not solved.

There's an imperfect analogy to Global Warming in there, somewhere.

How big is the Solar System? Look at it this way, light moves at an unimaginable speed, and it takes light hours to make its way from the Sun to Pluto.

Yeah, since Dale died it sucks, and Brian is a dickhead, will that start it up?

Let's be fair...it always sucked. 

IIRC, Pluto was discovered because there were purturbation in the orbits of the other planets that was unexplained. So they looked for another planet that was causing it. They stumbled upon Pluto, and shouted "That's it!" Eventually, though, it turned out that Pluto wasn't big enough to cause the problem, wasn't all that special among the junk flying 'round out there, and didn't really even qualify as a planet. The problem was still not solved.

Posted by: Optimizer at February 14, 2011 06:28 PM (2lTU+)

Here's what keeps me up at night: what are the freakin' odds that Pluto just happened to be where their screwed up calculations pointed?

Aha! So it's all *your* fault then!

There's no high-visibility massive object close enough to it to detect it that way.  And it hasn't actually been detected, has it?

Posted by: Jan Oort at February 14, 2011 06:24 PM (McG46)

Well there's the sun....

And that what I'm getting at.  I thought the explanation for the discovery of exo planets at first was that we know that Jupiters mass causes a wobble on our sun so we could detect the jupiter sized planets from a wobble on other stars.  Something 4 times Jupiters mass, even that far out, should be having some effect on our son I would think, or possibly one of the outer planets.

What are the freakin' odds that Pluto just happened to be where their screwed up calculations pointed?

Maybe not so remote. The planets mostly fall along a plane, which makes the search somewhat 1-dimensional (although Pluto deviates from that by an unprecedented amount), and they've been finding a fair number of "minor planets" like Pluto out there, some of which I think are bigger than Pluto. (I couldn't tell you how many; I'm really not a real expert in this stuff.) I'm not a big believer in coincidences, though, and usually when you analyze things objectively and mathematically, they don't seem so remarkable any more.

Maybe not so remote. The planets mostly fall along a plane, which makes the search somewhat 1-dimensional (although Pluto deviates from that by an unprecedented amount), and they've been finding a fair number of "minor planets" like Pluto out there, some of which I think are bigger than Pluto. (I couldn't tell you how many; I'm really not a real expert in this stuff.) I'm not a big believer in coincidences, though, and usually when you analyze things objectively and mathematically, they don't seem so remarkable any more.

Posted by: Optimizer at February 14, 2011 06:39 PM (2lTU+)

Not to mention that Pluto's orbit was so goofy that at times its closer to the sun than Neptune.

And that what I'm getting at.  I thought the explanation for the discovery of exo planets at first was that we know that Jupiters mass causes a wobble on our sun so we could detect the jupiter sized planets from a wobble on other stars.  Something 4 times Jupiters mass, even that far out, should be having some effect on our son I would think, or possibly one of the outer planets.

Posted by: buzzion at February 14, 2011 06:35 PM (oVQFe)

The effect goes down by the square of the distance, so a Jupiter out at Neptune has about a tenth the effect, and this has to be subtracted out from the larger effects of Jupiter and Saturn.

It would be a lot easier to find crap by "blink testing" star fields photos by computer just like they did to find Pluto in the first place.

Posted by: Moi at February 14, 2011 06:39 PM (Ez4Ql)

No Pluto, No peace!

Well there's the sun....

And that what I'm getting at.  I thought the explanation for the discovery of exo planets at first was that we know that Jupiters mass causes a wobble on our sun so we could detect the jupiter sized planets from a wobble on other stars.  Something 4 times Jupiters mass, even that far out, should be having some effect on our son I would think, or possibly one of the outer planets.

Posted by: buzzion at February 14, 2011 06:35 PM (oVQFe)

Gravity decreases with the square of the distance.  Jupiter is ~10 AU from the Sun.  The secret planet is ~50,000 AU from the Sun.  So the secret planet's gravity on the Sun is about 25,000x less than Jupiter's gravity.

Those exoplanets are much closer to their respective stars than the secret planet.

