![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I just thought I would add that Planet X has been found. Did I miss something here. NASA has agreed that http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/29jul_planetx.htm The planet, which hasn't been officially named yet, was found by Brown and colleagues using the Samuel Oschin Telescope at Palomar Observatory near San Diego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotaction ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a vague memory of "Planet X" also having been used to describe the theoretical ninth planet that was apparently affecting the orbit of Neptune... the search for that Planet X eventually resulted in the discovery of Pluto, though Pluto didn't end up explaining the discrepancy either. -- April
The article says our most powerful detection techniques can detect an earth sized planet up to 70 AU away. Since we managed to detect the much smaller Sedna at 90 AU, I think these numbers may need some updating? Martijn faassen 15:49, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The following text was on the main page, which I've just removed. At first glance it looks like crackpottery. Martijn faassen 23:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html good web page concerning to el. magnetic fields of our planets
According to seismo researches there is Earth's core spinning more quickly than crust. Reflex to it is generation of such rotor-conductor, which is surrounded by stator-less conductive layers, coats, where are areas permanent magnetised, semiconductive, insulative-dielectric. Result-consequence so is creation of Earths electro-magnetic field. When we look at other planets, Moon, Sun and especially on their el.mag. fields, we find that Mercury, Venus, Mars, Moon have got much weeker fields than Earth (<1/100 of Earth's e.m. field intensity). Magnetic fields of Jupiter, Saturn are many times stronger and e.m. fields of Uranus, Neptune are comparable with Earth's e.m. fields intensity. Why Mercury, Mars, Moon have week e.m. fields? 1. Their cores are small, there are not big enough differences in densities of cores and sheets (in bordering lyers). Moon has not symetrical position of its core toward sheet layers. E.m. fields of outdoor planets are in opposite orientation toward Earth's field orientation, have North and south poles exchanged!!! Why?! Planet X (circa 25x mass of Jupiter, but superdensty-dwarf star, something like neutron star, or core of star rid of outer layers?!...) when everytime after aprox. 1500 years comes to perihelia thanks to it big gravity, thanks strong e. m. field shifts planets from their orbits, swing their axes and with its strong e. m. field works as primary rotor, which activate, bestir cores-rotors of planets toward their stators-sheets. It works like when we spin, roll eg on the table. First are rotating more quickly surface layers, but on the end core is (thanks to higher density) spinning more quickly and longer time too. X is comming from direction under ecliptic and crosses plane of ecliptic somewhere between Jupiter and Mars, in band of asteroids. This is reason, why magnetic fields of Jovian planets are turned toward Earth's magnetic poles. X namely works on Earth and on Jovian planets with its (X's) opposite poles. X has perihelia circa 120 millions km from Sun, above path of Venus-aprox. X travel relativly farther (comes not so close) to Venus and Mercury than to Earth on its path. Suns gravity, e. m. forces works over there more on Venus, Mercury than X, X has got (at Mercury, Venus) other angle of e. m. field than at Earth, Jupiter... these are reasons, why Venus, Mercury had got week e. m. fields and are slowly axis rotating too. Now there were observed strong changes in power, direction of Saturn's e. m. field. X is namely approaching orbit of Saturn, going to cross it within 3 years, it is result of my calculations too. Probe Huygens-Cassini will it observe+ flood, tsunami waves on Titan best regards RNDr. Smutny Pavel www.mojweb.sk/planetx www.mojweb.sk/frances
Second batch of crackpottery stuff removed from article. Martijn faassen 23:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you dont believe to old historical legends, historical maps writtings (Bible, senmut map, narmer palette, dendera zodiac...)so its your thing, but acceleration of motion of magnetic poles, acceleratiopn of ocean water level rising, global warming on Earth, on Mars... in last decade, evidences from ice core probes from Greenland, Antarctic-clear temperature jumps, big changes with period circa 1500years, speaks other than you... There are changes in orbits of planets, but because Planet X is member of our solar system minim. 500000 years so all planets and X and Sun are synchronised in their motions according Titus-Bode law. Super close opposition of Mars-(such close was only before 50000 years-NASA speaks so) too, transition of Venus in this summer speaks too so...were in direction from us...circa Orion const....where comes from X!!! All top astronomers in previous centuries looked for Planet X , because they have seen that paths of our planets, their deviations show existance of X. Those astronomers then forecasted position or discovered also Uranus, Neptune, Pluto!!!/!!!! Look on path of Sedna...direction Orion (there is involved ...astronomers..Brown, Trujillo...done it...opposite motion of Sun toward Planet X )...Look at many other proof (for Planet X exist.) placed on my webs.... thanks RNDr Pavel Smutny-Senmut-Resenmut...
If a tenth planet exists, it is unlikely to be native to the solar system: comprehensive surveys of the ecliptic have been undertaken, concluding that no planet of Earth size or greater exists in the ecliptic plane closer than 60 AU. Thus, any tenth planet would have to be in a highly inclined orbit, and so likely to be a captured object and not one that was formed with the solar system.
I disagree with the conclusion drawn here. The proper conclusion seems to be: if there is a tenth planet it is either a captured planet or it is smaller than the earth or it is farther than 60 AU from the sun.
The link directly under the heading "Planet X Revived" redirects to the main Kuiper belt page, which mentions the apparent edge in passing, but does not discuss the speculation about a possible large body at all. The link doesn't seem very useful or informative in that light - I assume that it originally pointed to an actual page about this possibility? In any case, perhaps this should be changed.
NASA seems to be on the less than skeptical side when it comes to Planet X. The New Horizons probe has a main mission of viewing Pluto, but a large sub-mission of visiting beyond the Kuiper Belt, the proposed location of Planet X, if it exists. The probe is designed to be one-way, inevitably visiting the area called the Kuiper Cliff. It is quite interesting that they would be looking in this "desolate" region without motive. See http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html Rowandswim ( talk) 00:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Rowandswim
In this article, it is stated that "Planet X" was search for because
Later, it says that
This is bogus. The mass of a planet has no direct effect on its own orbit. Instead it is perturbed by the pull of other planets. So that discrepancies are either due to errors in the mass of Uranus, or the planet affected by the discrepancy in Neptune's mass was Uranus.
This issue needs to be researched and this article corrected. In addition, scolarly references are needed for this article. -- EMS | Talk 19:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
P.S. See [ SEDS on Planet X]. -- EMS | Talk 19:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Does someone explain this terminology somewhere? Is my guess correct that QB = Kuiper Belt? What do the suffix numbers mean? -- Kevin Saff 18:53, 29 July 2005 (EDT)
This article should not refer to the gravitational slingshot effect in refering to how the various space probes caused the masses of the outer planets to be revised. Even before the probes got flung around the planet, it was noticed that they were travelling faster than expected based on the Doppler shift in the frequencies of thier transmissions. That the probe was on a gravitational slingshot trajectory is irrelevant, and even with the discrepancy in the planet's mass there was not that much effect on the results of doing the slingshot. -- EMS | Talk 17:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Jcb33 added the following to the page, which at first glance tends to come off as a little too conspiracy-theoristy (and written in a way-too talkpagey style) to let stand. I've moved it over to the talk page until we can get some kind of confirmation aside from a apparently copyvio'ed newspaper article. - The Tom 17:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Possible Planet X Found In 1983?
On The 30th Of December In 1983, there was a press release from NASA to six different newspapers. Two of which were called "The Washington Press" and "The New York Times" The title used by The Washington Press was "Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered" and it was a FRONT page story! It was said that the planet discovered could be as large as Jupiter and although very far from earth (50 Billion Miles) was close enough to be in the orbit of our Sun. It was located towards the Orion Constellation by the U.S. infrared astronomical satellite (IRAS). This satellite was capable of cooling itself to such a level that it could detect even the coldest objects in the universe, which was useful as this new discovery was so cold that it cast no light or gave off heat of any description. It is very hard to find updated news on this as there have been so many discoveries in the time since this was posted, although it is very interesting that as soon as NASA realised it had gone to press they put a halt to any more information on it being released and still to this day keep it a secret. Did NASA suddenly consider this could be Planet X and regret there press release?
I'm surprised no one went looking for the story from the Washington Post website, which was easily found using the archive search: Washington Post Article
Here's the New York Times article
Apparently, there is also a NASA press release in 1992 that stated an unknown object was 7 billion miles away on a highly eliptical orbit, whereas the previous release back in 1983 stated the obejct was 50 billion miles away. I will continue to look for these press releases/articles, and then I will post relevant notes in the main page. Ol Murrani Kasale ( talk) 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
How does the conclusion of this article correlate with the recent confirmaiton of the existence of Xena? [1] -- Kmsiever 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't. Xena is too small to perturb the orbits of Uranus or Neptune in any way. The only thing it proves is that, since it lies at exactly the same distance as Harrington predicted for his Planet X, that if such a world as Harrington described existed, we would have seen it by now. Serendipodous 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Exit Mundi article be in the external links section? Argias 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
An IP editor recently added the following to the article:
I'm just putting it in the right place for him. -- barneca ( talk) 00:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The section "Japanese scientists eye a new planet" is just a copy and paste from the Space.com article.
Doesn't it violate copyright laws?
If it doesn't then it is at least of bad taste, the person that created that section did not even added a link to the original article.
The article can be read here
89.152.213.163 ( talk) 21:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Until astronomers proclaim the existence of the tenth planet, this article should not exist. My opinion of course. -- AI 22:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Isn't 2003 UB313 being considered the 10th planet in the solar system, since it is bigger than Pluto and also has a moon? myselfalso 22:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe too progressive... Morcheeba? Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 09:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Found this in the 2003 UB313 section:
"Originally nicknamed Xena after the lead character in the TV series Xena: Warrior Princess, its moon is nicknamed Gabrielle after Xena's sidekick in the series. However, "Xena" won't be the object's final approved name, because it is a fictional TV character that does not exist in Greek mythology." (emphasis mine)
I'm not sure if you fellows are aware, but most of the planets in the solar system are named after figures in Roman mythology; otherwise, Mars would be renamed Ares, Jupiter would be called Zeus, Saturn would be named Cronus... etc. Several moons do take Greek names, though. I'm changing the sentence to say "does not exist in Greek or Roman mythology".
Also, although the reason for never officially labelling the object "Xena" (it's a fictional, recently created character) is quite common-sense, it also smells strongly of original research, and I think we need a citation to be able to state factually why the name doesn't work. (I'm adding a {{ Fact}} tag as a consequence). T. S. Rice 03:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Man, this article will be needing quite an update... 132.205.93.195 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Keep at present title as an historical speculation. ninth planet as now an article for the present speculation.. Rokkss 22:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Tenth planet → Ninth planet … Rationale: The IAU redefined planet today, so Pluto was dropped, so the Tenth planet discussion is now the Ninth planet discussion (with alot of refactoring and cleanup necessary) — 132.205.93.205 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
From the Times, 24th April 1930 (yes, 1930):
Turns up again on the 26th, when he confirms it wasn't Pluto ("the Lowell planet"), but it never crops up afterwards that I can see... an interesting little footnote for the first claimed tenth planet. I wonder if they ever decided what it was - a comet? Shimgray | talk | 22:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
A merge would update both articles.--- Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 03:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Makrisj 06:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest article name stay, because it can be easier to discover. we may add first line comment, though, stating that the tenth shall be the nineth planet actually, right because of the recent desicion.
Let's make the subject easier to find and even more informative. Makrisj 06:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not a duplicate of the tenth planet article, as ninth planet and tenth planet are not the same topic. Tenth planet is about historical speculation, and ninth planet is about present speculation about a planet in the solar system beyond Neptune. Voortle 00:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This seems like a pointless article when not only hasn't there been any speculation about a "ninth planet", but given the construction of the current definition of "planet", it's pretty much impossible that any body, even one the size of Earth, discovered anywhere in the Kuiper belt will ever be considered a planet. RandomCritic 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There isn't any references for "speculation" for anything that people are calling the "ninth planet", [2], so, while there may actually be speculation, such a concept is WP:NOT a part of wikipedia. I would guess that people won't really be calling it the "ninth planet" in speculation. Planet X fits the idea better anyway. McKay 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
A merge would update both articles.--- Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This is not a duplicate of the tenth planet article, as ninth planet and tenth planet are not the same topic. Tenth planet is about historical speculation, and ninth planet is about present speculation about a planet in the solar system beyond Neptune. Voortle 00:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This seems like a pointless article when not only hasn't there been any speculation about a "ninth planet", but given the construction of the current definition of "planet", it's pretty much impossible that any body, even one the size of Earth, discovered anywhere in the Kuiper belt will ever be considered a planet. RandomCritic 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There isn't any references for "speculation" for anything that people are calling the "ninth planet", [3], so, while there may actually be speculation, such a concept is WP:NOT a part of wikipedia. I would guess that people won't really be calling it the "ninth planet" in speculation. Planet X fits the idea better anyway. McKay 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
A merge would update both articles.--- Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
See a discussion relevant to this article at Talk:Hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets. (I note this here preemptively to try to keep discussion centralized.) ASHill ( talk | contribs) 15:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Serendipodous had proposed that this article be merged with Planet X. I certainly see his rationale, but I believe that the encyclopedia is better served by having
It's already been a bit frustrating trying to keep the Sitchincruft out of these articles and clarifying that "Planet X" =/= "Planet 10" =/= "Every outer solar system planet theory ever," and I feel blending these topics together again muddies those waters. Lowell's Planet X is a fascinating self-contained narrative about hypotheses advanced and disproved (and a great illustration of scientific method), and I do really like how we've managed to put together a pretty solid article on it. I, for one, as recently as the early 1990s, remember doing a school project on Planet X and how there were these apparent outstanding gravity issues, which was very much still un-disproven at the time.
