Talk:Planet Nine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Discovery

We should note that Nine is not discovered yet. The two know they may not get credit for that discovery. Until the planet is spotted directly with a telescope, any work surrounding it is theoretical. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/01/20/new-evidence-suggests-a-ninth-planet-lurking-at-the-edge-of-the-solar-system/ prokaryotes (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, it is discovered, just as extra solar planets are discovered by the wobble of star. Similar concept here, except through Planet Nine's tug on Kuiper belt objects. It's confirmed, just not visually detected yet. You don't need visual detection to infer many things in science, especially physics. That's a silly rationale. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Until they have a 5-sigma confidence level it is foolish to claim it is already discovered. -- Kheider (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A little bit of hyperbole there. 99.97% confidence and you are suggesting that those are foolish odds and to bet against them? Yes sir! Leitmotiv (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Until they have more peer support, I will assume a more "real world" 90% confidence level. It would not be the first time bad assumptions were used. Time will tell if there are other explanations. -- Kheider (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You can make up whatever imaginary numbers you like, but Wikipedia is supported by reliable sources. This paper has already been peer-reviewed and accepted by a science journal. Have fun in your make believe world! Leitmotiv (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

And if you read the paper you will learn that it is a model and not a confirmed discovery. You have not followed Planet X very much over the decades, have you? -- Kheider (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Your deluding yourself. These models are based on real data. These models are more advanced than those tools and "models" used to figure out Neptune's existence. Be tell me again how it's just a model and it's foolish. Confirmation only means realizing what you or someone else already knows. That will be you someday. Anyway, I'm done here. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Then I guess you would also call David C. Jewitt a fool for being cautious. -- Kheider (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a good reference against "discovery": “Until there’s a direct detection, it’s a hypothesis—even a potentially very good hypothesis,” -- Michael Brown. If we wanted to OR it, we can note Pluto credits Tombaugh. It is also possible that the hypothesis, which has considerable blur in the details, will lead to discovery of a planet somewhere in the general area that doesn't explain all of the orbits, leaving it partially confirmed, partially busted. So no, we don't say it's a discovery. But we do recognize it's a huge step forward from someone hinting that the orbits of all those bodies might be used to make a model of a planet, with unknown statistical significance. Wnt (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, since this is a confirmation of the Nature 2014 paper, the "discovery" credit would not be theirs. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox is misleading. prokaryotes (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Neither Tyche or Nemesis have infoboxes. -- Kheider (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This article was created because of Evidence for a distant giant planet... named Planet Nine. Who are we to question peer reviewed classic publications on the subject? Perhaps this three-sigma-evidence based upon review of available data will only become a discovery after five-sigma-evidence can be obtained from direct observation. Kyle^(talk) 00:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yup, it definitely shouldn't be talked about here as a definitely discovery yet, as it looks like more follow-up observations are definitely needed. There's a distinct difference between this type of complex modelling of a solar system, and the wobble induced in a star due to mass orbiting around it, so the two aren't really comparable. There's a reason the paper title starts with "Evidence for" not "Discovery of". :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if this paper can also be considered as "preliminary evidence" of the same observations noted by Brown:

Abstract

Aphelion distances of long-period comets show a slight excess around 30 000 to 50 000 au from the Sun. Positions of cometary aphelia within these distance limits are aligned along a great circle inclined to both the ecliptic and the Galactic plane. This paper examines one of the possible explanations for this non-random clustering: that it is due to orbital perturbations by an undiscovered object orbiting within the above-mentioned distances. "Arguments for the presence of a distant large undiscovered Solar system planet" MNRAS (1999) 309 (1): 31-34. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02806.x First published online October 1, 1999. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the move was appropriate

User:Kheider just moved this from Planet Nine to Planet Nine (hypothetical planet). I don't think that should have been done, because the base name was available. Real or not, this and will long remain a notable entity, even if it is hot off the presses ... from the best people, best university, best journal in the world for any such proposal, that is. We're now right on a level with the time when Lowell had proposed Pluto and people were hunting for it. Wnt (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Technically speaking, you don't need visual confirmation to verify a planet's existence, though it would be nice. Like Neptune was mathematically proven before it was spotted too. Seems like we're nitpicking here. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Planet 9 is already a page. The Super-Earth planet is still speculative and hypothetical. Time will tell if this will be another failed Nemesis (hypothetical star) or Tyche (hypothetical planet). This article may need to be merged with Telisto (hypothetical planet), Hypothetical fifth giant planet, and Fifth planet (hypothetical). -- Kheider (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

As Batygin himself says: "As a dynamical model, this appears compelling. But it is simultaneously important to keep in mind that until Planet Nine is caught on camera, it remains a theoretical prediction." Tbayboy (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There really isn't a difference between photographic evidence and other types of evidence. Indeed, part of the reason Pluto was considered a planet in the first place was because the photographic evidence lied (they thought it was dark and big, but it was actually bright and small). TheKing44 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

TNO (trans-Neptunian object), KBO (Kuiper Belt object)...

You state that this hypothic planet could explain the behaviour of some TNO. It is not correct. The original article at http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22 states : "In this work we show that the orbits of distant Kuiper Belt objects (KBOs)"--luxorion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7E8:C6CE:DF01:343B:EFA1:BD2B:461B (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

What is the difference between KBO & TNO ? J mareeswaran (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

All KBOs are TNOs, but not all TNOs are KBOs. The Kuiper Belt is a well-delineated region of space from about 30 to 50AU containing objects on similar orbits. There are other things out there that are not KBOs, such as Oort cloud comets, the Scattered disc, and other strange beasts. Reyk _YO! 13:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

For sure, but if the writer based his article on an official publication, please do list words used in that publication and do not replace them at will. In fact you should even state : The possible 9th planet, nickname Biden, is a member of Hills cloud, the internal Oort cloud. and forget the reference to TNO or KBO, a source of confusion-- luxorion

Btw, there is no mention in the article of what a TNO is, it just appears out of the blue. That is kind of bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.32.91 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The objects are in the broader sense trans-Neptunian objects, and orbit into the Kuiper belt region (farthest objects there), and while in the Kuiper belt considered KB objects, and stable because of the hypothetical Planet Nine (best explanation by known wisdom). I think we should mention both, since TNO is a very common term in related coverage and W articles. prokaryotes (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

To make matters worse for the layperson, the 6 objects are all "extreme trans-Neptunian objects (ETNOs) with a "semi-major axis greater than 150 AU and perihelion greater than 30 AU". But ETNOs are only defined in a couple of papers. I notice the references in this article occasionally mention extreme Kuiper belt objects. Of the 14 known ETNOs, Planet Nine only controls 6 of them. Much of the literature treats the Kuiper belt and scattered disc as one. -- Kheider (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Planet X

Shouldn't this term be mentioned somewhere in the article? Its clear from the press releases this is a body large enough to be considered a planet and not a dwarf planet, right? --RThompson82 (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Planet X was a specific hypothesis proposed by Percival Lowell in 1895. It has nothing to do with this. Serendi^podous 09:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I also think astronomers want to get away for all the doomsday BS about Px. -- Kheider (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that Planet X predates Pluto (so no, apparently the "X" never stood for 10). Yet people didn't call Pluto Planet X. Which means .... we probably shouldn't apply that term willy-nilly to a new body either. Still, we follow the sources - if they take up the idea, we'll be stuck with it. Wnt (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's covered in the article's See also section, Planets beyond Neptune. Jehochman ^Talk 13:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I have added Nemesis (hypothetical star) to See also section. emijrp (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Another move

Recently User:The Anome boldly redirected Planet Nine to Ninth planet (disambiguation), and moved Planet Nine page to Planet Nine (2016 hypothesis).

Regarding page move to Planet Nine (2016 hypothesis)

Should we not change the title back to Planet Nine? Should we not move the page back to Planet Nine. prokaryotes (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: There's enough confusion already. Serendi^podous 14:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support- some distinction has to be drawn between this hypothesis and the many other previous and competing ones. Reyk _YO! 14:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ninth planet already redirects to Planets beyond Neptune. There isn't really any confusion. By disambiguating a title that doesn't need disambiguating, this title creates confusion where there was none. Serendi^podous 14:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I still prefer Planet Nine (hypothetical planet) to make it very clear it is hypothetical. -- Kheider (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose it is already known to be a hypothesis and a very likely one at that within the first paragraphs. No reason to change the title. Matthurricane (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support, obviously. Leaving it at "Planet Nine" is obviously wrong, as there have been lots of other entities, both real and hypothetical, which have been given names like "Planet 9/Planet Nine/Ninth Planet". This is only the latest one: we need to disambiguate this from all the others with similar names. The front page can be linked directly to the correctly disambiguated article name. -- The Anome (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

While i do not object to a title rename, the disambiguated articles can (and is for the most part) dealt with in the article already. Also this name is unique, it's not Ninth or X etc., albeit similar in designation. prokaryotes (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment Re: Should we not change the title back to Planet Nine? Does this mean Should we change the title back to Planet Nine? or Should we leave the title at Planet Nine (2016 hypothesis)? ? From previous contributions I get the impression that the question is interpreted in different ways. Therefore I'm not sure what each support and oppose vote means. Gap9551 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the general consensus is that "Support" means "keep it" and "Oppose" means "change it". Serendi^podous 19:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Gap9551 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: can I also say that, whether or not we move back to Planet Nine, the current title is stupid? There are no 2015 or 2014 hypotheses called "Planet Nine". Serendi^podous 19:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support [meaning I prefer 'Planet Nine (2016 hypothesis)']. Since there is also Hypothetical fifth giant planet and Tyche (hypothetical planet), both of which could also be seen as Planet Nine, and Planets beyond Neptune mentioning even more. Since there are other hypothetical 9th planets (as opposed to Pluto in the past, which was a confirmed 9th planet), I prefer having '2016' in the title. Gap9551 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - this makes sense until (or if) the existence of this planet is confirmed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose (2016 hypothesis), Support Planet Nine. Per my comment the first time, and then some. Wnt (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Redirect of Planet Nine to Ninth planet (disambiguation)

Planet Nine currently redirects to Ninth planet (disambiguation). Should Planet Nine instead link directly here?

