Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Planet 9, Nibiru, and Planet X

  • Please log in to reply
298 replies to this topic

#276 Terry White

Terry White

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Knoxville, Tennessee.

Posted 05 May 2021 - 07:01 AM

Brown let it be known on Twitter yesterday that he is about to put up a new paper on arxiv.org. He's waiting on reviewer comments first before posting. The new paper considerably narrows down the Planet Nine search area to in or near the galactic plane. He's been working on this paper for the last three years, so it should be quite thorough. I would think where to look would also involve Batygin. Stay tuned! popcorn.gif


Edited by Terry White, 05 May 2021 - 01:22 PM.

  • CounterWeight, City Kid and GalaxyPiper like this

#277 Brakshowpkt

Brakshowpkt

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2020

Posted 05 May 2021 - 11:47 PM

Not sure the graphic is supposed to be perfectly to scale, and not sure its really something to be upset about. Obviously its hard to depict all of the planets big enough so the laymen can see them and still visualize the vast size of the Oort cloud. So I doubt it was ever supposed to be legitimate scale.

Planet 9 is either there or it isn't. So unending articles and research papers about its existence or lack thereof is to be expected until the area its theorized to occupy has been extensively studied and ruled out, or we find it. Until then neither side is gonna quit talking about their theories and personal feelings on the matter.

So I just sit back here and enjoy the show.

Personally I think its a smarter endeavor to look for the possible planet than to entertain unending plausible theories about intergalactic visitors that we'll never be able to prove. The only thing provable is whether it's there or it isn't there and I guess whether the math even makes sense going forward after learning new things about orbital mechanics in the future...but I still prefer the search. With our current tech we should easily see light reflecting from an object of that size to fairly far out if we look in the right place, especially in IR. So while its a huge task, I say observe the entire window of where it could be throughout the next couple decades and chalk it up as a success or failure depending on whats found or isnt found.

Personally I don't think its there, but the smart money is on looking for it; not in entertaining endless theories about endless possible phenomena that could give us the same results as we see now with eKBO's and high inclination centaurs.

Edit: fixed some autocorrects

Edited by Brakshowpkt, 05 May 2021 - 11:50 PM.

  • CounterWeight likes this

#278 CounterWeight

CounterWeight

    Star walker

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,211
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: PDX, OR.

Posted 06 May 2021 - 01:39 AM

With the great strides we have made in just the last few years in terms of collecting the data from outside the earths atmosphere, it's not optimistic to think if this planet was in itself a Gauss 'norm' of some sort we will find evidence of it. 

 

We are proceeding from an example of one to many though still in ways very to extremely resolution challenged. 

 

I think there is hope for an answer in the relatively near future (5-10 years).  The data set will continue to improve in quality and quantity. 

 

Have to be patient as science takes time, investment, and $$$.  This IMO separates it from other what I'll call 'belief systems'. Claims require verifiable repeatable results that others can test, verify.  So multiply the time and effort however you want.

 

With the advent of orbiting data collection the data collecting platforms are no longer encumbered by our (earth) atmosphere or radio / IR envelope.

 

Multi band, multiply sourced data, extremely 'clean data', about the greater solar system.

 

I look at it as a natural progression as our ability to postulate and prove improves with our ability to 'see' in the broadest sense, verifiably detect . Reach and grasp.  Ideas and events.

 

I'm in ways more interested in what we are learning about other 'solar systems' in general, in those we can detect and observe, what is Gaussian?  Science fiction 50 years ago, science fact today.



#279 Terry White

Terry White

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Knoxville, Tennessee.

Posted 06 May 2021 - 04:20 AM

Not sure the graphic is supposed to be perfectly to scale, and not sure its really something to be upset about. Obviously its hard to depict all of the planets big enough so the laymen can see them and still visualize the vast size of the Oort cloud. So I doubt it was ever supposed to be legitimate scale.

Ordinarily I would agree with you, except for the figure caption which clearly states "The Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud location and scale relative to our Solar System." So the figure and caption, as written, are quite misleading to a layperson. If you want to keep the caption, then everything inside the Kuiper Belt is a small dot in the right-hand image. If you want to keep the right-hand image, then say not to scale in the caption. I've seen many examples that illustrate either approach.



#280 Terry White

Terry White

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Knoxville, Tennessee.

Posted 06 May 2021 - 05:29 AM

Personally I think its a smarter endeavor to look for the possible planet than to entertain unending plausible theories about intergalactic visitors that we'll never be able to prove. The only thing provable is whether it's there or it isn't there and I guess whether the math even makes sense going forward after learning new things about orbital mechanics in the future...but I still prefer the search.

Are you advocating that we ignore theory and just concentrate on searching for Planet Nine? OK, so we just ignore all the theoretical astrophysicists and planetary dynamicists and just start searching. Well, where are you going to look? Without some sensible hypothesis based on physics, you're not going to be very productive. Also, as I said in post #46, time on larger telescopes is heavily oversubscribed, and you are competing with many other good proposals that are focused on known objects. Without some modeling, you are not going to get your search proposals approved over other stronger search proposals with good theoretical models underpinning their search methodologies. In good science, theory and experiment go hand in hand. They always have, and they always will.

 

"With our current tech we should easily see light reflecting from an object of that size to fairly far out if we look in the right place, especially in IR."

 

The LSST can only see objects brighter than 24th magnitude (27th magnitude stacked). If Planet Nine's albedo is quite low (if it's got a lot of tholins on the surface), it could be quite dim and thus go undetected.  Also, if Planet Nine lies in a very dense star field in the Milky Way near aphelion, as seems likely, it could be very hard to distinguish from the brighter background stars. So your statement that we should easily see Planet Nine is not correct in all cases. It does tend to limit where Planet Nine can be found, but that still leaves a large swath of sky to search.

 

There seems to be a misconception here that all you need is a big telescope with high resolution and lots of light gathering power to find Planet Nine. Where are you going to point it once you get the time? Or, how are you going to justify taking years to systematically search impractically large areas of sky with an instrument that is so poorly designed for this task? See post #44. Large survey telescopes are the instruments of choice with wide fields and large cameras. Also "if we look in the right place" implies we have a very good model, doesn't it? But this statement is at odds with your earlier statement "(not) to entertain unending plausible theories." And no, there are not unending plausible theories. Finally, no, IR astronomy doesn't rely on reflections. You probably didn't mean to use IR in the same sentence as visual.



#281 Lucullus

Lucullus

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,302
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2012

Posted 06 May 2021 - 08:00 AM

Not sure the graphic is supposed to be perfectly to scale, and not sure its really something to be upset about. Obviously its hard to depict all of the planets big enough so the laymen can see them and still visualize the vast size of the Oort cloud. So I doubt it was ever supposed to be legitimate scale.

Planet 9 is either there or it isn't. So unending articles and research papers about its existence or lack thereof is to be expected until the area its theorized to occupy has been extensively studied and ruled out, or we find it. Until then neither side is gonna quit talking about their theories and personal feelings on the matter.

So I just sit back here and enjoy the show.

Personally I think its a smarter endeavor to look for the possible planet than to entertain unending plausible theories about intergalactic visitors that we'll never be able to prove. The only thing provable is whether it's there or it isn't there and I guess whether the math even makes sense going forward after learning new things about orbital mechanics in the future...but I still prefer the search. With our current tech we should easily see light reflecting from an object of that size to fairly far out if we look in the right place, especially in IR. So while its a huge task, I say observe the entire window of where it could be throughout the next couple decades and chalk it up as a success or failure depending on whats found or isnt found.

Personally I don't think its there, but the smart money is on looking for it; not in entertaining endless theories about endless possible phenomena that could give us the same results as we see now with eKBO's and high inclination centaurs.

Edit: fixed some autocorrects

Hear hear.
I strongly prefer to talk about this topic as hypotheses in either position instead of a theory; albeit I learned that there is no clear border between what still is only a hypothesis and what is already backed up enough to be considered a theory, with such a disputed topic as P9 currently still is I metaphysically consider it an insult to place it on par with theories such as Einstein's, quantum physics, or Newton's law of daily gravitational experiences by talking about P9 as a theory. I vote for strictly using the word hypothesis until P9 is actually found with telescopes and with an SNR usually considered as representing a real object in astronomy. :D

#282 Lucullus

Lucullus

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,302
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2012

Posted 06 May 2021 - 09:08 AM

Are you advocating that we ignore theory and just concentrate on searching for Planet Nine? OK, so we just ignore all the theoretical astrophysicists and planetary dynamicists and just start searching. Well, where are you going to look? Without some sensible hypothesis based on physics, you're not going to be very productive. Also, as I said in post #46, time on larger telescopes is heavily oversubscribed, and you are competing with many other good proposals that are focused on known objects. Without some modeling, you are not going to get your proposals approved over other stronger proposals with good theoretical models underpinning their search methodologies. In good science, theory and experiment go hand in hand. Always have. Always will.

"With our current tech we should easily see light reflecting from an object of that size to fairly far out if we look in the right place, especially in IR."

There seems to be a misconception here that all you need is a big telescope with high resolution and lots of light gathering power to find Planet 9. Where are you going to point it once you get the time? Or, how are you going to justify taking years to systematically search impractically large areas of sky with an instrument that is so poorly designed for this task? See post #44. Large survey telescopes are the instruments of choice with wide fields and very large cameras. Also "If we look in the right place" implies we have a very good model, doesn't it? But this statement is at odds with your earlier statement "than to entertain unending plausible theories." And no, there are not unending plausible theories.

Finally, no, IR astronomy doesn't rely on reflections.