Posted by: Oldsailor at February 14, 2011 06:46 PM (oBXlb)

Well three of the 4 aren't sports at all, but stunts.

"With the new figures added in, the discrepancies, and with them the need for a Planet X, vanished."

Wow. I had not heard that.

But really, now. These guys went on a witch-hunt for an anamoly that could have been explained by a pretty small inaccuracy in one of their parameters? That parameter being the mass of a planet that is so far away it's not funny - so far away, it's probably only gotten 'round the Sun once since we've known about it? (In other words, they should have known it wasn't very accurate).  That does not inspire my confidence in their profession, at all.

I love NASCAR, I will always love NASCAR. I do not enjoy ball sports because my dad built Race Car engines. You learned to throw a spiral, I learned to set valve lash. Cool, I get your disdain for something you can't possibly understand. . 

Whatever.  You should be able to tell from the puppet that it's a racing fan dissing on the 'sport' of NASCAR. 

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 14, 2011 06:49 PM (TAjuH)

There shouldn't be, I screwed it up.  That's 25,000,000X less.

there were purturbation in the orbits of the other planets

Posted by: Optimizer at February 14, 2011 06:28 PM (2lTU+)

Sure there was -- how do you think the Milky Way got milky?

Posted by: It's the Constitution, Stupid at February 14, 2011 06:01 PM (yE7AO)

Heh. Usually I'm the first one to point that out. Bravo!

Everybody admits when asked that it's hypothetical, but when they're just talking space almost everyone acts like it's an established fact.

The argument is essentially a faith-based one, the answer is "well, where did all that junk come from then?!?!"

You'd think that comets would, in fact, not be so regular if there was sucha huge convention of objects.

On the other hand I don't find it at all unbelievable that a very large object could "live" at a very great distance without being detected... gravity decreases over distance, you know. I would be surprised if BOTH a huge planet AND a gajillion little objects lived out there, but it sure would be a sight to see.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at February 14, 2011 07:00 PM (w41GQ)

I think they were just desperate to gin up a controversy so they could get published and enhance their reputations. It happens more than you think.

I mean, seriously, how bored would you have to be to want to get into a big fight over how many planets there *really* are?

Posted by: ParisParamus at February 14, 2011 06:07 PM (aOpxx)

As you can see, we now have a pissing contest between operations and maintenance.  Don't get no more military than that, eh?

I always assume any unexplained link is a Rick-roll.

Not enough of that game, anymore.

Everybody admits when asked that it's hypothetical, but when they're just talking space almost everyone acts like it's an established fact.

The argument is essentially a faith-based one, the answer is "well, where did all that junk come from then?!?!"

You'd think that comets would, in fact, not be so regular if there was sucha huge convention of objects.

On the other hand I don't find it at all unbelievable that a very large object could "live" at a very great distance without being detected... gravity decreases over distance, you know. I would be surprised if BOTH a huge planet AND a gajillion little objects lived out there, but it sure would be a sight to see.

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at February 14, 2011 07:01 PM (bxiXv)

The existence of the Oort Cloud is not crucial to this particular theory. 

And if it's not there, where is it?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 14, 2011 07:16 PM (7hOJb)

The gajillion little objects are in a sphere.  The planet is in one thin slice of that sphere.  At most.  So it could clear out it's orbit, and there'd still be literally a trillion objects out there in the sphere.

And I'm assuming the big planet didn't form out there, it got captured or thrown out.

 Now I have to go read about the Oort cloud.

Wasn't Me!

Posted by: s'moron at February 14, 2011 06:50 PM (UaxA0)

I'm aware of that.  I was talking about some of the original exo planets found.  And I'm also know of the distance effect for gravity. 

Still if you're speculating that an object is 4 times as massive as Jupiter it seems like you would need more evidence than "comets not leaving the cloud at the angles we expect"

Posted by: FlaviusJulius at February 14, 2011 07:27 PM (SJ6/3)

Yes...the day o'rage has been postponed until the next banning.

The existence of the Oort Cloud is not crucial to this particular theory.

