Proof They Know About Planet X

[link to arxiv.org]

Constraints on the location of a putative distant massive body in the Solar System and on the External Field Effect of MOND from recent planetary data
Authors: Lorenzo Iorio
(Submitted on 13 Jan 2011 (v1), last revised 19 Jan 2011 (this version, v3))

Abstract: We analytically work out the long-term variations caused on the motion of a planet orbiting a star by a distant, pointlike massive object X. Apart from the semimajor axis a, all the other Keplerian orbital elements of the perturbed planet experience long-term variations which are complicated functions of the orbital configurations of both the planet itself and of X. We infer constraints on the minimum distance d_X at which the putative body X can exist by comparing, first, our prediction of the long-term variation of the longitude of the perihelion \varpi to the latest empirical determinations of the corrections \Delta\dot\varpi to the standard Newtonian/Einsteinian secular precessions of several planets of the solar system recently obtained. Independent teams of astronomers estimated them by fitting accurate dynamical force models$-$not including the action of X itself$-$to observational data records covering almost one century. Then, we numerically compute the perturbations induced by X on the range \rho, the right ascension \alpha and the declination \delta of Saturn. We compare them with the latest residuals produced by analyzing records of radiotechnical data from the Cassini spacecraft spanning some years. Tighter constraints on d_X are, thus, obtained. The combined use of all the methods adopted yield the following lower bounds on d_X for the assumed masses of X quoted in brackets: 141-281 au (Mars), 300-600 au (Earth), 771-1542 au (Neptune), 2037-4074 au (Jupiter), 8784-17568 au (brown dwarf with m_X = 80 m_Jup), 16434-32868 au (red dwarf with m_X = 0.5 M_Sun), 20709-41418 au (Sun). Alternative strategies which could be followed are pointed out. Constraints on the adimensional parameter -q of the External Field Effect within the MOdified Newtonian Dynamics are obtained from the range residuals of Saturn: it turns out -q\approx 0.01-0.04 (at 1/3-\sigma level of rejection).

Comments: LaTex2e, 33 pages. 7 figures, 6 tables. Secular precession of the argument of perihelion added
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Earth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP); Space Physics (physics.space-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:1101.2634v3 [gr-qc]
Submission history
From: Lorenzo Iorio [view email]
[v1] Thu, 13 Jan 2011 19:07:43 GMT (4412kb)
[v2] Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:46:13 GMT (4412kb)
[v3] Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:30:13 GMT (4412kb)

How do you know it is a myth? What evidence is there for that proposition?

"Nibiru" is nothing but mythical.

ya ok hi-rise

The fact that there is no evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making the outrageous claim that "Nibiru" exists and is going to pass through the inner solar system in 2012.

IF there is some near earth sized body moving through our solar system we are toast.

No, you can't conclude it is a myth from that - just that you have not seen evidence of it. Your sweeping conclusion that it is a myth belies an agenda. Do you reject the possibility of a nemesis-like object that explains periodic extinctions which could approach earth after 2012-at any point?

You fall for any wild-assed speculation that is tossed your way as long as it defies the logical explanation, don't you? It doesn't matter how infeasible it is, does it?

There is no evidence of the mythical "Nibiru" that is supposedly going to pass through the inner solar system in 2012.

The fact that there is no evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making the outrageous claim that "Nibiru" exists and is going to pass through the inner solar system in 2012.

Just like you can see tracks from bears that have walked through woods, the mythical "Nibiru" would leave "tracks" if it passed through the inner solar system on regular orbit. The fact that the inner planets' orbits are stable and as close to circular and they are and as close to the ecliptic as they are show that there is no "Nibiru" on a 3,600 year orbit through the inner solar system. If an object of its had passed through the inner solar system, it would take many millenia for the orbits of the planets to stabilize.

Just like you can see tracks from bears that have walked through woods, the mythical "Nibiru" would leave "tracks" if it passed through the inner solar system on regular orbit. The fact that the inner planets' orbits are stable and as close to circular and they are and as close to the ecliptic as they are show that there is no "Nibiru" on a 3,600 year orbit through the inner solar system. If an object of its had passed through the inner solar system, it would take many millenia for the orbits of the planets to stabilize.

not proof, they are theorising

Cite? Link? Proof?

No, everything here is hypothetical. And one of the papers even shows that "Nibiru" passing through the the inner solar system in 2012 is implausible.

They show absolutely nothing that we have to fear.

there is no such earth sized body moving THRU the solar system, and why would be toast. There are planets much larger than earth, and there are star fleet craft IN the solar system, much larger than earth as seen on SOHO and Stereo. So why again are we "toast" because a giant thingy move thru. depends on how close etc. etc.

