Talk:Planets beyond Neptune/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Patriotaction,

I just thought I would add that Planet X has been found. Did I miss something here. NASA has agreed that http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/29jul_planetx.htm The planet, which hasn't been officially named yet, was found by Brown and colleagues using the Samuel Oschin Telescope at Palomar Observatory near San Diego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotaction (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

General points

I have a vague memory of "Planet X" also having been used to describe the theoretical ninth planet that was apparently affecting the orbit of Neptune... the search for that Planet X eventually resulted in the discovery of Pluto, though Pluto didn't end up explaining the discrepancy either. -- April

  • Errr, isn't this what the article implies in its first couple of sentences? Rgamble
    • Yeah, just a terminology question. I thought it was used in the search for Pluto (Percival Lowell) with X=unknown instead of X=10. I could be wrong! -- April
      • Ah yes, you are right. That was one of my favorite astronomical stories as a child, so I do remember it. I guess I didn't notice the apparent connection in the article made between X and 'tenth planet'. Fortunate perhaps that the designation was made X, since it fits both possibilities (X=unknown and when that one wasn't found, X=10 if they had found the hypothetical tugger of Neptune). You're right, it could be made more clear and the connection to Lowell added. Rgamble

The article says our most powerful detection techniques can detect an earth sized planet up to 70 AU away. Since we managed to detect the much smaller Sedna at 90 AU, I think these numbers may need some updating? Martijn faassen 15:49, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The light received from sun decreases with the square of the distance d, and the fraction of light we're receiving from the object also decreases with the square of the distance (distances to sun and earth being approximately the same), so the intensity of the reflected light we're receiving from an object decreases with 1/d^4. The intensity is also proportional to the area of the planetary disk, so it's proportional to R^2. If we assume the same albedo for the earth-sized planet and want to know how far it has to be away to be as bright as Sedna, we find the equation R(Sedna)^2/d(Sedna)^4 = R(Earth)^2/d(unknown)^4 -> d(unknown) = d(Sedna) * sqrt(R(Earth)/R(Sedna)) = about 240 AU (for the upper limit of Sedna's size). The magnitude of Sedna is about 21, and we can detect objects down to at least magnitude 28, which is 7 mag dimmer or about 1/630 as bright as Sedna. So we can multiply the distance by 630^(1/4) which gives us about 1200 AU for an earth-sized planet! 193.171.121.30 23:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The albedo of Sedna is estimated to be > 0.2 .... if we've a really dark planet which has an albedo of 1/50 of Sedna's then we've to multiply the distance by 1/50^(1/4) which is about 450 AU. 193.171.121.30 23:42, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The following text was on the main page, which I've just removed. At first glance it looks like crackpottery. Martijn faassen 23:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html good web page concerning to el. magnetic fields of our planets

According to seismo researches there is Earth's core spinning more quickly than crust. Reflex to it is generation of such rotor-conductor, which is surrounded by stator-less conductive layers, coats, where are areas permanent magnetised, semiconductive, insulative-dielectric. Result-consequence so is creation of Earths electro-magnetic field. When we look at other planets, Moon, Sun and especially on their el.mag. fields, we find that Mercury, Venus, Mars, Moon have got much weeker fields than Earth (<1/100 of Earth's e.m. field intensity). Magnetic fields of Jupiter, Saturn are many times stronger and e.m. fields of Uranus, Neptune are comparable with Earth's e.m. fields intensity. Why Mercury, Mars, Moon have week e.m. fields? 1. Their cores are small, there are not big enough differences in densities of cores and sheets (in bordering lyers). Moon has not symetrical position of its core toward sheet layers. E.m. fields of outdoor planets are in opposite orientation toward Earth's field orientation, have North and south poles exchanged!!! Why?! Planet X (circa 25x mass of Jupiter, but superdensty-dwarf star, something like neutron star, or core of star rid of outer layers?!...) when everytime after aprox. 1500 years comes to perihelia thanks to it big gravity, thanks strong e. m. field shifts planets from their orbits, swing their axes and with its strong e. m. field works as primary rotor, which activate, bestir cores-rotors of planets toward their stators-sheets. It works like when we spin, roll eg on the table. First are rotating more quickly surface layers, but on the end core is (thanks to higher density) spinning more quickly and longer time too. X is comming from direction under ecliptic and crosses plane of ecliptic somewhere between Jupiter and Mars, in band of asteroids. This is reason, why magnetic fields of Jovian planets are turned toward Earth's magnetic poles. X namely works on Earth and on Jovian planets with its (X's) opposite poles. X has perihelia circa 120 millions km from Sun, above path of Venus-aprox. X travel relativly farther (comes not so close) to Venus and Mercury than to Earth on its path. Suns gravity, e. m. forces works over there more on Venus, Mercury than X, X has got (at Mercury, Venus) other angle of e. m. field than at Earth, Jupiter... these are reasons, why Venus, Mercury had got week e. m. fields and are slowly axis rotating too. Now there were observed strong changes in power, direction of Saturn's e. m. field. X is namely approaching orbit of Saturn, going to cross it within 3 years, it is result of my calculations too. Probe Huygens-Cassini will it observe+ flood, tsunami waves on Titan best regards RNDr. Smutny Pavel www.mojweb.sk/planetx www.mojweb.sk/frances

Second batch of crackpottery stuff removed from article. Martijn faassen 23:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you dont believe to old historical legends, historical maps writtings (Bible, senmut map, narmer palette, dendera zodiac...)so its your thing, but acceleration of motion of magnetic poles, acceleratiopn of ocean water level rising, global warming on Earth, on Mars... in last decade, evidences from ice core probes from Greenland, Antarctic-clear temperature jumps, big changes with period circa 1500years, speaks other than you... There are changes in orbits of planets, but because Planet X is member of our solar system minim. 500000 years so all planets and X and Sun are synchronised in their motions according Titus-Bode law. Super close opposition of Mars-(such close was only before 50000 years-NASA speaks so) too, transition of Venus in this summer speaks too so...were in direction from us...circa Orion const....where comes from X!!! All top astronomers in previous centuries looked for Planet X , because they have seen that paths of our planets, their deviations show existance of X. Those astronomers then forecasted position or discovered also Uranus, Neptune, Pluto!!!/!!!! Look on path of Sedna...direction Orion (there is involved ...astronomers..Brown, Trujillo...done it...opposite motion of Sun toward Planet X )...Look at many other proof (for Planet X exist.) placed on my webs.... thanks RNDr Pavel Smutny-Senmut-Resenmut... 

If a tenth planet exists, it is unlikely to be native to the solar system:
comprehensive surveys of the ecliptic have been undertaken, concluding that
no planet of Earth size or greater exists in the ecliptic plane closer than 
60 AU. Thus, any tenth planet would have to be in a highly inclined orbit,
and so likely to be a captured object and not one that was formed with the
solar system.

I disagree with the conclusion drawn here. The proper conclusion seems to be: if there is a tenth planet it is either a captured planet or it is smaller than the earth or it is farther than 60 AU from the sun.

The link directly under the heading "Planet X Revived" redirects to the main Kuiper belt page, which mentions the apparent edge in passing, but does not discuss the speculation about a possible large body at all. The link doesn't seem very useful or informative in that light - I assume that it originally pointed to an actual page about this possibility? In any case, perhaps this should be changed.

NASA seems to be on the less than skeptical side when it comes to Planet X. The New Horizons probe has a main mission of viewing Pluto, but a large sub-mission of visiting beyond the Kuiper Belt, the proposed location of Planet X, if it exists. The probe is designed to be one-way, inevitably visiting the area called the Kuiper Cliff. It is quite interesting that they would be looking in this "desolate" region without motive. See http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html Rowandswim (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Rowandswim

Neptune's mass and its orbit

In this article, it is stated that "Planet X" was search for because

there was a real possibility that the errors in Neptune's orbit could be explained by a still-unknown planet.

Later, it says that

these apparent discrepancies were resolved when the Voyager 2 space probe discovered that Neptune's mass had been miscalculated; with Neptune's correct mass taken into account, there was no longer a need for another planet to explain its orbit.