And if it's not there, where is it?

Posted by: FUBAR at February 14, 2011 07:10 PM (McG46)

I am *positive* that your question made sense when you hit "Post," it's just that sometime between then and when I read it that sense went off to have a drink or watch some movie trailers or something.

The first part doesn't appear to relate to much except that the particular theory given talks about the Oort cloud existing as if it were a fact, which it isn't.

The second part: What is "it?" The planet? The Oort cloud? The comets?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 14, 2011 07:16 PM (7hOJb)

So snail races would be insanely popular there due to their high speed action.

Well from what I just read about the Oort cloud, the comets are effected by the galatical center of the milky way, passing stars as the galaxy spins, and post neptunal matter in addition to the sun's gravitational pull. So, I'm assuming that "science" which has no answer to the big bang* can take into account all these variable and decide they aren't enough and thus postulate the existance of a big planety thing. Ok.

*quantum physics allows sub-atomic particles to just appear and disappear for no reason is the answer to "what was the first mover".

^{Posted by: Ohio Dan at February 14, 2011 07:43 PM (EH4cc)}

What we lack is the proper perspective.

Shape:

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at February 14, 2011 07:34 PM (bxiXv)

However much it cleared out, it'd be miniscule compared to the sphere as a whole, the radius of which is 50,000 AU and the area of which is more like 2,500,000,000 AU². 

It didn't "suddenly" become spherical.  Ponder for a moment the vast distance the Oort Cloud is from Pluto, even.  1000x further.

Would that distance, about a light year, be enough for the size, shape, and composition of a cloud of gas and dust to change?  Surely.

I'd bet, as a theoretical matter, that solar systems could have any shape, since clouds of dust and gas come in any shape.  

Whether they'd stay in bizarre shapes, or gravitate to one of a few orbitally stable ones, is a different question.

Whether they'd stay in bizarre shapes, or gravitate to one of a few orbitally stable ones, is a different question.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 14, 2011 07:49 PM (McG46)

Wait a second, I'm the one saying that people are wrong to use the hypothetical behavior of the hypothetical Oort cloud as proof of anything else, don't ask *me* what it's like.

It's hypothetical, until there's some observational data or *solid* data derived from gravitational dynamics, not data that can be easily interpreted one of several ways.

<em>It didn't "suddenly" become spherical.  Ponder for a moment the vast distance the Oort Cloud is from Pluto, even.  1000x further.</em>

"Suddenly" may have been the wrong word, but again, you're arguing with me about the well-defined characteristics of a hypothetical thing. How do you know what it's shape is? It's hypothetical. You don't even know how far from Pluto it is, even assuming that it exists as a coherent collection of small bodies rather than a few small bodies in large orbits and a number of small interstellar small objects not tied to the solar system.

Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 14, 2011 07:53 PM (eOXTH)

No one knew to look for it.  The Nemesis theory had been shot down.

And can I just repeat: No one has found it yet.  Have they?

Posted by: United Federation of Spaghetti Benders at February 14, 2011 08:06 PM (3OCZw)

Ahem.

Posted by: FUBAR at February 14, 2011 08:03 PM (McG46)

My beef is with treating hypotheticals as fact. I was taught in college that the Oort cloud was reality, and yet today it's still just a guess. I've spent years removing the bullshit those damned "educators" tried to stuff into my head, how much more is there?

Also, this big mystery planet is a hypothetical, but people are already talking about it as if it were a fact. It will be mentioned in a Discover documentary within days, probably, with no mention that it's just an idea someone came up with.

(Profanity-laden rant against Michio Kaku narrowly averted)

I'm also grumpy because of a medicine change (heart meds). Makes by brain hurt. And my kidneys.

The problem with space exploration is that it is ran by scientists who would spend 20 years studying a rock. We need capitalism and a spirit of exploration to spread us into the stars, a space age Henry the Navigator, Columbus or Vasco da Gama. We need Kirks running NASA not Spocks.

Except there's no profit in space exploration. 