Back in the days of Hale Bopp, a ship investigating it was seen 2 to 3 times the size of earth, as estimated by scientists watching it and we do seem to still be here. Thread: Nibiru is not here plus an archive of my posts.

No, YOU just don't want to believe that it's possible! Cause to believe that it's possible will shake your foundation to the core and cause you to do some serious soul-searching! I would advise YOU .....to do so anyhow. What you believe and what it is, is two entirely different things. You BELIEVING that it's true is in no way relevant to what is and what WILL be. Wake up.

And if I may add to my rant; what exactly are you proposing to do between now and the destruction of the planet that you're so sure is coming? Max out a bunch of credit cards and go on a spending orgy? Try to invent some real big engines to turn Earth around? Or just keep posting on the internet in the manner of a homeless man waving a cardboard placard on the street corner?

Everyone knows there is a planet x.

Have you heard of programs that simulate the effects of gravity on planets?

Have you also heard of orbital perturbations?

If anything like Nibiru was approaching, the outer planets would have had their orbits drastically changed as far back as the 90s, Saturn would be displaced, and it would be seen across the sky.

And I'm tempted to remark upon how hilarious it is that a believer asks for proof, but I'll refrain from doing so.

Then prove it. Provide irrefutable physical evidence of it.

30 page pdf - [link to xxx.lanl.gov]

Persistent Evidence of a Jovian Mass Solar Companion in the Oort Cloud
John J. Matese and Daniel P. Whitmire
Department of Physics

Abstract:

We present an updated dynamical and statistical analysis of outer Oort cloud cometary evidence suggesting the sun has a wide-binary Jovian mass companion. The results support a conjecture that there exists a companion of mass 1 4 MJupiter orbiting in the innermost region of the outer Oort cloud. Our most restrictive prediction is that the orientation angles of the orbit normal in galactic coordinates are centered on , the galactic longitude of the ascending node = and i, the galactic inclination = 103◦ (or the opposite direction) with an uncertainty in the normal direction subtending 2% of the sky. A Bayesian statistical analysis suggests that the probability of the companion hypothesis is comparable to or greater than the probability of the null hypothesis of a statistical fluke. Such a companion could also have produced the detached Kuiper Belt object Sedna. The putative companion could be easily detected by the recently launched Wide-Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE)

1. Introduction
Anomalies in the aphelia distribution and orbital elements of Outer Oort cloud comets led to the suggestion that ≈ 20% of these comets were made discernable due to a weak impulse from a bound Jovian mass body (Matese et al. ( 1999)). Since that time the data base of comets has doubled. Further motivation
for an updated analysis comes from the recent launch of the Wide-Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE; Wright ( 2007)), which could easily detect the putative companion orbiting in the outer Oort cloud. Such an object would be incapable of creating comet “storms”. To help mitigate popular confusion with the Nemesis model (Whitmire and Jackson ( 1984), Davis et al. ( 1984)) we use the name recently suggested by
Kirkpatrick and Wright (2010), Tyche, (the good sister of Nemesis) for the putative companion.


5. Summary and conclusions
We have described how the dynamics of a dominant galactic tidal interaction, weakly aided by an impulsive perturbation, predicts specific properties for observed distributions of the galactic orbital elements of outer Oort cloud comets. These subtle predictions have been found to be manifest in high-quality observational data at statistically significant levels, suggesting that the observed OOC comet population contains an 20% impulsively produced excess. The extent of the enhanced arc is inconsistent with a weak stellar impulse, but is consistent with a Jovian mass solar companion orbiting in the OOC. A putative companion with these properties may also be capable of producing detached Kuiper Belt objects such as Sedna and has been given the name Tyche. Tyche could have significantly depleted the inner Oort cloud over the solar system lifetime requiring a corresponding increase in the inferred primordial Oort cloud
population. A substantive difficulty with the Tyche conjecture is the absence of a corresponding excess in the presumed IOC daughter population.

When you really break it down, science can't provide irrefutable physical evidence of anything.

What was hypothesized 50 years ago, has been "disproven" and re-hypothesized. It's an endless guessing game in almost every branch of the "hard-sciences".

So, your request to prove something irrefutably is/has been impossible to do since man started "thinking".

Gazmik, aren't you the guy from Fox news in the baseball cap, you know, the "man on the street" who just happened to know on 911 exactly that the towers fell from structural failure due to the fire? Am I right?