You mention interesting aspects here, Terry. As you were a professional astronomer please allow me to ask a few questions in this regard about the scientific machinery of finding out new knowledge for humankind.
I am convinced Brakshowpkt has a point there and his opinion on the topic is not all utter nonsense, because his opinion is supported by either side of P9-scientists: proponents and opponents said multiple times in papers and media interviews that what is needed to improve the state of the current debate is more observational data and more discoveries of eKBOs to feed the models. Both groups stated that, so no utter nonsense there.
Why not span together all teams mindpower and interchange expertise before publishing new only-theoretical-claims, for the sake of the fastest, best founded scientific progress for humankind, instead of publishing the insights separately with to-and-fro criticizing each other group's lack of absolute expertise, which began to appear as a kindergarden years ago, imho. But I'm glad you write yourself that good science requires theory and observation so I hope you can give me some answer about the following.
What I'd like to know more about is: why don't both teams learn to be convinced that they would make faster progress if they combine their mindpower and collaborate? All world talkes that problems are better solved together, so why not here?
And if pure theory is so strong as all P9 scientists claim, despite being based on extremely limited data and extremely slow observational progress in terms of finding additional eKBOs, and nevertheless significant advances are made as they further claim (e.g. where to look), why does any large telescope board grant the teams observing time instead of saying "You'll not get any observing minute before you haven't reduced the position down to 1 sqdeg with pure theory and the data you already have, and if you can't prove to be able to make further progress without more observational data."? If I were a(mong a) telescope board and got to know how confident some teams argue in favour of their theoretical capabilities with (despite) existing limited observational data, I'd ask them that, tell them to collaborate with more mindpower, ask them to come back later when they are more sure to discover something and not waste other applicants chances.
Why does scientific machinery not work this way concerning P9?

PS: I realise that I'm seemingly not consistent when being convinced that theory-observation need to go hand in hand, while refusing P9 theorists more observing time. But this is only if they don't learn to collaborate beyond proponent-opponent-thinking for the sake of faster progress and being convinced that other scientists could use the observing time while the P9 scientists stick heads together.



#283 Terry White

Terry White

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Knoxville, Tennessee.

Posted 28 May 2021 - 01:51 PM

Mike Brown gave a podcast interview here, where he says at 9:40 into the podcast that: "We now know where to look!" Coming to arXiv.org soon will be a new paper with a "treasure map" that says Planet Nine will be found in a "band of sky halfway between Orion and Taurus and going up through Gemini, and (it) keeps on going around the other side." It sounds like the search area has been modified from what I understood the search area was, based on earlier papers by Brown and Batygin. In post #129 I drew a rough facsimile of the Planet Nine search area based on earlier oral descriptions given by Brown. At that time it didn't go any further North than the galactic plane. Now the search are seems to have been extended through the galactic plane and even all the way through Gemini.


Edited by Terry White, 28 May 2021 - 03:00 PM.

  • Dynan likes this

#284 GalaxyPiper

GalaxyPiper

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 20 May 2017
  • Loc: Sacramento, California

Posted 28 May 2021 - 02:15 PM

Mike Brown gave a podcast interview here, where he says at 9:40 into the podcast that: "We now know where to look!" Coming to arXiv.org soon will be a new paper with a "treasure map" that says Planet Nine will be found in a "band of sky halfway between Orion and Taurus and going up through Gemini, and (it) keeps on going around the other side." It sounds like the search area has been somewhat reduced from what I understood the search area was, based on earlier papers by Brown and Batygin.

Yeah, sounds like they narrowed the orbit banding down with better computer modeling. Now the real race is on!


  • Terry White and Dynan like this

#285 Terry White

Terry White

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Knoxville, Tennessee.

Posted 01 June 2021 - 02:36 PM

I wanted to share this modeling of the apparent brightness of Planet Nine taken from a paper by Naess, et. al., that I discussed earlier in post #272. The authors seem to have done a very thorough job of modeling the size, temperature, albedo and luminosity of the hypothetical Planet Nine based on exoplanet studies and the work of Batygin and Brown, who have narrowed the mass of Planet Nine down to about 6 ± 1 Earth masses in their latest 2019 Hypothesis. Naess, et. al., developed three possible thermal models for Planet Nine. Using these studies and making some reasonable assumptions about the mass and orbital elements of Planet Nine, the combined emission and reflection spectra for three cases of a hypothetical Planet Nine are plotted versus frequency.

 

Planet Nine Spectra.png

 

What really jumps out at you is how Planet Nine is easily two to three orders of magnitude brighter in the infrared, compared to the visible. This reflects  the 1/r2 dependence for the direct emitted infrared radiation, versus 1/r4 dependence for reflected visible light. But the authors didn't stop there. They also plotted the 5σ detection limits of all the past, current and upcoming wide-area surveys, all on the same spectral plot. This shows that dedicated infrared surveys are just as likely to find Planet Nine as are the optical surveys, assuming the same search area and cadence for both. Unfortunately, the infrared searcher's main priorities are aimed towards studying cosmic origins and not planetary science. Thus the edge should go to the dedicated wide-field surveys on the Subaru telescope at Mauna Kea, Hawaii and on the Blanco 4-meter telescope at the Cerro Tololo, Chile. The upcoming Legacy Survey of Space and Time at Rubin Observatory at Cerro Pachὀn, Chile will still have the best chance of detecting a fainter Planet Nine, provided Planet Nine isn't above about 20° declination, since Rubin can't observe below about 20° elevation due to limitations on the mirror's active optics.


