Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday October 22 2016, @04:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the weebles-wobble-but-they-don't-fall-down dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

The massive hypothetical object, which supposedly looms at the edge of our solar system, has been invoked to explain the strange clustering of objects in the Kuiper belt and the unusual way they orbit the Sun.

Now Planet Nine predictors Konstantin Batygin and Mike Brown of Caltech, along with graduate student Elizabeth Bailey, offer another piece of evidence for the elusive sphere's existence: It adds "wobble" to the solar system, they say, tilting it in relation to the sun.

"Because Planet Nine is so massive and has an orbit tilted compared to the other planets, the solar system has no choice but to slowly twist out of alignment," lead author Bailey said in a statement.

Before we go any further, a caveat about Planet Nine: It's purely theoretical at this point. Batygin and Brown predict its existence based on unusual perturbations of the solar system that aren't otherwise easily explained. (This is the same technique scientists used to find Neptune.) But the history of astronomy is rife with speculation that is never borne out: The same guy who correctly predicted the existence of Neptune also believed that a planet he called Vulcan was responsible for the wobble of Mercury. That "discovery" caused the astronomy world to waste years looking for something that wasn't there. (Mercury's wobble was eventually explained by the theory of general relativity.)

But the evidence offered by Batygin and Brown is compelling. When the pair announced their find in January, planetary scientist Alessandro Morbidelli of the Côte d'Azur Observatory in Nice, France, told The Washington Post: "I don't see any alternative explanation to that offered by Batygin and Brown."

"We will find it one day," he added. "The question is when."

Planet Nine's angular momentum is having an outsized impact on the solar system based on its location and size. A planet's angular momentum equals the mass of an object multiplied by its distance from the sun, and corresponds with the force that the planet exerts on the overall system's spin. Because the other planets in the solar system all exist along a flat plane, their angular momentum works to keep the whole disk spinning smoothly.

Planet Nine's unusual orbit, however, adds a multi-billion-year wobble to that system. Mathematically, given the hypothesized size and distance of Planet Nine, a six-degree tilt fits perfectly, Brown says.


Original Submission #1; Original Submission #2

 
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 HiThere on Saturday October 22 2016, @07:30PM

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 22 2016, @07:30PM (#417639) Journal

    A friend of mine who used to be quite technical as well as a visual astronomer, and who still follows astronomical news has a very unusual suggestion with a possibly unpleasant corollary.

    He suggests that we've already seen it. That it's one of the really distant objects seen beyond Pluto which has a reddish color...which he suggests might be the color of a white dwarf star that's cooled for a LONG time. The thing is, these stars slowly accrete matter without visible change until they pass a crucial threshold, at which point they become a supernova. If so, it might be very important that we start devoting energies to self-sufficient space habitats...ones that don't depend on the sun for power, and which can thus slowly migrate away. The resources out beyond the Oort clouds are pretty scant, so there's a lot of preparatory work that needs to be done. Fission power might be sufficient, though fusion would be better, and there's not only a need for a (nearly) closed eco-system, there's also the need for better ion-rockets, etc,

    Most of the things can be re-purposed from things that are more immediately useful for in-system work. But the first thing to do is to get a better idea of the weight of that object. IIUC it is known to have a satellite, so that shouldn't take long...especially on this time scale.

    N.B.: My friend is rather old, and has started to get a bit confused, so a good question would be "Is that red distant object in the same direction that planet IX needs to be?". This, however, would better be answered by someone who's actively an astronomer. The odds are the answer is "no", of course, but the speculation is sufficiently important that it would be nice if it were investigated.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 22 2016, @08:05PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 22 2016, @08:05PM (#417645)

    one of the really distant objects seen beyond Pluto which has a reddish color

    Is there a searchable name for these objects?

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 22 2016, @08:38PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday October 22 2016, @08:38PM (#417654) Journal

    Even if humanity never attempts to build a Dyson swarm or travel to another star, there is a lot more real estate in the solar system than we used to know about, and a lot more to discover.

    If Planet Nine exists, it might be possible to land on its surface, and it might have lots of moons (Pluto has 5, Jupiter has 67, Neptune has 14). It is described as a mini-Neptune at its theorized mass.

    In the long term, we could put bases or colonies on the Moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury [wikipedia.org], Pallas, Ceres, Vesta, Ganymede, Callisto, Europa, Io, Titan, Enceladus, Titania, Triton, etc. There are other large asteroids and moons I didn't list, and once we can cope with the coldest ones, any TNOs/KBOs should be fair game. Pluto, Charon, Eris, Sedna, Makemake, Haumea, Quaoar, Orcus, Salacia, Varuna, Ixion, etc. Many of them have small moons, for what that's worth. Some of the TNOs have up to 0.1g of gravity. Our ACs have complained about the habitability of lower gravity rocks a lot lately, but 0.083g (Eris) or 0.376g (Mars) beats microgravity.