• Support Confusing redirect, also currently featured at the frontpage news. I think Planet Nine at least should link here. prokaryotes (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• The main page link, which is where most of the traffic will be coming from, now links to Planet Nine (2016 hypothesis). -- The Anome (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. It's just dumb. And confusing, since Planets beyond Neptune is the standard redirect for titles like "ninth planet". Serendi^podous 19:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Restore Planet Nine linking to this article. It doesn't make any sense. We saw no need to Wikilink this title until the news came out, using this term. 99.999% of the readers are going to be looking for this article with Planet Nine as their search term. Wnt (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Planet Nine redirecting here. I agree with User:Wnt, this is the most common topic going by the name Planet Nine. Gap9551 (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support: Yes, this is the simple and obvious title. Rothorpe (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Done. Jehochman ^Talk 04:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  I agree with your determination that the above discussion demonstrates consensus for Planet Nine to lead to this article (or, at the very least, a current absence of consensus for the move from that title).
  As a matter of convention, we don't redirect "Foo" to "Foo (disambiguation term)". (We append a parenthetical to distinguish the article's subject from one or more others, not merely to convey additional information.)
  After moving the article, the Anome redirected Planet Nine to a disambiguation page. Given the decision to undo the the effects of these changes for the time being, I'm reverting to the base name. —David Levy 10:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back at Planet Nine ;-) prokaryotes (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to follow that convention. That also resolves the previous name discussion. Gap9551 (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Nine

When a Planet is named Planet Nine, the designation is redundant. The status (or not) of planet designation lies elsewhere. I suggest we refer to Planet Nine formally as Nine and informally as the ninth planet or in discussion out of context as Planet Nine. This is consistent with the formal use of planet Earth and Earth for example.Kyle^(talk) 20:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we should use the term offered by the researcher (and used by the media), quote: If the search pans out, what should the new member of the sun’s family be called? Brown says it’s too early to worry about that and scrupulously avoids offering up suggestions. For now, he and Batygin are calling it Planet Nine (and, for the past year, informally, Planet Phattie—1990s slang for “cool”). Brown notes that neither Uranus nor Neptune—the two planets discovered in modern times—ended up being named by their discoverers, and he thinks that that’s probably a good thing. It’s bigger than any one person, he says: “It’s kind of like finding a new continent on Earth.” http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/feature-astronomers-say-neptune-sized-planet-lurks-unseen-solar-system prokaryotes (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It is not named officially as "Planet Nine". Since it is merely a cute "nickname" for a hypothetical object that already has multiple names, it should stay at "Planet Nine" until it has more peer support. -- Kheider (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and the link above clearly indicate a more suitable name will eventually arrive. Kyle^(talk) 23:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Planets beyond Neptune

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There isn't a lot of information yet, and ninth planet, 9th planet and Sol IX already redirect there. Serendi^podous 21:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

All the planets have their own article, and the current destination is fresh. prokaryotes (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Something also needs to be done with Telisto (hypothetical planet) which is the same planet. -- Kheider (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Even though the article Planets beyond Neptune is within the scope, it is more broad in the historical context, and the article Planet Nine is already large enough to stand on its own. There could be a section at Planets beyond Neptune briefly summarizing Planet Nine and linking here. Therefore i oppose the merger. prokaryotes (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support a merger/redirect. One team of researchers publishing one article does not count as notable. It counts as research. Wikipedia is not a journal article, nor is it news. Until there is corroborating evidence, it should remain as speculation inside the PbN article. Primefac (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There are two research teams (two studies), plus 3rd parties searching the sky, and there are certainly enough news items (i.e. check Google News). prokaryotes (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose enough text exists to support this as a stand-alone article. --Jayron32 02:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• OPPOSE This world very likely is going to be confirmed and is 99% likely a real thing of some sorts because it explains the kepler belt objects well. Why start it over again in a few years when we can have this already put together? Matthurricane (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support until the planet is directly observed (or some other more definitive evidence). Although I think Planet Nine is likely to eventually be observed, at the present time it is an equivalent case to Planet X, which redirects to Planets beyond Neptune. Planet X was a huge deal in its time and some of the best astronomers believed (and calculated) that it existed. There are a great deal of sources for Planet X, much more than for Planet Nine. Let's give Planet Nine a nice level 2 header in Planets beyond Neptune, since it is undoubtedly the most significant of these since Planet X (and Pluto, of course, but that has been observed). A2soup (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"""Then we should remove all the unconfirmed extrasolar planet pages""" I don't see the reasoning to remove it because it isn't confirmed. Matthurricane (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Many unconfirmed extrasolar planets already redirect to the article of their parent star. I think many editors (including myself) would support redirecting all unconfirmed exoplanets to parent stars, but it's a very daunting task, and the articles have very low visibility anyways. In this case, there will be very high visibility, so it's important to get it right. A2soup (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose More news items will most certainly be on the way. As for those claiming this isn't confirmed, you don't need to see something to confirm it. That's a silly rationale for science articles on many levels. This thing is confirmed with Sigma 3.5 confidence. Neptune was also similarly confirmed before it was spotted visually. It would be nice to see it but we detect planets around other star systems without ever seeing them but somehow that's respected and this is not? This planet is notable and will have many articles written on it. Let's start now, rather than 5 years from now. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Notice there are already 5 other articles on the subject in other Wikipedia languages, and direct detection is not an article criteria.prokaryotes (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Notability clearly exists. If this all turns out to be bogus perhaps we should re-evaluate. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This appears to be a large planet and not a Dwarf planet although it is one of the Planets beyond Neptune. There is also a Hypothetical fifth giant planet ejected by Jupitor. Unless proven otherwise the nobility clearly exists. Zaman.hamad (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose clearly notable. The other article has a different scope and the two are not mutually exclusive.--DarTar (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close, per above. Clearly notable. Rehman 06:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose At some future time, that idea could be raised, but I think it would not be appropriate even then. The discussion of Planet Nine is current and (therefore, IMO) this article should remain a standalone article. MaynardClark (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Planets beyond Neptune would be way too cramped with this much information, making it hard for the reader to navigate and find relevant information. There is no reason for such a developing article to be merged into another. Zamaster4536 (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose *for now*. At the present time, this is very notable and appears to have a high chance being "real." However, I would suggest that we should revisit this in the next six months to a year. When public interest cools, or if evidence is raised which casts doubt on this hypothesis, it may make sense to roll this back into the trans-Neptunian planet article. Mrfeek (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Object:Planet 9 is still a hypothetical planet. If it really exists it is not like one of the Kupier objects. It is much further away and much bigger. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is very current information, more news and articles are bound to pop-up due to back up this. Still, this article currently has more than enough sources to be a separate article right now. Kyle1278 09:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Hold off for now - this is a current story (and I came here specifically to look up this planet, which is being called "Planet Nine" in the press) - let's see how this pans out - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose this is clearly notable. Anarchyte 10:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The redirection of other articles doesn't prove they are not notable standalone topics - many times (most recently at hydrolevelling) I make a redirect from a topic that I know is worth having its own article, solely to guide readers until such time as someone actually does the separation. Furthermore, there is a distinction between a "ninth planet" as a concept that there is something undiscovered out there, and Planet Nine as a specific proposal underway to hunt for a planet in an orbit with a known inclination, approximate semimajor axis, and with a predicted size allowing an estimated magnitude. There are several older hypothetical ninth/tenth planets that I wish we had handled as standalones, because reading planets beyond Neptune it is impossible to try to say whether they were distinct proposals with this kind of detail in their time or not, or whether any of those older ideas might be said to be vindicated in the light of this observation. Wnt (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment- when this hypothetical planet turns out not to exist, as it almost certainly will, we can revisit this discussion and merge it in with all the other hypothetical planet nines that have turned out not to exist. Reyk _YO! 12:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ye naysayers! This is not the 20th century. Planets have been breeding like tribbles lately, and Michael E. Brown has discovered a fair number, and he was actually testing the hypothesis of some other good astronomers. Wnt (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My skepticism is well grounded. It's just too hard to get this planet big enough to cause the right perturbations but faint enough to have escaped detection. Reyk _YO! 12:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ever give a thought to the possibility that the surface could be of a more light-absorbent material (i.e. the planet appears dark/black), similar to TrES-2b? Alcherin (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional Oppose I was for a merge, but then it got bigger. It looks like a decent stand-alone article now, and should probably have a summary section in Planets beyond Neptune. If a stable version of Planet Nine is still a large article, and would be difficult to merge, keep this article.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am no astrophysicist, but from the literature it seems more likely than not that "Planet Nine" does indeed exist. Every planet in our solar system gets its own article, and so does the putative Planet Nine. Article is large enough and credible enough to stand on its own. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One thing I don't get

What is so special about this paper? There have been several papers on this topic since 2012 VP113 was discovered; what is it about this model that makes it so superior to all the others? Serendi^podous 22:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigma 3.5 particularly. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It might have implications for Earth as well (i.e. Milankovitch cycles)? And it might offer a first glimpse at a planet which traveled so far out into space. Maybe it is currently nearing the sun, this could mean another NASA mission. Many things. Exciting. prokaryotes (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

If its perihelion is really 200 AU, then it could have absolutely no effect on Earth. Also, it means that any NASA mission would have a minimum time of 45 years. Serendi^podous 23:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

With new research results the travel time might shrink considerably, like 15 years for 200 AU? prokaryotes (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Anything with aphelion (furthest distance from the Sun) inside ~150AU would not really feel this planet. -- Kheider (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No one actually answered my initial question. Why is this evidence so much more compelling than the evidence previously presented? Serendi^podous 09:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It involves/combines among 2012 VP113 and Sedna, offering a good theory of their orbits. As Brown mentioned in the AAAS article, its like the discovery of a new continent on Earth. prokaryotes (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Konstantin who has worked on this is supposed to have done very rigorous modelling work in this area. Check references for more details. J mareeswaran (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Since others have discussed the evidence I'll focus on why this one has gotten extra attention 1)it has a catchy name, this give wikipedians a title for an article, pleases some of those that miss having nine planets, and also those who agree with the IAU by displacing Pluto as the ninth planet. 2)Mike Brown is familiar to those with a casual interest in planetary astronomy. 3)This is the first time I've seen someone say we should look for this now.Agmartin (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that he Gomes paper suggesting a distant planet was behind a paywall which kept it out of view of those who might have written an article previously.

Well, based on the model and the data it is very unlikely to be anything else...Something like .0007% chance of this occurring without a planet, etc. Pretty much Brown modeled it and came up with a stable orbit, size and mass that does effects the objects (icy words/dwarf planets) like they do in real life. It works in real life and that is why it is compelling evidence...Before it was just a far out theory. Brown is also the discover of many of the dwarf planets like Eris. Matthurricane (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

One other interesting thing about this model, fully explained in the paper itself, is that the authors were already able to test their model using available astronomical data. This NPR article notes the following:

Their computer simulations predicted that if this hypothetical planet existed, it would twist the orbits of other small bodies in a certain way. So Brown looked through some old data to see if any icy bodies had been discovered with those kinds of orbits — and, lo and behold, he found five of them. "They're objects that nobody has really explained or tried to explain before," says Brown. "My jaw hit the floor. That just came out of the blue. Being able to make a prediction and having it come true in five minutes is about as fun as it gets in science."

Basically, the paper has the first round of hypothesis testing baked in already. (These additional objects are referenced Figure 9 of the paper.) The authors don't just rely on 2012 VP113 and other well-known objects, their model was specific enough to predict the existence of other objects. It turns out that astronomers have already observed some of those objects, and just not paid much attention to them. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"Well, based on the model and the data it is very unlikely to be anything else...Something like .0007% chance of this occurring without a planet, etc." - I wouldn't overplay that. The thing is, that it is a 1 in 15,000 chance of this happening by chance - but there are thousands of astronomers checking out numerous hypotheses and looking at huge amounts of data. A 1 in 15,000 chance event will happen just through random chance, even if there were no real patterns in the data at all. So - it's a Sigma 3 result. That's significant enough to merit more study, and it is the most likely Planet X for some time which is hwy it is notable. But it is not enough to make it a sure thing or a near certainty as many have been saying. For that you need more like 5 sigma at least that's the threshold for particle physics. Or, about 1 in 3.5 million. They are nowhere near that yet. Robert Walker (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Could this be a image of it?

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/briankoberlein/files/2015/12/newbody-1200x698.png

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2015/12/10/astronomers-find-new-object-possible-super-earth-in-our-solar-system/#cb6798a6b41f521f76316b41

Last month this was reported and it may very well be the right distance at 300-1,000 AU's. Matthurricane (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Compelling, but probably not PN, since that would have been pointed out already - i would assume, and size is off. prokaryotes (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Phil Plait expressed serious doubts for that object. That is Gna and it could just as easily be the result of detecting star-forming galaxies. -- Kheider (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Max Carrados, astronomer?

How is it HST didn't detect it...? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

HST did not look and HST has a very small field of view, especially when you do not know where to point the scope. -- Kheider (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspected the first; I should have thought of the second. :( Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Do we know that it's not in any Hubble picture? Just not (yet) recognised for what it is. Tbayboy (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Pun

Plen(et) Nine in Outer Space?

(Will amuse before it gets deleted). 85.115.54.202 (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the visualisation. prokaryotes (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Why was this moved

The arcticle was moved from Planet Nine (2016 hypothesis) to Planet_Nine_(2016_hypothesis)_on_round_objects. The reason given was Willy on Wheels!. So it appears to be vandalism. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 18:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

definitely vandalism by some joker J mareeswaran (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Asked for page protection, here. prokaryotes (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(after two edit conflicts!) Agree - moved back. I've also applied move protection so that you have to be autoconfirmed to move it - that can be adjusted if need be. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

reverted it AlwaysUnite (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@AlwaysUnite: That's not how you do a page move! Hopefully all cleaned up now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Whoops sorry. Hope I didn't cause a mess. Couldn't move it normally because the redirect still existed. Didn't want to wait for the speedy delete. What was a better way then? AlwaysUnite (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Mike Peel can you review that editors history and revert is other page moves. At this time I can't figure out how to do it. Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Krj373: Done. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Hypothetical fifth giant planet

These articles have exact scope duplication. They both discuss a hypothetical 9th planet, and they both rely on models of solar system formation to make their case. Unlike Planets beyond Neptune, which discusses the history of the search generally, Hypothetical fifth giant planet is confined in scope to just the one gas giant predicted by recent models. Not sure which name to use. Andrew Keenan Richardson (talk!) 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

big difference between Hypothetical fifth giant planet & planet 9 is that the hypothetical planet was presumed to have gone AWOL and become an Orphaned Planet whereas this new planet is predicted to be lurking well inside confines of Solar system so that definitely makes it the 9th planet J mareeswaran (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

What source says the Hypothetical fifth giant planet had to be ejected completely from the Solar System? I believe it is just assumed that it was. The 5th giant planet could have been thrown outward by Jupiter or Saturn and then had perihelion lifted by the Suns birth cluster. -- Kheider (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If the Nice model is the correct explanation for the Late Heavy Bombardment the ejection of the Hypothetical fifth giant planet takes place ~0.4 Billion years after the formation of the solar system, most likely after the sun has left its birth cluster.Agmartin (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As I am not an active editor of the Nice Model, I trust Agmartin knows this better than I do. But Brown's closing paragraphs of the paper seem to want to leave this question open ended. -- Kheider (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

These are 2 different stories, one the origin & another the future possibility. Mike Brown has worked on both, so it would be appropriate to wait for him to merge these 2 stories, then we can merge the corresponding two wikipedia entries J mareeswaran (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Nobody is going to be able to find it then. AlwaysUnite (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a separate prediction. Fences&Windows 19:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with User:J mareeswaran and User:Fences and windows, these are different models aiming to explain different observations (planet orbits vs TNO orbits). Gap9551 (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

We could use the name "Planet Nine" instead of the awkward "Hypothetical fifth giant planet". One theory predicts that there was a ninth planet which got ejected, and the other theory that it got put into a long orbit, which is not that dissimilar. Saying that we should have different articles because they explain different things is like saying we should have different articles for "Moon (tides)" and "Moon (moonlight)". It's the same planet in both models. Andrew Keenan Richardson (talk!) 20:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There are different articles on Moonlight and Tide (with lunar tide as the dominant contribution), as well as many other moon topics with their own article (see Template:The Moon). It depends on whether the topic is notable and whether there is enough content for a standalone article. In this case I think there is, even before the results of searches come in. Gap9551 (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It might be worth having an overview article on searches for new planets in the solar system, if one doesn't exist already. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Planets beyond Neptune seems to cover that pretty well, both searches and proposals. Gap9551 (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose at least for now, this hypothetical ninth planet is definitely a separate topic from the hypothetical fifth giant planet. If Planet Nine actually exists, they may well be one and the same, but that's very much a matter for science to determine, not for us to assume. -- The Anome (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whatever it is, it's a 2016 news event. Rothorpe (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger from Hypothetical fifth giant planet

• Sorry, didn't see this. I just merged them. If you want to discuss a merger, please used the {{merge}} template on both articles so other editors will be sure to notice. For better or for worse, since I've done this, have a look and see if perhaps things should stay, or if they need to be reversed. But please don't just knee jerk reverse my work. Take a look, discuss it a bit. I promise not to be disagreeable. If we have things in this article that are out of scope or too detailed, we can move them to the Nice Model page, perhaps. Jehochman ^Talk 02:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion section here (of the study) http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22 mentions that PN might be a fifth giant planet, and this was/is mentioned under the Origin section. With the merger, it appears abstract to begin the article with the broad aspects of solar system formation. prokaryotes (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice also that the article title is now misleading - not only 2016 hypothesis. And what if it turns out that there is no planet? ;) prokaryotes (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I would just drop the 2016. There isn't another Planet Nine (hypothesis). In fact, the hypothesis was formed step by step in the preceding years. The recent announcement is just a reinforement of earlier work. A surprising reinforcement. Jehochman ^Talk 03:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense. prokaryotes (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The other things that supports merger is that Brown and colleague were working on the Nice Model as well. They were fully aware of the fifth giant planet hypothesis, were studying and testing it as part of the research leading to the Planet Nine hypothesis. These were not at all detached theories. They are so intermingled, we can deal with them as one article, I think, without committing synthesis. Jehochman ^Talk 03:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

the two theories are not as tightly connected as you presume. As Ethan Siegel speculates in Forbes Science the giant planet might have nothing to do with NICE, instead might have been present in early orbits of Mercury to Mars. And NICE2 doesnt require a 5th planet at all. Unfortunate now that this article is heavily cluttered with more speculation that was neatly separated earlier.J mareeswaran (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Why was Hypothetical fifth giant planet, about a gas giant that may have formed and been ejected from the system, merged into this article about an ice giant that may still be in the system when the discussion above is opposed? Articles should never be moved without reading the talk page, and undoing a merge is messy. Jonathunder (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Because this is a hypothesis, it allows that the planet: might not exist, might be gassy, might be icy, might be rocky, might have been ejected from the solar system. All possibilities are still on the table and can be discussed in the article. Moreover, if the planet is eventually confirmed in a few years, the various options disproven can still be reported as having been considered, and then disproved. If the article gets unwieldy, and sections can be spun out as daughter articles. We can deal with these things easily enough. I think it is easier to manage as one article because all these various ideas are tightly connected, and there would be excessive repetition if we separated. We should not create WP:CFORKs. Jehochman ^Talk 04:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

the two theories are not as tightly connected as you presume. As Ethan Siegel speculates in Forbes Science the giant planet might have nothing to do with NICE, instead might have been present in early orbits of Mercury to Mars. And NICE2 doesnt require a 5th planet at all. Unfortunate now that this article is heavily cluttered with more speculation that was neatly separated earlier.J mareeswaran (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