I believe I've managed to make sure that the better-written content over on Planet X has been used to replace some of the pretty shoddily-written and -sourced content that was here. The Tom ( talk) 18:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there does not seem to be very much material to support two separate articles. It would be nice to see them combined. -- Kheider ( talk) 18:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't 20000 Varuna be considered as a Planet X candidate? (CNN2001) I don't see that Sedna or Quaoar really came any closer to be labeled as "Planet X". It is no mistake that the IAU assigned Varuna 20000. The IAU had offered 10000 to Pluto in 1999. (10000)-- Kheider ( talk) 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
That might be one of the best reasons to combine this article with Planet X. -- Kheider ( talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Kobe University has a great image of Lykawka's Planet X, which would make a great main image for this article if it's in the public domain. I don't know whether it is though. Serendi pod ous 09:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I just added an explanation of the name "Persephone" to this article, to address the fact that the object's name redirects here, but really, since it only repeats information already included in the Eris article, should it not link there instead? Serendi pod ous 12:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It is necessary to choose the first/last name order. I.e. Matese, J. J. or J.J. Matese. Ruslik ( talk) 08:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The punctuation was inconsistent for multiple-author papers. I arbitrarily chose:
I kept first names if available. ( diff, with mistaken edit summary, which should have been "consistent author format") —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The article is ready, in my opinion. Ruslik ( talk) 19:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
??? Gingermint ( talk) 22:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I just thought I would add that Planet X has been found. Did I miss something here. NASA has agreed that http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/29jul_planetx.htm The planet, which hasn't been officially named yet, was found by Brown and colleagues using the Samuel Oschin Telescope at Palomar Observatory near San Diego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotaction ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a vague memory of "Planet X" also having been used to describe the theoretical ninth planet that was apparently affecting the orbit of Neptune... the search for that Planet X eventually resulted in the discovery of Pluto, though Pluto didn't end up explaining the discrepancy either. -- April
The article says our most powerful detection techniques can detect an earth sized planet up to 70 AU away. Since we managed to detect the much smaller Sedna at 90 AU, I think these numbers may need some updating? Martijn faassen 15:49, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The following text was on the main page, which I've just removed. At first glance it looks like crackpottery. Martijn faassen 23:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html good web page concerning to el. magnetic fields of our planets
According to seismo researches there is Earth's core spinning more quickly than crust. Reflex to it is generation of such rotor-conductor, which is surrounded by stator-less conductive layers, coats, where are areas permanent magnetised, semiconductive, insulative-dielectric. Result-consequence so is creation of Earths electro-magnetic field. When we look at other planets, Moon, Sun and especially on their el.mag. fields, we find that Mercury, Venus, Mars, Moon have got much weeker fields than Earth (<1/100 of Earth's e.m. field intensity). Magnetic fields of Jupiter, Saturn are many times stronger and e.m. fields of Uranus, Neptune are comparable with Earth's e.m. fields intensity. Why Mercury, Mars, Moon have week e.m. fields? 1. Their cores are small, there are not big enough differences in densities of cores and sheets (in bordering lyers). Moon has not symetrical position of its core toward sheet layers. E.m. fields of outdoor planets are in opposite orientation toward Earth's field orientation, have North and south poles exchanged!!! Why?! Planet X (circa 25x mass of Jupiter, but superdensty-dwarf star, something like neutron star, or core of star rid of outer layers?!...) when everytime after aprox. 