Edited by Terry White, 01 June 2021 - 02:44 PM.

  • dave253 and GalaxyPiper like this

#286 Brakshowpkt

Brakshowpkt

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2020

Posted 03 June 2021 - 11:21 PM

Not sure the graphic is supposed to be perfectly to scale, and not sure its really something to be upset about. Obviously its hard to depict all of the planets big enough so the laymen can see them and still visualize the vast size of the Oort cloud. So I doubt it was ever supposed to be legitimate scale.

Planet 9 is either there or it isn't. So unending articles and research papers about its existence or lack thereof is to be expected until the area its theorized to occupy has been extensively studied and ruled out, or we find it. Until then neither side is gonna quit talking about their theories and personal feelings on the matter.

So I just sit back here and enjoy the show.

Personally I think its a smarter endeavor to look for the possible planet than to entertain unending plausible theories about intergalactic visitors that we'll never be able to prove. The only thing provable is whether it's there or it isn't there and I guess whether the math even makes sense going forward after learning new things about orbital mechanics in the future...but I still prefer the search. With our current tech we should easily see light reflecting from an object of that size to fairly far out if we look in the right place, especially in IR. So while its a huge task, I say observe the entire window of where it could be throughout the next couple decades and chalk it up as a success or failure depending on whats found or isnt found.

Personally I don't think its there, but the smart money is on looking for it; not in entertaining endless theories about endless possible phenomena that could give us the same results as we see now with eKBO's and high inclination centaurs.

Edit: fixed some autocorrects


You're a little too quit to slap back sometimes, because I don't think you really understood all that I was saying.

For instance: I never said to avoid theory or planetary dynamic modeling, I said:

"Planet 9 is either there or it isn't. So unending articles and research papers about its existence or lack thereof is to be expected until the area its theorized to occupy has been extensively studied and ruled out, or we find it. Until then neither side is gonna quit talking about their theories and personal feelings on the matter." Obviously eluding to the fact that both of these things from both sides will continue to be debated.

I said this because you're often refuting the veracity or legitimacy of papers contrary to a planet ix hypothesis. Even to the point of dismissing one due to the scale of a chart of the solar system that had absolutely nothing to do with the paper itself.

You also jump to the extremes when defending that the planet could be harder to find than it should be (dense tholin surface causing low albedo, or positioned in a dense starfield and there for hard to discern from further objects), when in reality some of the very papers you've cited here predict absolute magnitudes well within current tech scope for the planet; and considering it is predicted quite often to be a massive planet, very possibly a gas or ice giant, a dense tholin surface isn't as likely as a cloud layer which would be much more reflective. Extremes are reached for by the desperate and I don't think we're to that point with this search yet. Outside of visible light, with its projected size, IR is probably a good bet for how we'll find it if it's there.

You're also correct on this point of course, it could have an incredibly low reflective surface or lie in a dense star area of the sky; I just don't find that very compelling without significant evidence that either one of these is true.

You then misunderstand my point about:

"(not) to entertain unending plausible theories." And no, there are not unending plausible theories."

I wasnt talking about your theories, I was talking about the skeptics who continually theorize larger astronomical visitors to the outer solar system that could account for current eKBO's and high inclination centaurs; and yes, they appear to be near infinite since another pops up every few weeks.

But yes, I should have used a semicolon in my comment about IR to separate two different thoughts with more context, or written it in its own sentence.

My post was mostly to agree that we should be dedicating sky survey time to this project and that I believe looking for it (theoretical modeling included) is the better bet.

#287 Terry White

Terry White

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Knoxville, Tennessee.

Posted 06 July 2021 - 05:33 PM

Batygin retweeted a new interview for Bloomberg's Robin Fall here titled, "Beyond Neptune: This Telescope Might Find 'Planet 9'". This might be a good, evenly-balanced video for someone just getting into the Planet Nine Hypothesis controversy. But the short video, of necessity, just skims the surface. Regular followers of this thread may need to wait until Batygin and Brown get their reviewer's comments back, so Batygin and Brown can pre-publish their latest paper on the Planet Nine Hypothesis that a includes a self-described "treasure map." All coming real soon now to arXiv.org, as discussed in post #283.


Edited by Terry White, 06 July 2021 - 05:58 PM.

  • GalaxyPiper likes this

#288 Terry White

Terry White

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Knoxville, Tennessee.