What is it with people merging, moving and drop kicking this article without discussing it with anyone? These are two entirely different hypotheses based on entirely different data. If they are the same, we will know one way or the other if we find Planet Nine. Which we haven't yet. This article now spends more time talking about a currently unrelated idea than it does about its subject. Unmerge please. Serendi^podous 08:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment We should at least make the distinction between the hypothetical gas/ice giant planet which went AWOL, and PN. prokaryotes (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The Nice model described the fifth planet as "ejected", not even necessarily in the Solar System any more as I understood it. It certainly did not describe Planet Nine, which is to say, a planet in a particular orbit. Given proper sourcing to make the connection, the two articles can describe one another in summary style, but it is important to avoid giving the impression, for example, that we've seen someone do the calculation to show that this is a likely orbit that a fifth planet in the Nice/Nice2 model would end up with. It's entirely possible that the ejected planet is somewhere else out there, and indeed, perhaps even it is not the last! Wnt (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC) @Jehochman: I should add that before just before Jehochman made the merge, there were three apparent sources linking the two bodies - two were popular science articles, one of which vaguely said the planet might have formed further in, and the third was the original paper, which makes a brief speculative discussion of in situ versus migration models beginning with "In this work, we have made no attempt to tie the existence of a distant perturber with any particular formation or dynamical evolution scenario relevant to the outer solar system.". Not only does opinion here overwhelmingly oppose the merge - it was in fact very close to WP:OR even to connect the planets at all, as it was based on a selective interpretation of a primary source. Wnt (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merge I am tired and need to go to bed. But my first thought is that was done without a proper discussion and you can not assume they are the same planet. -- Kheider (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - as above, it's just an idea they might be related. The articles should be linked and no more at this time. --Smkolins (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merge as astated above, the idea that they these two ideas are related is itself hypothetical. Merging the two would be WP:OR on our part, which is not allowed. -- The Anome (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• I like the current state, more or less, of both articles the way they are. Linking them seems to be sufficient. Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge these two planets do not seem to be the same thing. We should keep them separate for now - we can always merge them later if it seems appropriate at that time. Wdford (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Move Hypothetical fifth giant planet?

If the name is casing confusion perhaps Hypothetical fifth giant planet should be moved to five giant planet Nice model since that is its focus. Agmartin (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

UFOs

I removed a section speculating about aliens, sourced to the unreliable tabloid the Express. Fences&Windows 19:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

move request

Planet Nine (2016 hypothesis) ---> Planet Nine from Outer Space

• Support - it just looks so right! 68.19.10.111 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Although, perhaps Deep Space Nine (planet) might be appropriate? ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Fairly sure this is meant to be a reference to the movie Plan 9 from Outer Space. Alcherin (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This is what the 'WP fun' pages were for :) Jackiespeel (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Will the atmosphere-investigating satellite eventually sent there be on cloud nine? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Fact-checking The New Yorker

Thinking it added valuable perspective, I added this endnote from The New Yorker:

If the Sun were on Fifth Avenue and the Earth were one block west, Jupiter would be on the West Side Highway, Pluto would be in Montclair, New Jersey, and Planet Nine would be somewhere near Cleveland

So if one block west of Fifth Avenue marks the equivalent of one AU (i.e., the distance from the Sun to Earth), why isn't Planet Nine only 200 blocks (perhelion) to 1200 blocks (aphelion) distant? Why did The New Yorker put Planet Nine way out somewhere near Cleveland? That's much further than 1200 New York City blocks. Did The New Yorker get this wrong? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like someone fouled up. They have long blocks headed northwest in Manhattan, but they look less than 1000 feet. In some towns a long block is a full quarter mile (1320 feet) - if I assume they assumed it was 4 AU per mile, then Pluto aphelion = 49 AU or 12.25 miles, roughly the distance to Montclair, Jupiter is 6 blocks, a little over 5 AU which is right, and Nine is at roughly 360 miles to Cleveland = 1440 AU, compared to the 'nominal' 700 AU figure. I'm thinking this was rushed and sloppy, but still, not off by more than a factor of 3. Wnt (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A fifth of a mile per AU would be generous. True 5th to 6th might be the longest block on the Manhattan grid but I've never seen a block over 4 standard blocks in the entire city. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Another possible error While the AAAS article states Phattie for the nickname, TNY wrote Fatty. prokaryotes (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression, that it was a deliberate & clever pun by Brown and the journalist fell for it

Pheaton is actually a hypothesized planet & Phattie could have been a code-name by Brown to refer to it

But Brown may have wanted to avoid giving the impression of trying to influence the name of the planet, so joked that its name was Fatty (a pun on Phattie)

we should wait for Brown to clarify this - in his own blog posts J mareeswaran (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

C-class

Should the article be rated C-class now? I'm just wondering because the new edit made the article a lot bigger. JakeR2002 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

As of the most recent revision, ORES scores this article as being GA-class material with the highest probability.--DarTar (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@JakeR2002: The article definitely meets the minimum for C-class within the quality scale of both WikiProjects, so I've upgraded it. It should probably be assessed for B-class, as it seems pretty close. Regards, EP111 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@EP111: Ok then. Thank you. JakeR2002 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Difference between 2012 VG174 and 2010 GB174

Are these two same are different? very confused! J mareeswaran (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

2012 VG174 appears to be a typo by ExtremeTech http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/221595-new-research-suggests-our-solar-system-may-contain-a-ninth-planet-far-beyond-pluto or it might be one of those other four objects .-.prokaryotes (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

seems to be a mis-labelling by the authors. 2010_GB174 is correct others ( 2012_GB174, 2012_VG174 ) are wrong J mareeswaran (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

2012 VG174 and 2012 GB174 do not exist. Here is a list of all ETNOs with more than a 365 observation arc. -- Kheider (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Longitude of periapsis

The direction of the perihelion is the longitude of periapsis, i.e. the sum of the longitude of the ascending node and the argument of periapsis. This is the parameter that will be confined to 180 degrees from the periapsis of Planet Nine. Agmartin (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is RF 98 missing its argument of periapsis?

That is the only relevant bit of info. Without complete periapsis info, the list might as well not be there. Serendi^podous 21:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Found it here. Nergaal (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't recall it right now, but what is the parameter that measures how far is the perihelion from the ecliptic? That needs to be added to the table too. Nergaal (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Date format

@W.carter and DarTar: Why was the date format changed to MDY if DMY was used first? I don't think MOS:TIES applies. SLBedit (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That edit indicates that YMD, not DMY was used first (for references), and it also indicates that Month-Day was used, not Day-Month. I don't understand the aversion to using YMD among English-speakers... Dustin (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Orbit

This sentence needs editing for clarity:

"...in the Local Bubble combining sending the solar wind to become part of..." Archolman User talk:Archolman 08:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

agreed it is cumbersome. Come up with better language. The language describing the heliotail is limited out there. --Smkolins (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So cool

Wow there's a new planet (hypothetically) that is amazing. I wonder what the sociological and media effects this will cause. --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There are some articles like this: [1] Some people can really get absurdly worked up over any new astronomy (cf. Heaven's Gate) - I wonder if it's because they learn astronomy at such a young age that it becomes more integral to their worldview? - anyway, there is a need for a section on cultural effects. Wnt (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible moons

Do Brown and the others have any evidence for moons around Planet Nine? If they do, it should be verified and added to the article. Thanks, JakeR2002 (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Moons would just be lost in the noise of the gravitational barycenter of P9. If P9 is discovered it will probably take Hubble or something newer to discover any large moons. -- Kheider (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

more than hypothetical

The lede currently reads "Planet Nine is a hypothetical large planet in the far outer Solar System..."

I believe that it is more than hypothetical, it is now possible. This conclusion is based on multiple reliable sources that describe the possibility.

If accepted, the lede should be changed to "Planet Nine is a possible large planet in the far outer Solar System..."

Hypothetical can be used such as "Hypothetically, if Russia were to invade Mongolia....". Possible can be used as "It is possible that oil prices could go down further as Iran ramps up oil production due to lifting of sanctions"

Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

All hypotheses are possible. That is why they're hypotheses. If they weren't possible, they couldn't be hypotheses. Serendi^podous 20:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Crossing of the ecliptic

I remember reading that one important factor is that the 6 TNOs cross the ecliptic from S to N very close to the perihelion. That should be mentioned somewhere. Nergaal (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

direction of aphelion

The direction of aphelion seems to be between Orion and Taurus. I found an animation on the Scientific American website that shows the orbit in space. See [2], the articles itself (with the video embedded) is at [3] - is that enough of a reference? (I'd add "predicted" or "estimated" to the language used.) I've not seen it in writing anywhere else. But if it is a sufficient reference and can be talked about I'd like to suggest a couple more details:

1. one is that is the direction Pioneer 10 is going. Though in 41 years it covered 80AU so it has another 500 years to get in the neighborhood and its transmitter died in 2003 anyway.
2. And from what I can tell this is aphelion direction is near the tail of the solar wind into the interstellar medium. See Heliosphere#Space_beyond_the_heliosphere )(which is to say, about 180° from Scorpio/Sagittarius) or (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/a-tale-of-the-suns-tail/ ) --Smkolins (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
3. New Horizon's is headed in the direction of the perihelion but the prediction is that the planet is currently far from its perihelion or would have been identified already.

The orientation of the predicted orbit has the aphelion, the farthest point of the estimated orbit, where the constellations of Orion and Taurus meet, while perihelion, or nearest point in the orbit to the sun, near where Aquarius and Scorpio meet. See embedded video simulation at Michael D. Lemonick; (Worldwide Telescope, Caltech/R. Hurt (IPAC)) (January 20, 2016). "Strong Evidence Suggests a Super Earth Lies beyond Pluto". Scientific American. Retrieved Jan 22, 2015. This aphelion direction is the direction of Pioneer 10's trajectory though so far it has only covered some 80 AU and it's radio has already fallen silent. This is also the direction of the tail of the heliosphere, the direction combination of the solar system's motion in the Local Bubble combine sending the solar wind to become part of the local interstellar medium after 100 AU. Meanwhile the New Horizonss probe is headed in the direction of Sagittarius, near the perihelion direction, though the prediction is that the planet is far from there in its perhaps 20k year orbit. "Planetarium: Locate New Horizons". TheSkyLive.com. 2015. Retrieved Jan 22, 2015.

