Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: MtnClimber

Still seems like a far out theory.


2 posted on 06/02/2016 7:40:59 AM PDT by MtnClimber (For photos of Colorado scenery and wildlife, click on my screen name for my FR home page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: MtnClimber

Nice Pun.

Actually if they could find it, it would explain behaviors we observe but haven’t figured out, like what and why objects are knocked out of the orc cloud on semi regular (if very long periods between) cycles.

Of course one would think if something was out there, its assumed someone would have seen it by now, but that is a long long way away, and there is no guarantee whatever it is, its orbit would be aligned with the other planets, so what angle do you look for it?

I will certainly yield to trained astrophysicists but I think the circumstantial evidence certainly seems to suggest something could be out there.


7 posted on 06/02/2016 7:46:38 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: MtnClimber

That is how they found Pluto.


28 posted on 06/02/2016 8:33:17 AM PDT by TexasGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: MtnClimber

I can’t figure out why they still refer to Planet 9 as hypothetical.

In addition to Pluto, there’s also Eris, 2007OR10, Makemake, Haumea, Quaoar, and Sedna. Truth is that when they demoted Pluto from planet status, they already knew of other planetoids, but didn’t let us know about them until after they demoted Pluto. I wonder whether it’s because they would have felt stupid that they had failed to recognize Eris as a Pluto-like object for decades while they were dismissing the Planet X (Planet 10).

If Pluto were classified as a planet, they were flat out wrong for decades. If Pluto isn’t a planet, these aren’t planets either.


29 posted on 06/02/2016 8:43:22 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: MtnClimber

Much simpler definition of a planet than the one currently in use:

Planet: Any object containing large amounts of “metals” that is massive enough that gravity forces it into a “round “shape (hydrostatic equilibrium).

List of planets:

Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
Earth
Venus
Mars
Mercury
Pluto
Eris

LIkewise, “moon” is a silly word to describe natural sattelites. Any pebble in outer space will orbit any boulder. We will find thousands of “natural sattelites” in this solar system alone. The Moon is one million times larger than any other moon around any of the inner planets!

“Moon” should be used to describe any object that would be a planet, but which is in orbit around another planet.

Such Moons:

Ganymede (Jupiter III)
Titan (Saturn VI)
Calisto (Jupter IV)
Io (Jupiter I)
Luna (Earth I)
Europa (Jupiter II)
Triton (Neptune I)

Triton is seven times more massive than Oberon, the most massive sattelite that does NOT fit this definition.


32 posted on 06/02/2016 8:59:29 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: MtnClimber

It’s visits to our solar system is documented in many ancient historical records.


41 posted on 06/02/2016 12:46:39 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson