Discovery of 'Goblin' Solar System Object Bolsters the Case For Planet Nine (gizmodo.com) 102
Astronomers have discovered a dwarf planet, dubbed "the Goblin," in the outer reaches of the Solar System that never gets any closer to the Sun than 6 billion miles. Some experts say its orbital configuration points to the existence of Planet Nine, a hypothetical planet in our Solar System that is estimated to be about 10 times the mass of Earth. Gizmodo reports: The Goblin, or 2015 TG38 as it's more formally called, is what's known as an extreme trans-Neptunian object, or ETNO. As the moniker implies, these objects, of which there are potentially thousands, are located well beyond the orbit of Neptune. The researchers who discovered the object, a team led by Scott Sheppard from the Carnegie Institution for Science and Chadwick Trujillo from Northern Arizona University, estimate that the Goblin is around 185 miles (300 kilometers) in diameter. At this size, it could very well be sphere-like in shape. Its mean distance from the Sun is about 80 astronomical units (AU), where 1 AU is the average distance from the Earth to the Sun. That's 7.45 billion miles, or 12 billion kilometers.
The Goblin's extreme orbital path means it never comes close enough to impose gravitational influence on the Solar System's giant planets, like Neptune or Jupiter. And at the astounding distance of 2,300 AU, it gets slotted into an emerging astronomical category known as Inner Oort Cloud objects (IOCs), of which 2012 VP113 and Sedna are the only other two known members. [...] The discovery of 2015 TG38 is bolstering the case for Planet Nine -- a hypothetical planet, sometimes referred to as Planet X, that's allegedly several times larger than Earth and located hundreds of AU away. As noted in the new study, published today in The Astronomical Journal, the location of Goblin's perihelion is similar to what's observed with Sedna and 2012 VP113, along with other ETNOs. This is a clue to astronomers that something potentially big, i.e. a super-Earth, is pushing these objects into similar types of orbits.
The Goblin's extreme orbital path means it never comes close enough to impose gravitational influence on the Solar System's giant planets, like Neptune or Jupiter. And at the astounding distance of 2,300 AU, it gets slotted into an emerging astronomical category known as Inner Oort Cloud objects (IOCs), of which 2012 VP113 and Sedna are the only other two known members. [...] The discovery of 2015 TG38 is bolstering the case for Planet Nine -- a hypothetical planet, sometimes referred to as Planet X, that's allegedly several times larger than Earth and located hundreds of AU away. As noted in the new study, published today in The Astronomical Journal, the location of Goblin's perihelion is similar to what's observed with Sedna and 2012 VP113, along with other ETNOs. This is a clue to astronomers that something potentially big, i.e. a super-Earth, is pushing these objects into similar types of orbits.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I was confused why they were saying Planet 9 and also calling it "Planet X." Maybe they were watching Godzilla. At least I feel like I remember something about Planet X being where aliens were from in one/some of those movies.....?
X means 10 in roman numerals and as Pluto was the 9th planet at the time the next planet to be found would be Planet 10. As such Planet X has stuck as a placeholder name because the X also represents it being unknown.
Re: (Score:2)
The hypothetical new planet would be Planet Ten. Pluto is the ninth planet and it's widely accepted that the efforts to say otherwise were a complete farce.
Yes. Planet 9 is Pluto, and heretics will freeze for eternity in liquid nitrogen seas. (And the effort to say otherwise was a farce: the vote was taken after most scientists had left the conference.)
This theory has always been "Planet X", with the pun on 10 and unknown. "Planet 9" is a much weaker joke - Planet 9 from Outer Space, maybe?
Re:You mean planet 10? (Score:5, Informative)
If you count everything as a planet, Pluto is not the ninth, there is a lot more. Wikipedia's list of minor plants has 523584 entries today.
Pluto isn't even the only thing once considered a planet that got "downgraded" to dwarf-plant. It happened to Ceres in the 1850s before. Ceres was discovered on the 1st of January 1801, far earlier than Pluto. Its orbit between those of Mars and Jupiter and it is far bigger than Goblin.
Re: (Score:2)
"is a lol" - chortle
"are lols" - chuckle
"are a lol" - incoherent.
lol'd that for you!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hard to avoid sounding like an inbred (and no one's even suggesting that you need to learn the pronunciation of more challenging words, such as "height" or "sherbet").
Its not hard to avoid sounding like a mealy mouthed 50 yr old virgin by pointing out things politely and acknowledging that you knew exactly what he meant despite an extremely minor grammatical error.
Also, it's inbreed, not inbred when using it in the present tense. Inbred is the past tense. Had you not had a go at the OP I would have been happy to ignore this as I knew what you meant.
They're, there, their, ssss'OK; all Grammar nazi's are hates me. Any other grammatical or spelling errors, intentiona
Re: (Score:2)
Well, learning languages has always been hard for me. At school, for a while English always was my worst grade. That only changed when I had to take a second foreign language.
My grades finally improved when I was reading Unix Network Programming, Volume 2, Interprocess communications. It seems I learned English from that book. I still couldn't really speak it, but reading and writing finally was okayish.
Even today, I write a mixture of British and American English, there is a heavy German accent in my pronu
Re: (Score:2)
Try asian languages.
Japanese is super easy.
Thai is reasonable easy, too. After you are beyond the hurdle of the script.
Re:You mean planet 10? (Score:4, Interesting)
While all true, the distinction is generally only in how to choose to word our definitions.
I'd say Pluto is closer in "sameness" to Mars than Mars is to Jupiter, yet both Mars and Jupiter have been classified as planets while Pluto has not.
I don't have strong feelings about it either way, and to me anyone with strong feelings I view with suspicion. Arguing the definition had nothing to do with science and everything to do with language. And in general it seems that the primary reason for declassifying Pluto was that if Pluto was a planet then we'd have "too many" planets.
I find it comical though that the primary theory for Earth's moon formation was that there was a second "planet" orbiting in the same vicinity as Earth 1.0, the two collided, and the combined mass of the two formed current Earth with the debris scattered into orbit forming the moon. That means that by the current definition, neither of those bodies were planets prior to them colliding, since until that point neither had cleared out their orbit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You mean planet 10? (Score:4, Insightful)
To be able to so wildly disturb the orbits of the multiple ETNO's we have discovered so far, the suspected mystery planet is not going to be a minuscule speck like Pluto but a gas giant along the lines of Uranus or Neptune. Rest assured that should we discover something that big orbiting the Sun, it will be a designated a planet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Your swarm of gravitationally bound objects is unstable, so no. In addition you'd need to devise a theory for how they came to be gravitationally bound that doesn't destroy current theories on solar system creation and works in simulations. Pluto/Charon (& Earth/Moon) for that matter have been shown to have been created by the collision of similarly sized objects with the two largest successor objects cleaning up and ejecting or absorbing all the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple objects of similar mass in mutual orbit are very rare, Pluto-Charon being considerably the closest of the large bodies. The next closest in the size stakes is 79360 Sila-Nunam [wikipedia.org]at 243 and 230km diameter, around a tenth of the diameter and so a bit less than a thousandth of the mass of Pluto-Charon.
The Brown-Batygin 2016 proposal has the unknown planet being around 8-10 t
Re: (Score:2)
(based on mass
Pluto-Charon fails.
Both are massive enough to have reached hydrostatic equilibrium, which is the threshold any definition that would be adopted requires.
and orbital inclination
Pluto-Charon fails.
Even the problematic IAU definition doesn't use it orbital inclination as a criterion. Nor should they - it has nothing to do with the inherent properties of the body in question.
Re: (Score:2)
Both are massive enough to have reached hydrostatic equilibrium, which is the threshold any definition that would be adopted requires.
Reread RockDoctor's post. You snipped the following: "but not large enough to have dynamic dominance of their orbital regions."
Pluto fails.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Planet X not clearing it's orbit disqualifying it:
Given that Brown-Batygin 2016 proposed planet is posited precisely because it has perturbed the orbits of ETNO's and Goblin is another addition to the list it looks like planet X _is_ clearing it's orbit, even if it may not have finished doing so. The IAU definition has some margin in it: Nobody is claiming that Earth should lose it's planetary status even though Rugyu & Earth cross orbits.
Re:You mean planet 10? (Score:5, Funny)
Although a planet, by definition of the *word*, is every body orbiting a star!
By that definition, even your momma is a planet.
Come to think about it, she too is by some other definitions, but that's beside the point.
How about we call it dwarf 5? (Score:2)
Pluto is the ninth, and like everything else that revolves around thr sun, planet.
