I don't think the scientists involved are mainstream, and the WISE project is shut down. But this doesn't address your other questions.zour wrote:I am surprised that the mainstream science is actually looking after this planet:
Respectfully,
Dotini
I don't think the scientists involved are mainstream, and the WISE project is shut down. But this doesn't address your other questions.zour wrote:I am surprised that the mainstream science is actually looking after this planet:
We see images of very small rocks, why can't they calculate where the large planets should be and image that area?may be harbouring two supersized planet just out of reach of our telescopes.
Ultra-miniature black holes? Maybe there are clouds of Dark Matter hovering in the right place? How's that for "non-gravitational" explanations? A cosmic string? A "membrane" intersecting our universe just outside the Solar system!Sparky wrote:If they can't find a gravitational reason for what they observe, then maybe they need to look for another cause.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.38 ... 6/151/2/22Recent analyses have shown that distant orbits within the scattered disk population of the Kuiper Belt
exhibit an unexpected clustering in their respective arguments of perihelion. While several hypotheses have
been put forward to explain this alignment, to date, a theoretical model that can successfully account for the
observations remains elusive. In this work we show that the orbits of distant Kuiper Belt objects (KBOs)
cluster not only in argument of perihelion, but also in physical space. We demonstrate that the perihelion
positions and orbital planes of the objects are tightly confined and that such a clustering has only a
probability of 0.007% to be due to chance, thus requiring a dynamical origin. We find that the observed orbital
alignment can be maintained by a distant eccentric planet with mass gsim10 m⊕ whose orbit lies in approximately
the same plane as those of the distant KBOs, but whose perihelion is 180° away from the perihelia of the minor
bodies. In addition to accounting for the observed orbital alignment, the existence of such a planet naturally
explains the presence of high-perihelion Sedna-like objects, as well as the known collection of high semimajor
axis objects with inclinations between 60° and 150° whose origin was previously unclear. Continued analysis of
both distant and highly inclined outer solar system objects provides the opportunity for testing our hypothesis
as well as further constraining the orbital elements and mass of the distant planet.
These are remarkable claims. Do you have any real evidence of your supposed discovery? If so, you should become famous!pavlink wrote:There are three more planets, orbiting the sun, beyond Pluto.
Closest a smaller than Earth rocky planet.
http://files.kostovi.com/wwt061353_155350cu.bmp
Further a Neptune like gas giant.
http://files.kostovi.com/wwt070153_411443cu.bmp
Biggest a Saturn like Gas giant.
http://files.kostovi.com/wwt073256_512504cu.bmp
Yes, there is an EU solution to this, and it has come up quite a while ago (before the mainstream even noticed the issue, or suggested it may be due to a gravitational long period binary.Metryq wrote:Considering the wacky acrobatics of Pluto's satellites, is it possible an electrically-related explanation might explain both? If Sedna and company are "trojan point" or shepherded moons of a massive planet, one would think other sky surveys (IR?) might have found said planet by now.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests