Posted on 04/27/2026 4:45:13 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
While the world hunts for the elusive Planet Nine, a new gravitational anomaly suggests something much closer is hiding in the dark. This gravitational warp doesn't align with a far-off gas giant, instead, the math points to an Earth-sized rocky planet lurking in the twilight.
Something astronomers are calling Planet Y. Did the Sun Pull a Rogue Planet into the Solar System? | 9:53
Territory | 92.6K subscribers | 95,808 views | April 27, 2026
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
So THAT’S where O’Bozo came from! 😲😲😲😲🤔
It is rich in detail, but sadly, far too little mathematics or equations. The interesting thing is that contemporary American astronomers accepted the discovery with a shrug. The mathematical technique daunting, and laborious, but the result more a matter of luck than inspiration. Both Le Verrier and Adams had assumed that the unseen planet's orbit would conform to the completely spurious "Bode's Law", and in doing had to impose a great deal of eccentricity on the resulting hypothetical orbit, and attribute far more mass to hypothetical planet than Neptune actually has.
Cool.. anytime some idiot brings up climate change I can say it’s because of the new planet the sun captured altering our orbit.
Is it asking for reparations?
😁
Yup.
"To Pluto And Far Beyond" By David H. Levy, Parade, January 15, 2006 -- We don't have a dictionary definition yet that includes all the contingencies. In the wake of the new discovery, however, the International Astronomical Union has set up a group to develop a workable definition of planet. For our part, in consultation with several experienced planetary astronomers, Parade offers this definition: A planet is a body large enough that, when it formed, it condensed under its own gravity to be shaped like a sphere. It orbits a star directly and is not a moon of another planet. The Nine Planets search results
By contrast, Nibiru will never be found, because it never existed.
They’re already voting D.
I think you said she made you sleep on the couch after that purchase. 😁
Since the perturbance to those orbits was for a short time (assuming that the observations should just be thrown out, as some claim), if there’s another larger body, it’s probably well out of the ecliptic. And dark.
I prefer to refer to it as “Bode’s Mnemonic”, btw.
Whoops, “should *not* just be thrown out”
It’s name is Pluto.
or not!
As far as Bode’s Law goes, it is easily demonstrated that any sequence of seven numbers can be fit to an integer rule like Bode’s if you allow the amount of tolerance necessary to make Bode’s “rule” work. Tricks like Bode’s law have absolutely no theoretical basis, nor any predictive power, as demonstrated by the discovery of Neptune.
I was not banished to the couch, but I never fessed up to what I paid for it either.
I am not sure which observations you are claiming should be thrown. There was some controversy about one anomalous observation of Uranus (no puerile humor please), and for the book cited, at Sheehan’s urging a French graduate student checked the actual pen and ink records in the archives, and apparently the anomalous observation was a transcription error owing to poor penmanship in the original. The effect is amplified for modern scholars by the character of 18th Century French calligraphy.
In order to nail down the orbit of the perturbing body, the astronomers needed to determine seven parameters, the six orbital elements of the perturber and its mass. By assuming that the orbital inclination was zero (in the ecliptic) and the semimajor axis (orbital radius) conformed to Bode’s law, the number of parameters was reduced to five, greatly reducing the computational effort. Unfortunately, since Bode’s law gave the wrong orbital radius, the resulting eccentricity was greatly exaggerated. Causing the Americans to shrug. The real advantage that Le Verrier had was that he sent his prediction to the Berlin Observatory, and they had the only accurate and detailed charts of the patch of sky where Neptune was, so it was quickly uncovered. It was more a matter of luck. The Celestial Police had been organized to track down the missing planets, and the Berlin observatory had been assigned the patch where Neptune showed up. The charts had been prepared for just such a search. Had Neptune been elsewhere, or Berlin assigned a different patch, it would have been a different story.
I’m not claiming they should be thrown. A professional astronomer said that the observations were an outlier and should be regarded as erroneous. Sorry, that’s all I remember. If memory serves, he claimed that the possibility of an undiscovered large planet out there was a psychological one rather than astronomical. Anyway, thanks! Smart move not fessin’ up, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