Posted 10 July 2021 - 06:45 AM

I missed this Caltech Astro video that was posted back in December on "Collective Gravity in the Outer Solar System" by Ann-Marie Madigan (University of Colorado, Boulder). She claims that if there is another massive belt of icy bodies beyond the Kuiper Belt, at about 250 AU, then the collective self-gravity of such a belt of icy bodies should be capable of clustering the detached, stable eKBOs without the need of a Planet Nine. She starts out giving a pretty good description of the Kuiper Belt basics. Also, she gives a useful comparison of the Keplerian orbital angles to Yaw, Pitch and Roll on a sailboat. However, there were several problems with her self-gravity hypothesis. First, there is no evidence at present that a large massive belt between the Kuiper Belt and the Inner Oort Cloud exists. Second, her model requires that this larger massive belt must consist of at least 20 earth masses for this collective self-gravity to have the desired observed clustering effect on the detached eKBO population. This is highly unlikely due to gravitational tides of nearby stars in the birth cluster and to UV evaporation, discussed back in post #146 and post #149 which will tend to disperse and evaporate any icy bodies icy bodies present beyond 250 AU. There was a Q&A session after her talk and she had some vague and confusing answers, but I did learn that this is all unpublished work, so there is no peer review yet on her hypothesis. IMHO, I think she may get chewed up because there seemed to be a lot of "loose ends" in her hypothesis.


Edited by Terry White, 11 July 2021 - 06:10 AM.

  • GalaxyPiper likes this

#289 GalaxyPiper

GalaxyPiper

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 20 May 2017
  • Loc: Sacramento, California

Posted 10 July 2021 - 05:42 PM

 but I did learn that this is all unpublished work, so there is no peer review yet on her hypothesis. IMHO, I think she may get chewed up because there seemed to be a lot of "loose ends" in her hypothesis.

It could be one huge icy banana out there for all we know. It's all conjecture until the Yeti shows itself. We have seen the foot prints and the broken fauna and flora, we just need to set a trap and wait for the cans to rattle.

The Hunt will continue, until the money runs out...

 

I want to see that treasure map.


  • Terry White likes this

#290 Lucullus

Lucullus

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,302
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2012

Posted 16 July 2021 - 08:27 AM

I missed this Caltech Astro video that was posted back in December on "Collective Gravity in the Outer Solar System" by Ann-Marie Madigan (University of Colorado, Boulder). She claims that if there is another massive belt of icy bodies beyond the Kuiper Belt, at about 250 AU, then the collective self-gravity of such a belt of icy bodies should be capable of clustering the detached, stable eKBOs without the need of a Planet Nine. She starts out giving a pretty good description of the Kuiper Belt basics. Also, she gives a useful comparison of the Keplerian orbital angles to Yaw, Pitch and Roll on a sailboat. However, there were several problems with her self-gravity hypothesis. First, there is no evidence at present that a large massive belt between the Kuiper Belt and the Inner Oort Cloud exists. Second, her model requires that this larger massive belt must consist of at least 20 earth masses for this collective self-gravity to have the desired observed clustering effect on the detached eKBO population. This is highly unlikely due to gravitational tides of nearby stars in the birth cluster and to UV evaporation, discussed back in post #146 and post #149 which will tend to disperse and evaporate any icy bodies icy bodies present beyond 250 AU. There was a Q&A session after her talk and she had some vague and confusing answers, but I did learn that this is all unpublished work, so there is no peer review yet on her hypothesis. IMHO, I think she may get chewed up because there seemed to be a lot of "loose ends" in her hypothesis.

I hope not, because I am convinced that would be absolutely wrong revealing disrespect, lack of tactfulness and moral integrity in interpersonal communication, and low personal standards in academic communication professionalism. Instead, I hope only her hypothesis gets chewed up if turning out wrong and professionals don't get personal by chewing her up. But if the latter happens it wouldn't surprise me.



#291 Terry White

Terry White

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Knoxville, Tennessee.

Posted 18 July 2021 - 05:28 PM

I ran across "Finding Planet 9 in the Cosmic Microwave Background with Dr. Brian Keating" here on Launch Pad Astronomy. This is another super-chat Q&A, so there were a lot of off-topic viewer questions before they finally get to Planet Nine stuff at about 8:00, and again at about 40:00 into the video. Finding Planet Nine in the far infrared was also discussed in post #272 and post #285 in much more detail than in this video, but I thought it was worth a mention. Not much new was discussed, but Keating says Simons Observatory (SO) has an excellent chance to find Planet Nine because Planet Nine will be quite bright in the far infrared compared to the visible.

 

Radio astronomy is close to my heart, as I did my masters thesis back in the 70's on "The Linear Polarization of Lunar Thermal Emission at 3.1mm Wavelength." I've always felt that a dedicated far-infrared, millimeter-wave search for Planet Nine using a wide-angle sensitive radio telescope was the preferred approach for finding Planet Nine. Unfortunately, radio survey telescope are "focused" on comic origin questions and not dedicated to the search for Planet Nine.


