Talk:Planets beyond Neptune

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Planets beyond Neptune is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 30, 2012.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 11, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
July 29, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
September 21, 2008 Featured topic candidate Not promoted
Current status: Featured article

Mass limits[edit]

We say there are no planets beyond Neptune, but the calculations were based on data from 1990. What are the constraints today? Can we give upper masses for regions beyond Neptune? What about things out of the ecliptic? — kwami (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There are possibly rather heavy objects. What they didn’t achieve, though, is clearing the neighbourhood…. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Under the new definition of planet -- it is almost impossible for Mars-sized bodies to clear their orbit if they are located at 200+ AU. On the other hand, Pluto is a planet if it is relocated between Mercury and Venus. The fellow asked about massive bodies that are inclined to the ecliptic by a large margin -- the short answer is that it is very possible for there to be massive bodies with large inclinations to the Ecliptic at far distances of 400+ AU. Chesspride (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
And a Mars mass object 200AU from the Sun would not have a dynamically significant influence on the Soar System. We can be very confident nothing the mass of Saturn (~100 Earths) is near the Oort Cloud. -- Kheider (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


I am currently only able to access the Internet via iPad, so I dont have the tools to do this myself but any info regarding vp113 has to go in the susequent proposed section until the supposed planet is confirmed.Serendipodous 12:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Where would you put it? Under the heading '2012 VP113' at the end of the section 'Subsequently proposed trans-Neptunian planets'? --Eleassar my talk 13:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The big problem with 2012 VP113 is that it does not prove any object of several Earth mass exists hundreds of AU from the Sun. There are many possible explanations for 2012 VP113, 90377 Sedna and 2000 CR105. People always jump on Planet X because it sounds exciting. -- Kheider (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is an actual possibility, so this article should explain this to be comprehensive. --Eleassar my talk 14:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I have added it to the Kuiper cliff section. It is pretty much the same story as Sedna. -- Kheider (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a bit more complex than that Kev; I've expanded it a bit to clarify the "Planet X" connection.Serendipodous 16:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
We do not have a section dedicated to Sedna. Hopefully in a few years we will have references that discuss Sedna and VP113 as a group and we can expand the Kuiper cliff section or have a section called Sednoids. -- Kheider (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Planet X revamped after the discovery of the Sedna-like object 2012 VP113? (Lorenzo Iorio : 31 Mar 2014: arXiv:1404.0258)


The summary in the lede that Serendipodous keeps reverting to does not accurately reflect the chronology described in the article. It makes it sound as if in 1978 it was suddenly discovered that Pluto was too small to be responsible for perturbing Uranus and Neptune, when that had already been observed years before: it was already too small at .025 Earth masses (1973), and arguably too small even at .1 Earth masses (1948). Also specifically citing 2006 when Pluto was reclassified is especially confusing, because that bureaucratic change had no retroactive bearing on the search for ("other") planets. I realize that the IAU ruling looms large in astronomy geeks' minds, but it has no relevance to a summary of 20th century history. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I admit, the issue with the size of Pluto is perplexing. I would need to see how those astronomers squared Planet X with their proposed masses for Pluto. Did they still think Pluto was Planet X, even with their estimates? That said, all the previous estimates were fundamentally educated guesswork, and it wasn't until Charon was discovered that Pluto's mass was known with certainty.
Less certainty. Citing 1978 implies that the astronomers before then had no idea that Pluto wasn't responsible, which is a rather bold assertion to make when you admittedly don't know. My phrasing made the more general statement that as Pluto "became" smaller, the more astronomers dismissed it as the cause (which they did).
As far as the 2006 reclassification goes, this article is about "planets beyond Neptune". The fact that Pluto is no longer considered a planet is rather important and needs to be mentioned in the lede; otherwise the title of this article would need to be changed, because Pluto was a planet beyond Neptune, and the point of the article is that planets beyond Neptune are hypothetical. Serendipodous 13:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact that it happened in 2006 is irrelevant. Citing that date is also confusing because it implies that the search for planets beyond Neptune changed in some way because of it, when it did not. That part of the article as I found it was confusingly written. I tried to make it clearer, and you've been knee-jerk reverting with belligerent edit summaries ever since. Try assuming good faith for a change; just because you don't understand the point of a change to "your" article doesn't mean it isn't constructive. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
You have not assumed good faith on my part, and have repeatedly violated the WP:BRD rule in favour of pushing your POV. All I asked was that we have a civil conversation on the talk page. Let me try something to clarify it. Serendipodous 14:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

no discrepancies in trajectories?[edit]

With regards to this statement: "There are no discrepancies in the trajectories of any space probes such as Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Voyager 1, and Voyager 2..." citing a paper from 1990, however, in 2004, a discrepancy was discovered, detailed here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The Pioneer anomaly has been solved, though citing a paper from 1990 is no good. Even if it hadn't been solved, both Pioneers are undergoing a similar acceleration, but are in very different areas of the Solar System, which would hence not point to the existence of a planet. --JorisvS (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

ALMA dwarf[edit]

ALMA discovers the most distant object of the solar system? Extreme trans-Neptunian object (ETNO) "dwarf-planet" with a semi-major axis greater than 150 AU that is currently more than 100AU from the Sun? Super-Earth @ ~300AU? Giant planet @ ~20000AU? -- Kheider (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

And some caution and skepticism from Phil Plait. I'm sure this'll be everywhere if the paper is peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. Woodroar (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Assuming their results are not "wrong" my money is still on a Pluto like (E)TNO since that is the easiest and thus most likely explanation. -- Kheider (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Brown/Batygin 2016[edit]

Changed the placement within the text, as it was put in the middle of two paragraphs about Sedna. (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


The "Postulated Planet Nine" section overlaps with the "Planet Nine" section. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Fixed

5th gas giant theory[edit]

The article should mention the prediction that the Nice model may predict more than 4 original GG, even if those might have been ejected by now. Nergaal (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing in the theory that suggests it would necessarily be a trans-Neptunian planet. It might be, but then it might not be. Serendipodous 23:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Chronological rearrangement[edit]

I'm concerned that the new arrangement gives too much prominence to Gomes's work, and leads the reader to assume it is connected to Planet Nine. Serendipodous 21:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This article isn't about Planet Nine[edit]

The Constraints section focuses too much on Planet Nine in particular; that section should be about trans-Neptunian planets in general. Serendipodous 21:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)