Talk:Planet Nine/Archive 2

1670:

and how to convey variation- a question mark per orbit appearing before being replaced?) I'm not worried about the Kuiper Belt vs Neptune. At the scale of the orbit of these things they would be indistinguishable on the inside edge though maybe check the outer edge of the belt vs the perihelions of the various extreme TNOs and inner Oort objects(Sedna and VP113). I'd also be careful that the aphelion and perihelion of PN aren't the only variations - eccentricity and orientation in space should vary. And no single orbit should stick in the mind if it can be helped so maybe end in a blur??. It might even be interesting if the animated gif could wander view angles but not too much to get people lost. Another important issue coming to mind is that the north celestial pole, the orientation perpendicular to the ecliptic, isn't the actual preferred direction to get the "face on" view of the orbits of extreme TNOs and PN - so orient specifically based on the average inclination projected for PN please. Otherwise perspective issues could make things odder than they'd have to be. A very strong point in the predictions is that PN is herding the extreme TNOS in about the same plane to one set and perpendicular to another set (alas see section below, we've not been able to determine what set that really is save one member.) All that I'm sure would be a lot of work, but it would be an improvement for sure!--

6112:

also reached in a DPS presentation by Meg Schwamb this fall). After spending much of the introduction politely explaining why the T&S hypothesis is unlikely to be tue, we reach the key line in our paper: "the stable objects cluster not around ω = 0 but rather around ω = 318° ± 8°, grossly inconsistent with the value predicted from by the Kozai mechanism." We do not dwell on this point in the paper, because it is instantly clear what it means: there is no planet causing Lidov-Kozai librations about zero, because the argument of perihelion is not even clustered around zero. Having shown that it cannot work, we then completely discard the T&S hypothesis and search for a new one. Again, from the paper, "Much like confinement in ω, orbital alignment in physical space is difficult to explain because of differential precession. In contrast to clustering in ω, however, orbital confinement in physical space cannot be maintained by either the Kozai effect or the inclination instability. This physical alignment requires a new explanation."

1611:. Second your observation that the size of PN's orbit has been enlarged - first of all the B&B website with RA/Dec clearly shows that there are a range of orbits and in fact the overall depth of the orbit to aphelion (relative to Sedna) should be near to or father than Sedna in most estimates while the Caltech one seems clearly shorter. I don't know for sure but it could conceivably be a orientation issue making it look shorter than Sedna's but I don't think so. … I've come to the conclusion that the flipped image isn't using the Caltech animation for the star background - it is indeed made up probably. However, on the basis that the PN aphelion is shorter than Sedna's in the Caltech video and the picture you created based on it - I have serious qualms it is the right picture to use. Yes the orientation is flipped and the stars fictitious but I believe it does a better job representing the orbits than the released Caltech video and the picture following it closely. Now if someone were to combine all the best qualities…. -- 3419:

2010 included predictions of a close match to P9 by size and distance and maybe eccentricity - info not at my finger tips. Then after B&B's article Iorio came out with a pre-print using the B&B predicted specifics on Iorio's data set about the precession of Saturn's perihelia and narrowed the prediction of B&B's planet. But it's a pre-print of someone with many papers and most of this analysis of the precessing perihelia was in another whole context (modified gravity) which had the air of a non-mainstream focus which then drew the ire of folks between partially reliable publications and non-mainstream ideas even though to my reading Iorio was arguing against modified gravity and for a P9-class object by mass and distance at least. But it seemed all too complicated in a wikipedia context. Perhaps B&B and Iorio are talking it out. --

748:? I have a degree in engineering and even I find in rather dense. Most of the terms as used here are meaningless without the proper context and there is probably not enough information to reconstruct the simulation. I seems rather unencyclopedic in that it really does nothing to clarify or clearly explain anything for the average reader. I understand that there are many examples of higher math in Knowledge that the average ready may not understand, but at least the attempt is made that if someone with the background were to try to follow it, there is complete enough information to reach a conclusion. This certainly does not do that. This paragraph should be either summarized in a couple of short sentences or else deleted completely. It also appears that it may be a copy/paste from somewhere which would make it a potential copyvio. 3257:(2010 version of the 2011 paper pointed to above) satisfy your threshold or not? My point is NOT to draw attention to modified gravity or dark matter or relativistic corrections, but to a prediction well published among a set of ideas and then on the basis the paper saying that the other proposed ideas don't work by Yamada and Asada, allowing the preprint paper narrowing the location on PN. If you follow the well published material it goes like this: a separate observation of an anomaly (rather than extreme TNO perihelions) leading to a possible prediction, followed by argument against alternative ideas that don't need to be detailed, then using the PN proposal to against this prediction to narrow down the placement of PN. -- 4506:

perturbing stars29. This cannot explain the v ~ 0u trend today, because v circulates owing to the presence of the giant planets. By numerically simulating the effect of the known mass in the Solar System on the inner Oort cloud objects, we confirmed that inner Oort cloud objects should have random v (Methods). This suggests that a massive outer Solar System perturber may exist and restricts v for the inner Oort cloud objects. We numerically simulated the effect of a super-Earth-mass body at 250 AU and found that v for inner Oort cloud objects librated around 0u 6 ± 60u for billions of years (see Extended Data Figs 2 and 3). This configuration is not unique and there are many possibilities for such an unseen perturber.

120:

They proposed a "single body of 2–15 Earth masses in a circular low inclination orbit between 200 AU and 300 AU" to explain the pattern. It was not the only way to create the clustering of the orbital orientations. Brown and Batygin then analyzed six extreme trans-Neptunian objects in a stable configuration of orbits mostly outside the Kuiper belt (namely Sedna, 2012 VP113, 2007 TG422, 2004 VN112, 2013 RF98, 2010 GB174), A closer look at the data showed that these six objects trace out elliptical orbits that point into approximately the same direction in physical space, and lie in approximately the same plane. They found that this would only occur with 0.007% probability by chance alone.

2651:

Right now I don't see an inherently reason to only decide things are bad here and his papers should be ignored. I've not DECIDED for myself things are ok, but so far in actual publishing of papers he has been referenced by other researchers and in seemingly responsible ways, and in other articles, in seemingly responsible ways. I'm waiting to hear more. I think the whole issue of the names proposed is noise in this review. Clearly there are vested pov in lots of things, not least by B&B calling it "Planet Nine". I think for the purposes of this review on the saliency of this researcher that that issue be just ignored and not brought in in favor or against anything. --

5358: 1506: 3779: 1718: 4946: 6124:"The strongest argument for the existence of Planet Nine was published in 2014, by astronomers Scott Sheppard of the Carnegie Institution of Science and Chad Trujillo of Hawaii's Gemini Observatory, who suggested the similar orbits of certain objects such as sednoids might be influenced by a massive unknown planet at the edge of the Solar System. Their findings suggest that a super-Earth of about two to 15 Earth masses beyond 200 AU with a highly inclined orbit at 1500 AU could shepherd the extreme trans-Neptunian objects into similar orbits." 5872:

them in space because of the affect of P9 (like they are in approximately in the same plane as well as orientation in space.) Then there is these objects clustered by high inclination and highly eccentric orbits that reach into the hundreds of AUs but who's perihelions can be well in the region of giant planets. This group we're talking about. There is some clustering of some of the parameters of their orbits, not just arguments of perihelion. There is also a looser group less stable, more suggestive of an affect, less easily characterized. --

3111:

gaseous giant would be at approximately 1 kau".(cite 2011 paper above.) In a pre-print paper submitted a few days after Brown and Batygin's paper was published, Iorio analyzed the predicted planet's effect on the perihelion precesion of Saturn. The result restricts the predicted planet's current position (mostly) towards an aphelion direction of 150−200° and distance of 930–1027 AU, and that future analysis of Saturn's perihelion could further narrow down the orbital parameters of Planet Nine.(original cite for that part.)

1711: 1704: 1053: 6462:

seen. We showed that and also found that it was the other, previously unnoticed orbital alignment that was, in fact significant. Our computer simulations were undertaken to understand this previously unknown alignment. Sorry for what sounds like nit picking, but as someone very interested in the process of science and having it explained correctly, I would love to have it told right here. Again, I would point you to the actual paper, which is pretty clear on this, I think. -- Mike Brown, 5 February 2015

3739:

painless. Once logged in your browser will hold a cookie for 30 days (presuming you checked the box) and it will be easy to stay "logged in" and then at the end of comments just add --~~~~ at the end manually or the editor box has a "signature" button that depends on the view you use and it will pop all the details in once you save the addition. And once you have an account you can then have individual comments like this one on your "talk" page. If you choose to go that route. Thanks for commenting.--

6633:"unclear why the Kozai mechanism requires an absolute angle of 0° or 180°" The argument of perihelion (ω) is the angle between the ascending node (Ω) and longitude of perihelion (omega bar) which is also known as longitude of periapsis. We can determine the position of the ascending node and longitude of perihelion (the position of perihelion) of the objects from their orbits and calculate their arguments of perihelion. There is no need to know the orbit of Planet Nine to make this determination. 31: 6341:

perhaps something else might work, but this is purely speculation. It was important speculation, and it helped lead to the correct answer, but it was just speculation. Sort of like noticing that an apple falls from a tree and thinking that it means there are goblins pushing it but then noticing that the goblin theory can't explain much and speculating that maybe some other force is involved. Ok. That's not a great analogy. But you get the point, I think. -- Mike Brown, 5 February 2016

6133:

figure out how a planet would really cause the effects they were seeing. The closest historical analogy is to Anders Johan Lexell in 1781 calculating the orbit of Uranus for the first time and realizing that there must be a planet out there perturbing it. But he certainly didn't know how to calculate its orbit or its mass or anything else about it. That took until 1846 when le Verrier and/or Adams figured out the math and the physics to make it work.

1046: 1368: 6976:

mentioned by that name. Instead what is written is something like 'for simulations with the planetesimal disk more than 2 AU beyond the outer planet we shifted the inner ice giant 180 degrees around its orbit to trigger the instability' which means they approximated Nice-2 to same computer time. A couple of years ago it was shown to reduce the impacts on the inner satellites of Saturn enough to prevent all of their ice from being vaporized

6284:

assuming a certain pattern of purtubers?)? As I read it, it is a 3 body perturbation and it seems to me that some angle must come out the calculation but not why a particular orientation in the solar system must fall out of it or why it would be strongest in the early solar system and not later. Yes - I think the T&S paper has an qualified relationship with the Kozai affect. On the one hand they say

4392:

one case and or that of celestial orientation in the other or does it just fall out assuming a certain pattern of purtubers?)? As I read it, it is a 3 body perturbation and it seems to me that some angle must come out the calculation but not why a particular orientation in the solar system must fall out of it or why it would be strongest in the early solar system and not later." above mid-bottom of

6296:

cloud objects 2012 VP113 and Sedna routinely librated with an amplitude of about ±60° around ω = 0° for billions of years. The librating behaviour of ω for 2012 VP113 with an additional body of 5 Earth masses at 210 AU is illustrated in Extended Data Fig. 3, where 2012 VP113 spends only 3% of its time in the 90° < ω < 270° region. Sedna spent 1% of its time in this region.

5843:

Jupiter if you count among the original 5 with similar arguments-of-perihelion and very high semi-major axes.) But yes these are not stable long term orbits and will change - but P9 will pick out other objects in KB/TNO population and push them into such configurations as these. This is along the times of pumping objects into the (inner relative to it) Solar system on average. --

2960:

have edited the page instaed of its content. Perhaps, it would be better to inspect the rules set for notability in the scientific field and the actual content. I also think that such decisions should not be taken by people who are not of the same field: it would be better to involve in the discussion other physicists/astronomers/astrophysicists. What do you think? Regards.

3535:.4 Neptune's. But that too seems to me to be too precise. So "about half" seems right to me. The point is in the context of excluding Neptune sized objects from 700 AU this is "under the radar" so to speak. The previous work excluding larger objects doesn't exclude smaller-than-Neptune, as in "about half". Is there a strong argument to be more precise than "about half"?? -- 2646:

My presentation of the facts is that there seem to be legitimate comments from other researchers using his work. And his approach is not automatically that the modified theories of gravity are right - indeed his main paper cited here goes the other direction, proposing more restraints on PN in the arena his work has been focused on. This is not far from how the

6323:

prospects." While the affect may be different(?) the predictions have an overlap. Does this mean they are DIFFERENT THEORIES? I don't see the B&B article proposing a different mechanism as much as a broader use of perturbations that by its nature must include the Kozai affect? Am I reading this right? Does that still mean they are different theories?--

4509:(note in this copy and paste the argument of perihelion parameter normally shows "ω" as a "v", and "°" as "u" I've been correcting this in my pastings here on the talk page but I'm getting tired of doing so over and over again. I don't know how S&T derived 0° for ω - is it an accident it coincides with the direction applied by the galactic tide?!?!-- 310:"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." 2149:, by Christopher Crockett Date 2 MAR 2015 DOI: 10.1002/scin.2014.186011021, Science News, Volume 186, Issue 11, pages 18–21, 29 November 2014 - The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope in Chile designed with a large field of view will make a 10-year-long movie of the night sky starting in 2023 looking for extreme TNOS and inner Oort cloud objects. -- 5134:. Care to tweak any orbital characteristics that bring it to five?? I did notice the argument of perihelion angle above 40° leaves only 5 but I don't see that required in this set from B&B. I also noticed you could restrict the ascending node Ω to be above 120° and get five but again no justification for that in the paper coming to mind.-- 5112:

be sure. I really wish the original paper had been far more explicit about some things - feels like they didn't want to be too public with the info in case too many contenders in searches wanted to give it a go and instead just wanted the publicity to help their cause of funding the prediction search. But then I'm being pessimistic (sigh).--

1876:- background interview, development of the paper, cultural context? (starts around 19 min into the recording, is it possible to bookmark the cast to then?) BTW I think Batygin said there was a 2/3rds chance they'd find it in 2016 (58:22-5 into the interview) - perhaps mapping the near-aphelion region first where it spends more time. 4535:

closest to the planet. For the objects to be librating around 0° and not 180° requires something else to happen, one example I've seen has the initial population being captured on their orbits by a passing star, this creates a one sided population which is kept in line by Planet Nine. I'll see if I can relocate the reference.

4555:. Also note the 1:1 ratio(of semi-major Axis) between perturber & perturbed. This requires multiple perturbers for groups of perturbed at different distances. The same point used by B&B to dismiss this mechanism in their paper as it is unlikely to have multiple planets to hold together all these kuiper belt objects 272:

publishes. One of the other frequent researchers on this (I(something) is looking at Saturn and believes he'll eventually be able to tease out an affect because of the long history we have on Saturn's position and the Cassini craft helping to pin point more specifically - but as of now he can't say he's found an affect. --

6288:"The Lidov–Kozai effect is the best known dynamical mechanism for constraining the ω of a minor planet. This three-body interaction can create outer Oort cloud objects with ω preferentially near 0° and 180° early in the history of the Solar System when the Sun was still among its nascent cohort of perturbing stars. 4296:"Another possible Kozai scenario is found when the ratio of semimajor axes (perturbed versus perturber) is close to one. In that case, the libration occurs at ω = 0° and 180°; therefore, the nodes are located at perihelion and at aphelion, i.e. away from the massive perturber (see e.g. Milani et al. 1989)." 3690:

vague, and there may be readers who want a more precise comparison with Neptune. The range of a factor of two centered around 0.78 is not easy to grasp in a single rough approximation. I'd prefer explicit ranges, for the comparison with Earth as well as with Neptune. Let's wait for others to weigh in.

6769:

And if it reaches 90° the perihelion occurs at the same time as it reaches the highest point above the plane of the planets orbit, and the reverse for aphelion. Then the path it follows relative to the orbit would be a line through the orbit. So if I have this right the argument of perihelion defines

6360:

however per below then I see "Finally, the Hamiltonian (4) does not account for possibly relevant resonant (and/or short-periodic) interactions with the perturber. Accordingly, the obtained results beg to be re-evaluated within the framework of a more comprehensive model." bottom of page 4 - and then

5871:

I think the answer is no - it isn't about them clustered around their arguments of perihelion for these high inclination objects. It's more complicated than that. There is a set of 5 extreme TNOs and inner Oort Cloud objects that have clustered perihelions and other affects that very strictly confine

4391:

I don't know why it is 0° - I said much the same thing "How does the Kozai mechanism itself force a result of 0° or 180° (and if it must shouldn't the wikipedia article say so instead of 90° and 270° - I think, don't know but I think, this angle is measured relative to the outer purturber at least in

4057:

150 au, respectively), inclination with respect to the ecliptic (i =10° –30° ), and the argument of perihelion (ω = 340° ± 55° ). Currently 13 such objects have been observed in the outer Solar system and it was suggested that their character- istics resulted from a common origin (de la Fuente Marcos

3782:

Here's a qualitative example of its potential parallax motion near 1000au distance, with the earth's revolution motion, varying ~ ±4 arc minutes east/west over 1 year. At a 20,000 year period, its revolutionary motion eastward would be about 1'/year on average, but more like 20"/year near aphelion as

3689:

The aphelion is 1200 AU, so even if it is larger than Neptune, that wouldn't contradict the WISE result (if the planet is currently beyond 700 AU). I see where you're coming from when you mainly want a rough comparison to Neptune. But 'about more than half that of Neptune' (current version) is pretty

3659:

It's not trivial to phrase it well. First of all, I'd use two sentences. Maybe: 'The planet is estimated to have 10 times the mass of Earth, or just over half the mass of Neptune. Planet Nine has an estimated diameter of two to four times the diameter of Earth, or about 0.5 to 1 times the diameter of

3110:

spacecraft.(citing all above.) Speculation as to the cause included that of an undiscovered planet and other approaches have not succeeded in explaining the observations; in particular Lorenzo Iorio speculated "rock-ice planets of the size of Mars and the Earth … at about 80-150 au, … a Jupiter-sized

2740:

In full disclosure, it could be that it's only one of them doing the majority of the mud-slinging and grossly unprofessional behaviour, and I'm just mixing the two because their dispute is so convoluted and spans so many years and forums. But I wouldn't trust anything either say about the other. They

2736:

Iorio is a very peculiar case. AFAICT, he's a notable person. He's just one with a downright hatred of Ciufolini, and the hatred seems mutual. Their dispute/feud has spilled over peer reviewed articles, blogs, forums, popular press, and their own Knowledge articles, and involves anonymous harassment,

2645:

I understand the concern. Admins could indeed mass check a variety of articles how things happened. It would be fine with me if someone were to attract an admin and help us settle the matter. Not sure exactly where such things are reported - I'd favor seeking out the admin(s) that killed his article.

1669:

Well most of the published references to the distance of aphelion suggest larger than Sedna. Additionally it is clear there is a range of orbits so emphasizing only one pov on the orbit would be misleading - so perhaps an animated gif showing many possible orbits (tough to do without hard parameters

611:

Why do you even "go to" "pathetic"? There is a strong judgmental attitude in language like that. Things don't have to be black and white. As the quote on whether one object not following the pattern would break the prediction. This is why I wanted qualified language in the sentence. One qualification

271:

150AU statement in originally - the other paper included them originally and so had a farther reach. They entertained multiple causes including a planet out there. B&B narrowed the focus to only the extreme TNOs and inner Oort objects. Right now we can't more about the other objects until someone

7219:

Do we have to say that it also isn't every other hypothetical planet beyond Neptune ever proposed? Look, I get it (kinda); Planet X is an overused term and is confused in the media. But that doesn't mean we have to give it prominence in this article. Or if we do, we should at least connect it to our

6738:

Try looking at it this way, when viewed from the planet, Trujillo and Sheppard's Kozai resonance with an argument of perihelion of 0° makes the path of the object appears to be spiraling around the path of the planet's orbit, keeping it from getting too close. This works when the eccentricity of the

6409:

Yeah I picked up on that now on page 6 of B&B paper on left - "phase protection mechanism…Accordingly, we hypothesize that the new features observed within the numerically computed phase-space portraits arise due to resonant coupling with the perturber, and the narrowness of the stable region is

6283:

itself force a result of 0° or 180° (and if it must shouldn't the wikipedia article say so instead of 90° and 270° - I think, don't know but I think, this angle is measured relative to the outer purturber at least in one case and or that of celestial orientation in the other or does it just fall out

6111:

The wiki article seriously misunderstands the relationship between the planetary hypothesis proposed by Trujillo and Sheppard in 2014 with the one we recently proposed. In fact, the first two sections of our paper demonstrate clearly that the T&S hypothesized planet **cannot work** (a conclusion

6050:

If an object falls back into the Kuiper belt it should remain under P9's influence until it comes under Neptune's influence, then Neptune might remove it from P9's influence giving it an orbit like many scattered disk objects. In its current orbit 2004_XR190 is not under eithers influence so I doubt

5233:

Except we have no reason to say they are that specific combination of orbital characteristics. We have orthogonal to the initial set, (which doesn't fit that five set) not simply greater than 40°, and we have high aphelions from the graphs, and nothing about their perihelions. And Drac can come in a

5111:

I saw that long arc too and wondered but I also didn't know how much perspective could come into play. So far I've not seen any specific list or been able to generate a super-imposed view of orbits. Might take Celestial software and some serious work trying to recreate the layout and even then can't

4332:

the point is that T&S included 12 elongated objects but 6 of the inner objects had zero not because of new planet but because of existing planet Neptune. So once you remove these inner 6 aligned at 0 the outer six bunch at 318+-8. B&B thus could rule out a new planet only for inner 6 objects

3738:

Hi Mike, and like others, I share a big "welcome". It's an honor to have you among us trying to make articles better in wikipedia. Normally you should create an account and use that identity as the basis of posting. So look for that "login" option on the top right and go from there. Fairly quick and

3674:

Well aside from my stupid math error in my head I don't think this deserves so much discussion. Without getting in to synthesis the idea is that it fits within the exclusion of a neptune sized object at 700AU - smaller is ok as is that size and father (and the aphelion is ~~1200AU). The problem with

2650:

issue went in that a measured anomaly attracted various views and settled on a solution. The details of the Saturn's perihelion might fit a variety of ideas like modified gravity or not. And his latest paper supports PN as an alternative (though modified gravity is mentioned right in the last line.)

2540:

As one of the editors who has included his papers I'll say that I relied in the validity of the source of publication (peer reviewed or not is NOT the standard in wikipedia.) I didn't review if he was at best an obscure author and certainly didn't know there was a sock puppet war going on. I think a

2417:

Has it cleared peer review, or is it in process? Given the history of spamming, COI we need to be extra careful. The history is relevant to make sure we aren't being duped. As an admin I can see that the Loenzo article has been deleted 8 times, but keeps getting re-created out of process. This is

119:

Trujillo and Shepherd analyzed the orbits of trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs), those with perihelion greater than 30 AU and a semi-major axis greater than 150 AU, and found they had a cluster of orbital characteristics, particularly the argument of perihelion, which describes orbits oriented in space.

7066:

I see Nice 2 as the preliminary steps to the instability, and the Grand Tack as a specific migration that ends with the planets in resonance. So it appears to me that we are left with the Grand Tack, followed by Nice 2 with either four or five planets, more likely five in my view. At least for now,

6709:

And if I try to visualize this with larger eccentricities I believe if the eccentricity of the planet is large there needs to be either alignment of the longitudes of perihelion like the secular mechanism described in B&B (for which there area as yet no objects found) or anti-alignment like the

6295:

and later say "To test the massive perturber hypothesis as a source in constraining ω, we ran several simulations with a single body of 2–15 Earth masses in a circular low inclination orbit between 200 AU and 300 AU using the Mercury integrator. In general it was found that the ω for the inner Oort

6107:

I was curious what wikipedia would make of Planet Nine, so I was perusing the article this afternoon and I found a pretty major misunderstanding pervading the article. My statements are going to sound self-serving, because they probably are or I wouldn't bother writing, but I will back them up with

5248:

I stand corrected - I think the listing should point out the two parameters from the text and the physical list of perihelia from the points on the graph. But it is odd to me that they would stress the five or orthogonal (perpendicular) to the initial set in various descriptions but then not in the

5200:

There are eight in the paper with unstable orbits and semi-major axes greater than 150 AU. The 5 high inclination objects in figure 9 of the paper have perihelia of 6.3, 8.5, 9.4, 11.1, and 14 AU and semi-major axes of 323, 348, 484, 1213, 1404 AU frome the JPL small bodies database these appear to

4530:

Another possible Kozai scenario is found when the ratio of semimajor axes (perturbed versus perturber) is close to one. In that case, the libration occurs at ω = 0° and 180°; therefore, the nodes are located at perihelion and at aphelion, i.e. away from the massive perturber (see e.g. Milani et al.

4505:

The Lidov–Kozai effect is the best known dynamical mechanism for constraining the v of a minor planet28. This three-body interaction can create outer Oort cloud objects with v preferentially near 0u and 180u early in the history of the Solar System when the Sun was still among its nascent cohort of

4352:

B&B also that outer 6 were all approximately orbiting in same plane (ecliptic=30 & argument of perihelion =318+-8). This was a new observation on top of the earlier observation that the perihelia are bunched together. This indicated that there was an undetected perturbed/planet out there on

3534:

is 3.8 Earths (polar or equatorial) So Neptune is 7.6 Earth diameters. So 2/7.6=0.26 and 4/7.6=.52. No way PN is "1 Neptune" diameter. Rounding back you could argue for .3 to .5 Neptune's but to me that implies more precision than we have. If you want some kind of strict middle ground you could say

3377:

I'm aware of all of that. I thought I had covered the objections pretty well. I tried at least. The whole idea was that all those other (arg, common, witchcraft?) explanations appeared to be being excluded just as the pre-B&B work had other explanations (notably the less extreme TNOS could have

3243:

Even a blind cat catches some mice. There's no value in crank papers even if the prediction is right by dumb luck. We are not here to write about fringe theories. At this point there's no reliable source connecting Saturns orbit to this particular theory of Planet X. You can add above material to

2959:

Thanks. Actually, I think that the spat between my relative and the other italian physicist may have somewhat disguised the issue of the notability of the page on my relative. I am not sure it is relevant in this context. I also think that too much attention may have been given on who have or could

1484:

Actually, this image seems to have a few errors. While comparing different images from the 'net I noticed that the orbit of Planet Nine is much larger here compared to the Caltech video, but worse than that it appears to have been flipped. The Caltech video clearly shows a normal 'top down' view of

313:

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

6913:

No, I think it stands as it's own prediction/finding, just that it was published so far on their blog (though I expect it'll be in the forthcoming paper too.) Perhaps something along the lines of "While the original paper mentions Drac, it was B&B's professional blog findingplanetnine.com that

6565:

To be able to discount the Kozai mechanism based on a required angle that does not fit the data, the angle has to be absolute, not relative to the planet. After all, the planet's orbit is unknown, and therefore the planet's argument is a priori undetermined. Hence, if relative, any angle could fit

6461:

I still find the phrasing the our computer simulations, "originally developed to refute the existence of a trans-Neptunian planet, instead provided further evidence for one" awkward. Our **analysis** set out to show that a planet could not induce Kozai oscillations to cause the effects T&S had

6322:

Out of this I do get that the two teams used different approaches to perturbation to cause alignments or orbits - but not so much that the predictions are highly distinct. T&S certainly said highly inclined Neptune class objects at 1500 AU "suggests some interesting potential future simulation

5343:

Of the 16 objects listed in the JPL small bodies database 2003 SS422 with an argument of perihelion of 210 is definitely not plotted in Fig 1 of B&B, its observation arc is listed as 76 days, and its semi-major axis is 194 +/- 48 AU. The other one missing appears be 2015 SO20, it may have been

4980:

Fine, my point is that Drac is specifically mentioned in B&B's paper: "Gladman et al. (2009) suggested that the presence of highly inclined KBOs, such as Drac, point to a more extensive reservoir of such bodies within the Kuiper Belt." - This Gladman article is "Gladman B., Kavelaars J., Petit

4882:

Meaning they speculate that higher mass than 10 m⊕ by a few factors would work around semimajor 700 au and eccentricity 0.6 - so "of a few" could be 2 or 3 which jumps directly into full Neptune mass range or higher. Yes? This would be still way below Saturn-mass excluded to much further distances

4266:

B&B's paper calls the 0° argument of perihelion grossly out of alignment from the 318° they derived from the set of objects filters from being affected by Neptune. The ~0° direction is derived from the mathematical analysis of the Kozai mechanism and the 318° direction is derived from the mean

4180:

I agree, it is just that S&T and M&M started with the broader set of 13 objects (the M&M named Sednitos) that B&B filtered down to 6 and then added 5 highly inclined objects that can have lower perihelions than the 6 but still have large a, ( at least until they have a close enough

3511:

Yes, 'half' is clearly wrong there. If '2-4 Earth diameters' is all the information we have on Planet Nine's dimension, it is acceptable to add something like '0.5-1 Neptune diameters'. Such a simple conversion wouldn't be OR, and no citation would be needed. Maybe 'about half that of Neptune' was

3418:

Agreed on reliable sources. That was the point but it became tied up with the fact that there is noise in the system of papers. Then the standard rose to refereed papers and there was even more noise vs signal trying to figure out if there were actually refereed papers. Such papers as existed from

3365:

The issue with gravitational anomalies is that there are many possible explanations -- MOND, undiscovered plants, dwarfs, dark matter, witchcraft. It takes some extraordinary research efforts to show anything well enough to get it published in a real journal. Otherwise, there are a lot of cranks

125:

Second note that the "citation" of minorplanetcent.net is not a citation at all - it's a list of such bodies and says nothing whatsoever about B&B's analysis saying they are all supporting the prediction of a planet. To site it you need an actual citation of the statement. The gist of it is in

6694:

I think I have the reason now, the object Trujillo and Sheppard were predicting was to be on a circular orbit. So where its argument of perihelion is has no effect. Their version of the Kozai mechanism with the 0° or 180° depends on the objects having perihelia inside the added planet and aphelia

6340:

Yes, these are entirely different theories. The objects in the aligned cluster (and the ones investigated by T&S) are not aligned by the Kozai mechanism AT ALL. The simulations by T&S do not reproduce their own observations AT ALL. Because their simulations don't work, they speculate that

6132:

When I discuss this in the press, for example, I try very hard to give them the appropriate credit, which is that they were the first to really show hints that there were things in the outer solar system that needed explaining, and they even speculated that it might be a planet. But they couldn't

5842:

Agreed. So this was a prediction-turned-evidence B&B ran into during the development of their paper. If I read the paper and various summaries the idea is that such orbits were derived from a Kuiper Belt/TNO that was perturbed by P9 - some cross into the solar system quite far (almost down to

3177:

Most of these are NOT preprints and many of these are NOT from Iorio. Only the last one is a pre-print I think. Please read through this carefully. The quoted prediction in the middle is NOT from a pre-print. I think this is a case, similar to the pioneer anomaly, where a variance in the observed

7108:

Perhaps a summary form of this should be posted to findplanetnine.com and leveraged in place that the P9 hypothesis was crucially evolved by explaining Sedna and (x) couldn't get out that far if the perihelion was so far away from the big planets but P9 itself suffers from the same problem. Then

6661:

The Kozai mechanism Trujillo and Sheppard are using for their hypothesis depends on the arguments of perihelion of the objects only. It is independent of the argument of perihelion of Planet Nine. The mechanism of B&B is different in that it predicts an alignment of both the longitude of the

6119:

What IS true is that T&S were the first to show that there was clustering and that something needed to be explained. They even speculated that it might be a planet, but they provided no evidence that a planet could do what they wanted it to do (because it couldn't). In the wiki article, that

5914:

The biggest difference would be perihelion currently inside of Jupiter (q<5) so the orbit would be very chaotic even over the short term (100 thousand years instead of 10 million years). Hale-Bopp also no longer has a semi-major axis greater than 250AU. The last perihelion passage dropped the

4534:

In the better known scenario the perturber is in an external or internal orbit (Jupiter for the asteroid belt or Neptune for the Kuiper belt) and the libration is about 90° or 270°. Then the object is at its greatest distance for the plane of the planet when it is at perihelion of aphelion, i.e.

2796:

Yes, thank you for the background info. It looks like the dirty tricks have spilled over into Knowledge. Most likely it's best if we are very cautious and only use sources for this researcher that have been published -- no pre-prints or personal blogs. There's too much risk of unreliability.

2462:

I don't care about what may have happened in the past. What I do care about is whether the source is reliable or not, and I can't find anything with it that would suggest that it is not. Possible past dubious editing surrounding a person is not part of deciding whether or not it a publication is

2281:

is suspicious to say the least. The article was created by a blocked sock puppet, and has since been edited by a parade of sock-like accounts. Why do we have an article about a non-notable associate professor? Why are there multiple links to that person from this article? Why are we citing a

6298:

For the low-i super-Earth simulations, the lower-perihelion objects did not librate for long periods as did 2012 VP113 and Sedna and spent 30% to 50% of their time with 90°< ω < 270°. We also ran simulations with highly inclined Neptune mass bodies at about 1,500 AU and found most objects

6014:

Brown has talked about how P9 will occasionally perturb KBOs and move them into detached orbits, and then eventually those objects will fall back down into the Kuiper Belt under Neptune's influence (if I understood correctly). Perhaps this object is somewhere in between, moving out or back in.

4832:

Degenerate often means there is more than one value (or a range of values) of a variable that fits the data. I take degenerate with respect to each other to mean that for one value of A, there is a value of B that fits the data; but for a second value of A, another value of B fits the data. One

4054:

and ~, cannot correctly represent symbol) 50 au and a ≈ 150–1500 au. They furthermore identified a population of planetesimals between the Edgeworth–Kuiper belt and the Oort Cloud that share similar orbital elements (see also de la Fuente Marcos & de la Fuente Marcos 2014), namely the large

2383:

has been deleted 8 times. It keeps getting recreated by sock puppets intent on creating a walled garden. That paper has the trappings of science, but it is not peer reviewed. We are giving a non-notable associate professor vastly undue weight by even mentioning him in this article. The only

1986:

Agreed it was hosted on google blog and something else must be going on. Now I can't reach it either. But I find no comments on their twitter feeds yet, or anywhere else. The only other thing I'll throw into the mix of issues here is that on some of the recent interviews there are comments that

6975:

where they included the interactions between planetesimals and discovered the instability could be triggered even when the planetesimals don't cross the orbits of the planets. The only place I've seen it mentioned is in other journal articles discussing Nice model simulations but its not often

3586:

The description relative to Earth's DIAMETER is in the article. Knowledge's stats on Neptune say RADIUS. So double the 3.8 to have a size on the same variable - diameter. So (3.8*2=) 7.6 Earth diameters. Or in your terms 6k km Earth becomes 46k km Neptune. Which is about right 48k km diameter.

2937:

Hi 21a12. You're already on my list of probable sock puppet accounts. To avoid the need for investigations, blocks and any bad will, why don't you just pick one account, stick with it, and retire all the others? Let the past be past. By "you" I mean you personally as well as any friends or

1111:

Generally agreed. Notice VP113 near Sedna in the right one but far on the left one. Significantly off angle to the "right" from the original to the new one and a quarter rotation I think, plus other objects in the mix adding to the confusion. (but perhaps reminiscent of the discussion of other

7053:

an ice giant encounters both Saturn and Jupiter, driving rapid separation of Jupiter and Saturn, 2009-2010. This is needed to avoid increasing eccentricities of terrestrial planets and inclinations of asteroids. Referred to as jumping-Jupiter scenario. This was seen in some simulations of the

7029:

both Batygin, a supporter of NICE-1 based 5th giant plant model & Sean Raymond of Grand Tack model think that Planet 9 must have been ejected much earlier in the solar-system's evolution & Raymond seems to suggest that the Mass & composition of Planet 9 will hold more clues to its

5126:

How many objects are really in perpendicular orbits to the average inclination of the extreme TNOs and Sedna and VP113? Hmm, maybe that isn't so easy to answer…. I figured out the average inclination of those is 21.9° so perpendicular is around 112° (for prograde orbits, or more than -60° for

3457:

This isn't a 3 digit sig figure examination. This is a rough estimate. If you want to stick to the 2-4 Earth's diameter you'd need to be say something like .3 to .5 Earths but I think that looks too specific. In terms of internal issues of the size of things your points all accepted. But the

1390:

it's already described in the article if I understand your question. The aphelion is towards Orion/Taurus and the perihelion is towards Sagittarius/Scorpio in the animation but if you look at the RA/Dec graphs it seems like the average perilion is more centered aroun Ophiuchus/Seprens/Libra.

454:

Granted. In which case it may be very relevant some time. Undoubtedly, if it follows the pattern or not matters. And it is farther out than Sedna and VP113 by a good measure at best guess on distance right now. It would be an improvement that the statement have good qualifiers - not just the

6292:

By numerically simulating the effect of the known mass in the Solar System on the inner Oort cloud objects, we confirmed that inner Oort cloud objects should have random ω (Methods). This suggests that a massive outer Solar System perturber may exist and restricts ω for the inner Oort cloud

1987:

they've been working on this issue a while - at least years - and that they had already started a survey looking for it (presumably with Subaru) and that there was a 2/3rd chance they'd spot it before the end of 2016, (stated in the Kevin Peter Hickerson interview above if I recall right.)--

89: 1558:

Ordinarily I'd have just flipped the image back in Photoshop, repaired the labels and overwritten the original, but since this image is used on a dozen or so different language WPs I assumed that there was a logical reason why Sedna has been moved from the bottom of the image to the top.

1099:

The 2 perspectives might close, perhaps mirror images, viewed from opposite north/south points of view. But the orientation of the ellipses is more confusing. Like 2010 GB174 looks close to Sedna, but has ω 348° not close to Sedna's 311° while Sedna no where near 2013 RF98's closer 316°.

1641:

of the other TNO orbits. And since Caltech are the originators of this report I'm inclined to believe that something has been lost in translation. Since the current margin of error allows for a much larger orbit for Planet Nine I'd be happy to adjust the images I provided below. How big

3441:

Size can mean mass, diameter, or volume. The "size" of Planet Nine is an estimated range. The diameter of Planet Nine will depend on mass. Quite often a higher mass results in a smaller diameter. Uranus is "larger" than Neptune because Neptune has a "larger" mass and higher density. --

2636:. I feel that everything in Knowledge related to this researcher is suspect, as well as any external citations that aren't peer reviewed. The AfD notes that there's a mess of self-citations. This is a classic walled garden, and potentially involves the promotion of fringe theories. 787:. Thank for pointing it out as it appears that we have two redundant, and at the same time, contradictory paragraphs. The numbers quoted in both paragraphs appear to be somewhat contradictory and should be reviewed for consistency and probably consolidated. All the more reason to 6389:, that means their periods ought to be simple ratios of the hypothetical driver 9th planet? And does that mean if we can get their periods computed with higher precision, then we can estimate a best fit period for the 9th planet? (i.e. a smaller error than 10,000 to 20,000 years!) 6487:

Ejection by Jupiter will give a pretty wide range of inclinations, so ~30 degrees seems reasonable to us. I suspect that people are working on simulations to see how well the details work, though we are not looking into that part of the story yet. -- Mike Brown, 5 February 2015

5009:

Agreed - the question is, on the basis of specifically listing Drac and the description are we safe listing the 5 objects this way. We may have to say B&B list Drac as an example of this highly inclined KBOs. A list of such highly inclined KBOs is… . Are we on good ice here?