Edited by Terry White, 19 July 2021 - 05:43 AM.

  • Dynan likes this

#292 Todd N

Todd N

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 502
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Southern California

Posted 19 July 2021 - 05:17 AM

Konstantin Batygin: Planet 9 and the Edge of Our Solar System | Lex Fridman Podcast

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=tm7poMupE8k


  • Terry White likes this

#293 Terry White

Terry White

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Knoxville, Tennessee.

Posted 19 July 2021 - 07:20 AM

Konstantin Batygin: Planet 9 and the Edge of Our Solar System | Lex Fridman Podcast

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=tm7poMupE8k

Thanks for the link, Todd. smile.gif This is by far the best interview of Batygin I've ever seen, and I've seen them all! Very well done with organized questions and good graphics. It's a long 2-1/2 hour interview, but it's chuck full of very good information for Planet Niners. There's also a good personal chemistry between Fridman and Batygin, which helps.

 

I recommend readers use Fridman's outline to see the parts that may be of interest.

0:00 - Introduction
1:18 - Overview of our Solar System
16:16 - What is the Oort Cloud?
21:11 - Life in the interstellar medium
22:44 - Are there aliens out there?
25:23 - How unique is Earth?
28:04 - Did Jupiter destroy early planets?
34:18 - How hard is it to simulate the Universe?
38:50 - Quantum mechanics in evolution of objects in the Solar system
43:17 - Simulating the first formations around the Sun
49:04 - Will it be possible to simulate the full history of the Solar System?
51:24 - How far should we go with the simulation?
53:45 - Increasing immersion in video games
1:00:10 - What is Planet Nine?
1:06:39 - The origin of life
1:09:03 - Evidence of Planet Nine
1:11:33 - Discovery of Neptune
1:12:43 - When will we find Planet Nine?
1:15:22 - Planet Nine throws rocks into the Kuiper Belt
1:19:17 - Could Planet Nine be a primordial black hole?
1:29:21 - Commercial space revolution boosts science and the human condition
1:36:48 - Solving **** in space
1:37:26 - Would humans evolve if we couldn't see the stars?
1:43:09 - Military funding and science
1:47:13 - Is Oumuamua space junk from a distant alien civilization?
2:00:35 - Wild ideas create the future
2:08:24 - The perfect place to die
2:10:05 - Greatest song of all time
2:16:35 - Music enables science for Konstantin
2:18:53 - Music practice tips for busy people
2:22:43 - Memories of 1990s Russia
2:29:15 - Advice for young people
2:35:11 - Meaning of life


  • Todd N and Dynan like this

#294 Dynan

Dynan

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6,014
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2018
  • Loc: NOLA

Posted 19 July 2021 - 08:05 AM

1:14:32 - Ya' gotta' know how to chill... :smile:

 

Thanks for the video link. Batygin is quite intelligent, communicative on a common level, and charismatic. waytogo.gif



#295 Terry White

Terry White

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Knoxville, Tennessee.

Posted 22 July 2021 - 06:37 AM

Here's another podcast on Planet Nine with Konstantin Batygin (pro) and Samantha Lawler (con). Stepping back for a moment, I get the impression that Brown and Batygin are building up a lot of expectations in social media for their upcoming arxiv.org "treasure map" preprint on Planet Nine. Ever since their last Planet Nine Hypothesis paper here, I got the feeling that there was a lot more forthcoming from the pair. Since then they have given about a half dozen interviews in the space of only a few months hyping their next paper. Batygin has also been busy publishing two foundational papers on interstellar objects entering our solar system which I regard as supportive to their upcoming paper. Brown didn't call their new search area a "treasure map" for no reason. He's trying to build public excitement in social media. If you follow this thread you know that Brown and Batygin are both highly effective public speakers and, combined with the fact that they are both highly influential scientists in their respective and complementary fields (observational astronomy and planetary dynamics), they make a very powerful pair of Planet Nine advocates. But, in addition, Brown and Batygin are also masters of social media.

 

Back to Lawler's skepticism of orbital clustering: It's all based on OSSOS and other small "flashlight" surveys that says you find objects where you look. If you find them in a narrow survey they must be everywhere, including places where you never looked. That methodology has been pretty thoroughly debunked in my numerous posts in this thread. In fact, Brown and Batygin use all surveys, including very large surveys that make the small OSSOS look like a "flashlight" by comparison, and they calculate, using rigorous statistical methods, a 99.8% of orbital double-clustering of stable and metastable eKBOs. If you apply those same Bayesian statistical methods to calculate the errors in the flashlight surveys, you find that the error bars in their surveys are larger than the amount of clustering/no clustering that the small surveys predict. In other words, these small surveys are not very sensitive to clustering anyway. You never see the OSSOS "observational bias" crowd talk about the orbital stability of the objects they find. They ignore the fact that even their own OSSOS survey found four stable/metastable eKBOs that support the Planet Nine Hypothesis and that the other unclustered objects they found were all unstable. All the other objects they found were mostly unstable scattered disk objects whose stability is determined by Neptune exclusively. So you don't even need a Planet Nine to throw them out of consideration. Unstable eKBOs tell you nothing about Planet Nine for that simple, simple reason. Yet the OSSOS crowd treat all these objects the same no matter if they come too close to Neptune or not. It makes me wonder if they've even read or understood the Planet Nine Hypothesis which they claim to debunk. Lawler mentions in passing the "many" other alternative explanations for Sedna and Biden (she ignores the ten other stable/metastable, detached, extreme KBOs, BTW) like somehow they are of equal likelihood in explaining the detached, extreme KBOs. They are not. All the alternate explanations fail to fully explain the four pillars of observational evidence upon which the Planet Nine Hypothesis is based, or the alternatives buy into the Planet Nine Hypothesis gravitational shepherding model, but invoke unlikely explanations such as a primordial black hole, ring of icy debris, etc. Interested readers can review the many posts earlier in this thread that support these statements.


Edited by Terry White, 22 July 2021 - 11:05 AM.


#296 Lucullus

Lucullus

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,302
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2012

Posted 22 July 2021 - 08:42 AM

Here's another podcast on Planet Nine with Konstantin Batygin (pro) and Samantha Lawler (con). Stepping back for a moment, I get the impression that Brown and Batygin are building up a lot of expectations in social media for their upcoming arxiv.org "treasure map" preprint on Planet Nine. Ever since their last Planet Nine Hypothesis paper here, I got the feeling that there was a lot more forthcoming from the pair. Since then they have given about a half dozen interviews in the space of only a few months hyping their next paper. Batygin has also been busy publishing two foundational papers on interstellar objects entering our solar system which I regard as supportive to their upcoming paper. Brown didn't call their new search area a "treasure map" for no reason. He's trying to build public excitement in social media. If you follow this thread you know that Brown and Batygin are both highly effective public speakers and, combined with the fact that they are both highly influential scientists in their respective and complementary fields (observational astronomy and planetary dynamics), they make a very powerful pair of Planet Nine advocates. But, in addition, Brown and Batygin are also masters of social media.

 

Back to Lawler's skepticism of orbital clustering: It's all based on OSSOS and other small "flashlight" surveys that says you find objects where you look. If you find them in a narrow survey they must be everywhere, including places where you never looked. That methodology has been pretty thoroughly debunked in my numerous posts in this thread. In fact, Brown and Batygin use all surveys, including very large surveys that make the small OSSOS look like a "flashlight" by comparison, and they calculate, using rigorous statistical methods, a 99.8% of orbital clustering of stable and metastable eKBOs. If you apply those same Bayesian statistical methods to calculate the errors in the flashlight surveys, you find that the error bars in their surveys are larger than the amount of clustering/no clustering that the small surveys predict. In other words, these small surveys are not very sensitive to clustering anyway. You never see the OSSOS "observational bias" crowd talk about the orbital stability of the objects they find. They ignore the fact that even their own OSSOS survey found four stable/metastable eKBOs that support the Planet Nine Hypothesis and that the other unclustered objects they found were all unstable. All the other objects they found were mostly unstable scattered disk objects whose stability is determined by Neptune exclusively. So you don't even need a Planet Nine to throw them out of consideration. Unstable eKBOs tell you nothing about Planet Nine for that simple, simple reason. Yet the OSSOS crowd treat all these objects the same no matter if they come too close to Neptune or not.

Good and welcome summary of the current state of discussion amongst the scientists. Terry, as you probably have the best and simultaneously broadest in-depth knowledge of all P9 paper investigations and studies (I wonder how you keep track of specific considerations in specific posts among these almost 300 posts in this thread bow.gif waytogo.gif  ), do you know how the OSSOS-team and P9-opponent reacts to the criticism that they mix up their data set of stable eKBOs with unstable eKBOs? Maybe they have some specific reason?? Just wondering, have they already reacted?

Likewise, have Brown&Batygin ever reacted to the criticism to their initial P9 paper that they used data sets from (albeit) large sky coverage surveys, which severly lacked in survey bias assessment? Have B&B ever fully investigated the precise biases, eventhough newer studies might make it obsolete?

If not, IMO, both sides still owe an answer to the respective questions.



#297 Terry White

Terry White

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Knoxville, Tennessee.

Posted 22 July 2021 - 11:34 AM

I wonder how you keep track of specific considerations in specific posts among these almost 300 posts in this thread bow.gif waytogo.gif

I reread the entire thread from time to time to review the arguments. If I refer to a specific earlier post, I go back to it and link to it, unless there are so many references such as in the last post that it becomes too tedious. rolleyes.gif

 

do you know how the OSSOS-team and P9-opponent reacts to the criticism that they mix up their data set of stable eKBOs with unstable eKBOs? Maybe they have some specific reason?? Just wondering, have they already reacted?

Honestly, I have no idea what their reactions are to the points you raised. All I can say is the P9 opponents haven't published any rebuttal in the scientific literature or in the science news. I should know, since I routinely search for anything P9-related multiple times per week. Nothing but crickets from the OSSOS group, though.ohmy.gif

 

Likewise, have Brown&Batygin ever reacted to the criticism to their initial P9 paper that they used data sets from (albeit) large sky coverage surveys, which severly lacked in survey bias assessment?

B&B have used all surveys from the beginning because using all surveys tends to average out biases. If you ignore surveys because your observational bias model doesn't have all the nice little model parameters you need, then you are throwing out real data. That is not cool if the data set is sparse to begin with, which it is, because that only increases uncertainty.shameonyou.gif

 

 

Have B&B ever fully investigated the precise biases, eventhough newer studies might make it obsolete?

Yes, herehere and here. Nothing with this statistical rigor has ever been published by the OSSOS groups or by Napier, et. al.

 

Let me turn it around and ask if anyone here can explain to me how any kind of observational bias can preferentially find double-clustered objects with 1 to 4 billion year stability that are detached from everything going on in the outer solar system (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune)? All a detection (three night's data) tells you is the location, brightness, velocity and acceleration of an object which yields eventually, after about a year, the orbit (perihelion, major axis, eccentricity, etc.). You know nothing about the object's stability until you know it's perihelion, at a minimum, so it's hard to see how where and when I point my telescope, and where the telescope is located have any effect on the stability of an object that I may detect. confused1.gif


Edited by Terry White, 22 July 2021 - 05:06 PM.

  • Lucullus and Dynan like this

#298 Lucullus

Lucullus

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,302
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2012

Posted 22 July 2021 - 03:08 PM

I think we all here really appreciate your insightful commenting of the ongoing P9 debate! Many thanks Terry!


  • City Kid, Terry White and Dynan like this

#299 Terry White

Terry White

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Joined: 13 Sep 2017
  • Loc: Knoxville, Tennessee.

Posted 25 July 2021 - 12:42 PM

There's an important new paper by Bill Oldroyd and Chad Trujillo titled "Outer Solar System Perihelion Gap Formation Through Interactions with a Hypothetical Distant Giant Planet." It makes the simple observation that there seems to be a "perihelion gap" in the list of discovered stable/metastable ETNOs (ETNOs=EKBOs) that support the Planet Nine Hypothesis. The gap in perihelion starts at about 50 AU and stops at about 65 AU as shown in the table of post #267. There are three stable discovered objects with perihelions greater than 65 AU (Sedna, Biden, and Leleākūhonua); the perihelion gap; then nine stable/metastable discovered objects from 50 AU down to the stability limit of about 43 AU. There should be observable objects in the gap because they are much brighter given that they are much closer than Sedna, Biden, or Leleākūhonua. Despite the sparse data, the gap in the data is real to the 3 sigma level. Yet, so far, we see no objects in the gap. Why?

 

The authors created several synthetic uniform and non-uniform distributions of ETNOs and applied well-accepted observational bias models to the synthetic distribution models of ETNOs to simulate the actual observed ETNOs. They ran 10,000 simulations with several Planet 9/X candidates as well as simulations with no Planet 9/X (though historically incorrect, Trujillo and Sheppard have insisted on using the Planet 9/Planet X terminology interchangeably). The authors find that the necessary and sufficient conditions required to reproduce this gap are: 1) an underlying nonuniform distribution of ETNOs and 2) a hypothetical giant planet. Their best fit is achieved with a Planet Nine consisting of 10 Earth masses with a eccentricity of 0.55 and a semimajor axis of 722 AU. The authors find that, under the influence of Neptune and Planet Nine, the ETNOs migrate outward in perihelion until they get to about 50 AU, where the rapidly diffuse outward to about 65 AU, under the influence of Planet Nine exclusively, where they remain relatively stable in their perihelion. So there really are objects in this gap but they spend relatively little time there. For this reason, the authors expect to see 5 times as many ETNOs beyond a perihelion of 65 AU as they see in the gap. Please note: the authors label Sedna, Biden and Leleākūhonua as IOC objects while Brown and Batygin call them detached EKBOs. Also, the authors don't model the effects of the IOC, nor do they try to explain the highly-inclined and retrograde EKBOs and Centaurs explained by the Planet Nine Hypothesis. This may explain why the author's best-fit Planet Nine is somewhat different than Brown and Batygin's 2019 Planet Nine Hypothesis.

 

This conclusions in this paper, in addition to supporting the Planet Nine Hypothesis, also blow out of the water the claim by Shankman, Lawler, Napier and other OSSOS proponents that the observed clustering of observed ETNOs is purely result of observational bias; that the underlying distribution of ETNOs is uniform and the observed clustering is not the result of a hypothetical Planet Nine.


Edited by Terry White, 25 July 2021 - 04:37 PM.

  • City Kid and Jii like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics