Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday July 26 2016, @07:06AM   Printer-friendly
from the just-a-little-off-kilter dept.

Two studies published on arXiv have identified the hypothetical ~10 Earth mass "Planet Nine" as an explanation for the tilt of the solar system:

Two recent studies have shown that the existence of a mysterious, hypothetical Planet Nine could explain why the planets in our Solar System don't fully line up with the Sun. Researchers have been speculating about a ninth planet since January this year, and these latest studies add more weight to the hypothesis that, at some point in time at least, there was an extra planet orbiting our Sun. In fact, if Planet Nine does exist (or did), it would help to explain something that scientists have puzzled over for decades - why the Solar System is tilted.

What does that mean? Well, basically, all of the main eight planets that orbit our Sun do so on the same plane, making the Solar System look like a disc. The problem is that the Sun spins at a different angle, with its axis roughly 6 degrees off from the rest of the planets.

In the past, researchers have attempted to explain this slant by blaming the temporary tug of a passing star, or interactions between the Sun's magnetic field and the disc of dust that formed our planets. But none of these hypotheses have fully accounted for the misalignment. But now the two new studies – [completely independent] from one another in the US and France – show that the existence of Planet Nine could explain the tilt.

Solar Obliquity Induced by Planet Nine

The inclination of the planetary system relative to the solar equator may be explained by the presence of Planet 9


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:25PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday July 26 2016, @09:25PM (#380458)

    Did you read my comment? I'm pretty sure I implied that scientific classifications are not to be related to the general public's feelings...

    Going by average distance from the Sun, Pluto IS planet 10 (Ceres is 5). This new one might be planet 35 or 173 for all I care. Give it a name when it's been characterized, but until then it's either named after the year of discovery or requires a more consistent name than "planet 9, 10". Putting the dwarf planets in a separate category is bound to cause an issue sooner rather than later, when we discover the next very distant one that doesn't fit.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2