How about we say Pluto is the largest dwarf planet and fifth dwarf planet from the Sun ?
ordered by distance from Sun:
1. Ceres (945 km diameter, 2.9773 AU aphelion)
2. 120347 Salacia (approximately 850 km diameter, 46.548 AU aphelion)
3. 2002 MS4 (726 km diameter, 47.740 AU aphelion)
4. 90482 Orcus (920 km diameter, 48.069 AU aphelion)
5. Pluto (2380 km diameter, 49 AU aphelion)
6. Haumea (816 km diameter, 51.483 AU aphelion)
7. Makemake (715 km diameter, 52.840 AU aphelion)
8. Eris (1160 km diameter, 97.651 AU aph
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know, the definition of a planet is not only being in orbit around a star, but also being large enough to form a sphere and large enough to clear its orbit. A minor planet is one that fails that last criteria. So it's my understanding that Pluto still falls under the category of planets, but is properly further defined as a minor planet.
I've seen some layman debate about whether a given body's ability to hold an atmosphere is relevant, but I don't think it is. Wh
Goblin? (Score:1)
My very erratic mother just served us goatse?
Works for me.
80 or 2300? (Score:2)
Its mean distance from the Sun is about 80 astronomical units (AU)
and
at the astounding distance of 2,300 AU
?
Re: 80 or 2300? (Score:1)
Both. Gets as close as 80 and as far as 2300. The orbit isn't exactly a circle.
Don't think so (Score:1)
When they stated 80 AU they also stated 300 km diameter of the body. When they stated 2300 AU they also stated "several times larger than Earth". Earth diameter is about 12740 km.
Re:Don't think so (Score:4, Informative)
You've misread. Goblin's not the one that's several times larger than Earth -- Goblin is the 300km one. The fact that Goblin's orbit is where it is, is more evidence pointing to an as-yet unobserved hypothetical planet further out, Planet Nine, that is several times larger than Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, thanks. That all makes sense now ... Heh, and reading the full article, I see the opening paragraph makes the two body point very clear at the outset. :D
Re: 80 or 2300? (Score:4, Interesting)
80 AU's is mentioned as the mean distance. NOT the minimum distance. If 80 AU's is the mean distance, and 2300 AU were aphelion (which is NOT what they said), the Goblin would have to have an orbit that pretty much brushed the Sun, took a few tens of thousands of loops around the Sun down near Mercury, followed by a close pass of Mercury that tossed it out toward Jupiter, then a close pass of Jupiter tossed it into the outer system to reach that 2300 AU level, then fall back to the Sun, close pass by Jupiter, another close pass by Mercury to keep it low for a few thousand years, lather, rinse, repeat.
Now, it's quite possible that they meant to write (and didn't, because they were idiots who didn't know what the words meant) that perihelion was 80 AU, and aphelion was 2300 AU.
Or someone cut & pasted from two articles to make this article. And one of the articles referred to one object, but the other referred to another....
Re: (Score:2)
Now, it's quite possible that they meant to write (and didn't, because they were idiots who didn't know what the words meant) that perihelion was 80 AU, and aphelion was 2300 AU
I wonder if this object is big enough to be the object that influences the variations in the earth precession?
Re: (Score:2)
80 to 2300? Are we sure we can call this a Dwarf Planet and not just a Huge Comet? I'm sure there is a typo in there somewhere. Or this planet got knocked out of orbit. I can't imagine it lasting from the creation of the solar system with such an eccentric orbit.
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously it isn't possible for all three of those numbers to be correct. Gizmodo got it wrong. From the Carnegie press release [carnegiescience.edu]: "... 201
Such a moron! (Score:2)
Here you go:
1. Mercury
2. Venus
3. Earth
4. Mars
5. Jupiter
6. Saturn
7. Uranus
8. Neptune
9. PLUTO
10. Planet X (X as is in the Roman numeral for 10).
Sorry for the Pedantry (Score:5, Insightful)
Just one bit of pedantry (sorry!). When the OP writes, "This is a clue to astronomers that something potentially big, i.e. a super-Earth, is pushing these objects into similar types of orbits.", the use of the term "super-Earth" prompted a non-technical friend of mine [who was reading the article over my shoulder] to ask, "So there's, like, an amazing Earth, way out in space, right on the edge of our solar system?"
Obviously I explained that in this context the phrase simply meant, "physically bigger than the Earth in size and/or mass" and that in reality, any planet orbiting beyond Pluto would be a barren world of rock and/or ice, to which the response was, "Well, why doesn't the article say that, then?"
Given the way that lots of content covered by slashdot gets picked up by the mainstream media, maybe we should try and avoid terms liable to confuse or be misunderstood by less technical readership?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Well, why doesn't the article say that, then?
These days "journalism" is more akin to marketing - complete with all the lying.
Re: (Score:1)
These days? Only these days?
Re: (Score:2)
Only these days?
Technically, ever since the TLA's took over the media under COINTELPRO's Operation Mockingbird... but it's gotten a lot worse, and a lot more obvious.