5127:

retrograde but nothing is that backwards in the minorplanetcenter data?) and there are 17 objects between 100° and 120°. But all these must have aphelion's out there in the vicinity of the extreme TNOs etc - atleast above 60 with Drac. That ~2500AU object to me looks like

4728:

In the top diagram under the *planet nine hypothesis* section the order of the orbits of the 6 objects (from top to bottom) seems to match the order of the objects in the table below in same section, if the table is sorted by *longitude of perihelion* (in ascending order)

1464:

If you are asking about the face on view of the solar system orbits it would be roughly the north pole of the sun which is roughly in the direction of Polaris as it is from the Earth. Watch the video of the orbits and you can make out constellations in the background. See

1607:

I've figured out your objection is to the picture rather than the video it simulates. Yes the orientation is flipped looking north vs south and so things are flipped. But the pedigree of the picture is pretty clearly ok to use - Science Magazine's animation to youtube at

1062:

Looks ok to me. I assume the perspective on the left is cherry picked for presentation, where-as the one of the right was just randomly selected and was meant to show 2-body orbital solutions with extreme aphelion (without regard for perihelion being outside Neptune). --

7060:

Nice 2, interactions between planetesimals lead to breaking of the resonance chain, 2011. Previously the timing of instability when the planets began in resonance was very sensitive to location of inner edge of planetesimal disk which some saw as requiring too much fine

2737:

socking, fake accounts, etc.. (and not just on Knowledge). I have no opinion of who is right, who is wrong when it comes to Ciufolini and Iorio, but whenever I see either names, I roll my eyes because they are amongst the most unprofessional-behaving scientists I know.

3088:, by Kei Yamada, Hideki Asada, General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, 23 Mar 2012, arXiv=1105.2998 (This one basically says none of the ideas account for the observed affect - relativistic corrections, modified gravity theories, and including the affect of Jupiter) 6994:

In simpler terms, the Nice-2 model is a different staring configuration, the planets begin in resonance instead of moving toward one, and a different way to kick off the instability. After that starts the planets do pretty the same things as in the original version.

6471:

inclination. A planetary disk is essentially always planar, so having a 1/2 Neptune swing at 30° is at least strange to me. Nothing of P9's size comes even close to this value. Is is something of a "counterweight" to the 1° and 2° inclinations of Jupiter and Saturn?

2720:

does not indicate that it is already in the pipeline (i.e. undergoing a refereeing process) or that it will be published anytime soon in one of the next issues of MNRAS. Summing up, Iorio's paper has not yet been published so the reference to it should be removed.

4785:

Beyond simply stating the most likely parameters, the B&B paper discusses some other issues of the parameters - first the model is not yet self-consistent and second the mass could easily be well above half Neptune's. If these are true how to represent them….

3571:

That's wrong. Neptune's diameter is about 4 times Earth's diameter. Or equivalently, Neptune's radius is about 2 times Earth's diameter. So, Planet Nine's radius is 0.5-1 times Neptune's radius, or Planet Nine's diameter is about 0.5-1 times Neptune's diameter.

3225:

It seems like you are both tripping over particular terminologies used rather than what the papers are actually saying. Even Brown refers to Planet X and in 2011 no one had another term to use at all. PLEASE ACTUALLY READ the papers and the proposed paragraph.

4579:

The libration around 0° will occur if the initial relative ω ranges from −90° to 90° (e.g. Mardling 2007). Therefore, the ω of Sednitos relative to the perturber (ω − ωpertuber) needs to be constrained at the beginning of the dynamical interaction with the

3378:

their arguments of perihelion aligned because of resonances with Neptune.) They just hadn't reached the point in the precession-of-Saturn's-perihelion question to make a more specific argument for a planet. Anyway. Frustrating experience but there it is.--

3322:

Yeah, not interested in something of similar same name rather obviously. But thanks for correcting that GR_QC is not a journal but apparently some collection Cornel is using to organize papers. OI! Frustrating! I also see one of the papers was withdrawn.

556:

I fail to see why objects not submitted to the Minor Planet Center are even an issue. Every object submitted to the MPC has a nominal solution to perihelion and semi-major axis. V774104 is ~103AU from the Sun and could be ±100 years from perihelion. --

3675:

the paragraph as it stood as it left people wrestling with Earth diameters compared to Neptune size. Clearly at least some of us can get that mixed up so I wanted to make it more explicit (and blew it.) But I don't think it deserves a solid range. --

2282:

paper published three days after Batygin and Brown's paper, the former not being peer reviewed at all? This smacks of a COI campaign and a walled garden. We should not include any content sourced to Lorenzo Iorio until these concerns are resolved.

6115:

We find that a massive eccentric inclined object captures bodies into mean motion resonances and aligns them in physical space, not in argument-of-perihelion space. The alignment in argument is a mundane consequence of the real physical alignment.

1469:- in the animation the bright star to the right of the sun at the beginning is almost certainly Canopus though it is hard to pick out the southern direction, but then it rotates north and to the right and Orion and Taurus come clearly into view. -- 6405:

Yes, but no. The periods are ratios, but not necessarily simple small number ratios. They could be crazy things like 32:27. There are currently a nearly infinite number of possibilities. But we're working on it.... --- Mike Brown, 5 February 2016

6079:

About Drac, I think it was mentioned because the paper announcing Drac's discovery speculated that since it would have a short lifetime there must be a significant source population of high inclination objects, which B&B had just identified.

6597:

So B&B abandoned theoretical perturbation models & went for a complete numerical simulation based model for a single object/perturber 10M in the plane 30° and it turned out that mean-motion resonance mechanism could produce the observed

3178:

details was grabbed unto by various non-mainstream ideas and instead might be do to the predicted planet. Even if we kept strictly to "no preprints" that only cuts out from "In a pre-print paper…" which is the second half of the paragraph. --

354:- while it's orbit isn't well characterized it could but doesn't have to support the prediction (I found a source saying it is currently in the direction of Pieces which fits if it is near perihelion. But it's semi-major access could be : --> 6301:

Note in this they don't say what the mechanism is but their discussion in extended figure 3 does say "Many possible distant planetary bodies can produce the pictured Kozai resonance behaviour, but the currently known Solar System bodies

4833:

example is if Planet Nine is farther away its mass would to be larger. Another example is the relationship between the eccentricity and semi-major axis of planet Nine which gave a perihelion between 200 AU and 300 AU (Eqn 6 of B&B).

469:

Actually not all bodies are expected to follow the pattern. The fact all 6 known/published ones do is interesting. Talking about unpublished orbits and future undiscovered ETNOs is meaningless to the statement I added to the article. --

4898:

Simply put, the further P9 orbits, the more massive it will have to be. Perihelion could be 200AU or 350AU. Mass is only on the order of 10 Earths. That is part of the reason I did not worry about the whole orbit diagram discussion. --

693:

Dear Knowledge users, thank you for your interest. As far as the hypothetical planet is concerned, the correct name I proposed for it is Telisto; Thelisto is just a typo. Indeed, it comes from the adjective τήλιστος (tḗlistos), meaning

7220:

topic in a sensible fashion. I seem to recall an interview with Brown/Batygin saying that they chose the name "Planet Nine" specifically to prevent it being called "Planet X". That would be good to include if we could find the source.

3995:= ~ 16 to 24 between perihelion (200au) to aphelion (1200au). (I also calculated its apparent diameter would range between 0.05-0.2 arc seconds, a similar apparent diameter as Pluto, 0.1", although MUCH dimmer surface brightness.) 1485:

the Solar System with the planets orbiting anti-clockwise. This image has had all the orbits flipped vertically, which might pass for an unorthodox 'bottom up' view of the Solar System were it not for the stars in the background.

6065:

Neptune recently removing an object from P9's influence should mean perihelion around ~36AU and a semi-major axis up to ~150AU. I think such a transitioning object would still be an eccentric SDO with a large semi-major axis. --

3403:

evaluated by some source as linked to this are kept separate. We can have a paragraph about other Planet X ideas, but only if we remain very careful not to make it sound like they're all Planet Nine without evidence to say so.

2306:

One concern for me is I am not sure if the work is credible or peer reviewed. It would help if it was more notable with more references in blogs/journals/magazines/news-articles (regarding his work on this topic - Planet Nine)

1543:

using this image here or anywhere else and I have already stated that, IMO, the image background should be plain black or white. Since the only person who has replied to me has completely misunderstood my point I will ask more

4429:

says "The pull of the Milky Way Galaxy causes an object with a high eccentricity to periodically trade this eccentricity for a gain in inclination." so perhaps this is what is driving the orientation as the will center around

6128:

They published interesting speculations, but their specific findings have been shown to be wrong, so not only was it not the strongest argument for Planet Nine, it was an incorrect argument for something entirely different!

2744:

But is he notable? Yes he is. Are his writings acceptable as sources? I would argue that only in the case where they have been published in a high-reputation peer-reviewed journal. Many of his papers qualify. His preprints

2452:

It's not the assertion that's dubious, it's the source. Is that source peer reviewed or not? Unfortunately there's been a 7 year campaign to spam this scientist into Knowledge, so anything connected needs extra scrutiny.

3366:

running around with very convincing-looking (but never peer reviewed) papers, trying to show that Einstein and general relativity are wrong. We have to be extra cautious in this field because of all the smoke and noise.

3106:(name others? I keep seeing "teams of astronomers" but no names) have been noticing a variation in the precession in the perihelion point particularly of the Saturnian system thanks in part to the precision availed by the 6695:

outside. The detached objects have very eccentric orbits so it probably could have a modest eccentricity without affecting the alignments of their orbits so the planet's argument of perihelion would still have no effect.

4501:

I do see S&T referencing galactic tides several times in their article struggling about if they affect inner oort cloud objects. And in particular I don't see that they were modeling the galactic tide itself in this

6466:

Hi Mike, I tried to improve the language so let me know if the current one works. One question I do have that I could never find being discussed in any paper is how could so much mass be located on an orbit with such a

5813:

I'm not clear on what the point of these objects is. All these have perihelia well within the giant-planet region and hence suffer significant scatters by them. What are they supposed to tell about Planet Nine and why?

4627:

values for the 6 objects they are not exactly same and there is some variance (12 - 30) for inclination & (65 - 145) for the long. asc. node. Are these values in line with what is discussed in the paper by B&B?

98:

are the exact same list that Brown is talking about. This a large part of the reason the Super-Earth "Planet Nine" hypothesis is so strong. The question will become how many future discoveries of minor planets with "q:

2477:

Is it peer reviewed. Yes or no? I keep asking, and nobody is answering. We aren't here to publish wishful thinking or aspirational papers. When it's accepted and published, then we can include it. Until then, no.

1517:: Please do not take that star scenery as factual, afaik it's fantasy, do not know why you're using that file here, at least i have no evidence the stars are factual somehow. So better refer to the stars-free graph. -- 2594:(so far) If there is a theme in his work it is that irregularities in Saturn's perihelion motion might be related to Modified theories of gravity but still significantly respected field of work if not mainstream. See 2252:

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading they planned to do the survey in five years. This is a testable hypothesis ... if it fails to produce by 2021, I don't see the new telescope as being a direct hunt for

2140: 661: 6136:

Sorry for the long rant. I feel a little sordid even writing this and would normally not sweat the inevitable inaccuracies, but this one just seemed odd and so wrong that I thought it was worth pointing it out.

229:

The MPC citation obviously does not support saying that all six support Planet Nine's existence, but I have seen that exact claim in a source. So far, I haven't managed to recover it, but it should be out there.

4373:. For one, why would this be independent of the ω of the hypothetical planet? Then there is also the sentence "The Kozai mechanism causes the argument of pericenter (ω) to librate about either 90° or 270°" at 3394:

I didn't look into this case, but note the standard here is we need a reliable source to make the link between the two hypotheses. This is the linked-citation test I mentioned in the Telisto section. Beware

7136:

Currently the article does absolutely nothing to clarify that this is not "Planet X" at least in terms of what was the term originally intended. However, at least 5 refs currently in the title use this name.

2878:

gives a Hirsch index of 36, with more than 2580 genuine citations. I don't think his page should have been deleted. Is it possible to appeal against this decision and/or restore his page? Thank you. Regards.

7172:

Planet X was a hypothetical planet beyond Neptune, and Planet Nine is also a hypothetical planet beyond Neptune. People might confuse the two? As for Mars not being Venus, do you understand the concept of a

6375:

Yes! The Hamiltonian cannot account for the mean-motion resonances, which are the key physics of what is happening. So the numerical simulations are the "more comprehensive model." -- Mike Brown, 5 February

2432:

There is nothing very dubious in suggesting that very small perturbation(s) in Saturn's orbit could give hints to the location of a Super-Earth (aka Planet Nine). Saturn's orbit is very well known thanks to

2992:

True but only to argue against the orbital assumptions eccentricity assumptions of Trujillo & Sheppard. Never to actually support the reference to a high eccentricity planet in his other paper (2010).--

5083:

Now that I have checked the B&B paper, they say very little about these 5 perpendicular objects. Even though drac is mentioned in B&B, it has aphelion @ 62AU and none of the 5 listed objects (q:

6754:

If the argument of perihelion drifts away from 0° the point where the planet is the farthest inside shifts up or down and it then looks like it is following a tilted ellipse around the orbit. (I think)

2814:

Hello. I am a relative of Lorenzo Iorio, so you may judge me as unreliable by default. Nonetheless, I wish to share with you some third-party links which, to my judgement, should display his notability:

4184:

BTW B&B speculate that 150<a<250 might be affected in noticable fashions but it is only a speculation. They say the ω ~ 0° for the inner set "remains somewhat puzzling" (top of page 12.) --

6201:

Mike, thank you so much for writing this. Never hesitate to provide your thoughts on these article talk pages...we highly encourage feedback from experts. Hopefully we can get this issue rectified.

3854: 5328:

270° (right panel of Fig 1) But that isn't enough to narrow down to eight by a long shot (and inclination and eccentricity seem to be all over the place on the graphs and not well listed anyway.)--

4643:

Exactly in the same plane isn't the claim. They are close enough to be considered so. The planets themselves are not really in the same plane either - they can vary between ±5° maximum or so - see

6104:

Hi Wikifolk, Mike Brown here. I've never wikied before so I am unclear on the right approach to suggestions for the article, so please bear with me if this is not exactly the right way to do it.

4757:

Yes though from a different aspect. The idea here is the orientation in space of the orbits is onesided and the P9 candidate direction is on the other side. So yes they are comparably lined up. --

3993: 3910: 809:

That's a little better but I wonder if a short table would be a better presentation of a list of variable and parameters like this. Rather hard to read in a long, strung out sentence like this.

3082:, by Iorio, Lorenzo, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, Volume 112, Issue 2, pp.117-130, Feb 2012, DOI: 10.1007/s10569-011-9386-7 (seems to be in a REFEREED journal making same point) 3076:, by L. Iorio, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 27, 1250071 (5 April, 2012) DOI: 10.1142/S021773231250071X (this one argues that any modified gravity affect has to be very small vs the observed precession.) 3601:

Let's take a step back here. Do you agree or disagree with the NASA source Kheider gives, that lists a 3.829-3.883 ratio between the Neptune/Earth radii? (or equivalent, ratio of diameters)?

440:. Did V774104 come to perihelion 50 years ago, now, or will it 50 years from now? Sheppard wanted a longer observation arc to better constrain the orbit before going public with his data. -- 7199:

Trujillo & sheppard referred to Planet X, but Carlos & co didn't suggest any names because their model required more than 1 planet/minor-planets. we anyway have appropriate links to

6028:

with Neptune is very suspicious. P9 only very weakly interacts with objects fully inside 150AU (Q<150) and objects with a<150 are largely unaffected. P9 weakly interacts with objects

4878:"our calculations suggest that a perturber on an a′ ∼ 700 AU, e′ ∼ 0.6 orbit would have to be somewhat more massive (e.g., a factor of a few) than m′ = 10 m⊕ to produce the desired effect." 4483:(not OCRed so have to search manually, see p.10 though that link is dead. The reported direction doesn't say 0° itself though - it refers to "π /2 or 3π /2", which, I beleive, gets us into 863:

about the planet and shows just a black blob? Im sure readers can imagine a big black blob without being shown one. WP is NOT a tabloid newspaper: I suggest this useless image is removed.--

7026:

so there are 2 valid NICE based models (1) NICE-2 by Levison & (2) NICE+5th_Giant_planet by Batygin/Morbidelli/Nesvorny plus a Grand Tack model by Sean Raymond (& also Morbidelli)

3195:

and there are 22 cites to refereed journals to this paper. But again I refereed journals are NOT the standard (though of course they are given more weight than non-refereed journals.) --

210:

We know that 6 extreme TNOs support Planet Nine thesis. But what about the other 100 or so inner objects? Are they in alignment with a prediction of this planet's orbit or against that?

1630: 1466: 110: 6914:

spelled out their interest in Drac when Michael Brown said that it fit a category of objects… …(go into the specifics of the class of objects and that they fit the models/details.) --

3012:

I think it's time for a round of the sysops' favourite game. I started with 21a12, who is so obviously not a new user that they can probably hear quacking all the way to Planet Nine.

2541:

review of the reliable sources should seek a trail for mentioning his name. If no one does then I support excising his content until such time as things get more straightened out. --

1885: 6307:

150 AU semi major axis with an affect on ω ~ 0°. And yes I can see that B&B say "This physical alignment requires a new explanation." when focused on a two sets of objects (the

2716:

to Iorio's paper doesn't state where it will be published. The MNRAS layout of the paper suggests that it was written for submission to MNRAS (or MNRAS Letters) but a check on the

2522:

Show me where this has actually been published. Anybody can post to the site you've linked to. Anybody can claim a paper has been submitted to any journal. Submission <: -->

2158: 7152:

We're not referencing those citations for their erroneous information. Why do we need to say that this is not Planet X? We haven't had to mention that Mars isn't Venus, have we?

4053:

Recently, Trujillo & Sheppard (2014) discovered the object 2012 VP113, a second member of the inner Oort Cloud, which they defined as a family of planetesimals with q (: -->

3704:

This conversation demonstrates that we should discuss mass and diameter in two different sentences. If P9 has a composition and mass similar to Uranus it could have a diameter

5992:

Its period is just below a 8:3 ratio with Neptune's. One explanation for its orbit is that its perihelion was raised via the Kozai resonance while in the 8:3 resonance and it

2633: 1782:

Unfortunately I cannot make SVGs. However, after closer inspection I have been able to update the above images so that they are exactly the same as the Caltech video (compare

186:

to: "There are only six known minor planets with perihelion greater than 30 AU and a semi-major axis greater than 250 AU." The reference supports that statement perfectly. --

4813:

Meaning the model of the inclined perturber they specifically varied parameters in didn't arrive at a self-consistent result of all parameters at the same time - indeed they

1027:

don't clearly match although the 3D effects might be a part of it. It might be nice to have an image like the right Celestia one with different colored orbits showing the 6.

5201:

be: 2012 DR30, 2013 BL76, 2010 BK118, 418993 (2009 MS9), and 336756 (2010 NV1), the paper also mentions Drac by name but it is not in the figure or in the caltech animation.