    There are more TNOs to discover that are far closer than the Oort cloud. Some of the undiscovered TNOs could be as big as Mars.

    NASA has thought of concept probes [wikipedia.org] that could travel over 10 AU per year (1000 AU in less than a century). Many of the large known TNOs are just 50-100 AU away. We may have more options for getting around in the future, such as fusion propulsion instead of RTG + ion engines.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by Grishnakh on Saturday October 22 2016, @09:57PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Saturday October 22 2016, @09:57PM (#417678)

      Why would anyone want to live on a colony on one of these worlds? They're very far from the Sun, they're cold, they're small, they have no atmosphere or at least nothing breathable, and they have extremely insufficient gravity. What is the point, unless you really need them for mining (in which case you'd probably do better just grabbing Earth-crossing asteroids, or ones in the Belt since it's so much closer; additionally, most of this work could be done by remotely-operated vehicles).

      If people need a new place to live, the answer isn't trying to colonize some small, dead moon, it's to build space-based habitats. A very large space station that rotates can be set to have whatever gravity you want, and can be built to have whatever habitat inside you want. If you have the technology to build a sealed habitat on Ceres or Titan or wherever, you have the technology to build a sealed habitat in Earth orbit or at a Lagrangian point, close enough to visit Earth from time to time, and your space habitat will actually have proper gravity, unlike something on another world.

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday October 22 2016, @10:21PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday October 22 2016, @10:21PM (#417684) Journal

        Why would anyone want to live on a colony on one of these worlds?

        Normie spotted. Someone will be content to live indoors on a colony indefinitely, with meager means. We already have those types of humans, they are called NEETs.

        Advancements in propulsion will allow much faster travel to Pluto et al. than is currently possible. Settlers are not necessarily condemned to live there forever.

        We are also talking about a long timescale. If it doesn't make sense to settle icy moons and dwarf planets in the next hundred years, it can be done in the next five hundred years. They will still be there, waiting for us to build the appropriate technologies and get the price down.

        Also, there are long-term prospects for terraforming in some of the cases.

        extremely insufficient gravity

        As long as your eyes are not popping out of your skull, it is not insufficient. 0.05g could be a lot better than microgravity.

        the answer isn't trying to colonize some small, dead moon, it's to build space-based habitats

        Those "dead" moons are already out there, and always will be. They have orders of magnitude more mass than space-based habitats, and usable resources including water ice. You can have both the space-based habitat and the dwarf planet base if the economics allow it.

        If you have the technology to build a sealed habitat on Ceres or Titan or wherever, you have the technology to build a sealed habitat in Earth orbit or at a Lagrangian point

        And you could also put one in orbit around these moons + planets. Call it an Earth gravity gym. They can orbit very close if there is little or no atmosphere to worry about, and if the escape velocity is low, it won't be hard to travel to and from the station.

        close enough to visit Earth from time to time

        That is not a requirement of a self-sufficient colony/base. If you can't bear to leave Earth behind, then you are free to die there. But don't presume that others have that same need.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday October 23 2016, @04:04AM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Sunday October 23 2016, @04:04AM (#417742)

          Someone will be content to live indoors on a colony indefinitely, with meager means. We already have those types of humans, they are called NEETs.

          NEETs are unemployed and have no education. What makes you think they never go outside? You don't need a job to go walk around outside. There's tons of homeless people who literally live outside, or in tents.

          Advancements in propulsion will allow much faster travel to Pluto et al. than is currently possible.

          They'll need advances in shielding too, so they don't die of radiation poisoning on the way.

          You still haven't answered my question: why would anyone go to these places, when you can build habitats much closer to the Earth, where there's a lot more sunlight? Where do you think these settlers are going to get power from? More importantly, who's going to pay for all these people to live on Pluto, sitting inside all the time and jerking off?

          Also, there are long-term prospects for terraforming in some of the cases.

          No, there aren't'. Venus and Mars are pretty much the only two places where that's even remotely possible.

          As long as your eyes are not popping out of your skull, it is not insufficient. 0.05g could be a lot better than microgravity.

          Bullshit. The health effects of low gravity are currently unknown for sure because no one's lived on another world for more than a few hours (the Apollo missions). We do know, however, that there's seriously negative health effects to zero-g, as seen in those who have spent considerable time in the ISS. It's quite likely that living in low-g habitats will also have negative health effects.

          They have orders of magnitude more mass than space-based habitats, and usable resources including water ice.

          We can get those things from asteroids much closer to the Earth, and we can do mining operations with remotely-operated vehicles, or possibly small contingents of humans. But that doesn't really give people much of a reason to live in these places; it doesn't take that many people to do mining with advanced technology, and there's no other valid reason to live in these places.