OK, going live. --Smkolins (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Aquarius and Scorpius (not Scorpio) are not neighboring constellations and do not, therefore, meet. can someone clarify where the direction of perihelion really is? 107.135.96.81 (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This is synthesis. Don't put this content back in. See section below headed Synthesis. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So you found the comment. Again how is it synthesis? And yes the mistake on Aquarius. It's Sagittarius. Synthesis is about drawing unwarranted conclusions but this is just that that direction of space has other things in it. --Smkolins (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Consider Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not and Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material both please. I've proposed just facts. The aphelion is in the direction of Orion/Taurus, and so are other things in the outer solarsystem.--Smkolins (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking around for other explorations of the directions their website [4] charts displayed for RA and Declination. Alas someone even asked what constellations that would be in but not answered yet. I guess the charts center aphelion near Taurus/Orion (RA 4 to 6 hrs, around 0° declination) and perihelion around 15-17 hrs RA, around 0° dec which would put it more around Serpens/Ophiuchus/Libra and rather less likely Sagitarrius (Scorpio would be on the fringe of the area.)--Smkolins (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

From the article Planets beyond Neptune

Please see where this information can be introduced. It seems the some kind of work, and with the same results. From the article Planets beyond Neptune: In 2012, Rodney Gomes of the National Observatory of Brazil modelled the orbits of 92 Kuiper belt objects and found that six of those orbits were far more elongated than the model predicted. He concluded that the simplest explanation was the gravitational pull of a distant planetary companion, such as a Neptune-sized object at 1500 AU or a Mars-sized object at around 53 AU. "New planet found in our Solar System?". National Geographic. 2012. Retrieved 2012-05-21.Japf (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Different set of data; it may be related to Planet Nine, it may not, but it had no role in forming the current hypothesis. Serendi^podous 21:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Artistic image of PN

I do not think we should use the image of the blue planet next to the red star. Planet Nine is very far from the Sun and from every other object. If we use an artistic rendition, it should not misinform that the planet is close to another body. Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay the Sun has been removed, i thought it would be nice for the scale. However editor Ephraim33 is tagging the image at commons for speedy deletion and now deletion. I used a slightly modified neptune image because according to Brown and Batygin Planet Nine is possibly similar in size and composition. prokaryotes (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That's Neptune! At least be a bit creative. Why would we want people thinking Neptune is Planet Nine? Serendi^podous 16:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I just emailed Caltech and asked them to please release the images from http://www.caltech.edu/node/49523 with a CC license so we can use them. Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay Fine! What do you suggest then, the blue is different to the original Neptun capture, it has possibly a small gas envelope. I don't like the idea to change the color. Though i could change the inner distribution of pixels (different strokes and such), and make it more dark or light maybe. Or it could be a body without an atmosphere (rocky). Any ideas or do you rather have the article without ANY image of PN. prokaryotes (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that Caltech will issue a CC for the image, they will likely refer to their fair use policy which is likely not accepted. Though, i might be wrong. And I only have time to work on the image tonight. prokaryotes (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest you try to get the lighting right. It makes little sense to show the surface as if it was illuminated by a light source on the opposite side of the sun. I guess it should probably also be darker overall, as there must be significantly less sunlight available than on Neptune, wouldn't there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It depends where it is located within the orbit, and from where you take a picture, a probe could get pretty close theoretically. When its close to the Sun it might even be similar to Pluto or even Mars (in case there is no substantial atmosphere around). Or very reflective due to something similar like the Snowball Earth state. prokaryotes (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If Planet Nine exists, and if it has a mass $\gtrsim$ 10 m_⊕ like Batygin and Brown write in their paper, it should have an internal structure like Uranus or Neptune which is not at all similar to Pluto or Mars. But still it is all speculation. Not a single photon of Planet Nine was detected in one of our telescopes. --Ephraim33 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If it exists, some photons have been acquired by now. It is a matter a finding a trend. Nergaal (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you take Wikipedia:No_original_research#Original_images to heart: "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image." If it is an image of Neptune and you make it an image of Planet Nine, it is a not acceptable photo manipulation. --Ephraim33 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Update Image depicts now a Snowball Earth state https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Planet-Nine-at-perihelion.jpg prokaryotes (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think it would be most appropriate to have no image at all of what this hypothetical planet might look like. It is just a mathematical hypothesis at present. What it might look like can be nothing more than a guess when science does not know whether it actually exists at all. Neutron (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm in agreement because this isn't an interpretation, it's Neptune and is misleading. Having no image is fine. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Either that or one with alot of the possibilities saying we don't know which if any is real. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the percentage but there are many articles which implement artist depictions of stars, systems, planets etc. I would rather have a dummy image then no image, imho it feels more complete with an image.prokaryotes (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Neutron is absolutely right. --Ephraim33 (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Neutron is right. Even the articles of existing exoplanets struggle with the same issue. This is clearly beyond that threshold of artistic license. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

We do not want the general public confusing a well known picture of Neptune with Planet Nine. If anything, use a blank image of Uranus. Planet Nine will not have that exact version of Neptune's Great Dark Spot. -- Kheider (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't like that image either. In theory the proximity to the Sun is excusable, in the sense that if we sent a flyby probe maybe it would be interstellar and have a super duper telescope and could look back from a light year and see Planet Nine transiting the Sun like in the picture. Problem is -- people aren't expecting an alien's eye view. They are expecting that if we were lucky enough to get a probe near the planet, it would be a giant planet taking up the whole sky while the Sun is but a pinpoint of light some 490,000 times dimmer than it is from Earth (occasionally surrounded by the most peculiar little ring...). This is of special concern since there actually are kooky "Nibiru" type articles floating around, and some people will have the notion that this thing is going to come in and rendezvous with Earth like a souped-up Hale-Bopp, rather than staying some 200 AU away from points of local interest. Wnt (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

or, perhaps just swap the image out with http://img.lum.dolimg.com/v1/images/Death-Star-I-copy_36ad2500.jpeg?region=0%2C0%2C1600%2C900&width=768  ?

New image

• I like the new photo. Thank you, prokaryotes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jehochman, any suggestions for tweaks? I thought the darkish silhouette on the right side of the planet might be moved slightly (still have the image open in Photoshop). prokaryotes (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. prokaryotes (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I like it too; I would only suggest swapping it in the unlikely event that we get permission to use the original CalTech image. Serendi^podous 15:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The image is very pretty. However, artists impressions have no place on Wikipedia. Images ought to follow the same guidelines as prose, which means no original research for one thing. If a copyright-free image had been published elsewhere you could arguably use that, but even then there could be a notability issue. (*Unless the Caltech image was made available.) At worst this is incredibly misleading, particularly as the image is in the infobox, and at best it's going to be dubious. I suggest we remove it, or at least move it from the infobox, and replace the infobox image with that of the TNO orbitals that form the crux of this hypothesis. As for that image, again there should be no pretty stars in the background, which should be either plain white or plain black IMO.

I should point out that I have some expertise with Photoshop and I'm more than willing to help with whichever images we decide to use. nagualdesign 03:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Images are just fine. If they reflect the known facts they are helpful. See the artists impression at gamma ray burst. Jehochman ^Talk 04:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The artist's illustration at the top of that page is highly illustrative, so there's no possibility of somebody mistaking it for a photograph, say, and it was provided by the National Science Foundation. The artist's impression half way down the page is directly from NASA. Plus, gamma-ray bursts definitely exist.

While you and I might understand that Planet Nine hasn't actually been 'discovered' yet (and isn't really called "Planet Nine") some people might take a cursory glance at the infobox and get the wrong impression. Even if it doesn't mislead anybody it conveys very little. What we're essentially saying is, "This is a non-copyright-infringing copy of an artists impression that accompanied the original press release of the report." nagualdesign 04:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Dwarf planet limit

At roughly what mass would an object with the proposed orbit could be considered to not have cleared the neighborhood? I remember there was a debate at some point that a weakness of the clearing the neighborhood is that something larger than Earth in a TN orbit may qualify to not have cleared its neighborhood. Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

See http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.06300 Wnt (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So for a 700 AU orbit the planet needs to be at least twice the mass of Earth? Nergaal (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a weakness of the criterion, it's how nature works. The criterion is valid and simply produces some counter-intuitive results. Counter-intuitive results are no reason to dismiss it, cf. quantum physics, which is completely counter-intuitive. --JorisvS (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it disturbs me a bit that the criterion seems to show a steady decrease in planetness as distance from the parent star increases for exoplanets. There are some approximations made in deriving it, and possibly there's something the math didn't take into account. But indeed, the mass criterion is (700)^^(9/8) greater mass than for a planet in Earth orbit. Wnt (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

In general, a steady 'decrease of planetness' with orbital distance is to be expected: a certain number of orbits are required for a given mass to clear its orbital zone, and the time required for an orbit steadily increases with distance (Kepler's third law). That said, I don't know why they found a negative correlation between exoplanet orbital distance and planetness. It could be something with the math, but I can also imagine that it is real. In the outer Solar System this also happens (decreasing mass combined with increasing orbital period), and so it could be that the outer Solar System, and how it formed, is rather typical (the inner Solar System is rather atypical regardless). --JorisvS (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Brown and Batygin posted a graph about this on their blog - here's the graph - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ikiYAW0Ktn8/Vp6JDNN4OUI/AAAAAAAANno/RP1KsA6YolY/s400/margot.png and here's where they discuss it: http://www.findplanetnine.com/2016/01/is-planet-nine-planet.html --Smkolins (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis

I removed the stuff about Pioneer and constellations. That material was synthesis or original research. Please don't put it back. This article is currently on the home page of Wikipedia. Don't make edits that cause the article to get templated for poor quality. If you want to propose similar content with better sources please do so here in the talk page first. Jehochman ^Talk 13:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that PN's proposed aphelion is in the direction of Orion and Taurus is not synthesis. It is observation of the model given by the orbital characteristics. A direction is a direction. Other things far out in the solar system can also be in that direction. What's wrong with saying so? The only thing not observed in any citation is that the gravitational affect of PN can't be observed in the motion of Pioneer 10 because it has gone silent. That's just obvious. And the whole entry was put above a couple of comment sections with no comment amidst a flurry of activity after you took it out the first time. Yes there is the mistake about Scorpio and Aquarius - it should have been Sagittarius but that's a minor issue - the direction of the perihelion of the proposed orbit exists. I can wish they had said these directions in the original paper but they relied on more precise astrometry definitions like "argument of perihelion" and so on. --Smkolins (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is just obvious. It is not Wikipedia's job to draw its own conclusions. We report the conclusions of others, nothing else. Serendi^podous 13:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the problem of how we would verify your observation, I don't see why this information needs to be included in the article. If no other source has published this fact, why would we? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Jehochman ^Talk 14:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Does it help looking at RA/Dec graphs on http://www.findplanetnine.com/p/blog-page.html ? --Smkolins (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Definitely not. You are digging too deep. Stick with reliable sources. Jehochman ^Talk 18:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the blog of the people who wrote the paper and announced the prediction. Read the page. --Smkolins (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. The site is a work in progress. It's not terribly clear. Where is the statement that you want to add? Jehochman ^Talk 04:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll past it here with this url added since I agree it is a better reference.