You're really expecting BeauHD to actually EDIT? (Score:1)
Are you really expecting BeauHD to EDIT?!?!!
Gotta wonder what planet you're on. ;-)
Just be glad TFS wasn't turned into some "Russia! Russia! Russia!" crap.
Re: (Score:1)
Super earth means rocky planet, not gas giant.
Re:Sorry for the Pedantry (Score:4, Interesting)
There is actually a possibility of life in a planet X (or even in Pluto), if it has an internal ocean heated by radioactive decay. So it might be a bit of a paradise after all, on the inside, for all we know.
Re: (Score:1)
It also shows up around super phone booths.
Re: (Score:2)
I dare you to tell Kal-El that to his face!
Re: (Score:2)
he use of the term "super-Earth" prompted a non-technical friend of mine [who was reading the article over my shoulder] to ask, "So there's, like, an amazing Earth, way out in space, right on the edge of our solar system?"
Should have told him it is the home of all the Super people, like Super Man and really fantastically dressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the problem is the science of astronomy itself, and their inability to come up with precise definitions that keep up with their scientific revelations.
For example, a quick googling for 'scientific definition of a star' gives me:
Star: A huge ball of gas held together by gravity. The central core of a star is extremely hot and produces energy. Some of this energy is released as visible light, which makes the star glow.
By that definition, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune are all technically stars - they ar
Re: (Score:2)
Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune don't have a hot core, they don't produce energy and they don't emit visible light.
So they contradict your definition. And are obviously not stars. To be a star Jupiter would need to be 10 times as heavy.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Sorry for the Pedantry (Score:2)
Super Earth includes all rocky planets that should have become gas giants but aren't. (About 1.2 Earth masses.) I'm not completely sure how much smaller than that it goes, but Earth doesn't become a Super Earth every time a meteor storm adds mass, so there is a range of masses that constitute Earth mass.
Dwarf or Moon? (Score:2)
While I'm aware research is still in its early phase --- are they suggesting that, should Planet X exist, that Goblin is actually a Moon?
I heard Goblin described as "at the very small end of a dwarf-planet." Are they suggesting it is a planet that was knocked out of orbit by X? Or is it technically orbiting X making it a moon?
Or do we need a different definition --- rocks that float in space?!
OOhhh -- I see the movie now. Super Earth X. Magical planet of mysterious inhabitants.
The sequel will be called
Re: Dwarf or Moon? (Score:2)
No, Goblin would not orbit the new planet, it orbits the sun, therefore it is not a moon. That it is gravitationally affected is irrelevant.
Goblin is not a planet (Score:3)
With a perihelion of 80, and an aphelion of 2300, Goblin is not a planet, its a comet.
Re: Goblin is not a planet (Score:2)
Depends. If you go by structure and intrinsics, it might well be a planet. If you go by extrinsics, it's a dwarf planet. The definition of a comet has nothing to do with the shape of the orbit.
From Outer Space (Score:2)
So you could say this is "Planet 9 from Outer Space"?
*rimshot* Thank you! I'll be here all week -- don't forget to tip your waitress!!
So I'm confused (Score:2)
Is it 80 AU away or 2,300 AU away?
Re: (Score:2)
Is it 80 AU away or 2,300 AU away?
Yes.
Re: So I'm confused (Score:2)
It has a very elongated orbit. At any given point in time, it is between those two distances. Even the Earth doesn't have a circular orbit, indeed nothing does.
Let's make things confusing (Score:3)
I suggest that we call planet 9 "Pluto". There is another object called "Pluto" but since it isn't a planet, it should be no problem, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest that we call planet 9 "Pluto". There is another object called "Pluto" but since it isn't a planet, it should be no problem, right?
Well, we'll have Pluto, and Planet Pluto, then. Or something.
Much like we have Washington State and Washington, D.C. Depending on where you're at (and sometimes the context of the conversation overrides this), Washington refers to either the State or D.C.
Since we've already got duplicate naming conventions totally figured out, and with all ambiguity removed, calling it Pluto shouldn't be a problem for anybody. You've got my vote!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Let's make things confusing (Score:2)
It's a planet. Some fools designate it a dwarf planet, but a dwarf planet is still a planet.
Planet X or Planet Ten? (Score:2)
If they made Pluto a planet again (planet #9), then Planet X would be Planet Ten. Or should that be iPlanet X?
Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy (Score:1)
Thank god it's not closer! (Score:2)
I would think the massive diameter of 300 km is enough to make sure of that. What kind of gravitational influence would an object like that have, even if it were to come close?