This is bogus. The mass of a planet has no direct effect on its own orbit. Instead it is perturbed by the pull of other planets. So that discrepancies are either due to errors in the mass of Uranus, or the planet affected by the discrepancy in Neptune's mass was Uranus.

This issue needs to be researched and this article corrected. In addition, scolarly references are needed for this article. --EMS | Talk 19:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. See [SEDS on Planet X]. --EMS | Talk 19:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record - as mentioned in that reference, the masses for more than one planet were revised upwards. It appears the text has already been updated appropriately. Hv 00:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

QB vs UB

Does someone explain this terminology somewhere? Is my guess correct that QB = Kuiper Belt? What do the suffix numbers mean? -- Kevin Saff 18:53, 29 July 2005 (EDT)

See provisional designation. In a nutshell, this is a description of the object's discovery. 2003 UB313 means that this is the 7,527th object known to have been first observed in the second half of October 2003. By the way, this type of designation also indicates that this new object is presumed to be a minor planet. --EMS | Talk 03:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Could you kindly sign your questions? Using ~~~~ will have Wikipedia generate a signature line for you. As-is I chose to generate one for you by getting the info out of this page's history. --EMS | Talk 03:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Gravitational slingshot and outer planet masses

This article should not refer to the gravitational slingshot effect in refering to how the various space probes caused the masses of the outer planets to be revised. Even before the probes got flung around the planet, it was noticed that they were travelling faster than expected based on the Doppler shift in the frequencies of thier transmissions. That the probe was on a gravitational slingshot trajectory is irrelevant, and even with the discrepancy in the planet's mass there was not that much effect on the results of doing the slingshot. --EMS | Talk 17:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Whether or not there was a "slingshot effect" in navigational terms, the process is the same, even for tiny amounts of accleration. I can see how linking to it could be slightly misleading. Nevertheless, I'd like to find the original paper (which isn't online, as far as I've found: Tyler et al, 1989, Science) or a good discussion of it, to be more precise about the methods used. --Dhartung | Talk 23:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

1983 discovery

Jcb33 added the following to the page, which at first glance tends to come off as a little too conspiracy-theoristy (and written in a way-too talkpagey style) to let stand. I've moved it over to the talk page until we can get some kind of confirmation aside from a apparently copyvio'ed newspaper article. -The Tom 17:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Possible Planet X Found In 1983?

File:PX12Q.jpg
Posible Orbit Of Planet X.

On The 30th Of December In 1983, there was a press release from NASA to six different newspapers. Two of which were called "The Washington Press" and "The New York Times" The title used by The Washington Press was "Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered" and it was a FRONT page story! It was said that the planet discovered could be as large as Jupiter and although very far from earth (50 Billion Miles) was close enough to be in the orbit of our Sun. It was located towards the Orion Constellation by the U.S. infrared astronomical satellite (IRAS). This satellite was capable of cooling itself to such a level that it could detect even the coldest objects in the universe, which was useful as this new discovery was so cold that it cast no light or gave off heat of any description. It is very hard to find updated news on this as there have been so many discoveries in the time since this was posted, although it is very interesting that as soon as NASA realised it had gone to press they put a halt to any more information on it being released and still to this day keep it a secret. Did NASA suddenly consider this could be Planet X and regret there press release?

That article, I see, has been copyvio'd. In any case, this is definitely loose nut stuff, see Bad Astronomy and Zetatalk. Since the press conference did happen, apparently (first link), there may be justification for noting something about this in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one went looking for the story from the Washington Post website, which was easily found using the archive search: Washington Post Article

Here's the New York Times article

Apparently, there is also a NASA press release in 1992 that stated an unknown object was 7 billion miles away on a highly eliptical orbit, whereas the previous release back in 1983 stated the obejct was 50 billion miles away. I will continue to look for these press releases/articles, and then I will post relevant notes in the main page. Ol Murrani Kasale (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added some text here (as I did at IRAS) that hopefully will address the issue and avoid problems with "conspiracy theory" edits. The text is referenced from the Washington Post article and from a member of CalTech. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Xena

How does the conclusion of this article correlate with the recent confirmaiton of the existence of Xena?[1] --Kmsiever 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't. Xena is too small to perturb the orbits of Uranus or Neptune in any way. The only thing it proves is that, since it lies at exactly the same distance as Harrington predicted for his Planet X, that if such a world as Harrington described existed, we would have seen it by now. Serendipodous 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Exit Mundi

Shouldn't the Exit Mundi article be in the external links section? Argias 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Transferring comment from article to talk

An IP editor recently added the following to the article:

This article needs to be updated.... There's a page on nasa explaining the proven existance of this planet located here: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/29jul_planetx.htm ....Up't by Jon from Sebring, FL

I'm just putting it in the right place for him. --barneca (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that Eris is mentioned in the third paragraph. --barneca (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Japanese scientists eye a new planet" section

The section "Japanese scientists eye a new planet" is just a copy and paste from the Space.com article.

Doesn't it violate copyright laws?

If it doesn't then it is at least of bad taste, the person that created that section did not even added a link to the original article.

The article can be read here

89.152.213.163 (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not established

Until astronomers proclaim the existence of the tenth planet, this article should not exist. My opinion of course. --AI 22:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Um, Planet X, Santa Claus and the Tooth fairy don't exist, either, but we have articles on them. This article attempts to sum both fictional and factual candidates for tenth planet status over the past 75 years, leaving the Planet X article to deal with the astronomical details of that one particular gravitationally-based hypothesis -The Tom 22:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
This article is quite NPOV and IMO a good overview of the topic. If anything it helps to give people some context as to what this 10th planet business is all about, and that is a good thing. --EMS | Talk 03:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with EMS. It is often useful to have factual articles discussing non-factual or not-yet factual information. That people have certain concepts in their minds is a fact, even if the actual concepts are about things that don't exist. As long as the article accurately presents the concepts as unsubstantiated and only as opinions, then we are still in the realm of facts. Additionally, suppose someone wanted to do a research paper on the origin and perpetuation of myths? I see no reason to make it harder for them to find information. --KKL 17:03:50, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Perhaps... But in my opinion there should be no such article as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or Planet X or Tin-foil hat. I just expect a higher standard from Wikipedia than some of you. Shall we start writing articles about everything and anything that anyone popularizes? How about an article on poop. :) Very encyclopaedic... --AI 22:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
How about it, indeed? A rather well-developed article, actually. You're entitled to personally expect what you call "a higher standard," but this standard of yours certainly isn't echoed by the vast majority of Wikipedians, as reflected by where consensus has generally set our notability bar. -The Tom 22:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Feces is a real thing. Santa Clause, the Tooth Fair, Planet X, and Buckaroo Banzai are not.
Though they're not real as such, there is information about them. Keeping information out of an encyclopedia purely because it pertains to a fictional entity is, well, greatly pointless. --67.172.99.160 01:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, Regarding a higher standard, I certainly do not expect human beings to collectively support such a standard. Look at the pathetic history of what humans have "agreed" upon. Only Jimbo Wales can fix Wikipedia's inherent problem. --AI 23:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn’t hold Wikipedia to too high a standard as it is more of a conglomerate of concepts then an encyclopaedia in the sense of Encyclopaedia Britannica.
I Think its all about the Tact of the TexTile Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 09:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

2003 UB313

Isn't 2003 UB313 being considered the 10th planet in the solar system, since it is bigger than Pluto and also has a moon? myselfalso 22:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 

Maybe too progressive...  Morcheeba? Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 09:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Xena and Greek Mythology

Found this in the 2003 UB313 section:

"Originally nicknamed Xena after the lead character in the TV series Xena: Warrior Princess, its moon is nicknamed Gabrielle after Xena's sidekick in the series. However, "Xena" won't be the object's final approved name, because it is a fictional TV character that does not exist in Greek mythology." (emphasis mine)

I'm not sure if you fellows are aware, but most of the planets in the solar system are named after figures in Roman mythology; otherwise, Mars would be renamed Ares, Jupiter would be called Zeus, Saturn would be named Cronus... etc. Several moons do take Greek names, though. I'm changing the sentence to say "does not exist in Greek or Roman mythology".

Also, although the reason for never officially labelling the object "Xena" (it's a fictional, recently created character) is quite common-sense, it also smells strongly of original research, and I think we need a citation to be able to state factually why the name doesn't work. (I'm adding a {{Fact}} tag as a consequence). T. S. Rice 03:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should take the line out altogether. Whatever it is eventually named, that does not affect whether it is now nicknamed "Xena." And are Quaoar and Sedna Roman names? I'd think not, and I am a Latin teacher. No, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaoar#Name. --Mrcolj 20:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

redefinition of planet

Man, this article will be needing quite an update... 132.205.93.195 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, you're quite right! If what this says is true, "Tenth Planet" will be totally pointless, probably referring to Charon or something... Comrade4·2 07:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Discussion on this partially at Talk:Definition of planet. 10th would be Pluto, because Ceres gets put in the mix? Pluto and Charon share 10th planet? McKay 15:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we'd name this article Tenth planet in the twentieth century or somesuch. 132.205.93.195 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Keep at present title as an historical speculation. ninth planet as now an article for the present speculation.. Rokkss 22:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Rename: Tenth planet → Ninth planet

Tenth planet → Ninth planet … Rationale: The IAU redefined planet today, so Pluto was dropped, so the Tenth planet discussion is now the Ninth planet discussion (with alot of refactoring and cleanup necessary) — 132.205.93.205 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Votes

  • Agree. Rename. --md84419 21:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Rename. --myselfalso 21:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep "tenth planet". Until someone finds a reliable source indicating that this concept is suddenly referred to as the "ninth planet", this proposal violates common naming and WP:NOR, specifically the prohibition of new definitions. Melchoir 21:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep at tenth planet. This discusses the historical speculation about there being a tenth planet in the solar system before Pluto was redefined. When speculation starts occurring about a possible ninth planet in the future, that can go into a ninth planet article, but this article should remain as history. Voortle 21:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Heh, heh. Pretty quick on the draw aren't we? Pluto's not even cold in the grave yet (well, not colder). -  AjaxSmack  22:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename It's becoming pretty obvious that the IAU's desicion is standing.--Nog64 00:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; Melchoir is right. AJD 00:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, "tenth planet" is not so much about a literal tenth planet, as it is about the idea of more planets in our cultural imagination. Adam Bishop 00:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Voting is evil, but if we must, Keep. The discussion has historically, for the last century or so, revolved around a "Tenth Planet" - we can't retroactively change it. If the discussions from this point on are about a "Ninth Planet" then that's different. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral This is too hard a question. Either way the content must be dramatically reworked, destroyed and recreated. --Kinst 05:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, per comment by Adam Bishop. --Gene_poole 03:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, until citations can show the usage of the term has changed, it should be left "Tenth Planet" even if it is an historical anachronism. --Aelffin 03:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although tricky I think the usage of "tenth planet" is established. This article is about the usage of the term, not the actual 10th planet per se. We should note the change in IAU terminology, of course, and Ninth planet may redirect here. The OR objection is not trivial. --Dhartung | Talk 04:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This article is about the so-called tenth "planet," so why should it be moved to a title already occupied by Pluto, the ninth planet? ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Most of this article is about the concept of a tenth planet as speculated, or described in fiction, "when there were nine planets". All the objects given as exmaples - real and fictional - have been called the tenth planet, but not the ninth planet. Robin Johnson (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - consider rename if the term ninth planet is established, which we can only know years from now. -- Egil 13:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

  • If we renamed this ninth planet, we can include the stuff about the next planet out from Neptune, since the discovery of Neptune, and thus the 10th planet stuff would fall into a section . 132.205.93.19 02:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Be aware that Planet X covers some of this territory. As yet there isn't an ongoing search for "a ninth planet", although I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a trans-neptunian object meeting the new definition. --Dhartung | Talk 04:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Further thought suggests to me that ninth planet should be a disambiguation page, perhaps directing to all three of Pluto, Planet X, and Tenth planet. --Dhartung | Talk 09:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Probably the earliest claim out