The orientation of the predicted orbit has the aphelion, the farthest point of the estimated orbit, in the general vicinity of the constellations of Orion and Taurus, while perihelion, or nearest point in the orbit to the sun, is in the vicinity of the southerly areas of Serpens(Caput) and Ophiuchus, and Libra. The search in databases of stellar objects performed by Brown and Batygin has already mostly excluded much of the sky the predicted planet could be save the direction of its aphelion or in the difficult to spot backgrounds where the orbit crosses the background Milky Way, (which is near the directions of aphelion or alittle one side of perihelion in the general direction of Scorpio/Sagittarius.) This aphelion direction is where the predicted planet would be faintest and has a complicated field of view to spot it in. This direction of the aphelion is also in the general direction of Pioneer 10's trajectory though it has so far traveled in that direction only some ~80 AU, while New Horizons's trajectory is in the direction of Sagittarius though it has only reached ~40AU out from the Sun. Additionally Pioneer's radio has already fallen silent, so it can't be tracked for evidence of gravitation affects. The direction of aphelion is also the where the Sun's heliotail points, the direction the solar wind is being pushed towards into the Local Bubble to become part of the interstellar medium somewhere farther than ~120 AU.

--Smkolins (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything up to the words "spot it in" looks OK to me; the rest, no. Serendi^podous 14:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

all this stuff seems more relevant for those hunting for the planet. Maybe a separate sub-header for search under direct-detection? I don't think such geek-level detail should go under general Orbital characteristics.

J mareeswaran (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with both suggestions. --Smkolins (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to set up an automatic archive?

This page is getting unreadable. Serendi^podous 20:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I did a manual archive for the moment. If I archived an "active" discussion I apologize. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I set up auto archiving for anything inactive for 7 days. it should be increased later. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"First proposed in 2014"?

The brazilian Rodney Gomes, an astronomer at the National Observatory of Brazil, said: "the potential unseen planet appears to be making its presence felt by disturbing the orbits of so-called Kuiper belt objects", in 2012. Ishiai (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

See the above section. Serendi^podous 00:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I added this long back(under preliminary research) but somebody removed it :(

J mareeswaran (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I did. Gomes's work may well have something to do with this, but we won't know until Planet Nine is discovered. Lots of people have proposed ninth planets based on lots of different data sets. Planet Nine involves one specific data set, Gomes's planet involves another. They may be the same, they may not. We don't know yet. Serendi^podous 07:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is worth a mention. Ishiai (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Can't find the paper itself anywhere. Lots of echoes of certain mentions but no paper itself and no followup that I've found yet. Gomes is more associated with the Nice Model itself though it is clear he had some ideas similar but there are also papers of his suggesting gravitational affects from disks of bodies (Late Orbital Instabilities in the Outer Planets Induced by Interaction with a Self-gravitating Planetesimal Disk by Levison, Harold F; Nesvorný, David; Morbidelli, Alessandro; Gomes, Rodney and Tsiganis, Kleomenis, The Astronomical Journal, ISSN 1538-3881, 11/2011, Volume 142, Issue 5, p. 152) If there were some prediction in the original paper about what direction something might be in or any orbital characterization but so far it's very vague. --Smkolins (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I linked to the paper in the section below. Serendi^podous 22:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks --Smkolins (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The articles from 2012 are discussing a talk Rodney Gomes gave at the 43th Division on Dynamical Astronomy conference.Agmartin (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

visibility and location

These two sections mostly repeat the same information, they should either combined or have redundant information removed.Agmartin (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding Gomes's work

I Googled to see if Rodney Gomes's work has been cited in reference to Planet Nine and apparently it has, but only tangentally. Since the reference has little to do with the main thrust of Gomes's paper, and I can't access the entire paper, I need someone else to go through it to ensure any additions are correct.

From findplanetnine.com:

And finally, there was a weird, crazy twist. Even in simulations where Planet Nine was chosen to reside in approximately the same plane as the rest of the solar system, the model consistently generated orbits that are nearly perpendicular with respect to the nominal plane of the Kuiper belt. Imagine our surprise when we realized that such a population of objects actually exists! (See also this paper by Gomes et al).

I should also add that the paper cited by findplanetnine is from 2015, while Gomes's original paper is from 2012. Whether the two papers are discussing the same data set I do not know. Serendi^podous 08:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Gomes's work is certainly relevant (reading the Natl Geo, linked above). prokaryotes (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly suggestive, but it may just be a coincidence. We won't know until we find Planet Nine. Serendi^podous 16:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I can access both papers. They are overall about the same research but the second paper is a superset of the 2012 but follows the same general logic of examine objects with perihelia closer in for evidence of something further out. The first looks at some 92 Kuiper Belt/Scattered Disk objects while the later paper emphasizes analysis of "large semi-major axis Centaurs (Laces)" vs classical Centaurs and his conclusion is similar to the earlier one in that he suggests there is a planet out there somewhere stirring things up. There is speculation a planet could account for this pattern and the speculation includes "For instance, a Neptune-sized companion at 1500 au" but he entertains the other possibility on equal footing (stellar encounter) - however he does note another paper saying "The PMSC scenario recently gained more traction. Trujillo and Sheppard (2014) argued that objects with semi-major axis above 150 au and perihelion distance above 30 au have their argument of perihelion concentrated near ω=0°." But I would not call that a direct lead to B&B's prediction save that as Brown says "it was in the air." So it could be an historical antecedent to the idea but isn't a prior claim of a prediction. This "Trujillo and Sheppard (2014)" paper sounds more interesting though. Looking at that paper they note the unusual argument of perihelia of Sedna issue: "Surprisingly, this ω similarity is shared for all known objects with semi-major axes greater than 150 AU and perihelia greater than that of Neptune" but then go on to examine other bodies - 2010GB174, 2004VN112, 2000CR105, 2005RH52, 2003HB57 2007TG422, 2002GB32, 2007VJ305, 2010VZ98, and 2001FP185 and concludes they too show an affect significant for "we conclude that the ω clustering is a real effect." I think this is a close enough issue that it deserved to be noted somewhere deeper in the article as a antecedent observation of interest about the clustering of the ω (argument of perihelion) parameter but based mostly on observing patterns of other bodies. (btw the whole paper cite is (A Sedna-like body with a perihelion of 80 astronomical units, Chadwick A. Trujillo and Scott S. Sheppard, Nature, 507, pp 471–474, (27 March 2014), doi:10.1038/nature13156, Received 11 October 2013, Accepted 10 February 2014, Published online 26 March 2014) --Smkolins (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Assuming this planet exists, it would resemble the credit issues on the discovery of the Kuiper belt; according to that article: "The number and variety of prior speculations on the nature of the Kuiper belt have led to continued uncertainty as to who deserves credit for first proposing it.". I am also inclined to dig into older papers, but in the Wikipedia environment, I think we should wait for such discussions to be published. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

We should mention that another researcher identified the objects part of the evidence used for the proposed PN hypothesis. From what i can read he did not identify PN as has been done by B & B. prokaryotes (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Brown mentions Gomes here. Similar idea, but they're looking at a very different group of objects. From my reading of Gomes' abstract, they were looking at centaurs, not detached TNOs, and could not find a satisfactory fit for a planet, although they found a planetary orbit that works better than the current no-planet model. Tbayboy (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Helpful article, which linked studies could be used to add something about the historic research developments. prokaryotes (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

my suggestion is to add this history in the other article Planet X to keep this article uncluttered and simple.

J mareeswaran (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The Gomes article discusses an extra planet as an explanation for the number of centaurs not their orientation. If you look back farther he also discussed an extra planet in a 2006 article about the detached objects.Agmartin (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Case for a new planet

In the case for a new planet § I see the the last number in TNO's names are sub-scripted. Is this necessary? Or is it correct way? Personally I find it annoying but that in of itself isn't justification to change it. Just wondering people's thoughts/options. Thanks Krj373^{*(talk), *(contrib)} 19:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the standard. Serendi^podous 20:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense

Do we really want a section that discussses astrological conditions, Nibiru, Earth impacts, Nemesis, Leider, and other nonsense? -- Kheider (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless there are more reliable sources no, Daily Mail is not considered RS, and as the Sitchin source states, it is not related to Nibiru. Popular culture are films or books about Planet Nine with considerable coverage. prokaryotes (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

When the Nibiru-believers themselves state that even they don't think it's Nibiru, one wonders how any mention of Nibiru would be relevant to this article. As for Planet 9's place in astrology, I do not think it ought to be mentioned now. I doubt most astrologers today would use it especially since we don't even know what constellation it is in. If at all, then please not until it is a standard inclusion in their charts. Double sharp (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I won't win the argument for inclusion, but I do think the Daily Mail's "astrological" reporting on Planet Nine says something about the culture: Why this newly found planet is STELLAR news for your lovelife: Discovery of 'Planet 9' has dramatic repercussions for the world of astrology. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, the new alchemy PN has caused in astrology belongs to that article. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The plasticity in these belief systems is interesting. Lieder and Sitchin are prepared to accept that some object has been discovered, but continue to believe Nibiru remains to be found. More reasonably, NPR is trying to pick a better name [5]. As seen there, some people are trying to attach Planet Nine to David Bowie. Another astrologer claims Bowie predicted Planet Nine [6]. 22:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge Telesto into Planet Nine

please see discussion in duplicated content in Telesto for more details. I will shortly add a merge tag pointing here J mareeswaran (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly Support Merge - The two articles are basically talking about the exact same thing. Please merge. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• support merge as part of some broad review of pre-prediction suggestions of a planet beyond the Kuiper belt. --Smkolins (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Should I create a new heading Early Speculation between Names & Indirect Detection?