190 Totally OT, but has anyone mentioned the drama in WI over the public unions and the new governor here?
Posted by: GMan

Same thing in Ohio.  The Gerneral Assembly is about to vote on removing the Teacher's Unions rights to collectively bargain. The next barrier to trying to balance the budget.

Posted by: Hawaiian Astronomer at February 14, 2011 08:49 PM (TAjuH)

Tycho-brah-hey

Tycho would be after Tycho Brah. Is that where they are getting the name? I guess it would be apt except he mostly did recording and let Kepler do the math. There are some rumors that he was murdered for his info.

198 There's something to be said for trips to large iron-nickel asteroids.

"Shit, you know how many billion high-speed trains you could build out of this puppy!?  I figure like anywhere from 12 to 4, at least."

There's something to be said for trips to large iron-nickel asteroids. The iron and nickel are of good concentration, and there might be money in mining/slicing them up for return to Earth.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty says that any exploration of asteriods or other celestial bodies must 'benefit all mankind' and nobody can take ownership. 

Bloody socialists. 

Tyche would be an explanation to the theory that our solar system has not 1 but 2 stars, a Red Dwarf named Nemesis that effects the outer planets, Scientists being the way they are refused to look into and just called for settle science and that we had 9 planets but now w/ dwarf planets being found praticaly every year and more exploration into past Pluto, It wouldn't shock me to find the true 9th planet

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch writes.... at February 14, 2011 08:42 PM (sJTmU)

as Obama wants to keep spending, State Houses are cutting and saving

Posted by: blue star at February 14, 2011 09:20 PM (ag18h)

yeah, had a fake nose, that's the one

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty says that any exploration of asteriods or other celestial bodies must 'benefit all mankind' and nobody can take ownership.

Bloody socialists.

Posted by: Huusker at February 14, 2011 09:14 PM (+GTBC)

And people wonder why there's no commercial space exploration, the stinking commies make the rules.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 15, 2011 03:51 AM (1GflM)

Yeah, and just think of all of the union jobs a pipeline from Uranus to earth will create.

Even if what you say is true, the cost to containerize and to transport that gas from outer planets to earth would be so exorbitant and so prohibitive that not even our wasteful government would undertake that foolhardy venture ..., well ...., unless Obama or some other greenie nitwit is POTUS. 

The only purpose that I can see for going to other planets is to find more life forms which will be dumb enough to empower and vote for Democrats.

Ancient Zoroastrian texts point to a distant planet and possible interaction around time of Joshua, when the 'sun stopped and backed up in sky, day lasting about two'.

Read this while studying Ahura-Mazda several decades ago.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 15, 2011 06:12 AM (1GflM)

Hmmm, and in the meantime, I'll plan for my retirement, while ensuring a good life for my children and for my grandchildren, also ...., you know, short term, mundane, realistic and practical, parental considerations like that.

Like my dear grammy often said, everything will be the same a thousand years from now, and life is too short. So why sweat the petty shit? I already have enough concerns about the present. I don't give a rat's ass about what occurs a thousand years from now, and if you're rational, you won't either. Let them solve their own problems. It will build character and ensure their survival for another thousand years.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at February 15, 2011 06:12 AM (1GflM)

And what if there are not any raw materials on other planets with which colonists could build an, um,  "infrastructure"? That is more than just very likely. There is already significant evidence that the planet earth is unique in a multitude of ways, so many ways, in fact, that they show that life by humans on other planets will not be practical, feasible or sustainable.

 (BTW, Star Trek is just a fantasy and entertainment for children of all ages, not a visionary concept. Snow White And The Seven Dwarves and Cinderella and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny weren't true stories either. Hate to be the one to break that to you.)

No wonder my horoscope is always wrong. There's a great oaf of a planet blundering its way through my astrological star-chart.

anyone who read "the twelfth planet" by  zecharia sitchin knows exactly what this planet is.

we know its on a course into our solar system.  its size is already affecting out sun, our climate, causing earthquakes and sink holes. the closer it gets the more severe these will become. The bible says "the earth will shake".

study and pray but remember it is not the fault of the "nefilim" they can no more control the orbit of their planet than we can ours.