From the Times, 24th April 1930 (yes, 1930):

...a telegram from Professor Stewart, of the Dominion Observatory, Ottawa, indicating the possibility that a tenth planet had been found. According to the telegram, an object discovered by "Henroteau and Miss Burland on plates taken in 1924" is suspected to be a trans-Neptunian planet (etc)

Turns up again on the 26th, when he confirms it wasn't Pluto ("the Lowell planet"), but it never crops up afterwards that I can see... an interesting little footnote for the first claimed tenth planet. I wonder if they ever decided what it was - a comet? Shimgray | talk | 22:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Plate flaws" seems to be the modern interpretation, although the originals have been lost. Presumably if they calculated ephemerides that would have been recorded somewhere and thus matchable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge with ninth planet

A merge would update both articles.---Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 03:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See prior discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Makrisj 06:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Stay tenth.

I suggest article name stay, because it can be easier to discover. we may add first line comment, though, stating that the tenth shall be the nineth planet actually, right because of the recent desicion.

Let's make the subject easier to find and even more informative.Makrisj 06:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ninth planet discussion

Ninth planet vs. tenth planet

This is not a duplicate of the tenth planet article, as ninth planet and tenth planet are not the same topic. Tenth planet is about historical speculation, and ninth planet is about present speculation about a planet in the solar system beyond Neptune. Voortle 00:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. As per the concensus discussion conducted on talk:tenth planet Robert Brockway 04:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed it was. And in 2006 it was reclassified as a dwarf planet. This has happened before in astronomy and will happen again. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, when Pluto gets reinstated at the next General Assembly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Something14 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 01 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete?

This seems like a pointless article when not only hasn't there been any speculation about a "ninth planet", but given the construction of the current definition of "planet", it's pretty much impossible that any body, even one the size of Earth, discovered anywhere in the Kuiper belt will ever be considered a planet. RandomCritic 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there certainly was, for a time, a ninth planet. The majority of the article is historical, rather than about speculation (compare with tenth planet, naturally). As for the future, I'm both certain that a body at least Mars-size will one day be found out there, and that that's when the 3rd clause will bite the IAU in the ass as far as the imprecise definition of "cleared its neighborhood" (or the choice of "dwarf" planet as a name, rather than something indicating an anomalous planet-like body that isn't necessarily smaller). However, that's perhaps a bit beyond the scope of this article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Certainly when an object the size of Mars is found out there, the definition of planet debate will return. Voortle 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

criteria for deletion

There isn't any references for "speculation" for anything that people are calling the "ninth planet", [2], so, while there may actually be speculation, such a concept is WP:NOT a part of wikipedia. I would guess that people won't really be calling it the "ninth planet" in speculation. Planet X fits the idea better anyway. McKay 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First, Planet X is a specific theory related to gravitational perturbations of Neptune Uranus both Uranus and Neptune, not a general theory of "the next planet out". Second, I don't understand your first two sentences. --Dhartung | Talk 10:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I still don't quite understand your comment above, but on the assumption that our wording was misleading I decided it was possible that the sentence "One of these [i.e. bodies as big as Mars] may constitute a 9th planet" could be construed to mean that there was a specific body being referenced. I've rewritten to eliminate the ambiguity, and removed the tag. --Dhartung | Talk 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge with tenth planet

A merge would update both articles.---Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus from Talk:Tenth_planet#Rename:_Tenth_planet_.E2.86.92_Ninth_planet was otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ninth planet vs. tenth planet

This is not a duplicate of the tenth planet article, as ninth planet and tenth planet are not the same topic. Tenth planet is about historical speculation, and ninth planet is about present speculation about a planet in the solar system beyond Neptune. Voortle 00:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. As per the concensus discussion conducted on talk:tenth planet Robert Brockway 04:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed it was. And in 2006 it was reclassified as a dwarf planet. This has happened before in astronomy and will happen again. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, when Pluto gets reinstated at the next General Assembly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Something14 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 01 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete?

This seems like a pointless article when not only hasn't there been any speculation about a "ninth planet", but given the construction of the current definition of "planet", it's pretty much impossible that any body, even one the size of Earth, discovered anywhere in the Kuiper belt will ever be considered a planet. RandomCritic 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there certainly was, for a time, a ninth planet. The majority of the article is historical, rather than about speculation (compare with tenth planet, naturally). As for the future, I'm both certain that a body at least Mars-size will one day be found out there, and that that's when the 3rd clause will bite the IAU in the ass as far as the imprecise definition of "cleared its neighborhood" (or the choice of "dwarf" planet as a name, rather than something indicating an anomalous planet-like body that isn't necessarily smaller). However, that's perhaps a bit beyond the scope of this article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Certainly when an object the size of Mars is found out there, the definition of planet debate will return. Voortle 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

criteria for deletion

There isn't any references for "speculation" for anything that people are calling the "ninth planet", [3], so, while there may actually be speculation, such a concept is WP:NOT a part of wikipedia. I would guess that people won't really be calling it the "ninth planet" in speculation. Planet X fits the idea better anyway. McKay 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

First, Planet X is a specific theory related to gravitational perturbations of Neptune Uranus both Uranus and Neptune, not a general theory of "the next planet out". Second, I don't understand your first two sentences. --Dhartung | Talk 10:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I still don't quite understand your comment above, but on the assumption that our wording was misleading I decided it was possible that the sentence "One of these [i.e. bodies as big as Mars] may constitute a 9th planet" could be construed to mean that there was a specific body being referenced. I've rewritten to eliminate the ambiguity, and removed the tag. --Dhartung | Talk 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge with tenth planet

A merge would update both articles.---Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus from Talk:Tenth_planet#Rename:_Tenth_planet_.E2.86.92_Ninth_planet was otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 04:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger discussion

See a discussion relevant to this article at Talk:Hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets. (I note this here preemptively to try to keep discussion centralized.) ASHill (talk | contribs) 15:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger

User:Serendipodous had proposed that this article be merged with Planet X. I certainly see his rationale, but I believe that the encyclopedia is better served by having

  • one tightly-defined article on "Planet X" in the distinct sense of the now-disproven gravitationally-rooted hypothesis running from the late 1800s to late 1900s
  • and a separate article (this one), more broadly looking at the idea of unknown planets in the outer solar system, including Eris' brief status as a "tenth planet," and today's theories related to the Kuiper cliff and comet deflection.

It's already been a bit frustrating trying to keep the Sitchincruft out of these articles and clarifying that "Planet X" =/= "Planet 10" =/= "Every outer solar system planet theory ever," and I feel blending these topics together again muddies those waters. Lowell's Planet X is a fascinating self-contained narrative about hypotheses advanced and disproved (and a great illustration of scientific method), and I do really like how we've managed to put together a pretty solid article on it. I, for one, as recently as the early 1990s, remember doing a school project on Planet X and how there were these apparent outstanding gravity issues, which was very much still un-disproven at the time.

I believe I've managed to make sure that the better-written content over on Planet X has been used to replace some of the pretty shoddily-written and -sourced content that was here. The Tom (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this article needs to change its name to something like Planets beyond Neptune. There is very little information in this article about hypothetical planets. Also, I would contest the usefulness of the "Proserpina" section. It may be true, but it is completely unsourced and also somewhat out of date. Eris was very deliberately NOT named Persephone/Proserpina because that was already the name of an asteroid. Furthermore, Patryk Lakawka refers to his hypothetical planet as "Planet X" and nearly every article on the topic has described it as the new Planet X, so it seems rather odd to keep his object out of the Planet X article.Serendipodous 18:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Per Serendipodous' request (at my talk page), I offer my quick thoughts. I haven't looked into this in much depth, however.
My feeling (again, without doing a lot of reading) is that the term "Planet X" sounds rather too specific. A title like "Trans-Neptunian planets" seems more appropriate for an article about, well, Trans-Neptunian planets. (The "hypothetical" part of the name seems unnecessary and silly.)
Name aside, I don't think there's enough material for multiple articles about these topics. If there are multiple articles, I suggest that one should be the WP:Summary style main article (perhaps called Trans-Neptunian planets) with Planet X as a sub-article about a specific use of the term, with a clear hatnote to limit additions of other "Planet X"s. (For example: This article is about Percival Lowell's Planet X hypothesis. For other proposed tenth planets, see trans-Neptunian planets.) However, simply redirecting Planet X to the broader article may be sufficient.
(Perhaps an article about Lowell's hypothesis could be renamed "Planet X (Lowell's hypothesis)"? ASHill (talk | contribs) 16:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that there already is another "Planet X" out there in the media, one which is predicted by delusional freaks who think they have chips in their heads to collide with Earth in 2012. That Planet X has its own article, Zetatalk, so having one article for Lowell's Planet X, one article for other objects called Planet X, and another for the loony Planet X seems impractical. Plus, Patryk Lykawka's world is called Planet X, and people will continually add his world to the Planet X article anyway. Rather than face that down, it might as well be there. Serendipodous 16:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there does not seem to be very much material to support two separate articles. It would be nice to see them combined. -- Kheider (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to continue the work that Serendipodous has done to merge the two articles. My plan is to make Planet X definitive (since it's in better shape now than Hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets); once there's no material in HTNP but not Planet X, we can move Planet X to a more appropriate name and set up a redirect. Help would be appreciated! ASHill (talk | contribs) 00:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I've merged all the material so that everything is in Planet X. I tried to maintain the narrative about Lowell's Planet X, I hope with some success. Note that much of the Lowell discussion is nearly verbatim identical to the story of the discovery in the main Pluto article.
At this point, I think hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets can be re-redirected to Planet X. Any objections? ASHill (talk | contribs) 04:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed a lot of duplicate information from the merged article. I don't really see the point of the "Persephone/Proserpina section, so I'd like to have it removed if that's OK. Serendipodous 09:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

20000 Varuna

Shouldn't 20000 Varuna be considered as a Planet X candidate?(CNN2001) I don't see that Sedna or Quaoar really came any closer to be labeled as "Planet X". It is no mistake that the IAU assigned Varuna 20000. The IAU had offered 10000 to Pluto in 1999.(10000)-- Kheider (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only TNOs that have ever been considered a tenth planet are Sedna and Eris. Quaoar has never been considered anything more than a KBO. This Nature article refers to Varuna as "almost Planet X", though I can't say why, since Pluto isn't Planet X and the article makes plain that it isn't anywhere near as big as Pluto. Serendipodous 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That might be one of the best reasons to combine this article with Planet X. -- Kheider (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Kobe University image

Kobe University has a great image of Lykawka's Planet X, which would make a great main image for this article if it's in the public domain. I don't know whether it is though. Serendipodous 09:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Should Planet Persephone link here, or to Eris (dwarf planet)?

I just added an explanation of the name "Persephone" to this article, to address the fact that the object's name redirects here, but really, since it only repeats information already included in the Eris article, should it not link there instead? Serendipodous 12:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems resonable. Ruslik (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur, and I repointed the redirect. (Seemed like it's obvious enough to do without further discussion.) ASHill (talk | contribs) 12:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Author format

It is necessary to choose the first/last name order. I.e. Matese, J. J. or J.J. Matese. Ruslik (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

They're all first-name-first now. Serendipodous 08:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The punctuation was inconsistent for multiple-author papers. I arbitrarily chose:

  • Two authors: P. K. Seidelmann and R. S. Harrington
  • Three or more authors: M. E. Brown, C. Trujillo, and D. Rabinowitz

I kept first names if available. (diff, with mistaken edit summary, which should have been "consistent author format") —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC

The article is ready, in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

???Gingermint (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it doesn't deserve an FA? The people who passed it for FA obviously thought otherwise. If you disagree you can bring it up for WP:FAR. Serendipodous 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planets_beyond_Neptune/Archive_1&oldid=1137088123"