2232:

I moved the Hubble statements to, notes as there is no direct mention of Planet Nine in those statements. It seems to me Notes section is a better fit for this information

684: 4872: 5234:

variety of ways. Not to mention the other 8 bodies he hints at.Where's the date of those perihelia and semi-majors come from? - O - I see Fig 9 inside the graphs. Hmmm --

2257:

object. Of course, there could be technical problems, someone drops their cell phone on the mirror or something, but you'd need a source to make a direction connection.

7021:

and then there is a Grand Tack model (2012 by Sean Raymond & Morbidelli) to explain terrestrial planets & asteroid belt (but doesn't explain kuiper belt I think)

3458:

paragraph describing the size uses observable exclusions pointing to Neptune as the comparison and so the vs-Neptune size is relevant to it's observational situation. --

2797:

There is no hard and fast rule for reliability. Each case needs to be judged on the circumstances. A source may be reliable for one sort of fact, but not for another.

657: 5745: 5216: 215:

This requires further analysis and probably other researchers are working on this topic right now. It can also be considered as a sort of peer-review of B&B's model

970:

Really. I would suggest reading up on how Knowledge works before making that move. Knowledge operates on consensus, and if you go against consensus you may be blocked.

3934: 3244:

Saturn and/or Planet X, leaving out pre-prints. Nothing you've written conndcts to this specific theory. What you've got connects to the genetic theory of Planet X.

6346:

Indeed i read "As a result, additional perturbations (i.e., harmonic terms in the Hamiltonian) are required to explain the data." (top of page 4, B&B article) --

5132: 4682:

To be more particular the main planets range in about a 10° wide plane and these ETNOs vary in a 18° plane, so less than twice the width of the inner solar system.--

2774: 703: 5828:

I think the simulation demonstrated that the existence of these 5 objects shows that they could have become highly-inclined as a result of interactions with P9. --

2870: 150:

150" (of which there are 14 with an observation arc greater than 1 yr) and are a small subset of the 1792 known TNOs. There are ONLY 6 TNOs KNOWN that have "q: -->

6647:

Of course we can know their ω. The point is why we can discount the Kozai mechanism based on knowing only ω of these minor planets and not that of Planet Nine. --

4455:

266.4° to be more exact vs 270° but close enough for something that is an average anyway. However I think to make the case for all this we need a stronger cite.--

767:

the bottom of "The case for Planet Nine" section gives the english description you are looking for, I beleive. I am fine with both being present in this article.

291: 5377: 3337:

regarding arxiv.org, a check of the comments on the arxiv page will reveal whether the preprints are articles which have been submitted or accepted by a journal

415:

I'm not making any assumptions. That's what I'm trying to point out. And can we work on the tone here? We are all trying to make the article actually better. --

2577:

by Luis Acedo, Galaxies 2015, 3(3), 113-128; doi:10.3390/galaxies3030113 (not directly related to PX research but about gravity theory in planetary context)

7240:

The point is not to give it prominence, but to at least clarify the role of "X" since it is pretty clear that B&B specifically did not want to use it.

4085:) that assumes that the orbits of the "sednitos" have not modified over time due to influence of outer planets. very unlikely as per B&B's hypotheses. 2691:

is also common between the articles but is presented as a retired contributor. That's what I get reviewing down several users in the contributions list. --

2629: 699: 7018:(3) fifth giant planet (another modification to original NICE) - also in 2011 (by Nesvorny in 2011, supported by Batygin & Morbidelli in later papers) 5915:

semi-major axis from 261 AU to 179 AU (barycentric solution for epochs 1950 & 2050). Given the perihelion point, Hale-Bopp would be included with the

1832: 665: 3153:, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, by Zi-Wei Li, Sheng-Feng Yuan, Chang Lu and Yi Xie, 2014 Vol. 14 No. 2, 139–143 doi: 10.1088/1674–4527/14/2/002 3052: 6858: 6140:

Please feel free to ignore me, but do please go reread the original sources and decide for yourselves what you think is the right way to explain this.

5857:

Right, so the point is that extreme-inclination very-high-eccentricity objects generated by P9 have arguments of pericenter centering on that of P9? --

4275:

Of course 0° ≠ 318±8°. The point is a short explanation/indication of why the Kozai mechanism requires an angle of ~0° (or ~180°) and not any other. --

4247:

As for "Do we really want to introduce a new term that is only used in one paper?" my view is leave it in the note and we can see how things develop.--

3057:

On the basis of fully published articles rather than submitted articles only I'd like to suggest pressing ahead with the overall content of the issue.

938:

I agree the artistic representation contributes the situation of Planet Nine in ways many words can't as easily convey. It's serving a good purpose. --

6942:

by Sean Raymond explains why Planet Nine is unlikely to have been the fifth planet ejected in recent versions of the Nice model for those interested.

2868: 2316: 3248: 3171: 2399: 1467:

http://video.scientificamerican.com/services/player/bcpid73042993001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAFNl7zk~,OmXvgxJOvrFTWo2Mq0GFTD7z8674te1s&bctid=4713395328001

931: 911: 897: 6626: 5087: 4920: 4752: 3136: 3064:

by Lorenzo Iorio, General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, 24 Dec 2008, arXiv=0811.0756 (reports the anomalous observations, notes ideas on causes)

878:

It conveys a great deal of information; it conveys how far away it is from the Sun; it conveys that it is likely similar in form to ice giants like

729: 707: 7235: 7212: 7192: 1550:

The Caltech images show a standard 'top down' view of the Solar System with everything (?) orbiting in an anti-clockwise direction, but this image

5249:

actual characteristics. I guess perhaps we should reduce the usage of that description an instead emphaize just that they were highly inclined? --

4133: 4129: 2325: 2301: 145: 95: 2227: 2213: 90:

All known minor planets with perihelion greater than 30 AU and a semi-major axis greater than 250 AU currently support the Planet Nine hypothesis

6019: 5920:

6). Comets are also known to significantly outgas while inside of the orbit of Jupiter making long-term orbital studies even more difficult. --

5263:

Though the orbital parameters listed are not identical to the ones in the minorplanetcenter website they seem pretty close. Anyone got qualms?--

2872: 2856: 2388: 2204:(also mentioned - under radiation) will replace it shortly in a couple of years and the JWST is a much better telescope than Hubble in all ways 1910:

seems to have disappeared (DNS gives nothing, and whois says it was updated 30 Jan, a few hours ago.) Hopefully this is just a temporary bug. --

965: 7076: 7039: 6989: 6966: 4766: 4738: 4723: 4709: 4564: 4362: 4108: 4094: 2850: 2241: 2191: 2177: 985: 947: 7269: 7249: 7167: 6612: 6503: 6271: 6257: 6029: 5987: 5025: 4809:"Although the model proposed herein is characterized by a multitude of quantities that are inherently degenerate with respect to one another," 2628:

You may want to check which accounts added those cites. Were they independent editors, or single purpose accounts that might be connected to

2517: 2496: 1679: 1664: 656:, but neither of these words has any meaningful Google hits. Can someone insert some sort of meaning or translation of them into the article? 517: 500: 239: 224: 4700:

and sorting the table by that value reproduces the exact same order of the 6 objects in the diagram. is that coincidence or expected result?

2901: 2830: 2565:, by Christopher Crockett Date 2 MAR 2015 DOI: 10.1002/scin.2014.186011021, Science News, Volume 186, Issue 11, pages 18–21, 29 November 2014 804: 776: 571:

My point is that the original language stated the case as a kind of triumphant absolute. I preferred a more cautious approach to the facts.--

4795: 4345: 2928: 2078: 1901: 1090: 537:

I tweaked the wording from "only known minor planets with perihelia" to "only minor planets known to have perihelia", I hope this fixes the

6587:

Kozai was discounted for any existing or hypothetical planet on ecliptic plane because the 6 stable distant objects dont cluster at 0°/180°

5337: 4957: 4892: 3387: 3370: 3356: 3332: 3315: 3283: 3266: 3187: 2961: 2880: 2858: 2801: 2768: 2660: 2640: 2130: 1996: 1981: 1967: 7118: 7093: 7004: 6923: 6908: 6779: 6427: 6370: 6355: 6151:

Thanks Mike! I've not been involved in writing the article itself, but I'm sure the editors involved will help get these facts corrected.

6045: 5916: 5369: 5353: 5272: 5258: 5194: 5105: 5091: 5061: 4864: 4842: 4691: 4592: 4544: 4518: 4464: 4419: 4325: 4004: 3767: 3220: 3204: 3001: 2785: 2700: 2527: 2482: 2472: 2457: 2422: 2412: 2107: 2053: 2010: 1925:

I think that was temporary - they seem fine now. I bet the traffic was high enough they had to move it to a more robust server service. --

1919: 424: 396: 375: 303:

was discovered but its orbital details are still awaiting to be calculated. the following links discuss this object and possible theories

6830: 6816: 6795: 6764: 6748: 6733: 6719: 6704: 6689: 6671: 6656: 6642: 6449: 6398: 6221: 6192: 6089: 6060: 6005: 5909: 5881: 5866: 5852: 5823: 5308: 5294: 5243: 5228: 5210: 5165: 5143: 5121: 5075: 5037: 5019: 5004: 4990: 4975: 4908: 4883:

but also completely above the "superearth" category of object. Or would "a factor of a few" suggest something smaller like 1<x<2?--

4780: 4496: 4450: 4405: 4305: 4211: 4193: 4175: 4160: 3699: 3684: 3669: 3624: 3610: 3596: 3581: 3562: 3544: 3504: 3488: 3467: 3235: 3156:

Found another paper following the modified gravity idea - ,by Frederic Lassiaille, Journal of Modern Physics, 2012, 3, 388-397,May 2012,

3094:, by Luis Acedo, Galaxies, 2014, 2(4), 466-481; doi:10.3390/galaxies2040466 (keeps going with limiting the proposals of modified gravity) 2824: 2623: 2550: 2292:

I think you ought to address that issue at that page. It seems to me you are deleting relevant and neutral information in anger. Cheers,

2121: 1817: 1805: 1777: 1589: 1574: 1121: 639: 602: 580: 479: 464: 449: 410: 345: 281: 161: 135: 6536: 6518: 6262:

I've added statements on work by Carlos and Raul de la Fuente Marcos. seemed similar to (& a furthering of) Trujillo & Sheppard

5929: 5837: 4386: 4235: 4037: 4023: 3721: 3521: 2969: 2950: 2909: 2862: 2035: 1952: 1934: 1342:

where I have added more diagrams with the orbits in different colours, viewed from the north celestial pole, same as the Caltech video.

621: 261: 195: 177: 6550: 4914: 3773: 3272: 566: 380:

You'd have to say something like - Of the objects in the solar system with known characteristics as of January 2016, and this excludes

6242: 5807: 4924: 3413: 3344:

Another team of astronomers noting the Saturn perihelion precession anomaly appears to be lead by someone named Fienga See page 8 at

2848: 1453: 1439: 840: 822: 5217:

http://minorplanetcenter.net/db_search/show_by_properties?semimajor_axis_min=250&inclination_min=40&perihelion_distance_min=6

3428: 2266: 1826: 1620: 1478: 1422: 1400: 6560: 2846: 2487:

Are the claims & calculations by Iorio on Planet Nine correct? anybody reviewed it or commented on it or cited in other papers?

698:. Instead, the name of one of the moons of Saturn is Telesto, coming from the name of the deity Τελεστώ (Telestṓ). Best regards. -- 6025: 3748: 2860: 455:

perihelion and semi-major access but that as known so far and it could just as easily note an important distant body in the mix. --

4805:

I take "degenerate" in the paper to mean the parameters contradict eachother in that if you assume one the other is not resolved.

3070:

by Lorenzo Iorio, General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, 12 Jan 2011, arXiv=0907.4514 (makes a prediction of a possible planet)

3047: 2836: 2393:

Whether there is an article on him is irrelevant to the question at hand, nor is its recreation history. What I can tell from the

6332: 1783: 1740:...Okay, I took the liberty of uploading some more images (above). I'll leave it to others to work out what to make of all this. 307:

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

6481: 6160: 4011: 2905: 2832: 3644:

OK so what do people want half to about the diameter of Neptune? More than half? What loose approximation fits the paragraph?--

6786:

I may have confused the issue bringing up what happens for eccentric orbits, the stability of those is from other mechanisms.

6120:

falls more under the "Early Speculation" realm than the "Case for a New Planet" realm. And it is certainly inaccurate to say:

4221: 387:

150AU also can support the prediction. Or something like that. But's getting more and more cumbersome to make a bold claim. --

6939: 2916:, so it might not be appropriate to use his research papers as primary source in an encyclopedia as there is a risk that the 2126:

Good news! FindPlanetNine.com is back up. It was just a minor configuration issue. The site should be stable going forward.

488:

If even a single object found which doesn't satisfy the prediction then it could result in complete failure of the hypothesis

6579: 4058:& de la Fuente Marcos 2014; Trujillo & Sheppard 2014). Here we consider this group of object a family which we call 168:

It looks important to me. Its different claim to say "6 of 10,000 objects have an unsual alignment" versus "6 of 6 object"!

5798:

Ok - so we think this is solid? Should it be simplified? The arg of perihelion isn't an important parameter for this set.--

4800: 4637: 3936:

is the distance between the observer and the body d=(200-1200 AU), with H similar to Uranus/Neptune, -7, this comes out to

2938:

associates working with you toward the same goals. Thank you for the links. I'm sure somebody will look them over, such as

2834: 2373: 957: 903: 864: 5937: 3794: 7261: 7227: 7159: 6957:

any idea what is the NICE-2 model & when was it formulated? I can't see any reference to NICE-2 outside of wikipedia

6899:

Perhaps instead of as a separate prediction it should be mentioned at the end of the high inclination object prediction?

6495: 6234: 5153: 4743:

It seems for objects which are more or less coplanar the Longitude of Perihelion are comparable. So it makes sense then.

2365: 977: 923: 889: 6807:

In the low-eccentricity-planet case that makes not much difference, but it does for a planet with an eccentric orbit. --

6617:

when I have the time, I will try to quote the summary and how it ties in with the details in the paper. that might help

5972: 4945:

15 AU" - the group being 2007 BP102, 2010 WG9, 2011 KT19 and (127546) 2002 XU93 (and here's a link for the list given -

4855:=250 AU decreases as a' increases. Probably due to the increased orbital period making perihelion passes less frequent. 3939: 2897: 2828: 2583:, by IB Khriplovich, E. V. Pitjeva, International Journal of Modern Physics D Vol. 15, No. 4 (2006) 615–618, 22 Jan 2006 2092: 1755: 1500: 3859: 3733: 2730: 2286: 6541:

Unfortunately for that, the Greek god Hades is "equivalent" to the Roman Pluto. (And Jupiter is also a Roman name.) --

4676: 4267:

motion resonance and is far from the 0° direction. 318 is clearly different from 0 - how do folks want to say this in

2986: 2917: 2864: 2838: 2673: 872: 3030: 2842: 2508:

If you would have followed the wikilink I placed in my first comment, you would already have had your answer: Yes. --

2446: 1357: 3035:

I think since the original moving/merging/unmerging of the article's title the viewing stats have gotten lost - see

2666: 1009: 6951: 6662:

ascending node and longitude of perihelion which allows them to predict the argument of perihelion of Planet Nine.

6306:

So yes I pick up that they are using the Kozai affect in trying to explain an observation on a set of objects : -->

6099: 4826: 3151:

New upper limits on deviation from the inverse-square law of gravity in the solar system: a Yukawa parameterization

2888: 6800:

It sounds much like a quasi-satellite principle, and that's a relative thing. That requires (a relative) angle of

2826: 505: 7015:(2) modification to NICE ( kuiper belt outside giant planets ) - termed as NICE 2 in 2011 ( by Hal Levison et al) 6739:

planet is small relative to the objects. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some Jupiter trojans that do this.

5383:

Trans-Neptunian objects with perihelion greater than 6 AU, a semi-major axis greater than 250 AU, and high (: -->

4624: 4439: 4284: 4256: 4075: 3143: 2844: 2165: 1648:

Also, the small circle that I've marked as the Kuiper belt; is that actually supposed to be the orbit of Neptune?

1019:

The orbital diagram might need checking, or compared to second Celestia one which also lists all 6. At least the

761: 7146: 4145: 3025: 1072: 1036: 328: 6876: 6215: 6179: 4551:

The theory/mechanism quoted above is right, but it seems a relatively new concept not updated in wiki pages of

3788: 2755: 1526: 1384: 5024:

Yes, we can just use the same style disclaimer as we did for the ETNOs. This link to the MPC is much shorter:

4151:

By your definition they are ETNOs as long as you include inclination and argument of perihelion parameters. --

2852: 2523:

publication. Show me the evidence that this paper has passed peer review and been published. Link and quote.

2321:

Friendly bet: I will buy coffee and donuts for all of you if I am wrong. You can name my prize if I'm right.

2168:

is already referred to under *more predicted objects* sub-header that comes under *direct detection* section.

550: 506:"One caveat: our computer simulations do not predict that 100% of the most distant objects will be clustered." 6894: 4583:

They then go on to model how the capture of Sedna and family are possible in an encounter with another star.

4313:

The point isn't what is obvious as much as what B&B say it is - see page two on the right at their paper

3653: 3080:

Constraints on the location of a putative distant massive body in the Solar System from recent planetary data

2088:

Reference 11, used three times, is now a dead link. www.findplanetnine.com has gone offline. I wonder why.

1000:

The article has now dropped off the main page, in case someone wishes to reconsider the page protection... --

7177:? I suggest you simply ask questions and make whatever point(s) you want to make rather than talking silly. 6857:

When the centaurs with elongated perpendicular orbits encounter a giant planet they evolve onto orbits like

6290:

This cannot explain the ω ~ 0° trend today, because ω circulates owing to the presence of the giant planets.

4487:

where 2π =360°, so that would be 90° or 270° but it doesn't specify the coordinate system in the abstract.--

4393: 3479:

has radius = 25000km. (6*4=24.) So again, why are we claiming P9 is "about" half the diameter of Neptune?--

3451: 3163:

No preprints! There are too many fringe theorists. If you want to write about Saturns orbit please go to

2822: 783:

Since there is no section titled "The case for Planet Nine", I will assume that you mean the section titled

364: 5026:

http://minorplanetcenter.net/db_search/show_by_properties?perihelion_distance_min=15&inclination_min=60

4943:(aka "Drac"), and that article suggests it is "one of only five objects known to have inclination (i) : --> 4525:

Extreme trans-Neptunian objects and the Kozai mechanism: signalling the presence of trans-Plutonian planets

4291:

Extreme trans-Neptunian objects and the Kozai mechanism: signalling the presence of trans-Plutonian planets

3396: 3301: 1081:

It would be helpful to know which direction (toward which constellation) one is looking in these diagrams.

647: 4654:

B&B and others have accepted they are close enough to be considered nearly coplanar. To quote B&B:

3150: 3142:

Found a magazine article on the subject but emphasizing other ideas than that of an undiscovered planet -

3086:

Three-body-interaction effects on the relativistic perihelion precession for the Sun-Jupiter-Saturn system

1787: 183: 6437: 3007: 2977:

I notice that Batygin and Brown do mention a couple of Iorio's papers in the introduction of their paper.

2595: 6509:

30 degrees is a "mild" inclination for an isolated object that is detached from the known 8 planets. --

4963: 2913: 627: 7009:

So as I understand from the pdf image there are 3 models (as per Hal Levison) - to explain Kuiper Belt

6212: 6036:

may only be mentioned in the paper as a generic very well known "perpendicular orbital trajectory". --

4410:

What I can say is that both S&T and B&B say the value should be 0° and B&B show it isn't.--

3754:

Also keep in mind everything in wikipedia is recorded - so you already have the anonymous talk page at

2201: 81: 76: 71: 59: 38: 6299:

exhibiting short ω librations, which suggests some interesting potential future simulation prospects."

2562: 2146: 4481: 4099:

Not the issue. I posted it because of the clarification requested, not to bring up another theory. --

2297: 1871: 1838: 1128:

Trans-Neptunian objects with perihelion greater than 30 AU and a semi-major axis greater than 150 AU

101:

250" will continue to support the idea? I do not see a reason not to mention this in the article. --

6169:

Thanks for the feedback Mike. I'll flag the section for accuracy while people review your comments.

6821:

Yes, the close ratio of semi-major axis did bring that to mind, or something in a horseshoe orbit.

5278: 4314: 3345: 3073: 2580: 2568: 1888:, by Joel Achenbach and Rachel Feltman, The Washington Post, January 20, 2016 - general summary etc 961: 907: 868: 6523:

Thanks for the explanation. Ah, and if your predictions ever prove to correct, consider the name "

5963:

Is it a typical KBO or a detached object? The inclination seems high but no explanation for that?

3709: 3660:

Neptune.' It would be better to use words instead of '0.5 to 1', if anyone has a good suggestion.

3550: 3092:

Constraints on Non-Standard Gravitomagnetism by the Anomalous Perihelion Precession of the Planets

2587:

Constraints on Non-Standard Gravitomagnetism by the Anomalous Perihelion Precession of the Planets

314:

far beyond the orbit of Neptune. Or they might be the first-found members of the inner Oort Cloud…

7263: 7229: 7208: 7161: 7035: 6962: 6622: 6608: 6499: 6267: 6236: 5968: 5400: 4748: 4734: 4705: 4697: 4633: 4560: 4358: 4090: 3755: 3705: 3079: 2924: 2492: 2367: 2312: 2237: 2209: 2173: 1143: 979: 925: 891: 772: 725: 680: 496: 436:. All we publicly know is that V774104 was discovered roughly 103AU from the Sun and it may be a 220: 1963:

It was on blogger, a Google service, and traffic wasn't all that high. Something else is afoot.

7185: 6594:) because it requires multiple planets finely tuned to match observed orbits of distant objects 5443: 5174: 3778: 2866: 2676: 2083: 1798: 1748: 1657: 1567: 1493: 1350: 1155: 1024: 1020: 141: 7109:

introduce the evolving models of the solar system and conjectures about ways to develop P9. --

3255: 3193: 2900:

or no public comment on his work by other scientists/physicians/researchers. He also seems to

2665:

So far only some worry on issue of sock puppets. The Gravity Probe article seems to have none

2563:

Shadow planet: Strange orbits in the Kuiper belt revive talk of a Planet X in the solar system

2147:

Shadow planet: Strange orbits in the Kuiper belt revive talk of a Planet X in the solar system

6977: 6386: 5285:

used to define them. Aphelion can vary notable due to very small changes in eccentricity. --

4644: 4606: 4435: 3167:. As yet nobody has done an analysis through peer review that links Saturn to Planet Nine. 2272: 1858: 1835:, By Robert Walker, Science2.0, January 29th 2016 - about naming ideas and status as a planet 1509:

not a good idea to use the file above, sorry. This is without the probably fantasy background

1086: 995: 4427: 3615:

Yes. I see I mixed up a two in there somewhere. 7.6 Earth Radiuses is 1 Neptune diameter. --

2403:, which would definitely make it a reliable source, and hence can be used in the article. -- 1580:

Sorry for beeing misunderstood. I didn't mean you personally at all, but EN-WP in common. --

6864: 6805: 6724:

But how that align these objects if 'where its argument of perihelion is has no effect'? --

6491: 5438: 5090:

looks like it has aphelion around 2500AU which might be a match for objects like 2012 DR30

4431: 4268: 2293: 2218:

Why remove it?? I don't mind adding the JW but that hardly is a reason to remove Hubble. --

1879: 1150: 720:

Thanks for the clarification. I already added a note. will update it with this explanation

7054:

original Nice model, but rejected at that time because that planet was lost leaving three.

3915: 2384:

reason its happening is that we've been duped by all this sock puppetry and COI editing.

8: 5897: 5697: 3311: 2726: 2434: 1505: 1362: 7084:

by Alessandro Morbidelli has most of this in one place, except the five planet version.

6676:

That much is obvious. Otherwise the Kozai mechanism could not have been discounted. But

6315:

especially that orient more than just ω, but the ω in this case centers on 318° for set

2896:

I went thru all the English links above & my concerns still remain. Iorio's work is

7256: 7222: 7204: 7154: 7131: 7114: 7089: 7072: 7031: 7000: 6985: 6958: 6947: 6933: 6919: 6904: 6890: 6872: 6826: 6791: 6775: 6760: 6744: 6715: 6700: 6667: 6638: 6618: 6604: 6603:

best is to read the summary of the paper which links back to each section of the paper

6423: 6366: 6351: 6328: 6263: 6229: 6209: 6175: 6085: 6056: 6001: 5964: 5877: 5848: 5803: 5451: 5365: 5349: 5333: 5326:

Now I'm wondering if we can sniff out the dynamically unstable ones from Fig 1 - a: -->

5304: 5268: 5254: 5239: 5206: 5182: 5139: 5117: 5057: 5015: 4986: 4953: 4888: 4860: 4838: 4822: 4791: 4762: 4744: 4730: 4719: 4701: 4687: 4672: 4629: 4588: 4556: 4540: 4514: 4492: 4460: 4446: 4415: 4401: 4354: 4341: 4321: 4301: 4252: 4199: 4189: 4156: 4104: 4086: 4071: 3763: 3744: 3680: 3649: 3620: 3592: 3540: 3500: 3463: 3424: 3383: 3352: 3328: 3279: 3271:

It looks to me that " General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology" is a refereed journal:

3262: 3231: 3200: 3183: 3132: 3043: 2997: 2982: 2920: 2781: 2751: 2696: 2688: 2656: 2619: 2546: 2488: 2360: 2308: 2233: 2223: 2205: 2187: 2169: 2154: 2117: 2074: 2049: 2031: 2006: 1992: 1977: 1930: 1897: 1846: 1717: 1675: 1616: 1474: 1396: 1117: 972: 943: 918: 884: 768: 739: 721: 676: 617: 576: 492: 460: 420: 392: 371: 360: 324: 277: 216: 131: 7245: 7180: 7142: 6812: 6729: 6685: 6652: 6575: 6532: 6514: 6477: 6445: 6394: 6253: 6156: 6071: 6041: 5983: 5925: 5905: 5862: 5833: 5819: 5502: 5464: 5290: 5282: 5224: 5190: 5161: 5101: 5071: 5033: 5000: 4971: 4932: 4904: 4659:"We demonstrate that the perihelion positions and orbital planes of the objects (the 4478: 4475: 4382: 4280: 4261: 4231: 4207: 4171: 4141: 4033: 4019: 4000: 3717: 3695: 3665: 3606: 3577: 3558: 3517: 3484: 3447: 3216: 2840: 2603: 2513: 2468: 2442: 2408: 2103: 1793: 1743: 1652: 1562: 1514: 1488: 1345: 1105: 1068: 1032: 635: 598: 562: 513: 475: 445: 433: 406: 341: 257: 235: 191: 173: 157: 106: 6972: 5993: 4574: 4472: 1841:, ScienceFriday, NPR, Jan 29, 2016 - followup on history on past failed discoveries 671:

Are you asking for explanation of Iorio's research or why he chose Telisto? look up

7124: 6546: 6187: 6144: 5777: 4045: 3149:

Found another paper citing Iorio but emphasizing the modified gravity suggestion -

3103: 2763: 1948: 1915: 1082: 1014: 1005: 834: 816: 798: 755: 546: 47: 17: 6440:? That may be the only parameter I'm missing to test the orbit into my simulator. 6361:

they drop al of formal theory and turn to numerical simulations. So yes, but no.--

4648: 2854: 2044:

note here he himself actually says the path include "between Orion and Taurus". --

1554:, including those with a transparent background, are in effect shown 'bottom up'. 6410:

indicative of the resonance width." So this is the mechanism driving populations

6280: 5411: 4552: 4374: 3107: 2965: 2884: 2647: 2599: 1710: 1703: 1136: 1052: 854: 586: 245: 4714:

I don't understand the question? Which table sorted which two different ways? --

2679:

page. But I note some common editors between he articles that seem reputable -

116:

First, to the point you are trying to make about the ETNOs - see this paragraph

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

6801: 6456:

There is; coming out in our next paper. Due soon -- Mike Brown, 5 February 2016

6183: 6016: 4948:. I can't be sure that the list is correct relative to the paper yet though. -- 3367: 3307: 3245: 3168: 3036: 2947: 2798: 2759: 2722: 2684: 2637: 2524: 2503: 2479: 2454: 2419: 2385: 2322: 2283: 2127: 2089: 1964: 1436: 486:

Every object found that is close to the prediction strengthens the hypothesis.

5781: 2062: 2023: 1626: 1609: 612:

is that of "so far" as in "as of January 2016 all objects" such and so etc. --

7110: 7085: 7068: 6996: 6981: 6943: 6915: 6900: 6886: 6868: 6822: 6787: 6771: 6756: 6740: 6711: 6696: 6663: 6634: 6419: 6362: 6347: 6324: 6204: 6171: 6081: 6052: 5997: 5873: 5844: 5799: 5782:"How many dwarf planets are there in the outer solar system? (updates daily)" 5361: 5345: 5329: 5300: 5264: 5250: 5235: 5202: 5135: 5113: 5053: 5011: 4982: 4949: 4884: 4856: 4834: 4818: 4787: 4758: 4715: 4683: 4668: 4612: 4584: 4536: 4510: 4488: 4456: 4442: 4411: 4397: 4337: 4317: 4297: 4248: 4185: 4152: 4100: 4067: 3759: 3740: 3676: 3645: 3616: 3588: 3536: 3496: 3459: 3420: 3409: 3379: 3348: 3324: 3275: 3258: 3227: 3196: 3179: 3128: 3039: 3020: 3014: 2993: 2978: 2777: 2747: 2692: 2680: 2669: 2652: 2615: 2542: 2380: 2278: 2262: 2219: 2183: 2150: 2113: 2070: 2045: 2027: 2002: 1988: 1973: 1926: 1893: 1833:

Would New Planet X Clear Its Orbit? - And Any Better Name Than "Planet Nine"?

1773: 1671: 1612: 1585: 1522: 1470: 1449: 1418: 1392: 1380: 1113: 939: 653: 626:

When dealing with ETNOs an observation arc of 2 weeks in nothing more than a

613: 572: 456: 416: 388: 367: 356: 320: 273: 127: 6770:

the shape of the path around the orbit and how close it gets to the planet.

4575:

How Sedna and family were captured in a close encounter with a solar sibling

3399:. We have to make sure that general Planet X type descriptions that aren't 3157: 2574: 2339:"Planet X revamped after the discovery of the Sedna-like object 2012 VP113?" 1886:

New evidence suggests a ninth planet lurking at the edge of the solar system

1768:

Please consider making SVG files. But what is the source of this version? --

1375:

Anyone who knows the direction of view the depiction of the Orbits shows? --

126:

the existing paragraph but the exact phrasing needs its own real citation.--

7241: 7138: 6852: 6808: 6725: 6681: 6648: 6571: 6528: 6510: 6473: 6441: 6390: 6249: 6152: 6108:

references to the papers so that you can check and decide for yourselves.

6067: 6037: 5979: 5921: 5901: 5858: 5829: 5815: 5286: 5220: 5186: 5157: 5097: 5067: 5029: 4996: 4967: 4928: 4900: 4378: 4377:, which says something different. In short: What is the logic behind it? -- 4353:

that same plane (ecliptic=30, argument of perihelion= 318 or 318-180=138)

4276: 4227: 4203: 4167: 4137: 4029: 4015: 3996: 3713: 3691: 3661: 3602: 3573: 3554: 3513: 3480: 3443: 3436: 3212: 2683:

and has a significant footprint as a responsible contributing editor as is

2509: 2464: 2438: 2404: 2099: 1333: 1101: 1064: 1028: 631: 594: 558: 509: 471: 441: 402: 337: 253: 231: 187: 169: 153: 102: 7050:

the planets begin in resonance, the result of gas driven migration, ~2007.

6566:

the data. In all, it is still unclear why the Kozai mechanism requires an

5756: 4181:

encounter with an inner giant planet to get scattered out of that group.)

2589:, by Luis Acedo, Galaxies 2014, 2(4), 466-481; doi:10.3390/galaxies2040466 2141:

worth mentioning another large field telescope set to come online in 2023?

1940: 956:. It contributes a big fat zero. (to me any way). Im going to remove it.-- 744:

Could someone please look at the first paragraph under the section titled

6542: 5431: 4851:

using equation 6. It appears that the perihelion distance needed to get a

4620: 3211:

Planet Nine is nothing more than a Super-Earth answer for "Planet X". --

2607: 2024:

Mike Brown (@plutokiller) visits Griffith Observatory to discuss Planet 9

1944: 1911: 1233: 1001: 829: 811: 793: 750: 542: 3091: 2904:

to simplify his calculations and the validity of these assumptions also

2586: 2379:

Not at all. Please show me where that's been peer reviewed. The article

1847:"Konstantine Batygin, Amir K and the trillion percent certain discovery" 7012:(1) Original NICE model - created in 2005 ( by Morbidelli/Gomes et al ) 5943: 5540: 3115:

Moreover I suggest this be in line with the other predictions from the

2338: 2112:

Added archive based urls for preservation as well as load balancing. --

1972:

Added archive based urls for preservation as well as load balancing. --

1305: 1279: 1208: 1182: 953: 590: 6885:

Yeap - that's worth adding as another prediction/observation match. --

2394: 1548:

Why are we using an image that has apparently been flipped vertically?

1444:

Very funny answer. Since this is wikipedia, i fear you are serious. --

7174: 6033: 5616: 5578: 5178: 4995:

So they are the high-inclination, high-perihelion (HiHq) objects. --

4940: 3192:

On the point of refereed - I note it is called a refereed journal at

2611: 1625:

First of all, thank you for your considered reply. It seems that the

1253: 589:

and no orbital elements. TNOs with a 28 day observation arc can have

6590:

Kozai for hypothetical planet was considered unlikely by Brown (see

4919:

B&B list the 6 ETNOs, but does anyone have a source listing the

3062:

On the recently determined anomalous perihelion precession of Saturn

2713: 1367: 1045: 246:"Planet Nine has an orbit which is anti-aligned with respect to the 208:

one of the linked refs had a contra question by another scientist. "

7200: 5149: 5128: 4616: 3405: 2941: 2875: 2717: 2258: 1769: 1581: 1539:

real. It looks like somebody has fudged the image to me. It is not

1518: 1445: 1414: 1376: 6591: 2908:

or has been questioned and Iorio has also updated his papers with

7081: 4524: 4484: 4290: 4117: 3527: 3476: 3085: 3067: 3061: 1907: 879: 672: 538: 484:

This is my understanding, somebody can correct me if I am wrong.

437: 429: 381: 351: 300: 6227:

I've done an initial cleanup. Others may feel it requires more.

401:

Your assumptions about an unpublished orbit are meaningless. --

5215:

Thank you for the post! You can generate those 5 objects with:

3164: 3074:

Effects if a time-dependent pioneer-like anomalous acceleration

299:

and in November 2015 the farthest object, of the solar system,

4523:

I'll repeat this since it appears to have been overlooked, In

4014:

as P9 could have perihelion @ 200-350AU depending on mass. --

3303:

Frontiers in General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology Research

3068:

The perihelion precession of Saturn, planet X/Nemesis and MOND

2634:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio (2nd nomination)

386:

etc etc support the prediction and objects as far in as a: -->

355:

250 as it is the farthest known object in the solar system. --

7067:

you never know when someone will come up with something new.

6524: 5281:, the orbital parameters will vary slightly depending on the 3472: 3300:

a journal, however there is a book with a very similar title

5148:

I am not sure I like 2005 VX3 because the orbit crosses the

7254:

If we could find a citation for that, that would be great.

4123: 2346:

Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell’Universit`a e della Ricerca

363:) 18:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC) (orbital placement image at 5996:

from this resonance near the end of Neptune's migration.

4651: 4310:

318+8 doesn't seem too far off 360 which is same as zero

2555:

With that as my starting point here's what I have so far:

2098:

I assume they have exceeded their allotted bandwidth. --

902:

Im talking about the picture, not the caption under it.--

334:

But it is CORRECT (and fairly obvious) to say all "q: -->

5156:

of 0.8 AU. It looks like one of Jupiter's play toys. --

2773:

Thanks for the comments Headbomb - I see what you mean:

4226:

I believe so. I have removed the clarify statement. --

1435:

Looking towards the solar system. Sol in the center.

4198:

I suspect some of the 150<a<250 objects are the

2581:

Upper limits on density of dark matter in solar system

1822:

Not must use, but things that attracted my attention:

1112:

objects Chad Trujillo and Scott Sheppard analyzed. --

7203:

from different sections, so it is not an issue to me

3942: 3918: 3862: 3849:{\displaystyle m=H+2.5\log _{10}{\left(d^{4}\right)}} 3797: 6385:

Question: if the 6 minor planets are synchonized by

6147:, research author) February 4, 2016 (131.215.64.52) 3098:

So factoring in the above I suggest something like:

2630:

Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Gravitom/Archive

2571:

March 6, 2014, By Dr. Hugh Ross (professional blog))

1829:, Chicago Tribune, Jan 29, 2016 - about naming ideas 1338:

I've only just spotted this section. Please see the

6527:" (sent to the underworld by his brother Jupiter). 6279:Trying to understand the difference - How does the 3988:{\displaystyle -7+10\log _{10}{\left(d\right)}\!\,} 2575:

The Flyby Anomaly in an Extended Whitehead’s Theory

2063:

Pluto, Dr. Mike Brown & Gravitational Dominance

2001:

And they are back - No content change I can see. --

152:250" and they are all detailed in Brown's paper.-- 5086:60) have aphelion beyond 114AU. The object on the 3987: 3928: 3905:{\displaystyle H+10\log _{10}{\left(d\right)}\!\,} 3904: 3848: 2463:reliable if that is in a peer-reviewed journal. -- 6680:is this the case? What is the logic behind it? -- 2400:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 4471:in terms of cites so far the best I can find is 4081:that is an alternate (failed?) hypotheses(refer 1413:I asked for the viewing-direction of picture. -- 859:What is the purpose of the picture that conveys 7057:five planet Nice model, with one ejected, 2011. 4128:150? If there are 13 "Sednitos" then they are 3981: 3922: 3898: 2200:also we can remove references to Hubble as the 882:, and it conveys that it is likely very dark. 827:Bulleted list work too. Much better. Dziękuję. 6032:over hundreds of millions of years. I suspect 5152:just inside Jupiter's orbit and has a Jupiter- 4396:. Perhaps Mike or someone can find the math.-- 4369:And still no explanation whatsoever about why 2026:, Griffith Observatory Griffith Observatory -- 5978:Without a better explanation, it is both. -- 4619:) for 6 extreme TNOs. But when I look-up the 4220:In any case does this clarify the request at 2606:, and has an older cite before this stuff in 2336: 585:V774104 was announced with a pathetic 2 week 5776: 2741:have been at each other's throats for years. 248:6 most distant eccentric Kuiper belt objects 5770: 3053:precession of the Saturnian system addition 5942:any explanations for the curious orbit of 3789:Absolute_magnitude#Solar_System_bodies_(H) 336:250" currently support the prediction. -- 140:So you are saying you can not look at the 5690: 5131:. Problem is I don't get just five - see 4939:B&B name one in the original paper - 4394:Talk:Planet_Nine#Comments_from_Mike_Brown 5668: 3777: 3294:General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology 3158:http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2012.35054 3038:. I've no idea who to report this to. -- 2675:) and clearly had a war of sorts on the 1504: 1366: 6436:Question: Is there an estimate for the 5663: 5658: 5299:And orbits are refined all the time….-- 4527:Marcos and Marcos explain in section 5 4441:and each affect allows for 180° off. -- 3983: 3924: 3900: 3144:The Puzzle Over Saturn's Orbit (cont'd) 1941:http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/ 1633:, since the orbits of Sedna and 2010 GB 1552:and every other image based on this one 591:large uncertainties in semi-major axis. 318:So now it is INCORRECT to say all : --> 14: 5896:What distinguishes these from comets? 5684: 5673: 4055:perihelion and semimajor axis (q : --> 3549:NO. Neptune's radius (or diameter) is 2182:opps - someone beat me to it! Nice! -- 1845:Kevin Peter Hickerson (Jan 29, 2016). 1696:More images based on the Caltech video 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4166:250 are notably shepherded by P9. -- 3146:, MIT Technology Review, June 1, 2011 2397:is that it is to be published in the 1839:For Planet-Seekers, a Cautionary Tale 675:for what is Telisto/Telesto/Thelisto 658:2601:47:4201:C8FF:858A:A350:D148:6857 5919:(instead of the 5 listed with q: --> 5784:. California Institute of Technology 5066:Done. Feel free to wordsmith it. -- 25: 6051:it is what Brown was referring to. 4847:Out of curiosity I made a plot of a 4781:qualifying the predicted parameters 1818:more possible sources to include... 296:And per comment above we now have: 23: 6980:, and mentioned by name for once. 4925:perpendicular orbital trajectories 4915:perpendicular orbital trajectories 4645:Ecliptic#Plane_of_the_Solar_System 4611:I understood from hypothesis that 4474:which is repeated in a few places 4438:that is at RA 18hrs,which is 270°. 3783:seen in the ellipse drifting left. 3774:Apparent magnitude range estimates 2614:. Continuing looking around.... -- 1866:Cite has empty unknown parameter: 1371:direction of view for this figure? 24: 7289: 4981:J.-M. et al 2009 ApJL697 L91". -- 3791:, simplified as viewed from sun, 3569:So Neptune is 7.6 Earth diameters 1827:Editorial: Make no little planets 1025:Planet Nine#Case for a new planet 7044:If you go historically there is 5344:reported to late to be included. 4663:that is) are tightly confined …" 3526:Wo wo wo. 2-4 Earth diameters. 2569:Research Rules Out Rogue Planets 1716: 1709: 1702: 1691: 1339: 1051: 1044: 319:150AU support the prediction. -- 244:The blog "findplanetnine" says, 29: 7030:formation. did I get it right? 6248:I've also done some cleanup. -- 5653: 4625:longitude of the ascending node 2337:Lorenzo Iorio (31 March 2014). 2166:Large Synoptic Survey Telescope 1535:because the stars are probably 432:is an object with no published 384:at present, all objects q: --> 5749: 5739: 5730: 5177:, probably the 5 mentioned at 1908:http://www.findplanetnine.com/ 1531:Let me be clear, I'm actually 142:list of 6 TNOs in this article 13: 1: 7270:05:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 7250:05:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 7236:04:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 7213:12:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC) 7193:21:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC) 7168:21:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC) 7147:20:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC) 7119:13:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 7094:17:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC) 7077:17:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC) 7040:12:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC) 7005:01:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC) 6990:16:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 6967:12:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC) 6952:21:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC) 6924:23:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC) 6909:22:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC) 6895:12:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC) 6831:01:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC) 6817:23:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 6796:22:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 6780:00:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC) 6765:22:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 6749:22:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 6734:21:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 6720:19:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 6705:19:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 6690:18:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 6672:18:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 6657:18:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 6643:18:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 6627:10:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 6613:10:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 5378:proposed table for this group 4269:Planet_Nine#Brown_and_Batygin 3708:slightly larger than Neptune 6580:20:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 6551:04:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC) 6537:19:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6519:19:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6504:18:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6482:18:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6450:15:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6428:15:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6399:15:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6371:15:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6356:15:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6333:14:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6272:14:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6258:11:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6243:07:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6222:05:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6193:03:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6161:02:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 6090:19:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 6061:19:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 6046:18:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 6020:18:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 6006:17:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 5988:14:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 5973:12:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 5930:08:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 5910:03:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 5882:00:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 5867:21:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 5853:19:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 5838:17:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 5824:17:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 5808:16:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 5370:20:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 5354:19:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 5338:03:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 5309:09:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 5295:03:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 5273:02:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 5259:02:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 5244:02:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 5229:01:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 5211:22:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 5195:15:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 5166:22:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 5144:12:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 5122:04:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 5106:16:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 5076:04:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 5062:04:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 5038:03:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 5020:03:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 5005:03:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 4991:03:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 4976:03:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 4958:03:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 4944:60° and perihelion (q) : --> 4909:05:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 4893:01:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 4865:17:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 4843:19:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 4827:01:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 4796:01:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 4767:18:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 4753:18:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 4739:04:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 4724:22:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4710:19:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4692:01:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 4677:00:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 4638:18:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4593:22:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4565:05:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 4545:22:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4519:13:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4497:13:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4465:13:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4451:12:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4420:12:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4406:12:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4387:11:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4363:17:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC) 4346:21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC) 4326:21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC) 4306:17:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC) 4285:13:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC) 4257:23:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4236:05:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 4212:05:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC) 4194:23:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4176:22:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4161:21:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4146:20:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4109:19:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4095:19:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4076:18:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4038:22:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 4024:13:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC) 4005:12:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC) 3768:21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 3749:21:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC) 3722:19:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3700:19:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3685:19:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3670:18:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3654:18:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3625:18:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3611:18:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3597:18:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3582:18:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3563:18:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3545:18:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3522:18:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3505:18:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3489:17:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3468:17:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3452:16:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3429:19:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3414:19:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3388:17:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3371:17:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3357:15:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3333:16:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3316:15:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3284:15:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3267:14:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3249:14:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3236:14:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3221:14:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3205:14:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3188:14:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3172:13:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3137:13:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 3048:17:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 3026:22:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 3002:14:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC) 2987:18:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC) 2970:20:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2951:19:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2929:13:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 2889:19:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2802:18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2786:18:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2769:17:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2731:16:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2701:17:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2668:, though Lares did have one 2661:16:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2641:16:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2624:16:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2598:. His work is referenced in 2551:15:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2528:15:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2518:15:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2497:14:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2483:14:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2473:14:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2458:14:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2447:13:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2423:13:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2413:13:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2389:13:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2374:13:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2326:13:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2317:13:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2302:13:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2287:12:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2267:19:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 2242:14:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 2228:14:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 2214:14:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 2192:14:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 2178:14:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 2159:13:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 2131:22:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2122:23:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 2108:23:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 2093:20:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 2079:17:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2054:17:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2036:17:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 2011:20:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 1997:18:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC) 1982:23:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 1968:20:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 1953:18:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 1935:04:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 1920:02:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 1902:17:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 1806:11:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 1778:06:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 1756:00:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 1680:11:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 1665:05:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 1621:04:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 1590:06:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 1575:22:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 1527:03:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 1501:02:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 1479:20:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 1454:19:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 1440:18:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 1423:18:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 1401:17:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 1385:15:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC) 1358:03:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 1122:19:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1091:15:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1073:14:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1037:13:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 1010:03:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 986:02:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 966:01:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC) 948:11:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 932:09:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 912:04:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 898:02:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 873:01:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 841:00:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC) 823:14:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 805:00:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 777:14:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 762:14:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 730:16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 708:15:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 685:08:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 666:03:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 640:15:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 622:00:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC) 603:22:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 581:11:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 567:08:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 551:03:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 518:19:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 501:11:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 480:22:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 465:22:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 450:22:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 425:22:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 411:21:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 397:18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 376:18:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 346:18:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 329:18:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 282:17:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 262:16:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC) 240:14:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 225:11:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 196:08:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 178:02:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 162:02:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 136:02:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 111:01:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 7: 6438:Longitude of ascending node 4116:Are Sednitos suppose to be 3512:intended to apply to mass? 2596:Modified Newtonian dynamics 350:No - that's my point about 148:is true? ETNOs have "q: --> 10: 7294: 7047:original Nice model, 2005. 