1500 years comes to perihelia thanks to it big gravity, thanks strong e. m. field shifts planets from their orbits, swing their axes and with its strong e. m. field works as primary rotor, which activate, bestir cores-rotors of planets toward their stators-sheets. It works like when we spin, roll eg on the table. First are rotating more quickly surface layers, but on the end core is (thanks to higher density) spinning more quickly and longer time too. X is comming from direction under ecliptic and crosses plane of ecliptic somewhere between Jupiter and Mars, in band of asteroids. This is reason, why magnetic fields of Jovian planets are turned toward Earth's magnetic poles. X namely works on Earth and on Jovian planets with its (X's) opposite poles. X has perihelia circa 120 millions km from Sun, above path of Venus-aprox. X travel relativly farther (comes not so close) to Venus and Mercury than to Earth on its path. Suns gravity, e. m. forces works over there more on Venus, Mercury than X, X has got (at Mercury, Venus) other angle of e. m. field than at Earth, Jupiter... these are reasons, why Venus, Mercury had got week e. m. fields and are slowly axis rotating too. Now there were observed strong changes in power, direction of Saturn's e. m. field. X is namely approaching orbit of Saturn, going to cross it within 3 years, it is result of my calculations too. Probe Huygens-Cassini will it observe+ flood, tsunami waves on Titan best regards RNDr. Smutny Pavel www.mojweb.sk/planetx www.mojweb.sk/frances
Second batch of crackpottery stuff removed from article. Martijn faassen 23:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you dont believe to old historical legends, historical maps writtings (Bible, senmut map, narmer palette, dendera zodiac...)so its your thing, but acceleration of motion of magnetic poles, acceleratiopn of ocean water level rising, global warming on Earth, on Mars... in last decade, evidences from ice core probes from Greenland, Antarctic-clear temperature jumps, big changes with period circa 1500years, speaks other than you... There are changes in orbits of planets, but because Planet X is member of our solar system minim. 500000 years so all planets and X and Sun are synchronised in their motions according Titus-Bode law. Super close opposition of Mars-(such close was only before 50000 years-NASA speaks so) too, transition of Venus in this summer speaks too so...were in direction from us...circa Orion const....where comes from X!!! All top astronomers in previous centuries looked for Planet X , because they have seen that paths of our planets, their deviations show existance of X. Those astronomers then forecasted position or discovered also Uranus, Neptune, Pluto!!!/!!!! Look on path of Sedna...direction Orion (there is involved ...astronomers..Brown, Trujillo...done it...opposite motion of Sun toward Planet X )...Look at many other proof (for Planet X exist.) placed on my webs.... thanks RNDr Pavel Smutny-Senmut-Resenmut...
If a tenth planet exists, it is unlikely to be native to the solar system: comprehensive surveys of the ecliptic have been undertaken, concluding that no planet of Earth size or greater exists in the ecliptic plane closer than 60 AU. Thus, any tenth planet would have to be in a highly inclined orbit, and so likely to be a captured object and not one that was formed with the solar system.
I disagree with the conclusion drawn here. The proper conclusion seems to be: if there is a tenth planet it is either a captured planet or it is smaller than the earth or it is farther than 60 AU from the sun.
The link directly under the heading "Planet X Revived" redirects to the main Kuiper belt page, which mentions the apparent edge in passing, but does not discuss the speculation about a possible large body at all. The link doesn't seem very useful or informative in that light - I assume that it originally pointed to an actual page about this possibility? In any case, perhaps this should be changed.
NASA seems to be on the less than skeptical side when it comes to Planet X. The New Horizons probe has a main mission of viewing Pluto, but a large sub-mission of visiting beyond the Kuiper Belt, the proposed location of Planet X, if it exists. The probe is designed to be one-way, inevitably visiting the area called the Kuiper Cliff. It is quite interesting that they would be looking in this "desolate" region without motive. See http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html Rowandswim ( talk) 00:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Rowandswim
In this article, it is stated that "Planet X" was search for because
Later, it says that
This is bogus. The mass of a planet has no direct effect on its own orbit. Instead it is perturbed by the pull of other planets. So that discrepancies are either due to errors in the mass of Uranus, or the planet affected by the discrepancy in Neptune's mass was Uranus.
This issue needs to be researched and this article corrected. In addition, scolarly references are needed for this article. -- EMS | Talk 19:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
P.S. See [ SEDS on Planet X]. -- EMS | Talk 19:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Does someone explain this terminology somewhere? Is my guess correct that QB = Kuiper Belt? What do the suffix numbers mean? -- Kevin Saff 18:53, 29 July 2005 (EDT)
This article should not refer to the gravitational slingshot effect in refering to how the various space probes caused the masses of the outer planets to be revised. Even before the probes got flung around the planet, it was noticed that they were travelling faster than expected based on the Doppler shift in the frequencies of thier transmissions. That the probe was on a gravitational slingshot trajectory is irrelevant, and even with the discrepancy in the planet's mass there was not that much effect on the results of doing the slingshot. -- EMS | Talk 17:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Jcb33 added the following to the page, which at first glance tends to come off as a little too conspiracy-theoristy (and written in a way-too talkpagey style) to let stand. I've moved it over to the talk page until we can get some kind of confirmation aside from a apparently copyvio'ed newspaper article. - The Tom 17:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Possible Planet X Found In 1983?
On The 30th Of December In 1983, there was a press release from NASA to six different newspapers. Two of which were called "The Washington Press" and "The New York Times" The title used by The Washington Press was "Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered" and it was a FRONT page story! It was said that the planet discovered could be as large as Jupiter and although very far from earth (50 Billion Miles) was close enough to be in the orbit of our Sun. It was located towards the Orion Constellation by the U.S. infrared astronomical satellite (IRAS). This satellite was capable of cooling itself to such a level that it could detect even the coldest objects in the universe, which was useful as this new discovery was so cold that it cast no light or gave off heat of any description. It is very hard to find updated news on this as there have been so many discoveries in the time since this was posted, although it is very interesting that as soon as NASA realised it had gone to press they put a halt to any more information on it being released and still to this day keep it a secret. Did NASA suddenly consider this could be Planet X and regret there press release?
I'm surprised no one went looking for the story from the Washington Post website, which was easily found using the archive search: Washington Post Article
Here's the New York Times article
Apparently, there is also a NASA press release in 1992 that stated an unknown object was 7 billion miles away on a highly eliptical orbit, whereas the previous release back in 1983 stated the obejct was 50 billion miles away. I will continue to look for these press releases/articles, and then I will post relevant notes in the main page. Ol Murrani Kasale ( talk) 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
How does the conclusion of this article correlate with the recent confirmaiton of the existence of Xena? [1] -- Kmsiever 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't. Xena is too small to perturb the orbits of Uranus or Neptune in any way. The only thing it proves is that, since it lies at exactly the same distance as Harrington predicted for his Planet X, that if such a world as Harrington described existed, we would have seen it by now. Serendipodous 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Exit Mundi article be in the external links section? Argias 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
An IP editor recently added the following to the article:
I'm just putting it in the right place for him. -- barneca ( talk) 00:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The section "Japanese scientists eye a new planet" is just a copy and paste from the Space.com article.
Doesn't it violate copyright laws?
If it doesn't then it is at least of bad taste, the person that created that section did not even added a link to the original article.
The article can be read here
89.152.213.163 ( talk) 21:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Until astronomers proclaim the existence of the tenth planet, this article should not exist. My opinion of course. -- AI 22:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Isn't 2003 UB313 being considered the 10th planet in the solar system, since it is bigger than Pluto and also has a moon? myselfalso 22:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe too progressive... Morcheeba? Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 09:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Found this in the 2003 UB313 section:
"Originally nicknamed Xena after the lead character in the TV series Xena: Warrior Princess, its moon is nicknamed Gabrielle after Xena's sidekick in the series. However, "Xena" won't be the object's final approved name, because it is a fictional TV character that does not exist in Greek mythology." (emphasis mine)
I'm not sure if you fellows are aware, but most of the planets in the solar system are named after figures in Roman mythology; otherwise, Mars would be renamed Ares, Jupiter would be called Zeus, Saturn would be named Cronus... etc. Several moons do take Greek names, though. I'm changing the sentence to say "does not exist in Greek or Roman mythology".
Also, although the reason for never officially labelling the object "Xena" (it's a fictional, recently created character) is quite common-sense, it also smells strongly of original research, and I think we need a citation to be able to state factually why the name doesn't work. (I'm adding a {{ Fact}} tag as a consequence). T. S. Rice 03:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Man, this article will be needing quite an update... 132.205.93.195 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Keep at present title as an historical speculation. ninth planet as now an article for the present speculation.. Rokkss 22:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Tenth planet → Ninth planet … Rationale: The IAU redefined planet today, so Pluto was dropped, so the Tenth planet discussion is now the Ninth planet discussion (with alot of refactoring and cleanup necessary) — 132.205.93.205 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
From the Times, 24th April 1930 (yes, 1930):
Turns up again on the 26th, when he confirms it wasn't Pluto ("the Lowell planet"), but it never crops up afterwards that I can see... an interesting little footnote for the first claimed tenth planet. I wonder if they ever decided what it was - a comet? Shimgray | talk | 22:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
A merge would update both articles.--- Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 03:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Makrisj 06:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest article name stay, because it can be easier to discover. we may add first line comment, though, stating that the tenth shall be the nineth planet actually, right because of the recent desicion.
Let's make the subject easier to find and even more informative. Makrisj 06:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not a duplicate of the tenth planet article, as ninth planet and tenth planet are not the same topic. Tenth planet is about historical speculation, and ninth planet is about present speculation about a planet in the solar system beyond Neptune. Voortle 00:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This seems like a pointless article when not only hasn't there been any speculation about a "ninth planet", but given the construction of the current definition of "planet", it's pretty much impossible that any body, even one the size of Earth, discovered anywhere in the Kuiper belt will ever be considered a planet. RandomCritic 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There isn't any references for "speculation" for anything that people are calling the "ninth planet", [2], so, while there may actually be speculation, such a concept is WP:NOT a part of wikipedia. I would guess that people won't really be calling it the "ninth planet" in speculation. Planet X fits the idea better anyway. McKay 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
A merge would update both articles.--- Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This is not a duplicate of the tenth planet article, as ninth planet and tenth planet are not the same topic. Tenth planet is about historical speculation, and ninth planet is about present speculation about a planet in the solar system beyond Neptune. Voortle 00:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This seems like a pointless article when not only hasn't there been any speculation about a "ninth planet", but given the construction of the current definition of "planet", it's pretty much impossible that any body, even one the size of Earth, discovered anywhere in the Kuiper belt will ever be considered a planet. RandomCritic 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There isn't any references for "speculation" for anything that people are calling the "ninth planet", [3], so, while there may actually be speculation, such a concept is WP:NOT a part of wikipedia. I would guess that people won't really be calling it the "ninth planet" in speculation. Planet X fits the idea better anyway. McKay 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
A merge would update both articles.--- Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 03:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
See a discussion relevant to this article at Talk:Hypothetical trans-Neptunian planets. (I note this here preemptively to try to keep discussion centralized.) ASHill ( talk | contribs) 15:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Serendipodous had proposed that this article be merged with Planet X. I certainly see his rationale, but I believe that the encyclopedia is better served by having
It's already been a bit frustrating trying to keep the Sitchincruft out of these articles and clarifying that "Planet X" =/= "Planet 10" =/= "Every outer solar system planet theory ever," and I feel blending these topics together again muddies those waters. Lowell's Planet X is a fascinating self-contained narrative about hypotheses advanced and disproved (and a great illustration of scientific method), and I do really like how we've managed to put together a pretty solid article on it. I, for one, as recently as the early 1990s, remember doing a school project on Planet X and how there were these apparent outstanding gravity issues, which was very much still un-disproven at the time.
I believe I've managed to make sure that the better-written content over on Planet X has been used to replace some of the pretty shoddily-written and -sourced content that was here. The Tom ( talk) 18:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there does not seem to be very much material to support two separate articles. It would be nice to see them combined. -- Kheider ( talk) 18:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't 20000 Varuna be considered as a Planet X candidate? (CNN2001) I don't see that Sedna or Quaoar really came any closer to be labeled as "Planet X". It is no mistake that the IAU assigned Varuna 20000. The IAU had offered 10000 to Pluto in 1999. (10000)-- Kheider ( talk) 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
That might be one of the best reasons to combine this article with Planet X. -- Kheider ( talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Kobe University has a great image of Lykawka's Planet X, which would make a great main image for this article if it's in the public domain. I don't know whether it is though. Serendi pod ous 09:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I just added an explanation of the name "Persephone" to this article, to address the fact that the object's name redirects here, but really, since it only repeats information already included in the Eris article, should it not link there instead? Serendi pod ous 12:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It is necessary to choose the first/last name order. I.e. Matese, J. J. or J.J. Matese. Ruslik ( talk) 08:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The punctuation was inconsistent for multiple-author papers. I arbitrarily chose:
I kept first names if available. ( diff, with mistaken edit summary, which should have been "consistent author format") —Alex ( ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The article is ready, in my opinion. Ruslik ( talk) 19:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
??? Gingermint ( talk) 22:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)