However, I don't like to duplicate the content in Planet X and I am afraid a new section will grow its own heads & legs :(

J mareeswaran (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Planet Nine is about a Super-Earth so you can ignore ideas about stars (Nemesis), Super-Jupiters (Tyche), and things the size of Mars (@60AU). -- Kheider (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

added a bit of history which in my view provides more context on the development of the Planet Nine Hypothesis J mareeswaran (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support merge as the name Telesto is not mentioned in the Planets beyond Neptune article and Planet Nine and Telesto are only about Super-Earth theories. Planets beyond Neptune has a lot of talk about Mars sized objects and Jovian sized objects. -- Kheider (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Done Jehochman ^Talk 14:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Cautious Support. The original article makes limited mention: "Iorio (2014) analyzed the effects of a distant perturber on the precession of the apsidal lines of the inner planets and suggests that, particularly for low-inclination perturbers, objects more massive than the Earth with a ~ 200–300 AU are ruled out from the data (see also Iorio 2012)." It is difficult to define how many hypothetical planets can coexist beyond the orbit of Neptune, but linkage by literature refs is key to determining their identity. While the article is actually citing a negative here, it seems like the two concepts are related enough to be discussed in the same article. Future work about either is highly likely to mention the other in some way. (that's not saying they're the same planet per se, but it's enough for a merge) Wnt (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove artists conception

I'd like to recommend we remove the artist's conception. I'm generally against these since they give readers a false sense of what to expect. In this case I think it's also inaccurate since it shows planet nine as dark against the Milky Way background. The article states planet nine is difficult to spot relative to the Milky Way, not that it is darker.--Nowa (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Planet Nine is estimated to be 22nd magnitude. Magnitude increases exponentially with faintness; Pluto is 15th magnitude, so this would be 600 times dimmer. To be as large as an ice giant, yeah, it would be dark. Serendi^podous 18:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume File:Planet-Nine-in-Outer-Space-artistic-depiction.jpg is a view of P9 as seen up close with the Sun off to the right? I have no problem with it depicted as a generic ice giant as that is the best guess. -- Kheider (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It is meant to be angled such that one is relative to the "side" of the planet. I'm just thankful to whomever removed those silly lightning storms on in 107.107.60.113 (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Orbital Inclination

The orbital inclination of Planet-9 is not yet known or has not been calculated or estimated. From Caltech link

orbits of the six objects are also all tilted in the same way—pointing about 30 degrees downward in the same direction relative to the plane of the eight known planets. - See more at: https://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech-researchers-find-evidence-real-ninth-planet-49523#sthash.F9Z6Pbca.dpuf

The above doesn't imply that orbital of this new object also is in same plane, correct me if I am wrong here. J mareeswaran (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the inclination given in the source 1 from the infobox. What I added earlier was that the parameters for the nominal simulation included an orbital inclination of 30 degrees, since that's what they said. So 30 degrees is the best guess for the model, but I did not understand from the original paper how much that guess could be off by and the model still work. That deficiency is mine (not an astronomer, sorry) and someone should do better - someone must be doing better, because someone has to decide how far and wide to scan with the telescope. Wnt (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As per this chart in B&B's blog the Declination varies from -20 to -40

does this mean the inclination is 30 ±10?

J mareeswaran (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed Paragraph 1.1 indicates Planet 9 orbits Earth. Certainly this cannot be true... Mollynet (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, someone already fixed it. Cheers! Mollynet (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

reformulate sections under "Indirect detection"

In briefer form it is (more a description of each section rather than specific language) and following Brown [7] and but adding some others

• Unresolved work related to predictions for Planet X were eventually settled showing Pluto was an unrelated discovery. (flushed out with more dates when things happened but intentionally brief to keep out of the hair of the Planet X article.
• Multiple speculations following the discovery of Sedna including a stellar encounter, an overall gravitational affect of a disk of material, and an undiscovered planet as part of a broad expectation of objects in the outer solar system like this but no specific predictions. (This might relate to papers - Melott & Bambach 2010; Matese & Whitmire 2011; Fernández 2011; Lykawka 2012; Gomes & Soares 2012 ?)
• Noticing the clustering of the (ω) argument of perihelion of a set of objects by some papers - perhaps Iorio 2012, 2013 2014 but certainly and emphasize Trujillo and Sheppard 2014 which formally introduced 2012 VP113. - "Surprisingly, this ω similarity is shared for all known objects with semi-major axes greater than 150 AU and perihelia greater than that of Neptune" but then go on to examine other bodies - 2010GB174, 2004VN112, 2000CR105, 2005RH52, 2003HB57 2007TG422, 2002GB32, 2007VJ305, 2010VZ98, and 2001FP185 (so another table of objects) and concludes they too show a clear effect for "we conclude that the ω clustering is a real effect" (though some could have been affected by Neptune.) They performed a search for a hypothetical planet but didn't find it.
  • While their paper examined the case of a planet causing this effect it just said that including such a planet did a better if imperfect job of accounting for the clustering than not including it and speculated on a planet was broad and simple - "single body of 2–15 Earth masses in a circular low inclination orbit between 200 AU and 300 AU". Iorio 2012 and 2013 tried to constrain the proposed planet more but not much?? Brown (and Gomes?) accepted Trujillo and Sheppard 2014 paper's proposal as strengthening the case there is a planet out there and called it Planet X initially. Perhaps add Iorio's 2014 followup general support that the ω ~0° find was significant and listing various names for the hypothetical planet but still no significant stronger constraint on the proposed planet ("by Pitjeva and Pitjev with the EPM ephemerides yield (two candidates? a range?) dX 496−570AU form X =2m⊕, and dX 970−1111 AU form X =15m⊕" and speculates that New Horizon's trajectory might constrain the hypothetical planet. )
• Then state the main content about B&B's research on the extreme TNOs clustering around a the same ω ~0° but notices that if you narrow the search to their extreme TNO's the modeling supports a confined region for the orbit of what they called Planet Nine. They added two particular new constraints on the proposed planet - high eccentricity and an orientation opposite to the extreme TNOs (and thus aphelion/perihelion directions.) This would be the largest section but here I'm brief because that section is already robust - the two sets of TNOs anti-aligned and the second set orthogonal to the first set. Also probably need to include Iorio 2016 new paper that just came out (and he keeps using "Telisto" apparently using the Saturnian reference on purpose, as well as "X" as a name.)

Overall the language should emphasize speculation, proposed candidates, hypothetical ideas but with increasing focus on a more and more specific characterization. Other than the general reconstruction of several sections the main difference is to expand the presence of the Trujillo and Sheppard 2014 paper as the first notice of clustering the argument of perihelion and the table of objects related but contextualizing the work of B&B as distinguishing new details (eccentricity and orientation, and their constraints on mass and semi-major access.)

Does the general thrust make sense and working on specific language make sense as a next step?

I get the idea but it is too technical for me. Can these details be extracted from general references/blogs rather than technical papers? J mareeswaran (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I dont know too many blogs that we can use other than planetary society or B&B's own as they have to have a clear professional status to qualify as a reliable source. In the overall picture there are several articles that review the history and I mention B&B's own right at the top and he links to various articles however there are others. But appealing to the technical papers should be highlighted I feel because that marks where things actually happened. Perhaps a survey of less technical but detailed reviews should be undertaken and look for distinguishing levels of information they convey. In the sense you are speaking to I imagined the skeleton of the section following the B&B link at the top of this section of discussion but it could follow more than one. Some reviews I've seen mostly talk about the early history and failed predictions in greater depth while others examine the current prediction more. But B&B's own highlights the T&S 2014 paper more. BTW the new Iorio paper tries to use Saturn's detailed motion as a possible way to tease out constraints but fails with the current data set he used. Between the deep history of the observances of Saturn possible and the detailed positioning from the Cassini spacecraft he remains confident it will some day be an effective tool for adding constraints on PN/PX. Though I don't see comment on it yet I do think some astronomers using PN vs PX as a dividing line on the issue of what is a planet but saying so would have to wait until specific comments can be found - until then all we can report is astronomer a calls is PX and astronomer b calls it PN or etc as the specific cases come alone. It may be we can't stay out of the hair of the PX article. In the mean time waiting for more comments….--Smkolins (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

the risk of relying on Technical papers as the sole source is that modelling multi-body-gravity interactions seems to be highly complex and at any given point of time these are also subject to insufficient information as compared to future discoveries.

I would rather use blogs/popular science articles as source even if they are wrong because it is at least notable or I have to be an expert which I am not. Maybe we should just leave Brown's blog post(s) as external links in PX/PN articles.

J mareeswaran (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

please reread what I said. I said the primary basis is the B&B blog and things like it. The "reliance" on technical papers is just to amplify the details step by step as outlined by the sources and reporting what is in them but in coherent progressive approach as the very sources you point to because we can. I agree there are technical details difficult to penetrate but in a reasonable balanced manner we can proceed. --Smkolins (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

After thinking thru this, my concerns remain, chiefly that this is a developing story with more unknowns. Because of the fact that new information & analysis & further discoveries are continuously appearing, I think these details can go into another post, possibly Scattered_disc or competing theories section/post.