4165:Only the ETNOs with a: --> 4132:as there are only 2 known 3787:Just for curiosity, using 3734:normal commenting for Mike 2202:James Webb Space Telescope 1939:Still down here, and from 1880:Evidence of a Ninth Planet 270:That's why I put the : --> 5394: 5391: 5388: 5327:150AU, ω<90° or ω: --> 3031:viewing stats seems stuck 2065:, TheLipTV2, Jan 30, 2016 1694: 1164:Planet Nine (hypothesis) 6100:Comments from Mike Brown 5757:"Absolute Magnitude (H)" 5654:Planet Nine (hypothesis) 5359:table of the 16 from MPC 5173:There are the 6 objects 4873:"a factor of a few"*10m⊕ 4696:the introduction of the 3475:has radius = 6000km and 2918:sourced claims are wrong 6570:angle of 0° or 180°. -- 4698:longitude of perihelion 3756:User talk:131.215.64.52 2277:Knowledge's article on 1882:, Caltech, Jan 20, 2016 1731:Transparent background 1021:argument of perihelions 6304: 5175:listed in this article 4665: 4582: 4533: 4508: 4293:a quote from section 5 4202:Brown talks about. -- 4064: 3989: 3930: 3906: 3850: 3784: 3553:Diameter=radius*2. -- 3495:Radius vs diameter. -- 3117:More predicted objects 3113: 2677:Talk:LARES (satellite) 1627:Science Magazine video 1510: 1409:<File inserted: --> 1372: 1156:Argument of perihelion 122: 6387:mean motion resonance 6286: 4657: 4615:is more-or-less same( 4577: 4528: 4503: 4436:celestial coordinates 4051: 4028:That's good! Thanks. 3990: 3931: 3929:{\displaystyle d\!\,} 3907: 3851: 3781: 3397:WP:original synthesis 3100: 1508: 1370: 1023:give in the table at 785:Case for a new planet 696:farthest, most remote 117: 42:of past discussions. 6561:Kozai vs Mean-motion 5092:(objects with a: --> 5088:right of the diagram 4432:Galactic coordinates 4010:That is inline with 3940: 3916: 3860: 3795: 1629:is at odds with the 648:Thelisto and Telisto 144:and figure out that 6804:= Δ(Ω + ω + M) = 0. 5385: 1129: 184:changed the wording 5956:eccentricity = 0.1 5950:perihelion = 54 AU 5382: 4964:my work from 2013. 4434:, so 0°, while in 3985: 3984: 3982: 3926: 3925: 3923: 3902: 3901: 3899: 3846: 3785: 2689:User talk:WDGraham 1851:Surely your joking 1511: 1373: 1127: 434:orbital parameters 6881: 6867:comment added by 6506: 6494:comment added by 6219: 5959:inclination = 46° 5727: 5726: 5419: 5408: 5384:40°) inclination 5283:Epoch (astronomy) 4056:30 au and a : --> 3102:Researchers like 3024: 2898:not peer reviewed 2604:LARES (satellite) 2333:Does this help? 1906:Apropos sources, 1735: 1734: 1728:White background 1725:Black background 1603: 1600: 1592: 1515:User:Nagualdesign 1329: 1328: 1059: 1058: 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 7285: 7266: 7259: 7232: 7225: 7190: 7188: 7183: 7164: 7157: 7135: 6880: 6861: 6489: 6239: 6232: 6220: 6207: 6191: 6145:Michael E. Brown 5953:aphelion = 64 AU 5793: 5792: 5790: 5789: 5778:Michael E. Brown 5774: 5768: 5767: 5765: 5764: 5753: 5747: 5743: 5737: 5734: 5692: 5687: 5675: 5670: 5665: 5660: 5624: 5622: 5621: 5586: 5584: 5583: 5548: 5546: 5545: 5510: 5508: 5507: 5503:(418993) 2009 MS 5472: 5470: 5469: 5465:(336756) 2010 NV 5417: 5406: 5386: 5381: 4333:but not outer 6 4122:150 or are they 3994: 3992: 3991: 3986: 3980: 3979: 3964: 3963: 3935: 3933: 3932: 3927: 3911: 3909: 3908: 3903: 3897: 3896: 3881: 3880: 3855: 3853: 3852: 3847: 3845: 3844: 3840: 3839: 3822: 3821: 3125:More predictions 3121:Direct detection 3119:currently under 3104:Elena V. Pitjeva 3018: 2945: 2902:make assumptions 2767: 2507: 2370: 2363: 2356: 2354: 2353: 2343: 1875: 1869: 1864: 1862: 1854: 1803: 1801: 1796: 1753: 1751: 1746: 1720: 1713: 1706: 1692: 1662: 1660: 1655: 1602: 1599: 1579: 1572: 1570: 1565: 1498: 1496: 1491: 1355: 1353: 1348: 1337: 1313: 1311: 1310: 1287: 1285: 1284: 1261: 1259: 1258: 1216: 1214: 1213: 1190: 1188: 1187: 1130: 1126: 1055: 1048: 1041: 1040: 982: 975: 928: 921: 894: 887: 837: 832: 819: 814: 801: 796: 758: 753: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 18:Talk:Planet Nine 7293: 7292: 7288: 7287: 7286: 7284: 7283: 7282: 7264: 7257: 7230: 7223: 7186: 7181: 7179: 7162: 7155: 7129: 7127: 6971:Nice-2 is from 6936: 6862: 6855: 6710:known objects. 6563: 6281:Kozai mechanism 6237: 6230: 6202: 6170: 6102: 6030:150<a<250 5940: 5917:9 minor planets 5898:Comet Hale–Bopp 5796: 5787: 5785: 5775: 5771: 5762: 5760: 5755: 5754: 5750: 5744: 5740: 5735: 5731: 5698:Comet Hale–Bopp 5619: 5618: 5615: 5581: 5580: 5577: 5543: 5542: 5539: 5505: 5504: 5501: 5467: 5466: 5463: 5418:(B&B fig 9) 5407:(B&B fig 9) 5380: 5277:As a result of 4917: 4875: 4854: 4850: 4803: 4783: 4609: 4553:kozai mechanism 4375:Kozai mechanism 4264: 4050: 3969: 3968: 3959: 3955: 3941: 3938: 3937: 3917: 3914: 3913: 3886: 3885: 3876: 3872: 3861: 3858: 3857: 3835: 3831: 3827: 3826: 3817: 3813: 3796: 3793: 3792: 3776: 3736: 3439: 3108:Cassini orbiter 3055: 3033: 3010: 2939: 2746: 2648:Pioneer anomaly 2600:Gravity Probe B 2501: 2435:Cassini–Huygens 2368: 2361: 2351: 2349: 2341: 2294:BatteryIncluded 2275: 2143: 2086: 1867: 1865: 1856: 1855: 1844: 1820: 1799: 1794: 1792: 1749: 1744: 1742: 1658: 1653: 1651: 1636: 1568: 1563: 1561: 1494: 1489: 1487: 1365: 1351: 1346: 1344: 1331: 1308: 1307: 1304: 1282: 1281: 1278: 1256: 1255: 1252: 1211: 1210: 1207: 1185: 1184: 1181: 1137:Semi-major axis 1017: 998: 980: 973: 926: 919: 892: 885: 857: 835: 830: 817: 812: 799: 794: 756: 751: 742: 650: 587:observation arc 294: 92: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 7291: 7281: 7280: 7279: 7278: 7277: 7276: 7275: 7274: 7273: 7272: 7217: 7216: 7215: 7126: 7123: 7122: 7121: 7106: 7105: 7104: 7103: 7102: 7101: 7100: 7099: 7098: 7097: 7096: 7064: 7063: 7062: 7058: 7055: 7051: 7048: 7027: 7024: 7023: 7022: 7019: 7016: 7013: 6935: 6932: 6931: 6930: 6929: 6928: 6927: 6926: 6854: 6851: 6850: 6849: 6848: 6847: 6846: 6845: 6844: 6843: 6842: 6841: 6840: 6839: 6838: 6837: 6836: 6835: 6834: 6833: 6784: 6783: 6782: 6752: 6707: 6631: 6630: 6629: 6601: 6600: 6599: 6595: 6588: 6562: 6559: 6558: 6557: 6556: 6555: 6554: 6553: 6507: 6464: 6463: 6458: 6457: 6453: 6452: 6433: 6432: 6431: 6430: 6402: 6401: 6382: 6381: 6380: 6379: 6378: 6377: 6344: 6343: 6342: 6294: 6277: 6276: 6275: 6274: 6225: 6224: 6198: 6197: 6196: 6195: 6164: 6163: 6126: 6125: 6101: 6098: 6097: 6096: 6095: 6094: 6093: 6092: 6077: 6076: 6075: 6026:near resonance 6011: 6010: 6009: 6008: 5961: 5960: 5957: 5954: 5951: 5939: 5936: 5935: 5934: 5933: 5932: 5893: 5892: 5891: 5890: 5889: 5888: 5887: 5886: 5885: 5884: 5795: 5794: 5769: 5748: 5738: 5728: 5725: 5724: 5721: 5719: 5717: 5714: 5711: 5708: 5705: 5702: 5700: 5694: 5693: 5688: 5682: 5679: 5676: 5671: 5666: 5661: 5656: 5650: 5649: 5646: 5643: 5640: 5637: 5634: 5631: 5628: 5625: 5612: 5611: 5608: 5605: 5602: 5599: 5596: 5593: 5590: 5587: 5574: 5573: 5570: 5567: 5564: 5561: 5558: 5555: 5552: 5549: 5536: 5535: 5532: 5529: 5526: 5523: 5520: 5517: 5514: 5511: 5498: 5497: 5494: 5491: 5488: 5485: 5482: 5479: 5476: 5473: 5460: 5459: 5457: 5454: 5449: 5447: 5441: 5436: 5434: 5429: 5427: 5425: 5423: 5420: 5416: 5414: 5409: 5405: 5403: 5397: 5396: 5393: 5390: 5379: 5376: 5375: 5374: 5373: 5372: 5324: 5323: 5322: 5321: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5317: 5316: 5315: 5314: 5313: 5312: 5311: 5171: 5170: 5169: 5168: 5124: 5093:400 and i: --> 5081: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5050: 5049: 5048: 5047: 5046: 5045: 5044: 5043: 5042: 5041: 5040: 4916: 4913: 4912: 4911: 4880: 4879: 4874: 4871: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4852: 4848: 4811: 4810: 4802: 4799: 4782: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4755: 4656: 4655: 4608: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4294: 4263: 4260: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4049: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 3978: 3975: 3972: 3967: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3951: 3948: 3945: 3921: 3895: 3892: 3889: 3884: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3868: 3865: 3843: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3825: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3809: 3806: 3803: 3800: 3775: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3735: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3565: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3438: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3391: 3390: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3360: 3359: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3287: 3286: 3269: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3161: 3160: 3154: 3147: 3096: 3095: 3089: 3083: 3077: 3071: 3065: 3054: 3051: 3032: 3029: 3009: 3006: 3005: 3004: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2954: 2953: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2742: 2738: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2685:User:WolfmanSF 2591: 2590: 2584: 2578: 2572: 2566: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2485: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2395:ArXiv preprint 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2319: 2274: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2142: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2085: 2084:Dead reference 2082: 2067: 2066: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2039: 2038: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 1984: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1890: 1889: 1883: 1877: 1853:. Caltech.edu. 1842: 1836: 1830: 1819: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1733: 1732: 1729: 1726: 1722: 1721: 1714: 1707: 1699: 1698: 1689: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1646:the orbit be? 1634: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1545: 1482: 1481: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1411: 1404: 1403: 1364: 1361: 1327: 1326: 1323: 1320: 1317: 1314: 1301: 1300: 1297: 1294: 1291: 1288: 1275: 1274: 1271: 1268: 1265: 1262: 1249: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1239: 1236: 1230: 1229: 1226: 1223: 1220: 1217: 1204: 1203: 1200: 1197: 1194: 1191: 1178: 1177: 1174: 1171: 1168: 1165: 1161: 1160: 1158: 1153: 1148: 1146: 1141: 1139: 1134: 1125: 1124: 1109: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1076: 1075: 1057: 1056: 1049: 1016: 1013: 997: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 968: 958:213.205.192.13 936: 935: 934: 904:213.205.192.13 865:213.205.192.13 861:no information 856: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 741: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 713: 712: 711: 710: 688: 687: 652:No offence to 649: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 628:press release. 609: 608: 607: 606: 605: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 413: 348: 316: 315: 311: 308: 293: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 268: 267: 266: 265: 264: 213: 201: 200: 199: 198: 166: 165: 164: 123: 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 7290: 7271: 7268: 7267: 7262: 7260: 7253: 7252: 7251: 7247: 7243: 7239: 7238: 7237: 7234: 7233: 7228: 7226: 7218: 7214: 7210: 7206: 7205:J mareeswaran 7202: 7198: 7197: 7196: 7195: 7194: 7191: 7189: 7184: 7176: 7171: 7170: 7169: 7166: 7165: 7160: 7158: 7151: 7150: 7149: 7148: 7144: 7140: 7133: 7132:Serendipodous 7120: 7116: 7112: 7107: 7095: 7091: 7087: 7083: 7080: 7079: 7078: 7074: 7070: 7065: 7059: 7056: 7052: 7049: 7046: 7045: 7043: 7042: 7041: 7037: 7033: 7032:J mareeswaran 7028: 7025: 7020: 7017: 7014: 7011: 7010: 7008: 7007: 7006: 7002: 6998: 6993: 6992: 6991: 6987: 6983: 6979: 6978:pdf of poster 6974: 6970: 6969: 6968: 6964: 6960: 6959:J mareeswaran 6956: 6955: 6954: 6953: 6949: 6945: 6941: 6925: 6921: 6917: 6912: 6911: 6910: 6906: 6902: 6898: 6897: 6896: 6892: 6888: 6884: 6883: 6882: 6878: 6874: 6870: 6866: 6860: 6832: 6828: 6824: 6820: 6819: 6818: 6814: 6810: 6806: 6803: 6799: 6798: 6797: 6793: 6789: 6785: 6781: 6777: 6773: 6768: 6767: 6766: 6762: 6758: 6753: 6750: 6746: 6742: 6737: 6736: 6735: 6731: 6727: 6723: 6722: 6721: 6717: 6713: 6708: 6706: 6702: 6698: 6693: 6692: 6691: 6687: 6683: 6679: 6675: 6674: 6673: 6669: 6665: 6660: 6659: 6658: 6654: 6650: 6646: 6645: 6644: 6640: 6636: 6632: 6628: 6624: 6620: 6619:J mareeswaran 6616: 6615: 6614: 6610: 6606: 6605:J mareeswaran 6602: 6596: 6593: 6589: 6586: 6585: 6584: 6583: 6582: 6581: 6577: 6573: 6569: 6552: 6548: 6544: 6540: 6539: 6538: 6534: 6530: 6526: 6522: 6521: 6520: 6516: 6512: 6508: 6505: 6501: 6497: 6496:131.215.64.52 6493: 6486: 6485: 6484: 6483: 6479: 6475: 6470: 6460: 6459: 6455: 6454: 6451: 6447: 6443: 6439: 6435: 6434: 6429: 6425: 6421: 6417: 6413: 6408: 6407: 6404: 6403: 6400: 6396: 6392: 6388: 6384: 6383: 6374: 6373: 6372: 6368: 6364: 6359: 6358: 6357: 6353: 6349: 6345: 6339: 6338: 6337: 6336: 6335: 6334: 6330: 6326: 6320: 6318: 6314: 6310: 6303: 6300: 6291: 6285: 6282: 6273: 6269: 6265: 6264:J mareeswaran 6261: 6260: 6259: 6255: 6251: 6247: 6246: 6245: 6244: 6241: 6240: 6235: 6233: 6223: 6217: 6214: 6211: 6206: 6200: 6199: 6194: 6189: 6185: 6181: 6177: 6173: 6168: 6167: 6166: 6165: 6162: 6158: 6154: 6150: 6149: 6148: 6146: 6141: 6138: 6134: 6130: 6123: 6122: 6121: 6117: 6113: 6109: 6105: 6091: 6087: 6083: 6078: 6073: 6069: 6064: 6063: 6062: 6058: 6054: 6049: 6048: 6047: 6043: 6039: 6035: 6031: 6027: 6023: 6022: 6021: 6018: 6013: 6012: 6007: 6003: 5999: 5995: 5991: 5990: 5989: 5985: 5981: 5977: 5976: 5975: 5974: 5970: 5966: 5965:J mareeswaran 5958: 5955: 5952: 5949: 5948: 5947: 5945: 5931: 5927: 5923: 5918: 5913: 5912: 5911: 5907: 5903: 5899: 5895: 5894: 5883: 5879: 5875: 5870: 5869: 5868: 5864: 5860: 5856: 5855: 5854: 5850: 5846: 5841: 5840: 5839: 5835: 5831: 5827: 5826: 5825: 5821: 5817: 5812: 5811: 5810: 5809: 5805: 5801: 5783: 5779: 5773: 5758: 5752: 5746: 5742: 5736:B&B paper 5733: 5729: 5722: 5720: 5718: 5715: 5712: 5709: 5706: 5703: 5701:(Comparison) 5699: 5696: 5695: 5689: 5683: 5680: 5677: 5672: 5667: 5662: 5657: 5655: 5652: 5651: 5647: 5644: 5641: 5638: 5635: 5632: 5629: 5626: 5623: 5614: 5613: 5609: 5606: 5603: 5600: 5597: 5594: 5591: 5588: 5585: 5576: 5575: 5571: 5568: 5565: 5562: 5559: 5556: 5553: 5550: 5547: 5538: 5537: 5533: 5530: 5527: 5524: 5521: 5518: 5515: 5512: 5509: 5500: 5499: 5495: 5492: 5489: 5486: 5483: 5480: 5477: 5474: 5471: 5462: 5461: 5455: 5453: 5450: 5445: 5442: 5440: 5437: 5433: 5430: 5421: 5413: 5410: 5402: 5399: 5398: 5387: 5371: 5367: 5363: 5360: 5357: 5356: 5355: 5351: 5347: 5342: 5341: 5340: 5339: 5335: 5331: 5310: 5306: 5302: 5298: 5297: 5296: 5292: 5288: 5284: 5280: 5279:perturbations 5276: 5275: 5274: 5270: 5266: 5262: 5261: 5260: 5256: 5252: 5247: 5246: 5245: 5241: 5237: 5232: 5231: 5230: 5226: 5222: 5218: 5214: 5213: 5212: 5208: 5204: 5199: 5198: 5197: 5196: 5192: 5188: 5184: 5180: 5176: 5167: 5163: 5159: 5155: 5151: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5141: 5137: 5133: 5130: 5125: 5123: 5119: 5115: 5110: 5109: 5108: 5107: 5103: 5099: 5095: 5089: 5085:15 and i: --> 5077: 5073: 5069: 5065: 5064: 5063: 5059: 5055: 5052:Go for it. -- 5051: 5039: 5035: 5031: 5027: 5023: 5022: 5021: 5017: 5013: 5008: 5007: 5006: 5002: 4998: 4994: 4993: 4992: 4988: 4984: 4979: 4978: 4977: 4973: 4969: 4965: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4955: 4951: 4947: 4942: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4934: 4930: 4926: 4922: 4910: 4906: 4902: 4897: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4890: 4886: 4877: 4876: 4866: 4862: 4858: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4831: 4830: 4829: 4828: 4824: 4820: 4816: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4798: 4797: 4793: 4789: 4768: 4764: 4760: 4756: 4754: 4750: 4746: 4745:J mareeswaran 4742: 4741: 4740: 4736: 4732: 4731:J mareeswaran 4727: 4726: 4725: 4721: 4717: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4707: 4703: 4702:J mareeswaran 4699: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4689: 4685: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4674: 4670: 4664: 4662: 4653: 4649: 4646: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4635: 4631: 4630:J mareeswaran 4626: 4622: 4618: 4614: 4613:orbital plane 4607:Orbital plane 4594: 4590: 4586: 4581: 4576: 4572: 4566: 4562: 4558: 4557:J mareeswaran 4554: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4542: 4538: 4532: 4526: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4507: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4482: 4479: 4476: 4473: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4448: 4444: 4440: 4437: 4433: 4428: 4426:This website 4425: 4421: 4417: 4413: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4403: 4399: 4395: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4384: 4380: 4376: 4372: 4368: 4364: 4360: 4356: 4355:J mareeswaran 4351: 4347: 4343: 4339: 4335: 4334: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4315: 4312: 4311: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4295: 4292: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4282: 4278: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4270: 4259: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4224: 4222: 4219: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4182: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4135: 4131: 4125: 4119: 4110: 4106: 4102: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4092: 4088: 4087:J mareeswaran 4084: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4073: 4069: 4063: 4061: 4048: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4021: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3976: 3973: 3970: 3965: 3960: 3956: 3952: 3949: 3946: 3943: 3919: 3893: 3890: 3887: 3882: 3877: 3873: 3869: 3866: 3863: 3841: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3823: 3818: 3814: 3810: 3807: 3804: 3801: 3798: 3790: 3780: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3746: 3742: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3707: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3682: 3678: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3579: 3575: 3570: 3566: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3430: 3426: 3422: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3402: 3398: 3393: 3392: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3376: 3372: 3369: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3343: 3342: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3304: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3270: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3247: 3237: 3233: 