          And you could also put one in orbit around these moons + planets. Call it an Earth gravity gym. They can orbit very close if there is little or no atmosphere to worry about, and if the escape velocity is low, it won't be hard to travel to and from the station.

          You still haven't answered the question of why anyone would want to live in these places. If I can live in an orbital habitat around Pluto or around Earth, why would I pick Pluto? It's just stupid.

          If you can't bear to leave Earth behind, then you are free to die there. But don't presume that others have that same need.

          If you're so anxious to build a base on Pluto, go ahead, just don't ask me to fund it for you. There's no valid economic reason for such a venture.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @05:06AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @05:06AM (#418046)

            Trump's great-great-etc grandson inherited the Presidency of Earth and you want to live as far way as possible.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday October 23 2016, @06:43PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 23 2016, @06:43PM (#417918) Journal

      You're missing my point. As long as humanity is clustered around one Star we have "all our eggs in one basket". It's not a matter of room, though I'd assert that the growth function could use any amount of terrain that could even possibly be present. That's irrelevant, because we're going to *need* to limit growth whatever we do.

      But you also shouldn't judge future habitats by current space-labs. They shouldn't be at all comparable. They'd be more equivalent to a giant arcology. Admittedly archologies are currently an unsolved problem, but we're going to need to solve them anyway unless we impose REALLY strict population controls. Currently cities are inhumane places to live, but they also provide vital services that aren't available elsewhere...and rapid transportation uses lots of energy.

      So think of a space habitat as a city in space. It would need to rotate for gravity. Now your argument is "Nobody would want to spend their life in a city!", but many people do. And your argument is that current city design can't be improved. I disagree.

      OTOH, a habitat in space won't be very libertarian. Sorry, but it's a highly artificial environment in a very dangerous environment, so you can't let people mess with it in unsafe ways. This makes virtual reality very important, probably full immersion virtual reality. This is clearly already being worked on, however, for other reasons. In fact almost all the required technologies are already being worked on for other reasons.

      If we do things right eventually humanity, if not Earth, will be able to survive a nearby supernova. And one WILL eventually happen. There's probably no rush on that score, however, the current problem is insane governments that are juggling thermonuclear bombs. Surviving that is a lot easier, but it still requires a self-sufficient off-planet civilization...preferably one which could survive a large Coronal Mass Ejection.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @02:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 24 2016, @02:13PM (#418144)

        If we do things right eventually humanity, if not Earth, will be able to survive a nearby supernova. And one WILL eventually happen. There's probably no rush on that score, however, the current problem is insane governments that are juggling thermonuclear bombs. Surviving that is a lot easier, but it still requires a self-sufficient off-planet civilization...preferably one which could survive a large Coronal Mass Ejection.

        Note that Supernova events likely already happened in the past. All those problems are a single problem, and solution is one and same: do on Earth what you expect to be needed to do to survive on other planets, i.e. build self-sufficient underground habitats, shielded from surface-level radiation. It is much easier and cheaper to do that here and now then billions of miles away or in the hurry.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 22 2016, @09:42PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 22 2016, @09:42PM (#417668) Journal

    The thing is, these stars slowly accrete matter without visible change until they pass a crucial threshold, at which point they become a supernova.

    They don't actually do that without visible change. You'd pick up X rays and gamma rays from matter falling onto the surface of the object and if it was doing a lot of accreting, the object would be pretty hot and relatively visible. Further these objects have to accumulate a lot of matter before they could supernova, like a major portion of the Sun. It's not going to find that much matter out beyond Pluto.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday October 23 2016, @06:26PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 23 2016, @06:26PM (#417909) Journal

      You're making assumptions about the speed of accretion. That said, if it had been emitting X-rays would we know? The atmosphere is opaque to X-rays, so only space probes could see it, and they're pretty busy, and if the accretion was slow it wouldn't be bright.

      I *do* consider it quite an unlikely theory, but I *would* be happier if someone would measure the orbital speed of the moon and figure its mass.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 23 2016, @07:06PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 23 2016, @07:06PM (#417926) Journal

        You're making assumptions about the speed of accretion.

        In order to generate a supernova, the star has to accumulate more than half a solar mass. There isn't the mass out there in the Oort cloud, including the would-be star or we would have noticed its effects on the other planets. Further, if it was accumulating mass fast enough to become a concern before the Sun turns into a giant star, we would be able to see it now.

        That said, if it had been emitting X-rays would we know?

        We've been observing X rays for somewhere around half a century. Yes, we would know.

        The atmosphere is opaque to X-rays, so only space probes could see it, and they're pretty busy

        Or high altitude observatories on Earth. The atmosphere is not that opaque.

        and if the accretion was slow it wouldn't be bright.

        My point precisely. If the accretion is slow, then we have bigger concerns such as the Earth becoming uninhabitable in a few hundred million to billion years as the Sun turns into a giant star.