In March 2014, Trujillo and Sheppard wanted to find more of these Sedna-type objects & had several candidates line-up

In June 2014, Spanish researchers speculated about two planets working together to influence the orbit of sednoids

In June 2015, researchers from Leiden Observatory and Cornell University, speculated that Sedna was stolen from another star. For their analysis they grouped Roughly a dozen or so objects under a new category, what they termed as sednitos

and in November 2015 the farthest object, of the solar system, V774104 was discovered but its orbital details are still awaiting to be calculated. the following links discuss this object and possible theories

* Sheppard is training Subaru on swaths of the sky an average of 15° away from the ecliptic, the better to find other weird objects

* "There's several different theories about how these distant objects could have got out there on these eccentric orbits. And all these different theories predict different orbital distribution and orbital population. So if we can find 10 or so of these objects, then we can start determining which theories of the formation of these objects are correct."

* V774104 is so distant that it will take another year of study to determine its orbit There's no consensus on why they're out there; possible causes run the gamut from gravitational stirring of the even more distant Oort Cloud by a close-passing star to the presence of an undiscovered massive planet far beyond the orbit of Neptune. Or they might be the first-found members of the inner Oort Cloud

many think the case could be strengthened once we've discovered more very distant Kuiper Belt objects and assessed their orbital distribution but A few still say that is possible that the hypothesis could still be wrong

and a Berkely researcher Ann-Marie Madigan has her own theory though Brown rejects it

J mareeswaran (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd say we focus on the thread relevant to this prediction and just link minimally to the other subjects and details. --Smkolins (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Nox name

The Atlantic interviewed Brown, when he noted Roman names for other planets, then he or the journalist suggested Nox as a name. Since at least two editors removed this part, first removal claiming the journalist got the name wrong (Nox is Latin for Nyx), second removal edit summary states undue, i thought we should vote for inclusion/exclusion. The journalist is Ross Andersen, http://www.rossandersen.com/work/ This name also won in an online poll (+47%)prokaryotes (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Should we mention Nox per The Atlantic under the article Name section?
• Support Nox, per The Atlantic source. prokaryotes (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Nox/Nyx is an uninformed suggestion by the journalist as there are already two such objects.

NYX is given to an asteroid & NIX to a moon of Pluto.

I actually like the reasoning given by the journalist for the name & don't mind giving it to a planet but don't see how the astronomical society will approve this

My preferred name is Melancholia from the movie of the same name

:) J mareeswaran (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you meant Nyx (3908 Nyx) is an asteroid name, can you link to the Nox asteroid? The Pluto moon is called Nix (moon). Hence it appears Nox is free ;)prokaryotes (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Corrected & linked now. please check J mareeswaran (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

They are not called Nox, and in detail related names are for asteroid and a moon, planet still unclaimed! prokaryotes (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• The mere suggestion of a journalist does not merit inclusion. When I deleted it, there was no mention of Der Spiegel's online poll: I don't know whether that is worth including, but I doubt it. zzz (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I am late to the party, but as stated, there is no object named Nox. -- Kheider (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I hope they name the planet Hades. Nergaal (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I read the Atlantic article, where the author suggests "Nox" would make a good name based only on what he remembers from classical sources. He doesn't cite anyone else saying so, and he either ignores or is unaware of the minor planet and moon of Pluto already named for the same figure. Many other names have been and will be suggested: Faunus, Inuus, Jugatinus, etc. There's no reason to include this. Jonathunder (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yuggoth. 212.178.5.186 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

nickName

Fatty or Phattie?

The new yorker quotes Brown to say as "Fatty"

sciencemag thinks it is "Phattie"

I am not sure what is Wikipedia's policy on conflicting sources but Batygin confirmed it as "Phattie" on twitter J mareeswaran (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV: Don't make a choice, simply mention both. That's what I was trying to do, but I was reverted twice for an incorrect reason. --JorisvS (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I can understand why people confused it with vandalism as "Phattie" is totally unknown term to most people J mareeswaran (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"Phattie" means marijuana cigarette in U.S. slang. It doesn't belong in the article unless you've got a good source, which Twitter is not. Jonathunder (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I googled on Phattie and the term originated from Phat_pants which were used to store/carry Marijuana. By saying that wikipedia should use only "Fatty" & not "Phattie" we are indulging in some kind of censorship here. why do we need to do that? we are just reporting by sources & every source except New Yorker acknowledges it as "Phattie" J mareeswaran (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've said to you in my edit summaries and on my talk page already, it's not just Twitter. "Phattie" is used in [8] as well. --JorisvS (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd suspect that Phattie is a nickname for Jehoshaphat although that also has varied spellings! Tom Ruen (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Possibly, but if we start listing alternate spellings of the informal nicknames in short and long form, it's clutter. Let's stick with what's notable and solidly sourced. Jonathunder (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Only the New Yorker claims its fatty, and fatty sounds like a nickname for obese people, to me at least. We could have resolved this by using only the inofficial name Planet Nine, and what is mentioned in relation to it, i.e. Nox. prokaryotes (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The New Yorker seems like a nearly one of a kind variation, plus there's the context of the author calling it a "cool thing", which "phattie" but not "fatty" tends to fit in most circles. There are lots of Google News hits for Phattie. I think we can safely ignore that variant and just say "Phattie". Wnt (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

- Far more complicated - Hey! Let's Vote On Your Best Suggestions On What To Name 'Planet Nine', NPR, January 26, 2016. --Smkolins (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Telisto or Thelisto?

Iorio refers PX as Thelisto till April 2014 but from August 2014 onwards he refers to it as Telisto

Thelisto 1301.3831v3.pdf 1404.0258.pdf 1404.0258v2.pdf

Telisto 1407.5894v2.pdf 1512.05288.pdf J mareeswaran (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

change lede to "Possible", not "hypothetical"

The lede currently reads "Planet Nine is a hypothetical large planet in the far outer Solar System..."

I believe that it is more than hypothetical, it is now possible. This conclusion is based on multiple reliable sources that describe the possibility.

If accepted, the lede should be changed to "Planet Nine is a possible large planet in the far outer Solar System..."

Hypothetical can be used such as "Hypothetically, if Russia were to invade Mongolia....". Possible can be used as "It is possible that oil prices could go down further as Iran ramps up oil production due to lifting of sanctions"

Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

All hypotheses are possible. That is why they're hypotheses. If they weren't possible, they couldn't be hypotheses. Serendipodous 20:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This was prematurely placed in the archives after a day. If intentional, this is disruptive and negative behavior. Please stop. If unintentional, do not repeat the mistake. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a scientific article, so the word hypothesis means something different from your understanding. Your question was answered, closed and archived (read: garbage). Now if you want to challenge the scientific method, go troll somewhere else. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

How about "predicted". --Smkolins (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Or "undiscovered"? Tom Ruen (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a scientific article; "hypothetical" is perfectly fine. If necessary we can link hypothetical for those who don't know what it means. Serendi^podous 00:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the plain English word "predicted" would be better. Current science predicts that this planet exists, but it is not yet confirmed to exist. Hypothetical is an obtuse word that should be used when the probability is...thinner. Jehochman ^Talk 00:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the lede uses hypothesis, and the second paragraph of the lede also uses "predicted". BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I like theorized or predicted or similar. I agree hypothetical is too loose a word.--Smkolins (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what you "like", the authors did not propose a "theory" but a scientific hypothesis/prediction. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously the quality of the article isn't about what any one person thinks. Let's not get too personal about what I think or what you think. Let's focus on making the article better, ok? In that sense the original paper already noted that the orthagonal orbits fell as a consequence to their first estimates of the orbit so in that sense the hypothesis already had one consequence that succeeded, thus it could be considered a theory. There are more predictions, its also within the general language use of the word "theorized". And their original paper presents it as a "a theoretical model" as well as a "hypothesis". --Smkolins (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

to Hubble or not to Hubble

“But I’d also be perfectly happy if someone else found it. That is why we’re publishing this paper. We hope that other people are going to get inspired and start searching.” - one of the most quoted lines with respect to the prediction.[9] So is everyone going to use the Subaru telescope? Nonsense. Not that I'm saying the Hubble WILL be used to search but I would lay long odds that IF (and when?) it is found that, if Hubble is still running, it WILL be tasked to look at it (hoping to find a moon among other goals like spectra I'm sure.) There is no reason not to mention Hubble - I'd suspect it is by far the best known telescope in the world and has clearly seen hard to see dim objects. I'd love a source to talk about sizes of fields of view like Hubble's Wide Field Camera vs Subaru's field of view vs Keck's twin 10 meter scopes - but as none have I'd be hard pressed trying to argue why one instrument should be used vs another. There is even a mention of ALMA a few lines before apparently without controversy. I even checked out the Kepler craft but I found that in a 30 min exposure, their typical long exposure, it only has 10% resolution of 20th magnitude (though some of its evolving fields of view do include relevant directions in space for PN.) But it seemed too much to me to bring it into the discussion. Hubble just stands at a visibility all its own and thus referencing what it can see fits with the question of how faint PN is and what can see it. But searching for it is not the only reason to discuss visibility - an important aspect to be sure, but not the only. And all NASA/ESA need it a proposal to look with Hubble - it's just so soon for anyone to have announced their own plans to search using other instraments. --Smkolins (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

btw my back of the envelope calculation is that the Kepler would take 300 min to reach 24th mag. I wonder if it can sustain such a length of exposure or more… just speculating….I'm sure better people than I have already been looking at the question. lol--Smkolins (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The references state that Subaru is most likely to be used for direct detection as it has favorable characteristics such as being large with a wide angle view and also present in northern hemisphere. The Hubble as you say might come into play once planet nine's approximate location is identified. And the LSST (when it turns online in 2023) will be able to detect a huge number of sednoids in short time thus help to validating or rejecting or modifying the hypothesis of the planet remains undetected till then. Brown hopes we don't have to wait so long till 2023. ALMA is infrared based so it can't be used alone but in combination with others ALMA is likely to observe Planet nine first but will need further analysis by subaru/hubble etc J mareeswaran (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)