3229: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3202: 3198: 3194: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3170: 3166: 3159: 3155: 3152: 3148: 3145: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3112: 3109: 3105: 3099: 3093: 3090: 3087: 3084: 3081: 3078: 3075: 3072: 3069: 3066: 3063: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3050: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3028: 3027: 3022: 3017: 3016: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2952: 2949: 2943: 2936: 2935: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2921:J mareeswaran 2919: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2877: 2873: 2871: 2869: 2867: 2865: 2863: 2861: 2859: 2857: 2855: 2853: 2851: 2849: 2847: 2845: 2843: 2841: 2839: 2837: 2835: 2833: 2831: 2829: 2827: 2825: 2823: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2803: 2800: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2719: 2718:MNRAS website 2715: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2681:User:Headbomb 2678: 2674: 2671: 2670:User:R150634I 2667: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2649: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2592: 2588: 2585: 2582: 2579: 2576: 2573: 2570: 2567: 2564: 2561: 2560: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2539: 2529: 2526: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2505: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2489:J mareeswaran 2486: 2484: 2481: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2456: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2424: 2421: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2401: 2396: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2387: 2382: 2381:Lorenzo Iorio 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2372: 2371: 2366: 2364: 2357: 2347: 2340: 2334: 2327: 2324: 2320: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2309:J mareeswaran 2305: 2304: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2285: 2280: 2279:Lorenzo Iorio 2273:Lorenzo Iorio 2268: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2251: 2250: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2234:J mareeswaran 2231: 2230: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2206:J mareeswaran 2203: 2199: 2198: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2170:J mareeswaran 2167: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2132: 2129: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2091: 2081: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2064: 2061: 2060: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2022: 2021: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1985: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1966: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1904: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1887: 1884: 1881: 1878: 1873: 1860: 1852: 1848: 1843: 1840: 1837: 1834: 1831: 1828: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1807: 1804: 1802: 1797: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1757: 1754: 1752: 1747: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1730: 1727: 1724: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1712: 1708: 1705: 1701: 1700: 1697: 1693: 1690: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1663: 1661: 1656: 1649: 1645: 1640: 1632: 1631:Caltech video 1628: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1573: 1571: 1566: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1513: 1512: 1507: 1503: 1502: 1499: 1497: 1492: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1463: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1438: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1369: 1360: 1359: 1356: 1354: 1349: 1341: 1340:section above 1335: 1324: 1321: 1318: 1315: 1312: 1303: 1302: 1298: 1295: 1292: 1289: 1286: 1277: 1276: 1272: 1269: 1266: 1263: 1260: 1251: 1250: 1246: 1243: 1240: 1237: 1235: 1232: 1231: 1227: 1224: 1221: 1218: 1215: 1206: 1205: 1201: 1198: 1195: 1192: 1189: 1180: 1179: 1175: 1172: 1169: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1157: 1154: 1152: 1149: 1145: 1142: 1138: 1135: 1132: 1131: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1110: 1107: 1103: 1098: 1097: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1061: 1060: 1054: 1050: 1047: 1043: 1042: 1039: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1012: 1011: 1007: 1003: 996:Off main page 987: 984: 983: 978: 976: 969: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 950: 949: 945: 941: 937: 933: 930: 929: 924: 922: 915: 914: 913: 909: 905: 901: 900: 899: 896: 895: 890: 888: 881: 877: 876: 875: 874: 870: 866: 862: 842: 839: 838: 833: 826: 825: 824: 821: 820: 815: 808: 807: 806: 803: 802: 797: 790: 786: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 774: 770: 769:J mareeswaran 766: 765: 764: 763: 760: 759: 754: 747: 731: 727: 723: 722:J mareeswaran 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 709: 705: 701: 700:Lorenzo Iorio 697: 692: 691: 690: 689: 686: 682: 678: 677:J mareeswaran 674: 670: 669: 668: 667: 663: 659: 655: 654:Lorenzo Iorio 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 624: 623: 619: 615: 610: 604: 600: 596: 592: 588: 584: 583: 582: 578: 574: 570: 569: 568: 564: 560: 555: 554: 553: 552: 548: 544: 540: 519: 515: 511: 507: 504: 503: 502: 498: 494: 493:J mareeswaran 491: 489: 483: 482: 481: 477: 473: 468: 467: 466: 462: 458: 453: 452: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 431: 428: 427: 426: 422: 418: 414: 412: 408: 404: 400: 399: 398: 394: 390: 383: 379: 378: 377: 373: 369: 365: 362: 358: 353: 349: 347: 343: 339: 335:30 and a: --> 333: 332: 331: 330: 326: 322: 312: 309: 306: 305: 304: 302: 297: 283: 279: 275: 269: 263: 259: 255: 251: 249: 243: 242: 241: 237: 233: 228: 227: 226: 222: 218: 217:J mareeswaran 214: 211: 207: 206: 205: 204: 203: 202: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 180: 179: 175: 171: 167: 163: 159: 155: 151:30 and a: --> 149:30 and a: --> 147: 146:the statement 143: 139: 138: 137: 133: 129: 124: 121: 115: 114: 113: 112: 108: 104: 100:30 and a: --> 97: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 7255: 7221: 7178: 7153: 7128: 7082:This article 6973:this article 6937: 6863:— Preceding 6856: 6677: 6567: 6564: 6490:— Preceding 6468: 6465: 6415: 6411: 6321: 6316: 6312: 6308: 6305: 6297: 6289: 6287: 6278: 6228: 6226: 6143:Mike Brown ( 6142: 6139: 6135: 6131: 6127: 6118: 6114: 6110: 6106: 6103: 6024:But the 8:3 5962: 5941: 5797: 5786:. Retrieved 5772: 5761:. Retrieved 5751: 5741: 5732: 5325: 5172: 5082: 4918: 4881: 4814: 4812: 4804: 4784: 4666: 4660: 4658: 4610: 4578: 4529: 4504: 4370: 4265: 4246: 4115: 4082: 4065: 4059: 4052: 4046: 3786: 3737: 3643: 3568: 3551:3.8x Earths. 3531: 3440: 3401:specifically 3400: 3302: 3297: 3293: 3242: 3162: 3124: 3123:but renamed 3120: 3116: 3114: 3101: 3097: 3056: 3034: 3013: 3011: 3008:Whack-a-mole 2976: 2910:new versions 2906:is not clear 2821: 2711: 2632:. See also 2431: 2398: 2359: 2358: 2350:. Retrieved 2345: 2335: 2332: 2276: 2254: 2144: 2087: 2068: 1905: 1891: 1859:cite episode 1850: 1821: 1791: 1741: 1695: 1688: 1650: 1647: 1643: 1638: 1601: 1560: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1486: 1483: 1374: 1343: 1330: 1151:Eccentricity 1018: 999: 971: 917: 883: 860: 858: 828: 810: 792: 789:dumb it down 788: 784: 749: 745: 743: 695: 651: 536: 487: 485: 317: 298: 295: 247: 209: 118: 93: 65: 43: 37: 5900:is as big. 4621:inclination 4126:with q: --> 4120:with q: --> 2914:corrections 2608:Kuiper belt 2418:irregular. 2348:. arxiv.org 2145:I refer to 1639:widdershins 1544:forcefully: 1533:complaining 1363:perspective 1234:90377 Sedna 1083:Jonathunder 36:This is an 6934:Nice model 5944:2004_XR190 5938:2004_XR190 5788:2014-02-16 5763:2013-10-13 5759:. NASA/JPL 5401:Perihelion 4801:degenerate 4652:link title 4580:perturber. 4371:0° or 180° 3706:(~51000km) 3292:Note that 2874:Moreover, 2714:arXiv link 2352:2014-04-10 1868:|seriesno= 1637:are shown 1144:Perihelion 954:codswallop 791:a little. 746:Simulation 740:Simulation 7175:straw man 6940:blog post 6293:objects." 6017:Jehochman 5444:Arg. peri 5183:8 others. 5179:2008 KV42 4941:2008 KV42 4921:5 objects 4336:Agreed.-- 4262:why at 0? 4134:Sednoids. 4127:30 a: --> 4121:50 a: --> 3710:(49600km) 3368:Jehochman 3308:AstroLynx 3246:Jehochman 3169:Jehochman 2948:Jehochman 2799:Jehochman 2723:AstroLynx 2638:Jehochman 2612:Exoplanet 2525:Jehochman 2504:Jehochman 2480:Jehochman 2455:Jehochman 2420:Jehochman 2386:Jehochman 2323:Jehochman 2284:Jehochman 2128:Jehochman 2090:Jehochman 1965:Jehochman 1437:Jehochman 916:So am I. 541:issue. -- 96:six ETNOs 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 7201:Planet X 7125:Planet X 7111:Smkolins 7086:Agmartin 7069:Agmartin 6997:Agmartin 6982:Agmartin 6944:Agmartin 6916:Smkolins 6901:Agmartin 6887:Smkolins 6877:contribs 6869:Agmartin 6865:unsigned 6823:Agmartin 6788:Agmartin 6772:Agmartin 6757:Agmartin 6741:Agmartin 6712:Agmartin 6697:Agmartin 6664:Agmartin 6635:Agmartin 6568:absolute 6492:unsigned 6442:Tom Ruen 6420:Smkolins 6391:Tom Ruen 6363:Smkolins 6348:Smkolins 6325:Smkolins 6311:and the 6302:cannot." 6205:Huntster 6180:contribs 6172:Headbomb 6153:Tom Ruen 6082:Agmartin 6053:Agmartin 5998:Agmartin 5902:Tom Ruen 5874:Smkolins 5845:Smkolins 5800:Smkolins 5691:~ 40,000 5669:~ 1000 ? 5426:from Sun 5424:distance 5412:Semimaj. 5362:Agmartin 5346:Agmartin 5330:Smkolins 5301:Smkolins 5265:Smkolins 5251:Smkolins 5236:Smkolins 5203:Agmartin 5150:ecliptic 5136:Smkolins 5129:2005 VX3 5114:Smkolins 5054:Smkolins 5012:Smkolins 4983:Smkolins 4962:That is 4950:Smkolins 4885:Smkolins 4857:Agmartin 4835:Agmartin 4819:Smkolins 4817:. Yes?-- 4788:Smkolins 4759:Smkolins 4716:Smkolins 4684:Smkolins 4669:Smkolins 4617:coplanar 4585:Agmartin 4537:Agmartin 4511:Smkolins 4489:Smkolins 4457:Smkolins 4443:Smkolins 4412:Smkolins 4398:Smkolins 4338:Smkolins 4318:Smkolins 4298:Agmartin 4249:Smkolins 4200:8 others 4186:Smkolins 4153:Smkolins 4118:Sednoids 4101:Smkolins 4068:Smkolins 4060:Sednitos 4047:Sednitos 4030:Tom Ruen 3997:Tom Ruen 3760:Smkolins 3741:Smkolins 3677:Smkolins 3646:Smkolins 3617:Smkolins 3589:Smkolins 3537:Smkolins 3497:Smkolins 3460:Smkolins 3421:Smkolins 3380:Smkolins 3349:Smkolins 3325:Smkolins 3276:Smkolins 3259:Smkolins 3228:Smkolins 3197:Smkolins 3180:Smkolins 3129:Smkolins 3040:Smkolins 2994:Smkolins 2979:Agmartin 2876:NASA ADS 2778:Smkolins 2756:contribs 2748:Headbomb 2693:Smkolins 2653:Smkolins 2616:Smkolins 2543:Smkolins 2220:Smkolins 2184:Smkolins 2151:Smkolins 2114:Smkolins 2071:Smkolins 2046:Smkolins 2028:Smkolins 2003:Smkolins 1989:Smkolins 1974:Smkolins 1927:Smkolins 1894:Smkolins 1672:Smkolins 1613:Smkolins 1471:Smkolins 1410:---: --> 1393:Smkolins 1114:Smkolins 1102:Tom Ruen 1029:Tom Ruen 1015:Diagrams 940:Smkolins 614:Smkolins 573:Smkolins 457:Smkolins 417:Smkolins 389:Smkolins 368:Smkolins 357:Smkolins 321:Smkolins 274:Smkolins 170:Tom Ruen 128:Smkolins 7258:Serendi 7242:Nergaal 7224:Serendi 7156:Serendi 7139:Nergaal 7061:tuning. 6809:JorisvS 6726:JorisvS 6682:JorisvS 6649:JorisvS 6572:JorisvS 6529:Nergaal 6511:Kheider 6474:Nergaal 6250:JorisvS 6231:Serendi 6184:physics 6068:Kheider 6038:Kheider 5994:escaped 5980:Kheider 5922:Kheider 5859:JorisvS 5830:Kheider 5816:JorisvS 5617:2012 DR 5579:2013 BL 5541:2010 BK 5422:Current 5287:Kheider 5221:Kheider 5187:Kheider 5158:Kheider 5098:Kheider 5068:Kheider 5030:Kheider 4997:Kheider 4968:Kheider 4929:Kheider 4901:Kheider 4485:radians 4379:JorisvS 4277:JorisvS 4228:Kheider 4204:Kheider 4168:Kheider 4138:Kheider 4016:Kheider 4012:B&B 3714:Kheider 3692:Gap9551 3662:Gap9551 3603:Gap9551 3574:Gap9551 3555:Kheider 3528:Neptune 3514:Gap9551 3481:Kheider 3477:Neptune 3444:Kheider 3213:Kheider 2760:physics 2510:JorisvS 2465:JorisvS 2439:Kheider 2405:JorisvS 2362:Serendi 2100:Kheider 1334:Tomruen 1306:2010 GB 1280:2004 VN 1254:2013 RF 1209:2012 VP 1183:2007 TG 1065:Kheider 974:Serendi 920:Serendi 886:Serendi 880:Neptune 855:Picture 673:Telesto 632:Kheider 595:Kheider 559:Kheider 539:V774104 510:Kheider 472:Kheider 442:Kheider 438:sednoid 430:V774104 403:Kheider 385:/a: --> 382:V774104 352:V774104 338:Kheider 301:V774104 292:V774104 254:Kheider 232:JorisvS 188:Kheider 182:I have 154:Kheider 103:Kheider 39:archive 7187:design 7182:nagual 6859:Drac's 6802:σ = Δλ 6598:effect 6592:note E 5723:40–80 5610:15–40 5572:20–50 5534:30–60 5496:20–45 5439:Eccen. 5389:Object 5181:, and 4815:cannot 4623:& 4531:1989). 4083:NOTE C 3532:radius 3165:Saturn 2745:don't. 2610:, and 1800:design 1795:nagual 1750:design 1745:nagual 1659:design 1654:nagual 1644:should 1569:design 1564:nagual 1495:design 1490:nagual 1352:design 1347:nagual 1133:Object 952:Total 94:These 6938:This 6543:Ørjan 6525:Hades 6188:books 5716:0.995 5713:89.4° 5704:0.914 5685:: --> 5664:~ 700 5659:~ 200 5458:(km) 5456:Diam. 5395:Body 5392:Orbit 4927:? -- 4923:with 4573:From 4502:case: 4130:ETNOs 4124:ETNOs 3712:. -- 3473:Earth 3254:Does 3021:Help! 2962:21a12 2881:21a12 2764:books 2437:. -- 2342:(PDF) 1945:Ørjan 1912:Ørjan 1325:348° 1299:327° 1273:316° 1247:311° 1228:294° 1202:286° 1176:150° 1170:~ 200 1167:~ 700 1002:Ørjan 543:Ørjan 16:< 7246:talk 7209:talk 7143:talk 7115:talk 7090:talk 7073:talk 7036:talk 7001:talk 6986:talk 6963:talk 6948:talk 6920:talk 6905:talk 6891:talk 6873:talk 6853:Drac 6827:talk 6813:talk 6792:talk 6776:talk 6761:talk 6745:talk 6730:talk 6716:talk 6701:talk 6686:talk 6668:talk 6653:talk 6639:talk 6623:talk 6609:talk 6576:talk 6547:talk 6533:talk 6515:talk 6500:talk 6478:talk 6469:huge 6446:talk 6424:talk 6418:? -- 6414:and 6395:talk 6376:2016 6367:talk 6352:talk 6329:talk 6268:talk 6254:talk 6176:talk 6157:talk 6086:talk 6072:talk 6057:talk 6042:talk 6034:Drac 6002:talk 5984:talk 5969:talk 5926:talk 5906:talk 5878:talk 5863:talk 5849:talk 5834:talk 5820:talk 5804:talk 5674:~ 30 5648:171 5645:19.6 5630:1404 5607:21.6 5592:1213 5513:11.1 5452:Mag. 5428:(AU) 5415:(AU) 5404:(AU) 5366:talk 5350:talk 5334:talk 5305:talk 5291:talk 5269:talk 5255:talk 5240:talk 5225:talk 5207:talk 5191:talk 5162:talk 5154:MOID 5140:talk 5118:talk 5102:talk 5094:60.) 5072:talk 5058:talk 5034:talk 5016:talk 5001:talk 4987:talk 4972:talk 4954:talk 4933:talk 4905:talk 4889:talk 4861:talk 4853:crit 4849:crit 4839:talk 4823:talk 4792:talk 4763:talk 4749:talk 4735:talk 4720:talk 4706:talk 4688:talk 4673:talk 4634:talk 4589:talk 4561:talk 4541:talk 4515:talk 4493:talk 4461:talk 4447:talk 4416:talk 4402:talk 4383:talk 4359:talk 4342:talk 4322:talk 4302:talk 4289:See 4281:talk 4253:talk 4232:talk 4208:talk 4190:talk 4172:talk 4157:talk 4142:talk 4105:talk 4091:talk 4072:talk 4034:talk 4020:talk 4001:talk 3912:and 3764:talk 3745:talk 3718:talk 3696:talk 3681:talk 3666:talk 3650:talk 3621:talk 3607:talk 3593:talk 3578:talk 3559:talk 3541:talk 3518:talk 3501:talk 3485:talk 3464:talk 3448:talk 3437:Size 3425:talk 3410:talk 3384:talk 3353:talk 3347:. -- 3329:talk 3312:talk 3280:talk 3274:. -- 3263:talk 3232:talk 3217:talk 3201:talk 3184:talk 3133:talk 3127:. -- 3044:talk 2998:talk 2983:talk 2966:talk 2925:talk 2885:talk 2782:talk 2776:. -- 2752:talk 2727:talk 2712:The 2697:talk 2657:talk 2620:talk 2547:talk 2514:talk 2493:talk 2469:talk 2443:talk 2409:talk 2313:talk 2298:talk 2263:talk 2255:this 2238:talk 2224:talk 2210:talk 2188:talk 2174:talk 2164:the 2155:talk 2118:talk 2104:talk 2075:talk 2050:talk 2032:talk 2007:talk 1993:talk 1978:talk 1949:talk 1931:talk 1916:talk 1898:talk 1872:help 1788:this 1784:this 1774:talk 1676:talk 1617:talk 1586:talk 1556:Why? 1523:talk 1475:talk 1450:talk 1419:talk 1397:talk 1381:talk 1322:0.87 1296:0.85 1270:0.88 1244:0.86 1225:0.70 1199:0.93 1159:(ω) 1147:(AU) 1140:(AU) 1118:talk 1106:talk 1087:talk 1069:talk 1033:talk 1006:talk 962:talk 944:talk 908:talk 869:talk 831:Nyth 813:Nyth 795:Nyth 773:talk 752:Nyth 726:talk 704:talk 681:talk 662:talk 636:talk 618:talk 599:talk 577:talk 563:talk 547:talk 514:talk 497:talk 476:talk 461:talk 446:talk 421:talk 407:talk 393:talk 372:talk 366:) -- 361:talk 342:talk 325:talk 278:talk 258:talk 236:talk 221:talk 192:talk 174:talk 158:talk 132:talk 107:talk 7265:ous 7231:ous 7163:ous 6678:why 6319:.) 6238:ous 5946:? 5707:186 5681:150 5678:0.6 5642:195 5639:.99 5604:166 5601:.99 5589:8.5 5566:179 5563:.99 5560:144 5554:484 5551:6.3 5544:118 5528:129 5525:.97 5516:348 5490:133 5487:.97 5484:141 5478:323 5475:9.4 5448:(°) 5435:(°) 5432:inc 5219:-- 5185:-- 5096:-- 5084:--> 5028:-- 4966:-- 4136:-- 3957:log 3874:log 3815:log 3811:2.5 3758:.-- 3567:Re: 3530:'s 3406:Wnt 3298:not 3296:is 3015:Guy 2946:. 2942:JzG 2369:ous 2259:Wnt 1790:). 1786:to 1770:Itu 1635:174 1582:Itu 1537:not 1519:Itu 1446:Itu 1415:Itu 1377:Itu 1316:351 1309:174 1290:327 1283:112 1264:317 1238:506 1219:263 1212:113 1193:501 1186:422 1173:0.6 981:ous 927:ous 893:ous 630:-- 593:-- 508:-- 252:-- 99:--> 7248:) 7211:) 7145:) 7117:) 7092:) 7075:) 7038:) 7003:) 6988:) 6965:) 6950:) 6922:) 6907:) 6893:) 6879:) 6875:• 6829:) 6815:) 6794:) 6778:) 6763:) 6747:) 6732:) 6718:) 6703:) 6688:) 6670:) 6655:) 6641:) 6625:) 6611:) 6578:) 6549:) 6535:) 6517:) 6502:) 6480:) 6448:) 6426:) 6397:) 6369:) 6354:) 6331:) 6270:) 6256:) 6203:— 6186:/ 6182:/ 6178:/ 6159:) 6088:) 6059:) 6044:) 6004:) 5986:) 5971:) 5928:) 5908:) 5880:) 5865:) 5851:) 5836:) 5822:) 5814:-- 5806:) 5780:. 5710:38 5686:22 5636:78 5633:17 5627:14 5620:30 5598:99 5595:11 5582:76 5569:21 5557:11 5531:21 5522:68 5519:12 5493:22 5481:14 5368:) 5352:) 5336:) 5307:) 5293:) 5271:) 5257:) 5242:) 5227:) 5209:) 5193:) 5164:) 5142:) 5120:) 5104:) 5074:) 5060:) 5036:) 5018:) 5010:-- 5003:) 4989:) 4974:) 4956:) 4935:) 4907:) 4891:) 4863:) 4841:) 4825:) 4794:) 4786:-- 4765:) 4751:) 4737:) 4722:) 4708:) 4690:) 4675:) 4667:-- 4650:. 4647:, 4636:) 4591:) 4563:) 4543:) 4517:) 4495:) 4480:, 4477:, 4463:) 4449:) 4418:) 4404:) 4385:) 4361:) 4344:) 4324:) 4316:-- 4304:) 4283:) 4271:? 4255:) 4234:) 4223:? 4210:) 4192:) 4174:) 4159:) 4144:) 4107:) 4093:) 4074:) 4066:-- 4036:) 4022:) 4003:) 3966:⁡ 3961:10 3953:10 3944:− 3883:⁡ 3878:10 3870:10 3856:= 3824:⁡ 3819:10 3766:) 3747:) 3720:) 3698:) 3683:) 3668:) 3652:) 3623:) 3609:) 3595:) 3587:-- 3580:) 3561:) 3543:) 3520:) 3503:) 3487:) 3466:) 3450:) 3427:) 3412:) 3386:) 3355:) 3331:) 3323:-- 3314:) 3306:. 3282:) 3265:) 3234:) 3226:-- 3219:) 3203:) 3186:) 3135:) 3046:) 3000:) 2985:) 2968:) 2927:) 2887:) 2784:) 2762:/ 2758:/ 2754:/ 2729:) 2699:) 2687:. 2659:) 2622:) 2602:, 2549:) 2516:) 2495:) 2471:) 2445:) 2411:) 2344:. 2315:) 2300:) 2265:) 2240:) 2226:) 2212:) 2190:) 2176:) 2157:) 2120:) 2106:) 2077:) 2069:-- 2052:) 2034:) 2009:) 1995:) 1980:) 1951:) 1943:-- 1933:) 1918:) 1900:) 1892:-- 1863:: 1861:}} 1857:{{ 1849:. 1776:) 1678:) 1619:) 1588:) 1541:me 1525:) 1477:) 1452:) 1421:) 1399:) 1391:-- 1383:) 1319:48 1293:47 1267:36 1257:98 1241:76 1222:80 1196:36 1120:) 1089:) 1071:) 1035:) 1008:) 964:) 946:) 910:) 871:) 836:63 818:63 800:63 775:) 757:63 728:) 706:) 683:) 664:) 638:) 620:) 601:) 579:) 565:) 549:) 516:) 499:) 478:) 463:) 448:) 423:) 409:) 395:) 374:) 344:) 327:) 280:) 260:) 238:) 230:-- 223:) 194:) 176:) 160:) 134:) 109:) 7244:( 7207:( 7141:( 7134:: 7130:@ 7113:( 7088:( 7071:( 7034:( 6999:( 6984:( 6961:( 6946:( 6918:( 6903:( 6889:( 6871:( 6825:( 6811:( 6790:( 6774:( 6759:( 6751:I 6743:( 6728:( 6714:( 6699:( 6684:( 6666:( 6651:( 6637:( 6621:( 6607:( 6574:( 6545:( 6531:( 6513:( 6498:( 6476:( 6444:( 6422:( 6416:6 6412:5 6393:( 6365:( 6350:( 6327:( 6317:6 6313:5 6309:6 6266:( 6252:( 6218:) 6216:c 6213:@ 6210:t 6208:( 6190:} 6174:{ 6155:( 6084:( 6074:) 6070:( 6055:( 6040:( 6000:( 5982:( 5967:( 5924:( 5904:( 5876:( 5861:( 5847:( 5832:( 5818:( 5802:( 5791:. 5766:. 5506:9 5468:1 5446:ω 5364:( 5348:( 5332:( 5303:( 5289:( 5267:( 5253:( 5238:( 5223:( 5205:( 5189:( 5160:( 5138:( 5116:( 5100:( 5070:( 5056:( 5032:( 5014:( 4999:( 4985:( 4970:( 4952:( 4931:( 4903:( 4887:( 4859:( 4837:( 4821:( 4790:( 4761:( 4747:( 4733:( 4718:( 4704:( 4686:( 4671:( 4661:6 4632:( 4587:( 4559:( 4539:( 4513:( 4491:( 4459:( 4445:( 4414:( 4400:( 4381:( 4357:( 4340:( 4320:( 4300:( 4279:( 4251:( 4230:( 4206:( 4188:( 4170:( 4155:( 4140:( 4103:( 4089:( 4070:( 4062:. 4032:( 4018:( 3999:( 3977:) 3974:d 3971:( 3950:+ 3947:7 3920:d 3894:) 3891:d 3888:( 3867:+ 3864:H 3842:) 3837:4 3833:d 3829:( 3808:+ 3805:H 3802:= 3799:m 3762:( 3743:( 3716:( 3694:( 3679:( 3664:( 3648:( 3619:( 3605:( 3591:( 3576:( 3557:( 3539:( 3516:( 3499:( 3483:( 3462:( 3446:( 3423:( 3408:( 3382:( 3351:( 3327:( 3310:( 3278:( 3261:( 3230:( 3215:( 3199:( 3182:( 3131:( 3042:( 3023:) 3019:( 2996:( 2981:( 2964:( 2944:: 2940:@ 2923:( 2912:/ 2883:( 2780:( 2766:} 2750:{ 2725:( 2695:( 2672:( 2655:( 2618:( 2545:( 2512:( 2506:: 2502:@ 2491:( 2467:( 2441:( 2407:( 2355:. 2311:( 2296:( 2261:( 2236:( 2222:( 2208:( 2186:( 2172:( 2153:( 2116:( 2102:( 2073:( 2048:( 2030:( 2005:( 1991:( 1976:( 1947:( 1929:( 1914:( 1896:( 1874:) 1870:( 1772:( 1674:( 1615:( 1584:( 1521:( 1473:( 1448:( 1417:( 1395:( 1379:( 1336:: 1332:@ 1116:( 1108:) 1104:( 1085:( 1067:( 1031:( 1004:( 960:( 942:( 906:( 867:( 771:( 724:( 702:( 679:( 660:( 634:( 616:( 597:( 575:( 561:( 545:( 512:( 495:( 490:. 474:( 459:( 444:( 419:( 405:( 391:( 370:( 359:( 340:( 323:( 276:( 256:( 250:" 234:( 219:( 212:" 190:( 172:( 156:( 130:( 105:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index